Pearls of the Past: Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock (Marru) (English and French Edition) [Bilingual ed.] 9783963270581, 3963270586

Citation preview

marru 8 Pearls of the Past Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock

www.zaphon.de

Pearls of the Past Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock Edited by Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti and Agnese Vacca

marru 8 Zaphon

marru-8-FS-Pinnock-Cover.indd 1

12.03.2019 14:22:37

Pearls of the Past Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock

Edited by Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti and Agnese Vacca

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

marru Studien zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Studies in Near and Middle Eastern Archaeology

Band 8 Herausgegeben von Reinhard Dittmann, Ellen Rehm und Dirk Wicke

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Pearls of the Past Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock

Edited by Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti and Agnese Vacca

Zaphon Münster 2019 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Illustration auf dem Einband: Tell Mardikh 1964, Day 1 (© Missione Archeologia Italiana in Siria).

Pearls of the Past. Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock Edited by Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti and Agnese Vacca marru 8

© 2019 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany Printed on acid-free paper ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 ISSN 2569-5851

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

List of Publications by Frances Pinnock...............................................................xi Foreword............................................................................................................xix Mohammed Alkhalid Kingship and the Representation of Power in the Urban Pattern of Ebla during the Middle Bronze Age .........................................................................1 Michel Al-Maqdissi Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX : Matériel funéraire de la région de Tell Afis dans un document des archives de R. du Mesnil du Buisson......................25 Francesca Baffi The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria............................................37 Giacomo Benati Shaping Social Dynamics in Early 3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamia: SolidFooted Goblets and the Politics of Drinking ...................................................53 Marco Bonechi A Hagia Triada Whodunnit: On the Inscribed Cylinder Seal Florence Museum 85079 Again ....................................................................................77 Pascal Butterlin Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne : du temps long au temps ..............................................................................................109 politico-militaire Eloisa Casadei Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC in Southern Mesopotamia.................................................................................137 Corinne Castel Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB à Tell Al-Rawda : l’usage local d’une pratique sigillaire en Syrie intérieure..161 Manuel Castelluccia and Roberto Dan Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses...............................................187 Joaquín María Córdoba Arqueología de la agricultura. Adaptaciones a medios áridos durante la Edad del Hierro. Notas rápidas sobre dos recientes y singulares hallazgos ...............203 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

viii

Table of Contents

Harriet Crawford The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia from the Mid-Third to the Later Second Millennium BC ................................................................235 Paola D’Amore Paraphernalia from Tell Afis: The Cult Stands.............................................245 Marta D’Andrea The EB–MB Transition at Ebla: A State-of-the-Art Overview in the Light of the 2004–2008 Discoveries at Tell Mardikh ............................................263 Silvana Di Paolo Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?.........299 Maria Forza Generated Change and Spontaneous Change: Parallels between the Development of Cremation and the Diffusion of Groovy Pottery in the Upper Tigris Valley during Iron Ages I and II .............................................321 Agnès Garcia-Ventura The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology in the Ancient Near East ......................................................................................................349 May Haider Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers? Imported Greek Pottery in Levantine Social Practice ..............................................................................................367 Arnulf Hausleiter Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas: On 1st Millennium BC Funerary Stelae from Taymāʾ ......................................................................379 Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati Images of Work in Urkesh............................................................................413 Melissa A. Kennedy A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria: The View from Tell Nebi Mend ....................................................................................429 Hartmut Kühne Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals...................................................449 Ahmed Fatima Kzzo Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group...........461 Nicola Laneri What a Woman! Gender Identity in the Clay Votive Plaques of Hirbemerdon Tepe during the Early Second Millennium BC ............................................473 Marc Lebeau Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (2) : Une tour de garde d’époque Early Jezirah IIIb à Tell Beydar..............................487 Giovanna Lombardo Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan in the Museo Nazionale d’Arte Orientale ‘G. Tucci’......................................................................................509 Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age according to Glyptic and Textual Evidence ...................................................................................525 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

ix

Maria Grazia Masetti-Rouault Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?.......................................537 Valérie Matoïan L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie : le décor du sceau-cylindre RS 2009.9019 .................................................................551 Paolo Matthiae A Problem of Iconology: A Note on the Banquets of the Old Syrian Basins of Ebla ..........................................................................................................571 Maria Gabriella Micale Framing the Space: On the Use of Crenellation from Architecture to the Definition of Pictorial Spaces ......................................................................601 Clelia Mora Titles and Activities of Hittite Women: The Evidence of the Seals..............633 Béatrice Muller Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées............641 Davide Nadali The Doubling of the Image of the King: A Note on Slabs B–13 and B–23 in the Throne Room of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud .....................................661 Lorenzo Nigro A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho ..........................................................................................................677 Valentina Oselini The Ceramic Horizon of the Middle Bronze I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin .................................................................................................691 Adelheid Otto Ritual Drinking in Syria: New Insights from the Decorated Terracotta Basin from Tall Bazi and the Funerary Talisman from Ebla .......................709 Tatiana Pedrazzi Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars: An Offshoot of the Canaanite Tradition or of Late Bronze Age Connections with Anatolia? ....................................723 Luca Peyronel The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant (ca. 2000–1900 BC): The Pottery from the EE Midden at Tell MardikhEbla, Syria ...................................................................................................741 Sara Pizzimenti Fertility from the Sky: The Role of the Scorpion in the Ploughing Scenes on Akkadian Glyptic ...................................................................................761 Andrea Polcaro On Pots and Serpents: An Iconographic and Contextual Analysis of the Cultic Vessels with Serpent Figurines in the 4th–3rd Millennium BC Transjordan ..................................................................................................775 Marina Pucci Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic: A Seal from Chatal Höyük in the Amuq...........................................................................795 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

x

Table of Contents

Suzanne Richard Miniatures and Miniaturization in EB IV at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan ........813 Hélène Sader A Phoenician Seal Impression from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon..........................839 Valentina Tumolo A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn........................................................847 Agnese Vacca Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla during the EB III and IVA1 Periods ..........................................................................................................869 Federico Zaina Some Preliminary Remarks on the Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish ......................................................................................899

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

List of Publications by Frances Pinnock

Books 1992: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla, II. Le perle del Palazzo Reale G. Roma. 1995: Ur. La città del dio-luna. Roma-Bari. 2004: Lineamenti di Storia dell’Arte del Vicino Oriente antico. Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Siria, Iran, Palestina (Quaderni del Seminario di Archeologia 3). Parma. 2005: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla, VI. La ceramica del Palazzo Settentrionale del Bronzo Medio II. Roma. 2006: Semiramide e le sue sorelle. Immagini di donne nell’antica Mesopotamia. Milano. 2011: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla, IX. Le giarette con figure applicate del Bronzo Medio II. Roma. Edited Volumes 1995: with P. Matthiae, G. Scandone Matthiae, Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. 2000: with P. Matthiae, A. Enea and L. Peyronel, Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Roma. 2006: with F. Baffi, R. Dolce and S. Mazzoni, ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma 2007: with P. Matthiae, L. Nigro and L. Peyronel, From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine. Proceedings of the International Colloqium (Rome, 29th November–1st December 2001). Roma. 2010: with P. Matthiae, N. Marchetti and L. Nigro, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. May 5th–10th 2008, Sapienza Università di Roma. Wiesbaden. 2013: Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 by P. Matthiae. Wiesbaden. 2014–2015: with P. Matthiae, M. Abdulkarim and M. Alkhalid, Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries (Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes LVII–LVIII). Damas. 2018: with P. Matthiae and M. D’Andrea, Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near East© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

xii

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

ern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the Congress Held in Rome, 15th–17th December 2014. Wiesbaden. Chapters, Articles, and Contributions in Collective Works 1979: Nota sui “sonagli” della “Tomba del Signore dei capridi.” Studi Eblaiti 1: 185–193. 1980: Un frammento di stele di Mardikh IIIB. Studi Eblaiti 3: 23–32. 1981: Coppe protosiriane in pietra dal Palazzo Reale G. Studi Eblaiti 4: 61–75. 1984a: Trésors de la nécropole royale. Les dossiers. Histoire et archéologie 83: 70–77. 1984b: Trade at Ebla. Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies 7: 19–31. 1985a: About the Trade of Early Syrian Ebla. M.A.R.I. 4: 85–92. 1985b: Einige Erwägungen zum Handel von Ebla. Das Altertum 31: 133–140. 1986: The Lapis Lazuli Trade in the IIIrd Millennium B.C. and the Evidence from the Royal Palace G of Ebla. In M. Kelly-Buccellati (ed.): Insight Through Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. Los Angeles-Malibu. Pp. 221– 228. 1987: The Lapis Lazuli in the Royal Palace of Ebla. In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on the Antiquities of Palestine. Aleppo. Pp. 65–71. 1988a: L’ultima Ebla. In Dossiers. Ebla. La scoperta di una città dimenticata. Firenze. Pp. 36–45. 1988b: Observations on the Trade of Lapis Lazuli in the 3rd Millennium B.C. In H. Hauptmann / H. Waetzoldt (eds): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla. Akten der Internationale Tagung Heidelberg 4.–7. November 1986. Heidelberg. Pp. 107–110. 1989: A Proto-Syrian Bowl in the Brooklyn Museum. JNES 48: 31–34. 1990: Patterns of Trade at Ebla in the Third Millennium B.C. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 40: 39–49. 1991: Considerazioni sul sistema commerciale di Ebla protosiriana (ca. 2350– 2300 a.C.). La Parola del Passato. Memoria di Ebla 46: 270–284. 1992a: Le “turban royal éblaïte.” N.A.B.U. 1: 15–16. 1992b: Una tipologia di perle dal Palazzo Reale G di Ebla protosiriana. Orient-Express: 15–17. 1992c: Una riconsiderazione della stele di Hama 6B599. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 4: 101–121. 1993: Un probabile arredo cultuale dall’area del Grande Tempio D di Ebla. Orient-Express: 29–30. 1994: Considerations on the “Banquet Theme” in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome. May 17–19, 1990 (History of the Ancient Near East/Studies VI). Padova. Pp. 15–26. 1995a: Elements of Urbanization in Inner Syria in the Late Bronze Age. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico: realtà e ideologia. Atti del colloquio 4–6 dicembre 1991. Pisa. Pp. 187–212. 1995b: Il commercio e i livelli di scambio nel Periodo Protosiriano. In P. Matthiae © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

xiii

/ F. Pinnock / G. Scandone Matthiae (eds): Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. Pp. 148–155. 1996: Su alcuni sigilli paleosiriani di probabile produzione eblaita. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 6: 171–180. 1997a: Tipologia di un pugnale rituale del III millennio a.C. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 7: 463–493. 1997b: Toujours à propos de cornes: les cornes éblaïtes. Archéologie. N.A.B.U. 4: 133–134. 1998: The Iconography of the entu-Priestesses. In J. Prosecky (ed.): Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East. Papers Presented at the 43rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Prague, July 1–5, 1996. Prague. Pp. 339–346. 2000a: The Relations Between North-Syria and Iran in the Early Second Millennium B.C.: A Contribution from Ebla Metalworking. In R. Dittmann et al. (eds): Variatio delectat. Iran und der Westen. Gedenkschrift für Peter Calmeyer (AOAT 272). Münster. Pp. 593–606. 2000b: The Doves of the Goddess. Elements of Ishtar’s Cult in Middle Bronze Ebla. Levant 32: 127–134. 2000c: Some Thoughts about the Transmission of Iconographies between North Syria and Cappadocia, End of the Third-Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 1st International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Roma. Pp. 1397– 1416. 2001: The Urban Landscape in Old Syrian Ebla. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53: 13–34. 2002: Note sull’iconografia di Melqart. In M.G. Amadasi Guzzo / M. Liverani / P. Matthiae (eds): Da Pyrgi a Mozia. Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente 3). Roma. Pp. 379–389. 2003a: Donne straniere e donne vinte nella cultura figurativa neoassira: donne nemiche? Scienze dell’Antichità 11: 119–143. 2003b: Osservazioni sulla glittica di Alalakh. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9: 203–222. 2004a: Perlen. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10: 391–393. 2004b: Change and Continuity of Art in Syria Viewed from Ebla. In J.-W. Meyer / W. Sommerfeld (eds): 2000 v. Chr. – Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4.–7. April 2000 in Frankfurt/Main und Marburg/Lahn. Saarbrücken. Pp. 87–118. 2005: Troia e le culture anatoliche preclassiche. In G. Burzacchini (ed.): Troia. Tra realtà e leggenda. Parma. Pp. 83–95. 2006a Ebla and Ur. Relations, Exchanges and Contacts Between Two Great Capitals of the Ancient Near East. Iraq 48: 85–97. 2006b: The Raw Lapis Lazuli in the Royal Palace G of Ebla: New Evidence from the Annexes of the Throne Room. In M.E. Alberti / E. Ascalone / L. Peyronel (eds): Weights in Context. Bronze Age Weighing Systems of Eastern Mediterranean: Chronology, Typology, Material and Archaeological Con© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

xiv

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

text. Proceedings of the International Colloquium Rome 22nd–24th November 2004. Roma. Pp. 347–357. 2006c: Paying Homage to the King. Protocol and Ritual in Old Syrian Art. In F. Baffi et al. (eds), ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia Orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma. Pp. 487–509. 2007a: Motivi orientali nell’arte occidentale: Le ragioni di una trasmissione. In A. Calzona / R. Campari / M. Mussini (eds): Immagine e ideologia. Studi in onore di Arturo Carlo Quintavalle. Milano. Pp. 9–20. 2007b: Byblos and Ebla in the 3rd Millennium BC. Two Urban Patterns in Comparison. In L. Nigro (ed.): Byblos and Jericho in the Early Bronze I. International Workshop, Rome March 6th 2007 (ROSAPAT 5). Rome. Pp. 109–133. 2008a: Middle Bronze Ceramic Horizon at Ebla: Typology and Chronology. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine. Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Rome 29th November – 1st December 2001. Roma. Pp. 457–472. 2008b: Of Servants and Priestesses. An Analysis of Some Female Characters in Mesopotamian and Syrian Art. In H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE Berlin 29 March – 3 April 2004. Wiesbaden. Pp. 507–519. 2008c: The Stele from Halawa: A Reappraisal. In D. Bonatz / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altovorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne. Wiesbaden. Pp. 71–77. 2008d: Le tombe delle regine assire sotto il Palazzo Nord-Ovest di Nimrud, Scienze dell’Antichità 14 (Atti del Convegno Internazionale Sepolti tra i vivi. Buried among the Living. Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato, Roma 26–29 aprile 2006): 309–322. 2008e: Artistic Genres in Early Syrian Syria. Image and Ideology of Power in a Great Pre-Classical Urban Civilisation in Its Formative Phases. In J. Córdoba Zoilo et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 5th ICAANE, Madrid 3rd–8th April 2006. Madrid. Pp. 17–30. 2009a: EBIVB–MBI in Northern Syria. Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilisation, in P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition. Proceedings of a Conference held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEF Annual IX). Leeds. Pp. 69–79. 2009b: Open Cults and Temples in Syria and the Levant. In C. Doumet-Serhal (ed.): Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium Beirut 2008 (BAAL Hors-Série 6). Beirut. Pp. 195–207. 2010: High vs Low. Considerations About the Study of Artefacts in the Ancient Near East. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome May 5th–10th 2008. Wiesbaden. Pp. 615–627. 2011: Le mura di Uruk. Struttura e ideologia delle cinte urbiche nella Mesopotamia pre-classica. Ricerche di S/Confine 2: 135–145. 2012a: Colours and Light in the Royal Palace G of Early Syrian Ebla. In R. Mat© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

xv

thews / J. Curtis (eds): Proceedings of the 7th ICAANE 12 April–16 April 2010, the British Museum and UCL London. Wiesbaden. Pp. 271–286. 2012b: Some Gublite Artifact Probably coming from Ebla. Syria 89: 7–30. 2012c: Ebla. In H. Crawford (ed.): The Sumerian World. London. Pp. 536–553. 2013a: Syrian and North Mesopotamian Temples in the Early Bronze Age. In K. Kaniuth et al. (eds): Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München, Wiesbaden. Pp. 385–405. 2013b: Sculpture and Minor Arts of the Early Dynastic and Akkad Periods and their Relation to Mesopotamian Art. In W. Orthmann / P. Matthiae / M. Al-Maqdissi (eds): Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie. I. La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du Fer. Wiesbaden. Pp. 199–214. 2013c: Palace vs. Common Glyptic in Early Syrian Ebla and its Territory. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, California. Pp. 66–72. 2013d: “Go. Pace out the Walls of Uruk.” Ideology and Reality of City Walls in Pre-Classical Mesopotamia. Scienze dell’Antichità 19: 157–167. 2014a: Family Affairs in the Neo-Assyrian Court. In L. Marti (ed.): La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes, et images. Comptes Rendus de la 55ème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 6–9 juillet 2009. Winona Lake IN. Pp. 505–514. 2014b: Of Pots and Doves. Some Possible Evidence for Popular Cults in the Ebla Palaces in MB II. In P. Bielinski et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Warsaw 30 April–4 May 2012. Wiesbaden. Pp. 667–679. 2014c: The Image of Power at Mari between East and West. Syria Suppl. 2: 675–689. 2014d: The Ceramic Horizon of Middle Bronze I–II in North Inner Syria: The Case of Ebla. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference, May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 227–246. 2014–2015: Women at the Court of Ebla: A Syrian Specificity. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries (Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes LVII–LVIII). Damas. Pp. 43–61. 2015a: Ancestors’ Cult and Female Roles in Early and Old Syrian Syria. BAAL Hors-Série 10: 135–156. 2015b: From Ebla to Guzana: The Image of Power in Syria between the Bronze and Iron Ages. Studia Eblaitica 1: 109–129. 2015c: The King’s Standard from Ebla Palace G. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67: 3–22. 2016a: Dealing with the Past at Ebla. Ancestors’ Cults and Foreign Relations. In R.A. Stucky / O. Kaelin / H.-P. Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Basel 9–14 June 2014. Wiesbaden. Pp. 395–406. 2016b: Dame di corte a Ebla: Aspetto, ruoli e funzioni delle donne in una grande © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

xvi

corte protosiriana. In M.G. Biga / L. Mori / F. Pinnock (eds): Donne d’Oriente (Henoch 38). Roma. Pp. 183–197. 2016c: Mermaids and Squatting Women: Interlacing Motifs between Proto-Historic Mesopotamia and Medieval Europe. In I. Thuesen (ed.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 22–26 May 2000, Copenhagen. Winona Lake / Bologna. Pp. 263–274. 2016c: Three Small Plaques with a God’s Figure from Ebla. Studia Eblaitica 2: 199–204. 2016d: Royal Images and Kingship Rituals in Early Syrian Ebla: A Multi-Faceted Strategy of Territorial Control in EB IVA North Inner Syria. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 9: 98–116. 2016e: Memoria dell’acqua, memoria degli antenati: aree di culto a cielo aperto in alta Siria. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Ebla e la Siria dall’età del Bronzo all’età del Ferro. Atti del Convegno Internazionale “L’Archeologia del Sacro e l’Archeologia del Culto,” Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei 8–10 Ottobre 2013. Roma. Pp. 257–293. 2018a: Representations of steles in the palace glyptic of Early Syrian Ebla. In P. Attinger et al. (eds): Text and Images. Proceedings of the 61e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Geneva and Bern, 22–26 June 2015 (Orbis Bibicus et Orientali 40). Leuven – Paris – Bristol, CT. Pp. 335–345. 2018b: Building Up a History of Art of the Ancient Near East: The Case of Ebla and the Third-Millennium B.C.E. Court Ladies In S. Svärd / A. Garcia-Ventura (eds): Studying Gender in the Ancient Near East. University Park, Pennsylvania. Pp. 353–372. 2018c: A City of Gold for the Queen: Some Thoughts About the Mural Crown of Assyrian Queens. In M. Cavalieri / C. Boschetti (eds): MVLTA PER ÆQVORA. Il polisemico significato della moderna ricerca archeologica. Omaggio a Sara Santoro, Vol. II (Collection FERVET OPVS 4). Louvain. Pp. 731–750. 2018d: Polymaterism in Early Syrian Ebla. In S. Di Paolo (ed.): Composite Artefacts in the Ancient Near East. Exhibiting an Imaginative Materiality, Showing a Genealogical Nature (Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology 3). Oxford. Pp. 73–84. 2018e: Ancora sui rapporti tra Ebla e l’Egitto: Note a margine. In A. Vacca / S. Pizzimenti / M.G. Micale (eds): A oriente del Delta. Studi in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae (Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale XVIII). Roma. Pp. 495–520. Chapters, Articles, and Contributions to Collective Works (F. Pinnock et al.) 2014: Archaeomagnetism at Ebla (Tell Mardikh, Syria). New Data on Geomagnetic Field Intensity Variations in the Near East during the Bronze Age. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 42: 295–304. Book Reviews 1974a: Y. Yadin, Hazor (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1970), London 1972. Oriens Antiquus 13: 156–158. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

xvii

1974b: G.F. Bass (ed.), L’archéologie subaquatique. Une discipline naissante (Musées et Monuments 13), Paris 1973; and G.F. Bass (ed.), A History of Seafaring. Based on Underwater Archaeology, Bristol 1971. Oriens Antiquus 13: 247. 2003: D. Oates / J. Oates, Nimrud, London 2000. Orientalia 72: 329–330. 2005: A K. Englund, Nimrud und seine Funde: Der Weg des Reliefs in die Museen und Sammlungen (Orient Archäologie 12), Rahden 2003. Orientalia 74: 135–136. 2011: H. Kühne (ed.), Die rezente Umwelt von Tall Šēḫ Hamad und Daten zum Umweltrekonstruktion der Assyrischen Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 1), Orientalia 80: 130–132. 2014: M. Iamoni, The Late MBA and LBA Pottery Horizons at Qatna: Innovation and Conservation in the Ceramic Tradition of a Regional Capital and the Implications for Second Millennium Syrian Chronology (Studi archeologici su Qatna 2), Udine 2012. Orientalia 83: 281–283. 2017: Anja Fügert, Die neuassyrische und spätbabylonische Glyptik aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/ Dūr-Katlimmu 16). Wiesbaden 2015. Studia Eblaitica 3: 200–202. Translations 1987: C. Renfrew, L’Europa della preistoria (Trad. di Before Civilization). Roma-Bari. 1988: G. Clarke, L’uomo oltre la natura (Trad. di The Identity of Man). Roma-Bari. 1989: C. Renfrew, Archeologia e linguaggio (Trad. di Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins). Roma-Bari. 1992a: G. Clark, L’economia della preistoria (Trad. di Economic Prehistory. Papers on Archaeology). Roma-Bari. 1992b: J.C. Hodder, Leggere il passato. Tendenze attuali dell’archeologia (Trad. di Reading the Past). Torino. 1998a: D.L. Clark, Archeologia analitica (Trad. di Analytical Archaeology). Milano. 1998b: J. Malina, Z. Vašicek, Archeologia. Storia, problemi, metodi (Trad. di Archaeology Yesterday and Today). Milano. Entries in Catalogues, Dictionaries, and Other Publications 1985: Cat. Nos 47–53, 68–69, 126, 128–129, 173–179. In Da Ebla a Damasco. Diecimila anni di archeologia in Siria. Milano. 1986a: Ur. La capitale dei Caldei. In Le città sepolte. Origine e splendore delle civiltà antiche, I. Roma. Pp. 104–117. 1986b: Babilonia. La città dalle otto torri. In Le città sepolte. Origine e splendore delle civiltà antiche, I. Roma. Pp. 131–143. 1986c: Ninive. La capitale di Assurbanipal. In Le città sepolte. Origine e splendore delle civiltà antiche, I, Roma. Pp. 169–175. 1986d: Kanesh. Un emporio commerciale. In Le città sepolte. Origine e splendore delle civiltà antiche, I. Roma. Pp. 253–255. 1986e: Alalakh. Il porto del regno di Yamkhad. In Le città sepolte. Origine e splendore delle civiltà antiche, I. Roma. Pp. 204–206. 1987a: L’età della supremazia di Ebla. In Le grandi scoperte dell’archeologia. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

xviii

List of Publications E\ F. Pinnock

Storia, avventura, scienza, III. Novara. Pp. 122–129. 1987b: Dagli Amorrei al dominio degli imperi. In Le grandi scoperte dell’archeologia. Storia, avventura, scienza, III. Novara. Pp. 141–155. 1987c: L’età di Troia e le colonie assire. In Le grandi scoperte dell’archeologia. Storia, avventura, scienza, III. Novara. Pp. 198–203. 1987d: Sviluppo e crisi del sistema protourbano. In Le grandi scoperte dell’archeologia. Storia, avventura, scienza, III. Novara. Pp. 236–240. 1987e: Fioritura e tracollo dell’urbanesimo palestinese. In Le grandi scoperte dell’archeologia. Storia, avventura, scienza, III. Novara. Pp. 246–249. 1994a: Tell Halawa. In Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, classica e orientale, Suppl. V. Roma. Pp. 600–601. 1994b: Emar. In Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, classica e orientale, Suppl. II. Roma. Pp. 463–465. 1994c: Tell ‘Ayn Dara. In Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, classica e orientale, Suppl. V. Roma. Pp. 591–592. 1994d: Ras Ibn Hani, in Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, classica e orientale, Suppl. IV. Roma. Pp. 699–700. 1994e: Tell Mumbaqat. In Enciclopedia dell’Arte antica, classica e orientale, Suppl. V, Roma. Pp. 604–606. 1995a: Erotic Art. In J.M. Sasson (ed.): Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, IV. New York. Pp. 2521–2531. 1995b: Cat. Nos 37–40, 44, 123–124, 126–132, 140–141, 198–199, 239–240, 275, 292, 355–367, 414, 429–430, 466, 516–517. In Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. 1999: Ebla in Siria. La scoperta di una nuova civiltà urbana. Salternum 3: 3–6. 2000: Immagine di Babilonia, Babilonia come immagine. In Atti del Convegno Gr.A.V.O. L’immagine della città. Epoca preistorica e protostorica. Portogruaro. Pp. 44–51. 2005a: Alta Mesopotamia. I millennio a.C. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. Pp. 151–154. 2005b: Bassa Mesopotamia, I millennio a.C. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. Pp. 162–164. 2005c: Ur. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. Pp. 198–199. 2005d: Tell el-Ubaid. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. Pp. 197–198. 2005e: Regione del Lago al-Assad. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. P. 134. 2005f: Tell Harmal. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. P. 193. 2005g: Ishchali. In Enciclopedia archeologica Treccani. Asia. Roma. P. 177. 2006: L’Oriente e il femmineo sconosciuto. L’Officina 8: 34–45. 2014: La Siria preclassica: sfide e conquiste. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Siria. Splendore e dramma. Introduzione alla Siria. Catalogo della mostra Roma 20 giugno–30 agosto 2015. Roma. Pp. 27–34. 2016: Donne nel Vicino Oriente antico tra mito e realtà. Forma Urbis 21 n. 3: 4–11. 2017: La Siria nelle età del Bronzo Antico e Medio. La nascita e lo sviluppo di una civiltà urbana secondaria. Forma Urbis 22 n. 7/8: 18–23. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Foreword

This volume celebrates Frances Pinnock’s scholarly activities and achievements in the field on Near Eastern archaeology and art. The presence of Frances within the M.A.I.S. (Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) allowed several generations of students of the University of Rome to know her in all the numerous activities that, beside her scientific production, she conducted, directed and coordinated for Ebla and within the Chair of Archaeology and Art History of the Ancient Near East. We know Frances and her scientific and didactic contribution having participated in the activities of the Near Eastern Lab that Frances directed from 1970 to present. Still we lovely remember her lessons in the large meeting room on the beloved 5th floor of Via Palestro 63. A privileged point of view on Frances was accorded to our generation and to those students and colleagues who wanted to learn a number of fundamental tasks that a field archaeologist has—from the daily administration of the expenses to the processing of thousands of sherds, to the way to keep a steady focus on the scientific goals of the season in a short- and long-term perspective. Frances’ attitude in the field is reflected in her scientific production. We thought it was our duty to homage Frances and present her this collection of essays from pupils, friends and colleagues as a token of our gratitude and deep affection. Knowing Frances, we are sure she will say she does not deserve it as she simply did her work both at the university (Rome and Parma) and while in Syria for the usual three-month season of excavation at Tell Mardikh-Ebla: indeed, this is also one of the reasons that pushed us to present this volume in her honour as we deeply know her devotion for the Roman School of Oriental Archaeology that she defended and protected fervently. Her duty did not fail when Syria was affected by the political crisis that prevented the Ebla expedition to pursue the research at Tell Mardikh: on the contrary, her activity even became more intensive in defending and promoting the importance of the Syrian cultural heritage, with a sincere and independent dedication that we are sure has been and still is an example for us and the youngest generation of students in Rome. Frances’ university education has been influenced by the lively milieu of the Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, developing a special attention for the histo© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

xx

Foreword

rical and aesthetic aspects of ancient Near Eastern art, on the one hand, and a vivid interest in the history and culture of ancient Syria, on the other: her studies on Ebla are seminal works for the comprehension of the complexity and originality of Syrian art and archaeology when compared to neighbouring regions, in particular Mesopotamia. Moreover, she never neglected the importance of the context, even when speaking of art: having an archaeological background, Frances is always careful in remembering the importance of where ancient objects, products and artefacts have been shaped and used. This led her to promote recently a series of studies on Mesopotamian ceramic repertoires: having in mind the Syrian example, Frances entrusted MA students with the study of Mesopotamian pottery with a very careful critique of contexts and chronology. Frances’ interests, as shown by her bibliography, focuses on the social and cultural role of women in ancient Near Eastern societies, with a special attention for ancient Syria, the analysis of the representation of power, the role and importance of ancient architecture in the construction of the image of cities and the publication of fundamental corpora of data from the Italian excavations at Ebla (the beads from the Royal Palace G, the Middle Bronze Age pottery from the Northern Palace and the typical Eblaite production of Middle Bronze Age pottery with bird figures). Her studies definitely show the vast range of interests that she presented at and published in international and national congresses, invited lectures and international and national journals. We know that her love for Syria will never end: particularly now, as her second country is suffering a very difficult moment, she did not give way to discouragement, but she reacted promptly and she was one of the most enthusiastic people in promoting the foundation of the new journal Studia Eblaitica. Having followed since the very beginning the birth of the ICAANE (International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East)—at the time of the 1st ICAANE in Rome in 1998 she was the secretary—she always cared of the importance of promoting the organization of the meeting every two years, finally becoming member of the International Committee in 2016. International recognition of Frances’s scientific achievements is reflected in her activities at Sapienza University of Rome as well as in other universities in Italy and abroad (Paris, Leuven, Tübingen, Beirut) where she is invited for lectures and she is member of international group of research and PhD schools. Frances is not only an enthusiastic of her work—her enthusiasm is definitely infectious: she also loves to share moments outside the university with nice chats that go beyond the normal archaeological dialogues. In front of a spritz we had wonderful time speaking of books, films, music, the Roma football team, and holidays, sharing and exchanging passion, interests and opinions. The present volume, we think, reflects not only the interests of Frances, but mostly the affection of friends and colleagues who wanted to contribute © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Foreword

xxi

with a token of appreciation. We know that Frances’ disposition will try to diminish the content of this short forward: exactly for this reason, we warmly thank her for what she gave and she will continue to give us. I can no other answer make but thanks, And thanks; and ever thanks (William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, Act III, Scene 3) Rome and Berlin 01/02/2018 Marta D’Andrea Maria Gabriella Micale Davide Nadali Sara Pizzimenti Agnese Vacca

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power in the Urban Pattern of Ebla during the Middle Bronze Age Mohammed Alkhalid

1. Introduction Textual sources from the Ur III period mention the military campaign of the king Šu-Sin (ca. 2046–2028 BC). In particular one text, which mentions the cities of Ebla, Mari, Urkiš, Mukiš and Tuttul in a context related to the Amorites in the West,1 might support the hypotheses of the probable destruction of the second Ebla during the end of the 3rd Millennium BC.2 That destruction might have marked the passage from the Early Bronze (hereafter, EB) to the Middle Bronze (MB).3 This is a phase of transformation (i.e., EB IVB/MB IA) for the material culture, showing changes in the socio-political system, in identity, language, as well as a regeneration of some cultural elements of the EB. The mechanisms that trigged these changes at Ebla and in the entire region during this phase are still under exploration. Frances Pinnock4 in her studies about the MB architecture and chronology has emphasized some elements of relative continuity between the EB and MB urban landscape and cultural horizons. In her study on the urban landscape of Old Syrian Ebla, regarding the social identity of the Ebla inhabitants she stated: “the people who settled Ebla at the very beginning of MB I were not nomads or semi-nomads of the steppe, who took the place of those who had fled from Ebla after the destruction of the town by Sargon of Akkad. Rather, they had a clear and advanced urban culture. These were not groups of squatters, who placed their tents and settled down in a deserted place, but the direct heirs of the previous Early Syrian culture.”5 Furthermore, she pointed out two important issues. The first one is the understanding of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC pottery horizon and the identity of their producers. The second one is the focus on the way the “new” inhabitants of Ebla at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC elaborated on the concept of kingship and how this elaboration was related to the change in the ur 3 4 5 1 2

Frayne 1997, 301. Matthiae 2010, 206. Matthiae 2009b, fn. 69. Pinnock 2001; 2007; 2009. Pinnock 2001, 33. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

2

M. Alkhalid

ban landscape at Ebla. As we certainly know in this regard, the Amorites settled Ebla during the MB. As mentioned above the question of how the Amorites came to Ebla and in which way they affected the transformation of the urban landscape is still unanswered. Thus, in order to understand the mechanism that brought the change at Ebla, it might be worth to start from the question when those new groups arrived and settled Ebla. Paolo Matthiae6 has already illustrated the role of the social interaction during the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC in the change of the socio-political system and in the regeneration of the “Early Syrian” (or EB) ideology into the “Old Syrian” one (MB). These different “cultural groups” had been living side by side in the last centuries of the 3rd millennium BC. Thus, the cultural interaction between these groups has, culturally, unified them. This unification is clear in the homogenous pottery horizons and in the ideology that appeared during the MB in the majority of inner Syrian settlements. However, when did it start and how long did this interaction take in order to reach its final form in the MB? Furthermore, during those centuries of interaction, could we recognize two different pottery repertoires that can be individually attributed to each of these groups? Archaeological discoveries demonstrate a probable coexistence of the pottery horizons and the innovation in the styles and technologies appeared during the late 3rd and early 2nd millennium BC7 not as a result of the cultural interaction between these groups. Rather it was probably stimulated by the regional social, economic and political transformations that began during the last centuries of 3rd millennium BC,8 triggered, perhaps, by the climatic crises, which took place during this timespan.9 The following analysis will focus on the kingship ideology of the MB and its relation with the previous social system of the EB and on the possibility that the “new” concept of kingship has affected the urban landscape of the Old Syrian town. 2. Old Syrian Urban Landscape at Ebla The urban landscape at Ebla during the MB (Fig. 1) has already been presented in detail.10 Following, I offer a summary of the most important structures dated to the period from the beginning of the MB to the third destruction of the town (ca. Matthiae 2009b, 65, fn.70 For Ebla: Pinnock 2009; Alkhalid 2014–2015; 2018. For the innovation in the pottery assemblage during the EB IVB see D’Andrea 2016. For the new opinion on the introduction of the MB forerunners forms during the EB IVB see D’Andrea in this volume. For Tell Afis see the foundation level of the city wall (Mazzoni et al. 2002) and phases IV–V (Felli / Merluzzi 2008). For Qatna, see the materials from Operation J, phases 22–18 (Morandi Bonacossi 2008a and 2008b). 8 Alkhalid 2018. 9 Weiss 2014; Burke 2017. 10 Matthiae 2002; 2010; 2013c; Pinnock 2001. 6 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

3

1600 BC). However, the issue of the absolute date of the different components of the Old Syrian city is still under explorations. The archaeological evidence provides data pointing to a huge project of reconstruction of the city during the early 2nd millennium immediately after the destruction of the EB IVB town.11 The city was composed of two main sectors, the central Acropolis, which became a fortified and isolated central area, and the Lower Town also fortified by the rampart. In order to understand the nature of the Old Syrian urban organization, I will present the different structures on both the Acropolis and the Lower Town, according to a chronological sequence based on the different studies of the pottery assemblages in each building. After the end of the EB IVB, which is dated to the last decades of the 3rd millennium BC, the inhabitants razed the EB IVB town and carried away its remains in order to use them in the construction of the city rampart.12 This interpretation is based on the discovery of many EB IVB pottery sherds on the slopes of the rampart. During this period of reconstruction, the Archaic Palace in Area P North was still in use with some refurbishments in its original structure,13 probably becoming a temporary residence for the ruling family. At the same time, it is possible that the construction of the Royal Palace E (Fig. 2) on the Acropolis also took place.14 Some evidence was also discovered from the Area T where the houses dating from the EB IV were probably re-used during the EB IVB/MB I transition, in association with the first two phases of Archaic Palace.15 However, three large buildings have been discovered in the Lower Town and, according to Matthiae, they are to be interpreted as palaces16 and dated to the Old Syrian period. The Western Palace (Fig. 3) was in use until the end of the MB as a large administrative building or the residence of the crown prince. Here just few pottery forms of the MB I have been discovered. Funerary objects have been discovered in the Royal Hypogeum under the palace’s floor and are dated to the MB I. In Area P to the North-West of the Acropolis, where the Northern Palace of the MB II is located, there is a sequence of three palaces: the Archaic Palace constructed during the EB IVB,17 the Intermediate Palace which dates to the MB I, and the Northern Palace of the MB II (Fig. 4). The Southern Palace in Area FF (Fig. 5) is also erected above the foundation of an EB IVA structure. The pottery discovered in some parts of the Palace confirms that it is dated to the MB I.

Matthiae 2010, 233–237. Matthiae 2009b, 62, fn. 61. 13 The construction of this structure should be dated to the late EB IVB period before the destruction of the town (Matthiae 2006; 2013a). 14 Matthiae 2010, 438. 15 Alkhalid 2018. 16 Matthiae 2010, 442, 449, 457. 17 Matthiae 2006, 2013a. 11

12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

4

M. Alkhalid

The city during the MB II was extended even outside the ramparts. The survey carried out in 2009 by Peyronel18 in the Southern and Eastern parts of the outer city provided evidence on the use of these areas where an industrial quarter with different kinds of workshops is located. Regarding the Acropolis, two main structures were discovered on the top of it. Temple D, or Temple of Ishtar (Fig. 6),19 and some sectors of the Royal Palace E. The latter yielded a sequence of floors in some of its rooms, probably suggesting its first use during MB I. In addition to the three large structures discovered in the Lower Town, and to the Royal Palace E and the Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis, further four temples were located in the Lower Town: the Temple of Ishtar to the North-West, the Temple of Shamash to the North-East, Temples HH 2 and 3 (Fig. 7) to the South-East and the temple of Reshef to the South-West. The latter three areas were dedicated exclusively to cult activities, while the Sacred Area of Ishtar was a walled independent area, which included the Temple P2 and the monumental terrace with a plaza where two favissae were located (Fig. 5).20 Pottery and figurines, discovered in the different levels of the two favissae, confirm their use from the MB IA until the MB IIB.21 The second cult area is located in Area HH, in the South-Eastern sector of the city, which includes Temples HH2 and 3. These temples are dated to the MB I and II and have a similar favissa as those discovered in the Sacred Area of Ishtar, which is dated to MB IB–MB IIA according to their associated inventory.22 The last cult area is located in Area B, to the South of the Western Palace entrance where the temple of Reshef and the sanctuary of the deified ancestors were located. Particular features of this cult area are: its location in front of the entrance of the Western Palace and the direction of the temple toward the South where the sanctuary for the cult of the ancestors is located. Furthermore, to the South of the sanctuary a few private houses were constructed, dividing the area from the Southern Palace, that has its entrance to the opposite direction, to the East and towards the South-Eastern gate. 3. Early and Middle Bronze Age Urban Patterns, a Matter of Continuity The Old Syrian period was also the time when the Amorites took control of many urban centers in Syria and Mesopotamia including Ebla. The case of Ebla, and the gradual transformation of its culture, is an extraordinary example to understand the relationship between Early and Old Syrian cultures, as well as the

Peyronel 2015. Matthiae 2010, 419. 20 Matthiae 1993. 21 Marchetti / Nigro 1997. 22 Pinnock 2015. 18 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

5

relation between the inhabitants and the city during both periods. The Old Syrian Ebla during the 2nd millennium shows many elements of continuity with the previous Early Syrian culture. With respect to the pottery horizon, evidence of the co-existence of the Early MB I diagnostic forms with EB IV pottery shapes has been recorded in the Archaic Palace and from the house in area T.23 During the last phase of the EB, carinated bowls and closed-shape carinated bowls with vertical grooved rim, jars with double everted rim and storage jars with swollen rim were introduced.24 These pottery shapes were also used during the whole MB, emphasizing the continuity in the pottery during the two periods. Sources of Early Syrian urban layout at Ebla (i.e. EB IV A–B) are few in number; the Royal Palace G, Temple D2 (Red Temple) on the Acropolis,25 and Temple HH1 (Temple of the Rock)26 in the Lower Town are the main structures dated to the Early Syrian period (i.e. EB IVA). Archaeological evidence also confirms the presence of several temples and structures dated to the EB IVB after the destruction of the EB IVA city. Temple D3 on the Acropolis, and the Archaic Palace in Area P North and Temples HH4 and 5, confirm the continuity of the Early Syrian traditions even after the destruction of the first Ebla. Despite the rarity of those urban elements, traces of continuity in the Early Syrian culture’s architectural tradition can be largely noted in Ebla during the Old Syrian period. The inhabitants of the Old Syrian city have used the same foundations of the previous EB IV structures.27 The excavations in area HH in the Eastern sector of the Lower Town and Area D on the Acropolis provided the sequence of temples that cover a period spanning from mid-3rd to mid-2nd millennium. They also provide an evidence for the continuity of using this area for the cultic activities during both periods. Furthermore there is continuity in the style of the temples constructed; the tradition of temples in antis with long cella that appeared during the EB IVB is largely used during the 2nd millennium.28 The re-use of the same structure is also recorded in the Archaic Palace, which was constructed during the last phase of the EB IVB (Local Phase I) and reused with some refurbishments during the first phase of the Middle Bronze (Local Phase II–III).

See fn 7.

23

Alkhalid 2014–2015, 169, fig. 6; 2018: fig. 4. Matthiae 2010, 393. 26 Matthiae 2006; 2009a. 27 Clearly also documented in the Archaic Palace and its use during the EB IVB and MB I, and consequently the construction of the Intermediate Palace and the Northern Palace above the ancient foundations. 28 Matthiae 2009a, 777; 2015, 80–84. Temples HH4 and HH5 are the only examples of in antis temple with single antecella, while Temple D3 on the Acropolis was the earlier example of this kind of temple with tripartite plan (Matthiae 2009a, 774–776; 2010, 395). Middle Bronze in antis temples with tripartite plan are Temple D, i.e. the Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis (Matthiae 2010, 419), Temple HH2 (Matthiae 2010, 434). A temple with single antecella is the Temple of Reshef (Matthiae 2010, 433). 24 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

6

M. Alkhalid

The second type of enduring elements is noted in the palatial architecture. The palaces of both periods have irregular shapes, and have a specific location of the reception suite, which is usually in the central part of the palace. In the Royal Palace G of the EB IVA, this suite is located within the administrative sector where the royal archives have been found. The same tradition appears in the Western, Northern and Southern Palaces where the reception suite is located in the central sector of the building. Further elements of continuity are the use of the columns with portico in the palatial architecture during both periods, such as the portico of the Royal Palace G and the portico at the entrance of the Western Palace during the MB. Attempts to reconstruct the urban pattern of the Early Syrian city was firstly based on the textual resource found in the Archive. Pettinato and Matthiae, on the base of the correspondence between the text description and the topographical elements of the tell, had divided the city into two parts, the Acropolis and the Lower Town which include four different administrative centers that could be interpreted as districts.29 A recent translation of some terms in the text mentioned above changed its meaning. It consequently changed the interpretation given by Pettinato and Matthiae to the text.30 A second attempt to reconstruct the urban landscape of Ebla is the division of the city into four sectors on iconographic bases dated to the Early Syrian period.31 In fact, the image of the Atlas, depicted on some cylinder seals from Palace G, has been interpreted as symbol of the cosmic quadripartition theory in the royal ideology. In addition to the iconographic base the study took into consideration the presence of three temples in the Lower Town and correctly hypothesized the presence of the fourth temple in the South-Eastern sector of the city where each sector should be dedicated to the specific god. Notwithstanding the different elements of continuity of the architectural traditions between the Early and Old Syrian cultures, we cannot assume, at the moment, an analogous urban pattern for both periods. Nevertheless, we will try to illustrate particular features of the huge architectural remains of the Old Syrian city, how these new features affected power ideology and how this ideology has been influenced by the collective social memory of the previous period. The long-lasting elements as well as the innovation features in the architectural organization will be relevant for further discussion in the last paragraph.

Pettinato / Matthiae 1976, 1–30. Text TM.G.75.336 mentions the distribution of gold and silver between two parts of the city. The main part is the é-MI-ŠITAxki where the palace of the city é-al, the palace of the king é-e n and the stables g i g i rki, in addition to another house é-am, are located. The second part is the Lower Town, which also includes four centers translated by Pettinato as districts: the district of the city é-d u r u5ki-al and another four district é-d u r u5ki-2, 3, 4. 30 The term é-d u r u5ki has been recently translated as a group of 20 men (Milano 2014, 295; 1995, 121). 31 Di Ludovico et al. 2001. 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

7

4. Innovative Elements in the Old Syrian Urban Pattern The most relevant innovative elements in the architectural organization during the MB are: the construction of the external rampart and the fortification of the inner city wall around the Acropolis; the presence of more than one palace and large secular structures; the construction of cult areas dedicated to different deities; and lastly the construction of the fortress on the Eastern rampart. Each one of those innovative elements is important in the interpretation of the new urban landscape. In the first place we should mention that the inner fortification (Fig. 8)32 of Ebla has not been constructed during an early phase of the MB, but after the construction of the outer rampart. Not only for defensible matter but also as a sign of royal ideology to emphasize the higher social statues of the king and his family. The Eastern rampart was constructed at the time of the city construction during the early 2nd millennium BC. Its impressive dimension and the large number of workers involved to complete it after an urban crisis should be interpreted as sign of the existence of densely populated community available only in an extensive tribal environment. The second and third elements of innovation are the presence of more than one public structure in the Lower Town; here is relevant for the topic to discuss two fundamental issues (the first one could argue in favour of the second). The first one deals with the relationship between the different public structures (secular and religious) in the lower town and the connection between the Lower Town and the fortified Acropolis. In the Lower Town, based on the archaeological data, it is clear that the palaces and the cult areas/temples are not in contact. The sacred area of Ishtar is a fortified centre, its main entrance is located on the Southern side quite in the back of the Western Palace, which has its entrance on the South-Western side. On the contrary, the main entrance of the Northern Palace, which is located North of the Ishtar area, is in its Northern side, facing North-West. The Temple of Reshef and the sanctuary of the deified ancestors are located South of the Western Palace and the entrances of both are toward the South. The Southern residence has its entrance to the East and another entrance to the West where a cluster of private houses is located. The last three temples (HH2 and 3 in the South-Eastern part, and the temple of Shamash in the North) have their entrances toward the East where no structures have been discovered yet. The connection between the lower town and the Acropolis is not archeologically approved, according to Paolo Matthiae the main gate or entrance of the acropolis should be located in the South-Western side nearby the temple of Ishtar.33 The second issue is the function of those palaces in the Lower Town; the Western Palace has been interpreted as the residence of the crown prince.34 However,

Matthiae 2010, 238. Matthiae 2010, 247. 34 This name was previously read In-di-lim-gur (Matthiae 1995). It appears on the seal 32 33

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

8

M. Alkhalid

one its important features that should be re-examined (as well as for the other two palaces) is its political and economic status inside a royal city. Three of them have a tripartite plan like all the Old Syrian Palaces with reception suites located in the central part of the palace,35 and storage rooms as well as residential and domestic sectors. However, the independence of those secular structures from the sacred one could deny their function as residences of priests or temples personal. However, their high status character with their storage rooms could suggest their economical autonomy from the central palace, a factor that also denies their function as residences of the administrators in charge for the king. Therefore, what is archaeologically documented until now is the division of the Old Syrian city into two parts, the fortified Acropolis, which includes the Royal Palace E, and the Temple of Ishtar, and the Lower Town, which includes three large autonomous structures, in addition to the four temples and cult areas. This particular architectural organization of the Old Syrian town at Ebla and the independence of the different structures (secular and sacred) could explain the relationship between the architectural pattern and the power ideology and could argue in favor of the symbolic representation of power in the lower town. Thus, each kind of those structures has represented a form of ideological power. The first one is the religious ideology that practiced in the different temples and cult areas representing the power of the different gods that related to the main goddess of the town located in the Acropolis. The second one is a political power, as the different large secular structures form “chiefdoms”36 arenas,37 economically autonomous and ideologically related to the central palace, emphasizing the high socio-political status of the persons inhabited them and representing, in a symbolic way, the royal power. The Lower Town or the area that surrounding the Acropolis, according to these independent alternate structures, should not be divided into parts or districts but should be understood as a model of ideological architectural pattern produced by new socio-political organization. Both kinds of structures and their power have been used by the central authority that was located in the fortified acropolis as a tool to emphasize their kingship over the citizens. In the next paragraph the discussion on the relationship between the religion and the kingship will be excluded, in order to give space to present some aspects on the socio-political organization and its relation with the urban pattern.

impression on a jar discovered in the Western Palace. Matthiae suggests that this person (mentioned as “the father”) is one of the last rulers of Ebla and consequently his son is the crown prince (Matthiae 2010, 218‒219). A new reading of the sign gur is proposed to be ma (Archi 2015, 19). The interpretation of In-di-lim-ma as a king is based on a seal from Cilicia held in the Ashmolean Museum (Archi 2015, 19). However, in neither inscriptions appears the title meki, that is the title given to the Old Syrian kings. 35 Matthiae 1990; 2013b. 36 The concept of chiefdom will be elaborate in the last paragraph. 37 In particular the Northern and Southern Palaces. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

9

5. Kingship, Social Identity and Urban Pattern One of the many merits of Rowton’s studies38 is that they explain the socio-political organization of the Old Babylonian social components. The terms dimorphic chiefdom, dimorphic states, as well as the autonomous chiefdom, and the difference between their political organization, have been illustrated on the base of the texts from Mari and by applying a comparative approach using the historical sources on nomadism in the Middle East. However, 3rd millennium BC textual and archaeological data, as well as many studies on the settlement patterns in Syria, at the time of the Rowton’s articles, were not properly explored or published yet. During the last four decades, many aspects of the formation of the 2nd millennium urban system, its socio-political organization, as well as the nomad adaptation/ integration to and in the urban systems and vice versa39 during the late 3rd and 2nd millennia BC, have been re-examined by archaeologists and philologists in the light of the new discoveries in Syria and elsewhere.40 For the discussion below, I will take Rowton’s terms “dimorphic chiefdom” and “dimorphic state” as pivotal concept to apply them to the reality of the Old Syrian urban pattern at Ebla in order to illustrate the relationship between kingship and the urban layout. The symbolic representation of the kingship ideology by means of the particular architectural pattern, as well as the elements of continuity of some architectural elements from the Early to Old Syrian traditions described above, call into question the socio-political organization and social identity of the 2nd millennium Amorites at Ebla. Taking into consideration the presence of more than one palace and temple41 in the Lower Town, and the ideologies that they represented, it seems possible to assume that the Old Syrian city of Ebla was organized according to a tribal-based kingship. Many factors can support this assumption: the first comes from the textual sources from the Royal Archives of Ebla and other texts from Mesopotamia. An EB IVA text from Ebla mentions the Amorites as foreigners who lived in another region, referring to Martu as their homeland, a land ruled by

Rowton 1967, 109-121; 1973, 202; 1974, 22. See in particular Buccellati’s concept of “nomadisation of peasant” (Buccellati 1990, 98–100) and the discussion by Anne Porter on the enclosed urbanism (Porter 2000, 422). 40 For the discussion on the settlement-based and city-based 2nd millennium kingdoms, see Fleming 2008; for the Amorites in the Levant, see Kamp / Yoffe 1980; for the Amorites in Syria, Nichols / Weber 2006; Porter 2007; 2012; for the formation of the tribal-based kingdoms in Al-Jazerah region, see Ristvet 2012. 41 Same situation also could be noted at Mari and Qatna. At Mari during the same period, near the Royal Palace, another smaller palace is recorded, in addition to two large residences attested in the inner town, the Eastern and Western residences (Margueron 2004, 442–458). At Qatna in addition to the Royal Palace in Area G (Pfälzner 2007; for the chronology of that palace also see Morandi Bonacossi 2007a and 2007b), two palaces discovered are the Eastern Palace in Area T (Morandi Bonacossi et al. 2009) and the Southern Palace in Area C (Morandi Bonacossi 2007a, 232). 38 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

10

M. Alkhalid

a king and council of elders.42 This council of elders probably have existed in Ebla also during the 2nd millennium, including the chiefs of those families who lived around the fortified Acropolis. Another text mentions a man from Tuttul (modern Tell Bi’à) as a resident of Martu,43 which seems to suggest that Tuttul belonged to the land of Martu, or a town settled by Amorites. Many other texts from Mesopotamia mention the Amorites as groups of nomadic and pastoral nature, with an original homeland in the West. The earliest mention of the Amorites comes from Fara (ca. 2600 BC) in Southern Mesopotamia, where one text contains a reference to Amorites as farmers.44 A Sumerian description of the Amorites from the Ur III period (2100 BC) is considered the first mention of the Amorites as an ethnic group coming from the core land of Mar. tu, their original homeland.45 The text characterizes this ethnic group as coming from a mountainous area and having a pastoral-nomadic lifestyle. The homeland of the Amorites is also mentioned in Old Akkadian texts. The date formula of the king Šar-kali-šarri for 2250 BC shows that during this year the king defeated the Mar.tu (the Amorites) at Ba-šàr, their homeland.46 This is to be interpreted as the modern Jabal Bishri in Syria, West of the Euphrates, in the same area known as Mar.tu in the Ur III textual record.47 These textual evidences from Ebla and from Mesopotamia do not mention the Amorites as a state; they mention only a land of Amorites, a factor that could argue in favor of their dimorphic chiefdom social organization. They were nomads or farmers belonging to a specific land and have their own towns. In fact, in addition to the identification of Tuttul with the modern Tell Bi’à, archaeological discoveries from the area of Jabal Bishri have revealed the existence of seasonal settlements and cemeteries48 in addition to small towns (Tell Ghanem Al-ali).49 Here, probably, a nomad autonomous chiefdom existed and belonged to a larger tribe confederation, forming a dimorphic chiefdom ruled by a king and by the elders of those autonomous chiefdoms. Textual resources from the Old Babylonian period clearly characterize the dichotomy in the urban societies. In Mari, Zimri-lim was the chief of Sim’alite tribes. After he seized the power on Mari, he had a double royal title, as king of the city of Mari and other towns/helmets (Ah Purattim), and as king of nomad/tribal territory (Hana).50 The complex kind of his administration included powerful per Archi 1985, 9. Archi 1985, 12. 44 Deimel 1924, 10. 45 Chiera 1924, 14–28. 46 Hirsch 1963, 14. For the date formula, see also Frayne 1993, 182. 47 Buccellati 1966. 48 Falb et al. 2005. 49 Al-Maqdissi / Ohnuma (eds) 2009; 2010; 2011; Ohnuma / Sarhan 2009; Ohnuma / Sultan 2011; Lönnqvist 2009. 50 Durand 1998, 485–488; 2010, 109–114. For a comprehensive explanation of the Zimrilim kingdom and his complex political organization, see Fleming 2008. 42 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

11

sons from both social components.51 If the Ah Purattim governors “sugagum” are settling in towns along the Euphrates river,52 probably the three pastoral chiefs in his administration “merhum” have their own residences inside the city of Mari as powerful representatives of the Hana land. Those chiefs, at the same time, are responsible on another “sugagum” that appears not settled in towns like the former “sugagum” of the Ah Purratim. This hierarchical political organization of the king Zimri-lim appears to be similar to the social organization of modern tribes in Syria. I will take as an example the large tribe-based sedentary family.53 The Family Zyabat,54 whom I personally belong to, settled in two different places: in one sector of the modern city of Al-Raqqa (Mishlab)55 and in another town in the Idlib province (Saraqib).56 In both places the extended family includes smaller families with different names called altogether Zyabat, which belongs to a larger clan confederation named Aa’fadle.57 This is, in turn, a thigh of a large tribe named Bu Shàban, one of the larger tribes in Syria that include many other clans with different names settled in different geographical places, between Aleppo and Aljazerah, downstream the Euphrates valley. However, what really matters in this discussion is: in first place, that the right of chiefdom that is currently owned by the Houidi family, who lives in Mishlab, where they are considered also the chiefs of the A’afadle that is considered the clan that owns the chiefdom of all Bu Shàban tribes. Consequently, the Houidi family is the chief of all the Bu Shàban tribes. Second, in Mishlab itself there are other two blood-affiliated families who live next to the Houidi family,58 where they have their own exclusive quarter that includes large houses inhabited by their chiefs. Other families also live in Mishlab and they are not affiliated to the tribes, but they work in their fields and in some cases are shepherds. One important fact that we should take into consideration is that the three families that live in Mishlab, and the other families that live in Saraqib, during the first half of the last century, owned a large number of herds although they had an urban lifestyle. Workers who did not belong to the families, but lived under their protection, administrated these herds. Nowadays, neither of them own any herds, but they own huge amount of cultivated fields and identified themselves as Zyabat, consequently A’afadle. Thus, in nowadays tribal-based urban communities, having herds is a sign of a past nomadic life, a term that seems to be undesirable by these seden Fleming 2004, 51–54. Fleming 2008, 233. 53 I would like to thank Mrs. Aya Houidi for information about the families relationship in Mishlab she provided me with. 54 Related to the name of the great ancestor “Zyab.” 55 The name refers to the first ancestor Mishlab al-Darwish who settled in that place. 56 Located 5 km North of Ebla. 57 This is a clans confederation that includes many other clans not necessarily belonging to the Bu Shàban tribe, as they were the owner of the chiefdom. 58 In Saraqib as well, four different family names are identified as Zyabat. 51 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

12

M. Alkhalid

tary clans. They identify themselves as citizens; nonetheless, they still claim their belonging to A’afadle as a prestigious elite origin. Their sheikh, however, is still involved in tribal troubles since he owns the Bu Shàban chiefdom. Furthermore, albeit living in an urban centre, they maintain their own traditions and have their own quarter that identifies them; they, however, are not totally integrated in the city system but rather they adopted an urban identity. The reality of the social organization in Ebla during the Old Syrian period appears to be similar to that one in Mishlab, where the social organization is based on a dimorphic chiefdom that belongs to a larger tribe. During the Old Syrian Period when Ebla became an Amorite city, its habitants, who were probably groups of nomads before seizing the power on the city, adopted the Eblaite urban identity. They, furthermore, brought their own model of socio-political organization that is based on their tribal chiefdom. The king and his royal family that live in the central fortified Acropolis had two functions as a ruler of the city and as head of a confederation of tribes.59 The large structures around the Acropolis, particularly the Northern and Southern Palaces, appear to be the residence of the elders of those other smaller, but still high-status clans/families. They belong altogether to a larger tribe that formed their social identity as Amorites. However, it is appropriate here, before concluding, to compare one aspect of the large concept of the Early Syrian kingship with that of the Old Syrian period. First, it is important to point out that the kingship of the Early Syrian rulers of Ebla is derived from the divinized ancestors. In the so-called “Ritual of Kingship,”60 the king and the queen of Ebla made the journey every seven years to renovate their sovereign rights visiting the place of burials of their ancestors located in different places. Furthermore, the names of the ancestors that appear in those texts and in other texts seem to be related to different families (Da-mu, Ma-lik, Li-im, Su-ud, Ha-lab, Ma-nu, A-lu…etc.).61 However, what is relevant for this comparison between the two organizations is the difference in its earlier formation. During the Early Syrian period the presence of the different family names that seem to be sedentary in those geographical places suggest that the formation of its political organization is probably based on the alliance between those families. On the contrary, during the Old Syrian period the socio-political organization appears to be formed by the integration between the pre-existed state and the dimorphic/ autonomous chiefdoms that formed the dimorphic chiefdom-based states. The identity of the Early Old Syrian rulers still has to be demonstrated and, apparently, this is a difficult task. The names of the two Old Syrian kings appear

In addition to the evidence from Mari on this dichotomy, tribal-based kingdoms were also formed in the Al-Jazerah region during the 2nd millennium BC. The tribal ideology and the sense of belonging to common ancestors or collective identity played important role in the cultural unification of vast territory (Ristvet 2012, 45–46). 60 Fronzaroli 1993; Pinnock 2016. 61 For the complete list of Ebla rulers, see Archi 2012, 6, fig. 1. 59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

13

to have the same family names of Early Syrian kings mentioned in Palace G texts (Ibbit-lim and Ib-Damu).62 These names analogously call into question whether we should deal with the same Early Syrian royal families that continued to rule Ebla and tribes that joined it, adapting new artistic styles and languages, or we should consider the concept of the royal collective memory as a crucial critical issue in interpreting the symbolic elements of power during the 2nd millennium BC. Indeed, this is one of the most stimulating research questions that should contribute in the construction of the social identity of the 2nd millennium Amorites in Syria.63 5. Conclusion The period between the first destruction of the Early Syrian Ebla (ca. 2300 BC) and its re-construction during the early 2nd millennium should be looked at as the formation period of a new political ideology based on the chiefdom organization. Probably, some time before the end of the 3rd millennium, those tribes, or what we call now the Amorites, start to settle at Ebla adopting, at the beginning, its urban identity, and after that influencing its socio-political and architectural organizations. This happened by means of the construction of a new urban pattern that followed the previous period’s symbolic royal model (the Royal Palace E on the Acropolis and the sanctuary of the divinized ancestors in the Lower Town). At the same time, by introducing a new architectural organization based on a tribal chiefdom (the large secular structures, the inner fortification). Therefore, using some urban elements of the previous city, they could produce a particular urban pattern characterizing their chiefdom-based socio-political organization, that is what we should call now an Amorites urban pattern. Another important future research strategy might be is not to limit our studies to the reasons that caused the disintegration of the 3rd millennium states and settlement patterns, but to carry out

Matthiae 2010, 211–212. Furthermore, for a large debate on the identity of those two Old Syrian rulers that adopted an Early Syrian names see Bonechi 1997, who suggests that those two kings are related directly with the Early Syrian kings. For the interpretation of the sign lim, see Krebernik 1987, 25–27; Fronzaroli 1979, 12; and for the sign damu, Archi 2015, 21–22. The same problem is also manifested in Babylonia, where some Old Babylonian Amorite kings have Akkadian names: Apil-Sîn and Sîn-muballiṭ (Charpin 1979, 191; 2005, 171–172). 63 Unlike the situation in Al-Jazerah region where settlements decline and sites abandonment were largely recorded during the late 3rd millennium BC (Weiss 2000, 87–90; Ristvet / Weiss 2013, 259–262). Nomadisation of peasants (Buccellati 1990, 90) and sedentary/nomad interaction were among of the most effective factors in the change of socio-political organization, in Ebla where no hiatus is recorded in the site during the last two centuries of the 3rd millennium BC, the process of change in the socio-political organization, probably, was a result of nomads adaptation of an urban identity happened during long period of interaction. 62

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

14

M. Alkhalid

more socio-economic studies and analysis on that social components (rural and nomadic) that existed during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium. We should now look at it as a producer of different states, which followed new models in its earlier formation and an innovative approach in its organization. Bibliography Alkhalid, M., 2014–2015: The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, Ebla Sequence and Regional Periodization. In Matthiae et al. (eds): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries (AAAS LXII–LXIII). Damascus. Pp. 165–179. — 2018: One Hundred Years of Change. A Study of the Pottery Assemblage Discovered at Ebla Dated to the Period between the Third and Second Millennium B.C.E. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / M. D’Andrea (eds): Ebla and Beyond: The Archaeology of the Ancient Near East after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Wiesbaden. Pp. 257‒282. Al-Maqdissi, M. / Ohnuma, K., (eds), 2009: Preliminary Reports of the Syria-Japan Archaeological Joint Research in the Region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2008. Al-Rāfidān XXX: 135–223. — 2010: Preliminary Reports of the Syria-Japan Archaeological Joint Research in the Region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2009. Al-Rāfidān XXXI: 97–109. — 2011: Preliminary Reports of the Syria-Japan Archaeological Joint Research in the Region of Ar-Raqqa, Syria, 2010. Al-Rāfidān XXXII: 119–209. Archi, A., 1985: Mardu in the Ebla Texts. Orientalia 54: 7–17. — 2012: Cult of the Ancestors and Funerary Practices at Ebla. In P. Pfälzner et al. (eds): (Re-)Constructing Funerary Rituals in the Ancient Near East, Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Tübingen Post-Graduate School “Symbols of the Dead” in May 2009. Wiesbaden. Pp. 5–32. — 2015: A Royal Seal from Ebla (17th cent. B.C.) with Hittite Hieroglyphic Symbols. Orientalia 84: 18–28. Bonechi, M., 1997: II Millennium Ebla Kings. RA 91: 33–38. Buccellati, G., 1966: The Amorites of the Ur III period (Pubblicazione del Seminario di Semitistica. Ricerche, 1). Naples. — 1990: “River Bank,” “High Country” and “Pasture Land”: The Growth of Nomadism on the Middle Euphrates and the Khabur. In S. Eichler / M. Wäfler / D. Warburton (eds): Tall al-Hamidiya 2 (OBO SA 6). Freiburg. Pp. 87–117. Burke, A.A., 2017: Amorites, Climate Change and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Early/ Middle Bronze Age Transition in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14 and Climate Change (OIS 11). Chicago. Pp. 261–310. Charpin, D., 1979: Book review of Simmons, S.D., 1978: Early Old Babylonian Documents (YOS 14), New Haven, London. BiOr 36: 188–200. — 2005: Chroniques bibliographiques 5. Économie et société à Sippar et en Babylonie du nord à l’époque paléo-babylonienne. RA 99: 133–176. Chiera, E., 1924: Sumerian Religious Texts. Upland, PA. D'Andrea, M., 2016: New Data from Old Excavations: Preliminary Study of the EB IVB Pottery from Area H at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Syria. In O. Kaelin / H.-P. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

15

Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 8–14 June 2014 Basel, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 199–216. Deimel, A., 1924: Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara (WVDOG XIV). Leipzig. Di Ludovico, A., et al., 2001: From Monument to Urban Complex: The City of Ebla as Symbol of Royal Ideology. In I. Thuesen (ed.): Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 22–26 May 2000, Copenhagen, Vol.1. Winona Lake / Bologna. Pp. 435–440. Durand, J.-M., 1998: Les Documents Épistolaires du Palais de Mari, Tome II (LAPO 17), Paris. — 2010: Un centre benjaminite aux portes de Mari. Réflexions sur le caractère mixte de la population du royaume de Mari. In Ş. Dönmez (ed.): Veysel Donbaz’a Sunulan Yazılar DUB.SAR.É.DUB.BA.A, Studies presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz. Istanbul. Pp. 109–114. Falb, C., et al., 2005: Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal: 4. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed. Saarwellingen. Felli, C. / Merluzzi, E., 2008: EB–MB Afis: A Single Cultural Tradition Between Two Phases. In H. Kühne / R. Czichon / J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March – 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 97–110. Fleming, D.A., 2004: Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance, Cambridge. — 2008: Kingship of City and Tribe Conjoined: Zimri-Lim at Mari. In J. Szuchman (ed.): Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (OIS 5). Chicago. Pp. 227–240. Frayne, D.R., 1993: Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 B.C.) (RIME 2). Toronto. —1997: Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC) (RIME 3/2). Toronto. Fronzaroli, P., 1979: Un atto reale di donazione. Studi Eblaiti 1: 3–16. — 1993: Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi XI. Testi Rituali della Regalità. Roma. Hirsch, H., 1963: Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade. AfO 20: 14–15. Kamp, A.K. / Yoffe, N., 1980: Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the Early Second Millennium B.C. Archaeological Assessment and Ethno-Archaeological Prospectives. BASOR 237: 85–104. Krebernik, M., 1987: Lim. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7: 25–27. Lönnqvist, M., 2009: Jebel Bishri and the Role of Nomadism in the End of the Early Bronze Age. In P. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition. Proceeding of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Pp. 49–55. Marchetti, N. / Nigro, L., 1997: Cultic Activities in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at Ebla During the Old Syrian Period: The Favissae F.5327 and F.5328. JCS 49: 1–44. Margueron, J.-Cl., 2004: Mari. Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris. Matthiae, P., 1990: The Reception Suites of the Old Syrian Palaces. In Ö. Tunca (ed.): De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à M. J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Liège. Pp. 209–228. — 1993: L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ebla: résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992. CRAI© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

16

M. Alkhalid

BL 137: 613–662. — 1995: Giara con impronta di sigillo reale. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / G. Scandone Matthiae (eds): Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. Pp. 395. — 2002: About the Formation of the Old Syrian Architectural Tradition. In L. Al-Ghailani Werr et al. (eds): Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London. Pp. 191–209. — 2006: The Archaic Palace at Ebla: A Royal Building between Early Bronze Age IVB and Middle Bronze I. In S. Gitin / J.P. Dessel / J.E. Wright (eds): Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 85–103. — 2009a: Temples et reines de l’Ébla Protosyrienne: résultats de fouilles à Tell Mardikh en 2007 et 2008. CRAIBL 153: 747–791. — 2009b: Crisis and Collapse: Similarity and Diversity in the Three Destructions of Ebla from EB IVA to MB II. ScAnt 15: 165–204. — 2010: Ebla la città del trono. Archeologia e storia. Torino. — 2013a: The Archaic Palace at Ebla: A Royal Building between Early Bronze Age IVB and Middle Bronze I. In P. Matthiae, Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (Frances Pinnock ed.). Wiesbaden. Pp. 243–258. — 2013b: The Reception Suites of the Old Syrian Palaces. In P. Matthiae, Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (Frances Pinnock ed.). Wiesbaden. Pp. 335–346. — 2013c: About the Formation of the Old Syrian Architectural Tradition. In P. Matthiae, Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (Frances Pinnock ed.). Wiesbaden. Pp. 347–364. — 2015: Cult Architecture at Ebla between Early Bronze IVA and Middle Bronze I: Continuity and Innovation in the Formative Phase of a Great Tradition. An Evaluation. StEbl 1: 75–108. Mazzoni, S., et al., 2002: Tell Afis (Syria) 2000–2001. EVO 25: 5–108. Milano, L., 2014: Eating on The Road Travel Provisions in the Ebla Archives. In L. Milano (ed.): Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East Towards. A Multidisciplinary Approach (History of the Ancient Near East / Monographs – XIV). Padova. Pp. 281–296. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2007a: The Chronology of the Royal Palace of Qatna Revisited. A Reply to a Paper by Mirko Novák, Egypt and the Levant 14, 2004. Egypt and the Levant 17: 221–240. — 2007b: Qatna and its Hinterland during the Bronze and Iron Age. A Preliminary Reconstruction of Urbanism and Settlements in the Mishrifeh Region. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.): Urban and Natural Landscape in an Ancient Syrian Capital, Settlement and Environment in Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 65–91. — 2008a: Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III – Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 1: Stratigraphy, Chronology and Architecture. Akkadica 129: 55–127. — 2008b: The EB/MB Transition at Tell Mishrifeh: Stratigraphy, Ceramics and Absolute Chronology. A Preliminary Review. In M. Bietak / R. Czerny (eds): The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Leba© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

17

non, Syria, and Egypt (Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 50). Wien. Pp. 127–152. Morandi Bonacossi, D., et al., 2009: The “Eastern Palace” and the Residential Architecture in Area T at Mishrifeh/Qatna, Preliminary Report of the 2006–2008 Excavation Campaigns of the Italian Component of the Syro-Italian Project. Mesopotamia 44: 61–112. Nichols, J.J. / Weber, J.A., 2006: Amorites, Orange and Social Regeneration in the Middle Bronze Age Syria. In G. Schwartz / J. Nichols (eds): After Collapse The Regeneration of the Complex Societies. Tucson. Pp. 38–59. Ohnuma, K. / Sarhan, A., 2009: Archaeological Research In the Bishri Region: Report of the Seventh Working Season. Al-Rāfidān XXX: 192–223. Ohnuma, K. / Sultan, A., 2011: Archaeological Research in the Bishri Region: Report of the Fourteenth Working Season. Al-Rāfidān XXXI: 121–129. Pettinato, G. / Matthiae, P., 1976: Aspetti amministrativi e topografici di Ebla nel III millennio a.C. RSO 50: 1–30. Peyronel, L., 2015: The “Outer Town” of Ebla during the Old Syrian Period. A Preliminary Analysis of the Off-Site Survey 2010. Studia Eblatica 1: 131– 164. Pfälzner, P., 2007: Archaeological Investigations in the Royal Place of Qatna. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.): Urban and Natural Landscape in an Ancient Syrian Capital, Settlement and Environment in Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 29–64. Pinnock, F., 2001: The Urban Landscape in Old Syrian Ebla. JCS 53: 13–33. — 2007: Middle Bronze Ceramic Horizons at Ebla, Typology and Chronology. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare Beniamino Segre, Vol. 117). Roma. Pp. 457–472. — 2009: EB IVB–MB I in Northern Syria: Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilization. In P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition. Proceeding of a Conference held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEF IX). Leeds. Pp. 69–79. — 2015: Memoria dell’acqua memoria degli antenati, aree di culto a cielo aperto in alta Siria. In P. Matthiae (ed.): L’archeologia del Sacro, L’archeologia del Culto, Ebla e la Siria dall’Età del Bronzo all’Età del Ferro (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304). Roma. Pp. 257–294. — 2016: Dealing with the Past at Ebla. Ancestors’ Cults and Foreign Relations. In O. Kaelin et. al. (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 9–13 June 2014, Basel, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 395–406. Porter, A., 2000: Mortality, Monuments and Mobility. PhD: University of Chicago. — 2007: You Say Potato, I say…Typology, Chronology and the Origins of the Amorites. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Societés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 69–116. — 2012: Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations, Weaving Together Society. Cambridge. Ristvet, L., 2012: Resettling Apum: Tribalism and Tribal States in Tell Leilan Region, Syria. In N. Laneri / P. Pfälzner / S. Valentini (eds): Looking North: © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

18

M. Alkhalid

The Socio-Economic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium B.C. Wiesbaden. Pp. 37–50. Ristvet, L. / Weiss, H. 2013: The Habur Region in the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC. In W. Orthmann / P. Matthiae / M. Al-Maqdissi (eds): Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie, Vol. 1. La Syrie de l'époque néolithique à l'ȃge du fer. Wiesbaden. Pp. 257–272. Rowton, M.B., 1967: The Physical Environment and the Problem of the Nomads. In J-R. Kupper (ed.): La civilisation de Mari. Paris. Pp. 109–121. — 1973: Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia. Orientalia 42: 247–258. — 1974: Enclosed Nomadism. JESHO 17/1: 1–30. Weiss, H., 2000: Beyond the Younger Drays: Collapse as Adaptation to Abrupt Climate Change in Ancient West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. In G. Bawden / R.M. Reycraft (eds): Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response 7. Albuquerque. Pp. 75–95. — 2014: Intermediate Bronze Age: Altered Trajectories. In M.L. Steiner / A.E. Killebrew (eds): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant. Oxford. Pp. 367–387.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

Fig. 1. Topographic plan of Middle Bronze Age Ebla (©MAIS).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

19

M. Alkhalid

Fig. 2. Schematic plan of the Royal Palace E (©MAIS).

20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

Fig. 3. Schematic plan of the Western Palace (©MAIS).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

21

22

M. Alkhalid

Fig. 4. Schematic plan of the Northern Palace and the sacred area of Ishtar (©MAIS).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Kingship and the Representation of Power

23

Fig. 5. Schematic plan of the Southern Palace (©MAIS).

Fig. 6. Axonometric reconstruction of the Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

24

M. Alkhalid

Fig. 7. Axonometric reconstruction of Temples HH 2 and 3, MBA (©MAIS).

Fig. 8. The inner fortification of the Citadel view from the southern side of the Acropolis (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX : Matériel funéraire de la région de Tell Afis dans un document des archives de R. du Mesnil du Buisson Michel Al-Maqdissi

1. Introduction Les archives léguées par la famille de R. du Mesnil du Buisson au Musée du Louvre (DAO) comportent des informations variées qui touchent parfois des régions lointaines du site de Mishrifeh-Qaṭna et de l’Emésène. Les documents que nous présentons dans cette note traitent d’une découverte fortuite faite dans la région du site de Tell Afis, lieu de découverte en 1903 de la stèle de Zakir (Zakkur), roi de Hama et de Luash1. Il s’agit d’un petit dossier qui comporte un texte tapé sur une machine à écrire de six pages presque de format ‹A4› accompagné de deux planches de photographies en noir et blanc et d’un dessin en crayon. Le texte fait partie du quatrième chapitre d’un manuscrit qui devrait présenter vraisemblablement l’action menée pas R. du Mesnil du Buisson dans cette région. Il est intitulé : « IV. – Exploration de quelques sites de la région » avec une pagination pas très structurée qui commence par la page 61: - p. 61, titre du dossier et présentation de Tell Afis dans les sources anciennes (Fig. 1) ; - p. 62, description du tell et localisation de la découverte fortuite ; - p. 63, description du matériel et présentation des sites de Kafer Ṭab et Martareh2; - p. 64, petit texte rédigé à la main pour rectifier les informations en relation avec une stèle accompagnée d’une inscription coufique ; - p. 69, le texte barré de l’inscription précédente et présentation des sites de Martareh, Mourek, Rakaya, Kefer Segni ; - p. 72, description du site de Khirbet Dahr el-Hammam ; - p. 14, texte isolé sans contexte ou une relation avec les pages précédentes ? Les deux planches photographiques sont de grandes dimensions. Sur la première est attachée une photographie aérienne du petit tell de Mourek, tandis que la deuxième comporte deux photographies du mobilier funéraire de la tombe située Stèle conservée au Musée du Louvre (AO 8185). Nous respectons dans les citations la transcription des noms des sites rapportée par R. du Mesnil du Buisson.

1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

26

M. Al-Maqdissi

au Nord de Tell Afis. La troisième est une vue du lieu saint dit « Sheikh Ḥassan » localisé au somment de Tell Afis (Fig. 2). Enfin, il y a un dessin en crayon à mine tendre de la façade du caravansérail de Khan-Cheikh Houn, réalisé par Lancelot d’après une photographie de la mission (Fig. 3). 2. Présentation du dossier Nous reproduisons le texte qui se rapporte à Tell Afis et au matériel funéraire: p. 61 « Nous avons pu visiter au cours de notre mission Āfis ( ‫ ) أفس‬officiellement Tell Efez – La carte de reconnaissance de l’E. M. Ottoman (éd. Juin 1920) porte fautivement Ekis – à 30 kilomètres Nord-Nord-Est de Ma‘arret enNo‘man, et un peu à l’Est de la nouvelle route d’Alep ‹ Sur les divers chemins conduisant jadis de Ma‘aret en-No‘man, à Alep, cf. Dussaud, Topographie, p. VIII ›. Ce village a été traversé au milieu du XVIIe siècle par Pietro della Valle Voyages, trad. fr. 1745, t. II, p. 136’, et à la fin du XVIIIe par R. Pococke Voyages, trad. fr., t. III. C’est dans un mur du tell que Pognon découvrit les fragments de la stèle de Zakir. Il faut donc supposer qu’Afis appartenait aux rois du Nord ennemis du roi de Ḥama, Zakir, et que celui-ci s’en empara. L’importance de cette place dans les premiers siècles du 1er millénaire avant notre ère est attestée par ce texte. Pompée, d’après M. Dussaud, aurait encore choisi la ville pour y passer l’hiver 64–63 ‹ Dussaud, Topographie, p. 237, d’après Don Cassius, XXXVII, 7, en corrigeant Apis par Afis › ; en 1153, les musulmans l’auraient prise ‹ Dussaud, ibid., d’après Abou Shama, Hist. Orient., IV, p. 76‒77 ; il faudrait lire Afis pour Aflis ›. Voici comment se présente aujourd’hui le site. Le tell considérable se dresse à une courte distance de la route ». P. 62 « De tout côté, il est visible de fort loin. Le plan est rectangulaire dans l’ensemble et orienté. J’évalue à 300 ou 350 m. sa plus grande longueur de l’Est à l’Ouest. Le glacis est surtout abrupt au Nord, ce côté est loin d’être rectiligne et forme au moins deux avancées ; il semble qu’il ait existé une rampe d’accès assez raide entre les deux. On reconnaît plus nettement deux portes sur les côtés Est et Ouest et peut-être une encore vers l’angle Nord-Est. Le tell forme un second étage dans la partie septentrionale. La butte supérieure est de forme allonge de l’Est à l’Ouest ; à une extrémité à l’Est est élevé un qoubbé à un Sheik Hassan ; à l’entour une petite enceinte forme cimetière. A l’extrémité opposée de l’étage supérieure du tell, se dresse un signal primaire de cadastre, nous avons mesuré au pas 100 m. de la Qoubbé au signal. Le village de Tell Efez est situé au pied du tell à l’Est. C’est une petite agglomération de maisons en cône de briques crues. A quelques kilomètres au Nord d’Afis sans doute dans la région de Teizar (Shafih) a été trouvée la série de vases et de bronze recueillis par M. Ploix de Rotrou et actuellement au Musée d’Alep (L’indication donnée est celle-ci : à 16 kil. d’Idlib en allant vers Alep ; à environ 2 kil. au Sud de la route). Ces objets étaient pla© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX

27

cés dans une tombe à puits rond ; les deux bols en calotte sphérique sont bien connus dans le cananéen ancien I, et nous en avons rencontré de semblables dans la première céramique de Tell ‘As ». P. 63 « Le vase sans col avec appendice de suspension est non moins archaïque. La coupe à pied pourrait étonner si nous ne possédions dans la région même des pièces comparables (Cf. Tell ‘As, tombe 3, no. 2, pour le pied et t. 5, no 2 pour la coupe) ; le rebord rentrant n’est pas non plus inconnu et s’est maintenu jusqu’au plein IIe millénaire (Qaṭna, t. I, no. 88 ‹ coupe à champagne ›). Les pièces semblables à la longue épingle se rencontrent dans le tombeau IV de Qaṭna ; la plus courte, nouvelle, est remarquable. La tête est très comparable à celle des épingles de Vadjalik, actuellement au musée de Saint-Germain-en-Laye3. Quant au glaive à soie, il est à rapprocher d’une pointe de lance du tombeau IV de Qaṭna. L’ensemble nous paraît remonter au moins au milieu du IIIe millénaire ». Nous remarquons après la lecture de ce texte qu’il s’agit d’un travail qui s’inscrit dans le cadre d’une action menée dans la région au Nord de Ma‘arat Al-Nu‘man à une période postérieure aux fouilles de Mishirfeh-Qaṭna qui pourrait être placé durant la sixième campagne syrienne en 1930 (mars - juin)4 au moment des fouilles de Khan Sheikhoun, Tell ‘Aṣ, Ṣouran et Tell Maṣin5. Il est maintenant sûr que R. du Mesnil du Buisson a franchi la région centrale de l’Oronte pour mener des visites dans la partie Nord autour de la plaine qui se trouve à l’Est de la ville d’Idlib. Il s’agit probablement d’une action de reconnaissance pour un nombre limité de sites qui se localisent à l’Ouest de la route asphaltée qui relie Ma‘arat AlNu‘man avec Alep. Ainsi, il a visité Tell Afis et son lieu saint, Teizar (Shafih) à l’emplacement de la structure funéraire au Nord de Tell Afis, Tell Murek6, Martareh, Khirbet Deir Al-Ḥammam, Kafar Ṭab7 d’où il a acquis pour le musée de Damas une inscription coufique. L’identification précise de l’emplacement de la provenance du matériel funéraire n’a pas été vérifiée sur le terrain. R. du Mesnil du Buisson se contente uniquement de reprendre l’information rapportée par G. Ploix de Rotrou alors conservateur en chef du Musée d’Alep8. Notons enfin qu’une partie de la documentation photographique nous échappe ainsi que la fin du texte et certaines précisions pour les notes en bas de page.

Hubert 1925, 24, fig. 7. du Mesnil du Buisson 1930, 219–320. 5 Cf. d’une manière générale pour toute la région et les sites, du Mesnil du Buisson 1930 ; 1935. 6 Pour ce site, cf. Lassus 1935, 139. 7 Pour ce dernier site, cf. Mouterde 1929 ; Dussaud 1929. 8 Cf. à ce propos sa présentation du matériel de cette tombe : Ploix de Rotrou 1931. 3 4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

28

M. Al-Maqdissi

3. Analyse des données Le site de Tell Afis se trouve dans une plaine fertile à environ 10 km au Nord de Tell Mardikh-Ebla et à 17 km environ à l’Est du centre de la ville d’Idlib. Il a fait l’objet d’une fouille systématique depuis 1978 par une mission italienne initiée par P. Matthiae9 et dirigée par S. Mazzoni10. La prospection de la région environnante réalisée à partir de la campagne de 2002 fut publiée dans un rapport préliminaire en 2005. Ce travail trace avec précision la séquence chronologique de l’occupation de la plaine avec une vingtaine de sites dont les plus importants se trouvent à une quinzaine de kilomètres au NordOuest (Tell Souffan)11 ou au Nord-Est (Tell Sergi) de Tell Afis12. Une analyse rapide de la nature des sites prospectés va nous permettre de constater que le but principal était d’étudier les collines artificielles ce qui explique parfaitement que la région de Teizar (Shafih), qui se trouve dans une zone plate, est passée inaperçue. Nous ne possédons pas d’informations sur la nature des structures trouvées. S’agit-il des tombes isolées ou d’une nécropole étendue sur une surface importante ? Les tombes sont-elles individuelles ou collectives ? Précisons à ce propos que la nature de la formation géologique de la région et la présence immédiatement sous la surface d’une épaisse couche rocheuse nous amènent à proposer une structure taillée dans le rocher qui prend une forme généralement attestée dans la région avec un « puits rond »13 vertical en relation avec une ou plusieurs chambres funéraires14. Le mobilier funéraire regroupé sur les deux photographies comporte douze vases en poterie (Fig. 4) et trois objets en bronze (Fig. 5)15. Les deux jarres nos 2 et 5 de taille moyenne présentent presque le même type avec une paroi globulaire ou sphérique, un col cylindrique, une lèvre légèrement évasée munie d’un bourrelet et un fond probablement plat. Les comparaisons16 sont attestées au Bronze ancien III17 dans le niveau G des sites de plaine de l’Amuq18, à partir du niveau K 6–5 à Hama19 et les deux tombes de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq20. De

Matthiae 1979. Cf. principalement Mazzoni 1998 ; 2011a ; 2011b. 11 Pour ce site, cf. Mazzoni 2006. 12 Mazzoni 2005. 13 Page 62 du texte dactylographié (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection). 14 Cf. à titre d’exemple les structures funéraires de ‘Ain ‘Assan (Al-Maqdissi 2006a) et d’Alep (Al-Maqdissi 2006b). 15 Pour l’inventaire du mobilier, cf. Ploix de Rotrou 1931, 97–98. 16 Nous contentons de limiter les comparaisons aux sites de la Syrie du Nord-Ouest. 17 Mazzoni 2002, pl. XXXIV: 48 et 57. 18 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 266, fig. 203: 10, 169, fig. 207: 1–2. 19 Pratiquement les niveaux du Bronze ancien III avec plutôt un fond arrondie, cf. Fugmann 1958, 39 et suivant (4 C 19). 20 Collon / Otte / Otte 1975, pl. LVIII: 1, pl. LXII: 1. 9

10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX

29

même, les cinq jarres nos 1, 3, 6 et 11–12 de petite taille présentent elles aussi presque le même type avec une paroi plutôt globulaire, un col cylindrique et une lèvre évasé. Elles appartiennent à la même période du Bronze ancien III21 et les comparaisons les plus proches sont dans les deux tombes de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq22. Les deux bols nos 4 et 7 à paroi elliptique, lèvre presque droite à extrémité épaissie et fond probablement plat sont souvent associés aux jarres précédentes. Notons que cette forme est parfaitement du Bronze ancien III23 avec des comparaisons attestées dans le niveau K 6–5 à Hama24 et la tombe 2 du carrée A3 de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq25. Par contre, la nature du traitement de la surface nous échappe ce qui nous laisse entre deux types de production trouvées dans les sites de la plaine de l’Amuq: ‹ Plain Simple Ware › daté avec le niveau G26, ou ‹ Brittle Orange Ware › daté avec le niveau H27. La petite jarre no. 9 à paroi elliptique, col cylindrique et à deux petits tenons perforés trouve des ressemblances dans le niveau G des sites de plaine de l’Amuq28 et dans les niveaux K 6–5 de Hama29. Le petit gobelet perforé au-dessous de la lèvre par deux petits trous n’atteste pas de comparaisons directes. La forme pourrait être rapprochée avec un gobelet aux niveaux K 4–3 de Hama30. La coupe no. 10 composé d’un bol à pied est datée avec le niveau G des sites de plaine de l’Amuq31. L’épingle no. 13 à tête globulaire ou hémisphérique et à chas lié à trois incisions horizontales n’est pas une forme très fréquente. Elle pourrait appartenir au type ‹ Ep 9 › daté du début du Bronze ancien IV dans la typologie de Gernez32. Par contre, la deuxième épingle no. 15 à tête semi sphérique, à chas (légèrement visible sur la photographie) et à décor vraisemblablement incisée, appartient à une forme plus simple du Bronze ancien III que nous comparons avec les deux épingles de la tombe no. 2 du carré A3 de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq33 et au type ‹ Ep 5 › toujours dans la typologie de Gernez34.

Fugmann 1958, 42, fig. 49 : 4 A 844 no. 3 et 4 B 990. Collon / Otte / Otte 1975, pl. LVIII: 1, pl. XLVII: 1–3, pl. LIII: 1–3, pl. LXII: 3, 9, 11–16. 23 Mazzoni 2002, pl. XXXIV: 49–50. 24 Fugmann 1958, 39, fig. 46: 4 B 753, 4 B 869. 25 Collon / Otte / Otte 1975, XLVII: 13–16, pl. LIII: 7–9, pl. LVIII: 2–5, pl. LXIII: 2, 7–8. 26 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 267–268, fig. 206. 27 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 368–370, fig. 287. 28 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 272, fig. 213. 29 Fugmann 1958, 39, fig. 46: 4 B 747. 30 Fugmann 1958, 42, fig. 49: 4 B 991. 31 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 269, fig. 207: 8, 273, fig. 214: 19–20. 32 Gernez 2008, 260, fig. 8. 33 Collon / Otte / Otte 1975, pl. LIX: 12–13. 34 Gernez 2008, 260, fig. 8. 21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

30

M. Al-Maqdissi

Enfin, la lame de poignard no. 14 de section triangulaire à nervure médiane et longuette de fixation est un type commun attesté avec la figurine du guerrier du niveau G des sites de la plaine de l’Amuq35. 4. Conclusion Cette petite note préliminaire tirée d’un document rédigé par R. du Mesnil du Buisson permet d’apporter un matériel sommairement publié et de réaliser une présentation d’un mobilier céramique et métallique important pour cette région au Nord de Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Généralement, ce matériel se rapporte par ses caractéristiques à la tradition céramique du Bronze ancien III en Syrie du Nord-Ouest. Les types de vases sont identiques de ceux des tombes de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq, des niveaux K 6–2 de Hama et du niveau G des sites de la plaine d’Amuq36. Il est important de noter que ces formes sont très comparables avec plusieurs catégories de jarres de la moyenne vallée de l’Euphrate dans la zone des deux barrages de Tabqa et de Tishrine37. Or, ces dernières comportent un type de façonnage différent et un traitement de surface plus riche et plus varié. Cette remarque nous amène à proposer que durant cette période du Bronze ancien les idées de la forme des vases circulassent entre les deux régions et que chaque atelier fabriquât son matériel selon sa propre tradition38. Notons pour conclure que malgré la brièveté de ce texte, R. du Mesnil du Buisson tenta de procéder à une première réflexion sur cette région et d’ouvrir des voies nouvelles. Ce travail fut interrompu par son engagement avec l’équipe franco-américaine dirigée par M.I. Rostovtzeff à Doura Europos. Signalons enfin, qu’il est assez étonnant que durant cette action le site de Tell Mardikh-Ebla resta introuvable, camouflé par sa position basse à l’Est de la route qui relie cette région avec Alep39. Bibliographie Albright W., 1926 : From Jerusalem to Baghdad Down the Euphrates. BASOR 21 : 1–10. Al-Maqdissi, M., 2006a : Notes d’archéologie levantine, II. La nécropole de ‘Ain Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 307, fig. 240. Mazzoni 2002, pl. XXXIV: 48 et 57. 37 Pour une fouille ancienne, cf. Thureau-Dangin / Dunand 1936, 100–101, pls XXI–XXII. Pour les fouilles récentes, cf. Porter 1995, 29, fig. 12: P62, 31, fig. 14.P110, 39 ; 1999 ; 2007, pls III: 16 et IV: 8–9 ; Cooper 2006, 12–15 (céramique de la Phase 3). 38 Le même phénomène est attesté au Bronze ancien IV et au Bronze moyen dans la région intérieure de la Syrie. 39 W. Albright va sillonner la même région en 1925 sans passé par Tell Mardikh-Ebla ; cf. le compte rendu de son travail dans Albright 1926. 35 36

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX

31

‘Assan. Dans P. Butterlin et al. (éds) : Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens, dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient, volume d’hommage offert à Jean-Claude Margeuron (Subartu XVII). Paris. Pp. 141–152. –– 2006b : Notes d’archéologie levantine, III. Structure funéraire du Bronze moyen trouvée à Alep. Dans F. Baffi et al. (éds) : ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Rome. Pp. 15–27. Braidwood, R. / Braidwood, L., 1960 : Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. The Earlier Assemblages, Phases A–J (OIP 61). Chicago. Collon, D. / Otte, C. / Otte, M., 1975 : Les sépultures de la couche III (A2 et A3). Dans D. Collon et al. (éds) : Sondages au flanc Sud du Tell de Qal‘at El-Muḍiq (Fouilles d’Apamée de Syrie, Miscellanea 11). Bruxelles. Pp. 107–159. Cooper, L., 2006 : Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. New York / London. du Mesnil du Buisson R., 1930 : Compte rendu de la mission de Khan Sheikhoun et de Ṣouran, au nord de Hama (Syrie). CRAIBL 74/4 : 320–331. –– 1935 : Ṣouran et Tell Maṣin. Berytus 2 : 121–134. Dussaud, R., 1929 : Note additionnelle (sur Kafarṭab). Syria 10 : 128–129. Fugmann, E., 1958 : Hama, Fouilles et recherches II/1. L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques (Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Større Beretninger 4). Copenhague. Gernez, G., 2008 : Le métal de Tell Arqa à l’âge du Bronze. BAAL 12 : 221–264. Hubert, H., 1925 : De quelques objets de bronze trouvés à Byblos. Syria 6 : 16–29. Lassus, J., 1935 : Inventaire archéologique de la région au nord-est de Hama (Documents d’Etudes Orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas 4). Damas. Matthiae, P., 1979 : Sondages à Tell Afis (Syrie), 1978. Akkadica 14 : 1–5. Mazzoni, S.,1998 : The Italian Excavations of Tell Afis (Syria), from Chiefdom to an Aramaean State, Pisa. –– 2002 : The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwest Central Syria. Dans M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / Ch. Nicolle (éds) : Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, I. La Syrie du sud et la vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 69–96. –– 2005 : Tell Afis, the Survey and the Regional Sequence. EVO 17 : 5–17. –– 2006 : Tell Suffane, an Early and Middle Bronze Age Site in the Idlib Plain. BaM 37 : 381–401. –– 2011a : Archaeology, A Science of Multidisciplinarity and Cooperation. Dans M. Rossi (éd.) : Archaeology for Cooperation, Afis-Deinit and the Museum of Idlib. Activities in the Frame of the MEDA Project (Studi di Archeologia Siriana 1). Napoli. Pp. 21–39. –– 2011b : Tell Afis, Research on the Aramaean Culture Heritage. Dans M. Rossi (éd.) : Archaeology for Cooperation, Afis-Deinit and the Museum of Idlib. Activities in the Frame of the MEDA Project (Studi di Archeologia Siriana 1). Napoli. Pp. 43–63. Mouterde, R., 1929 : Rapport sur une mission épigraphique en Haute Syrie (1928). Syria X : 126–127. Ploix de Rotrou, G., 1931 : La tombe d’Idlib. Revue Archéologique Syrienne 5 : 96–98. Porter, A., 1995 : Tell Banat, Tomb I. DaM 8 : 1–50. –– 1999 : The Ceramic Horizon of the Early Bronze in the Upper Euphrates. Dans G. del Olmo Lete / J.-L. Montero Fenollós (éds) : Archaeology of the Up© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

32

M. Al-Maqdissi

per Syrian Euphrates, the Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th–30th 1998 (AuOr Supplementa 15). Barcelona. Pp. 311–320. –– 2007 : The Ceramic Assemblages of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates Region. Dans M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / Ch. Nicolle (éds) : Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, II. L’Euphrate et la région du Jézireh (BAH 180). Beyrouth. Pp. 3–21. Thureau-Dangin, F. / Dunand, M., 1936 : Til Barsib (BAH 23). Paris.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX

33

Fig. 1. La page 61 du texte dactylographié (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

34

M. Al-Maqdissi

Fig. 2. Tell Afis, le lieu saint dit « Sheikh Ḥassan » (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection).

Fig. 3. Tell Afis, dessin de Lancelot de la façade du caravansérail de Khan-Cheikh Houn (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes d’Archéologie Levantine XLIX

35

Fig. 4. Teizar (Shafih) au Nord de Tell Afis, le mobilier funéraire (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection).

Fig. 5. Teizar (Shafih) au Nord de Tell Afis, les trois objets en bronze (nos 13–15) du mobilier funéraire (Archives du DAO) (Dossier n° 1, prospection).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

Francesca Baffi

The notable spread of Assyrian expansion during the 1st millennium BC represents a focal point in the history of the Ancient Near East, involving as it did also all of inner Syria and the Levant. Between the 9th and the 8th centuries BC, the kings of the northernmost Mesopotamian states created a region marked by strong military, political and economic control, when not areas of true and lasting territorial conquest. This region expanded notably from 671 BC onwards with the kingdom of Esarhaddon, and again during the reign of Assurbanipal, when all of the western regions were absorbed. The importance given by Assyrian propaganda to the western victories is clear from the space that the descriptions of such conquests occupy in the palace reliefs. The impact of these conquests on the Syrian region became clear during Iron Age III, in the principal centres that had fallen, such as the seats of power of the Aramaean principalities which became Assyrian governorates. Whilst, on the one hand, the inhabitants of the Syrian region continued to express themselves in line with their own cultural traditions and to continue with their usual activities also for the Assyrian market,1 on the other, the crisis which afflicted the Hittite and Aramaean kingdoms had an impact on activities relating to local expressions of power, such as monumental sculpture, and local art forms were replaced entirely by works of Assyrian production. It could be said that the Assyrian advance was followed by the wiping out of regional cultures and, consequently, a loss of cultural knowledge in the conquered regions. Pottery production, however, underwent no change and continued to evolve in line with Iron I–III developments. The capillary nature of the Assyrian expansion is clearly documented by the information gleaned from archaeological investigation. This relates also to the area of northern inner Syria, in the region of Ebla, where excavations at Tell Afis and at Tell Tuqan have revealed the phases of life during Iron II and III (900– 720/720–535 BC) of two ancient centres. 1

Mazzoni 2000a, 55. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

38

F. Baffi

Throughout the entire Iron Age, Tell Afis played a central role,2 with a settlement covering the entire surface of the tell, roughly 32 hectares, and important public buildings, including a palace in the lower town,3 and a temple and public building on the acropolis. The site has been firmly identified at the Aramaean city of Hazrek. 4 The town became the seat of an Assyrian governor, known by the name of Hattarika, and it is clear that it was the most important centre in the region, as documented also by the Assyrian pottery found there, along with high-quality objects. The temple in antis of the acropolis was enlarged and restored by the new rulers, showing that the principal sacred building of the town continued to be used.5 Elements of Aramaean culture appear to have been progressively mixed with objects of Assyrian culture, the material culture assimilating new, foreign elements. On the contrary, both Ebla and Tell Tuqan had only modest buildings in the upper town. In all three cases (Fig. 1), Tell Afis, Ebla and Tell Tuqan, a rich stratigraphic sequence has been brought to light, with numerous phases of use of the areas following in close succession and without any marked change in the pottery typologies throughout the entire Iron Age. Tell Tuqan6 stands near a small Bedouin village, on the shores of an ancient lake, roughly 60 km south-east of Aleppo. Its position within the lake basin of the Matkh still characterises its climate, and must have had an even greater impact in the past, resulting in favourable economic conditions that enabled the town to enjoy a long and uninterrupted life, from EB III to the Hellenistic and Roman eras. The upper town is not located at the centre of the hill (Fig. 2) as in the case of Ebla, but is entirely unusual in that it is positioned towards the south, where a spur of the Matkh reached, the lake formed by the waters of the Nahr el-Quweiq, the river of Aleppo. Within this area of approximately 12 hectares, and immediately above the 2nd millennium level, various dwelling quarters have been brought to light, with modest,7 further testifying to the cities relations with even distant regions. The use of the same area continued until the Hellenistic era,8 as has been confirmed by the excavation of a step trench on the southernmost slope of the acropolis that brought to light levels dating to the time of the Assyrian empire (Fig. 3).9 The Iron II and III pottery at Tell Tuqan, as in the rest of the region, is characterised by the colour of its paste and the surface treatment.

Mazzoni 2000b. Mazzoni 1984. 4 Soldi 2009, 107. 5 Soldi 2009, 105–110. 6 Baffi (ed.) 2006; 2008; 2011. 7 Baffi 2008a, 109–114. 8 Semeraro 2014. 9 Baffi 2011, 238. 2 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

39

Regarding the former, this is orange-reddish (red-slip), often burnished. The purely domestic role of the buildings is further indicated by the pottery shapes, relating as they do modest, internal consumption with large storage vessels being entirely absent. The data gathered relates to both imported pottery and imitations. Amongst the imitations the most frequently encountered is the carinetad cup with flared walls that appears in all of the quarters of the Upper Town (Fig. 4).10 This indicates the presence of Assyrian people in the region and their desire to preserve their own traditions, especially in such everyday objects, including their peculiar basalt grindstones (Fig. 5). It is clear that the Assyrian presence in northern inner Syria was capillary in nature, but their interest in what had, by then, become small towns, Ebla or Tell Tuqan, is not surprising since these latter lay along the caravan routes running east-west and Tuqan, in particular, exploited its position on the shores of the Matkh lake basin which also ensured a favourable climate in an otherwise arid or semi-arid region. With the collapse of, first the Assyrian empire and then the Babylonian, the site was not abandoned but became the seat of a Persian outpost, coming under the 5th Satrapy, the Trans-Euphrates. Also these new conquerors occupied the Upper Town, erecting private buildings which were dominated by Building T1, similar to the situation also at Ebla, this structure rising on the southern part of the acropolis and overlooking the lake and surrounding plains. The construction of Building T1, in part re-used during the Hellenistic and Roman eras, involved notable planning and materials, and it towered over the highest point of the town (Fig. 6) dominating the lake and surrounding plains so as to control a route which was, apparently, of particular importance. The example of Tell Tuqan is emblematic of the role once played by sites, whose names still remain unknown, in the context of regions, such as that of Ebla, in which the relative importance of different towns shifted over time as a result of changing political and economic strategies. The settlement at the site of Tell Tuqan during the period of Persian domination documents a situation in line with characteristics already observed elsewhere in the Syrian region, including the interior.11 As has already been noted in numerous other cases, there are clear indications of the enormous power exercised by the Achaemenid empire, over a territory that stretched from the Indus to the Mediterranean, from often scarce archaeological evidence, this scarcity also being due, in part, to the kind of archaeological research carried out to date.

10 11

Baffi 2008a, 127; 2011, 259; Fiorentino 2011a, 182–191. Baffi 2014. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

40

F. Baffi

Finds, mainly sporadic and without original context, of clay figurines and pottery relating to this historical period, although not—strictly speaking—of Persian manufacture, are held to bear witness to the physical presence of eastern individuals in the various centres. In many cases, the attribution of such finds (pottery and objects, especially clay figurines) pertaining to Persian culture, lacks any stratigraphic or architectonic context. Data of this kind, in the region of Idlib, is found in various centres, including Tell Mardikh. At Tell Tuqan this kind of documentation is present both in sporadic finds and in contexts which have furnished information regarding the nature of such a presence. As regards the clay figurines, a few examples of two main types have been found: female figurines created using moulds, and male horsemen (Fig. 7).12 The “Persian” female figurines from Tell Tuqan were found both in the Upper Town and the Lower, but never in homogeneous contexts. The state of conservation is almost always very poor but, this notwithstanding, they can be assigned to typologies well-known in the region. Their scarcity and poor state of preservation do not, however, prevent us from suggesting a chronological attribution within the various categories otherwise so well documented in other centres such as, for example, Tell Deinit.13 On the basis of comparisons with the regional production, we can propose a chronological attribution for the figurines of Tell Tuqan to the late phase of the Persian period, between the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Taking all of the documentation gathered from the various centres, figurines and pottery together, we are faced with a problem of terminology as far as the “Persian” settlement phase is concerned: “Persian” being used to indicate elements of material culture manufactured by groups coming from Persia, or else relating to the historical period of Persian domination. At Tell Tuqan we have data relating to both concepts. First of all, we have noted how the area occupied during the Persian period was limited to the Upper Town, an area in which, from the Iron Age on, the settlement had been concentrated. The re-use of limited area in the central-eastern sector of the Upper Town relates to ditches dug within the Iron III structures abandoned by their inhabitants, and to dwellings with a regular floor-plan.14 We cannot yet judge the true extent of settlements within the region that came under the 5th Satrapy, but there are well-attested elements documenting the nature and relative importance of what was, by then, an agricultural town located, however, in a strategic position at the crossroads of communication routes between the east and the west, and on the shores of a lake which ensured a favourable climate.

Marinelli 2008. Rossi 2007. 14 Fiorentino 2011a, 173–174, 184. 12 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

41

The role played by this modest settlement is well-documented by the finds brought to light in the southern sector of the acropolis, where the Middle Bronze and Iron Age fortifications had fallen into disuse and control over the territory was exercised from a building, T1, built in a dominant position and relating, without doubt, to the presence of an eastern, Persian élite. The nature of the Persian presence at Tell Tuqan has many similarities with the situation at nearby Tell Mardikh: with an “official” building, T1, showing the characteristics of what, for Tell Mardikh, Stefania Mazzoni has named “palazzetto rurale.”15 In the two trenches dug on the acropolis of Tell Tuqan, a consistent portion of a construction that stood in that area was brought to light which, still today, reaches the highest level of the tell. This height is determined by a stratigraphy in which the different phases are clearly defined, starting from the Middle Bronze Age, and during which the role played by the area underwent notable changes. Building T1 was used over a period of time that saw three different building phases and some partial renovations, down to the use of some parts during the Hellenistic era (Fig. 8).16 The presence of a non-domestic structure in inner Syria during the Persian era was reflects the strategy of territorial control which embraced large regions, including those in the northern part of the empire included in the 5th satrapy. The provincial palace of Tell Tuqan was enlarged during at least three phases of its use.17 This was due to the importance given by the Persian conquerors to a centre in the Syrian region which stood in a strategic position between the interior and the coast and between Iran and Egypt. Some sections of Building T1, which suffered partial destruction at the fall of the Persian empire, were used during the period in which Syria came under Seleucid control, at least to judge from the evidence still provided by its walls. As far as the materials are concerned, the documentation relating to the final phase of use of Building T1 is relatively abundant, although almost always contaminated to some degree. In this documentation, a repetition of shapes can be noted as regards the open forms, with numerous examples of large cups with triangular rim (Fig. 9) and, amongst the closed forms, the amphorae with flattened rim and sloping shoulders, which can be associated with the “torpedo” bases.18 The floorplan of the building, given the area chosen for its construction, spread over different heights, a phenomenon even more evident in the domestic structures brought to light in the east-west trench. Starting from Iron II–III, a modest living quarter grew up on the terraces cre-

Mazzoni 1984. Baffi 2011, 225–255; 2014, 427–446. 17 Baffi 2011, 243–255. 18 Baffi 2011, 257, fig. 36: 9–17. 15 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

42

F. Baffi

ated by cutting into the eastern slope of the acropolis, with the foundations sunk into the earthworks which had formed the defensive system during the Middle Bronze Age. Inside the dwellings19 pottery was found which is in line with the local final Iron III tradition and, alongside this, other typologies which recall Levantine imports in terms of both their shapes and pastes (Fig. 10).20 This Levantine production, which was used as a means of commercial exchange between the coast and the interior in the case of the torpedo jars, is to be dated to the late 5th century BC. Of particular interest in showing continuity with the Iron Age tradition, are certain forms such as the anchor cup, imitation of the Assyrian shape.21 The use of the term “Persian” in relation to the material culture is to be understood purely in a chronological sense, as extensively documented by Lehmann22 in his analysis of finds from the coastal sites in which pottery production was in line with previous local tradition. The dominant Persian élite, which resided in the building on the acropolis, occupied the upper town together with the local population which maintained its own traditions and had commercial links with the Levantine coast, from whence goods were imported in containers that confirm the chronological attribution to the 5th–4th century BC of the settlement on the acropolis of Tell Tuqan.23 The archaeological documentation found at Tell Tuqan, taken together, testifies to the capillary nature of the Persian presence in inner Syria, whilst those literary references so well-known from the centres along the Mediterranean coast are completely lacking. From what we have been able to ascertain, in certain centres of inner Syrian, Tell Tuqan included, the decadence that had begun during the Aramaic period was accentuated under the Achaemenids, with a marked reduction in the inhabited areas. What had been city-states of inner Syria during the 2nd millennium BC became villages, with their economies based mainly on agricultural activity or linked to textile production on a family level. The inhabitants, however, even the most humble, somehow continued to enjoy trading contact with the Levant and this town on the shores of the lake was never entirely abandoned. Still today around the tell, in the village of Tuqan, there lives a community fully aware of its own cultural traditions and offering a warm welcome to strangers. We hope that such a community does not have to suffer the ongoing tragedy afflicting Syria and the rest of the Near East for too long.

Baffi 2011, 233–238. Baffi 2011, 258–260. 21 Baffi 2011, fig. 41/7. 22 Lehmann 1998. 23 Baffi 2011, 258–259. 19 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

43

Bibliography Baffi, F. (ed.), 2006: Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche italiane nella regione del Maath. Galatina. –– 2008: Tell Tuqan Excavations 2006–2007. Galatina. –– 2011: Tell Tuqan Excavations 2008–2010. Galatina. Baffi, F., 2006: La glittica. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche italiane nella regione del Maath. Galatina. Pp. 181–184. –– 2008a: The Upper Town, Area D. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2006–2007. Galatina. Pp. 109–148. –– 2008b: The Upper Town, Area T. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2006–2007. Galatina. Pp. 236–239. –– 2011: The Upper Town. Area T. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2008– 2010. Galatina. Pp. 225–284. –– 2014: Tell Tuqan: A Village of the Persian Period on the Shores of the Lake. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Proceedings of the International Conference Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian-Hellenistic Period. May 15th –17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 427–446. Fiorentino, R., 2008: The Upper Town. Area Q. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2006–2007. Galatina. Pp. 157–166. –– 2011a: The Upper Town. Area Q. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2008–2011. Galatina. Pp. 179–207. –– 2011b: The Upper Town. Area Z. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan Excavations 2008–2011. Galatina. Pp. 209–224. Lehmann, G., 1998: Trends in the Local Pottery Development of the Late Iron Age and Persian Period in Syria and Lebanon, ca. 700–300 B.C. BASOR 311: 7–17. Marinelli, G., 2008: Persian Clay Figurines from Tell Tuqan. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Excavations 2006–2007. Galatina. Pp. 211–216. Mazzoni, S., 1984: L’insediamento persiano-ellenistico di Tell Mardikh. SEb 7: 87–132. –– 1990: La période perse à Tell Mardikh dans le cadre de l’évolution de l’âge du Fer en Syrie. Transeuphratène 2: 187–199. –– 1992: Lo sviluppo degli insediamenti in Siria in Età Persiana. EVO XIV–XV: 55–72. — 2000a: Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. ANES 7: 31–59. –– 2000b: Syria and the Chronology of the Iron Age. Isimu. Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto en la antigüedad III: 121–138. Rossi, M., 2007: Fouilles de Tell Deinit. Les figurines en terre cuite et quelques objets de luxe de l’industrie du verre: typologies et iconographies du divin dans le Bronze Moyen et l’âge du Fer/époque perse achémenide. In J. Abdul Massih (ed.): Résultats du programme de formation à la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel de Syrie. Cultural Heritage Training Program 2002–2004, Documents d’Archéologie Syrienne XII. Damas. Pp. 53–96. Semeraro, G., 2014: Note sulle ceramiche sigillate di Tell Tuqan. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Proceedings of the International Conference © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

44

F. Baffi

Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian-Hellenistic Period. May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 447–457. Soldi, S., 2009: Aramaens and Assyrians in North-Western Syria: Material Evidence from Tell Afis. Syria 86: 97–118.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

45

Fig. 1. Satellite image: Tell Mardikh, Tell Afis and Tell Tuqan territory (elaboration after GoogleEarth).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

46

F. Baffi

Fig. 2. Tell Tuqan. Topographic plan (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

47

Fig. 3. Area T. East-west trench, southern section (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

48

F. Baffi

Fig. 4. Assyrian imitation, carinetad cups (© Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

Fig. 5. Basalt grindstone from Area D (© Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

Fig. 6. Area T, Persian Building T1 (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

49

Fig. 7. Persian figurines (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

Fig. 8. Area T. Building T1, Persian and Hellenistic walls (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

50

F. Baffi

Fig. 9. Area T. Iron III/Persian pottery (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Impact of the Great Empires on Inner Syria

51

Fig. 10. Area T. Levantine imports (©Italian Archaeological Expedition to Tell Tuqan).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Shaping Social Dynamics in Early 3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamia: Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking Giacomo Benati*

1. Introduction It has long been recognized that access to food and beverages has strong political as well as cultural implications in past and modern societies.1 Commensal events are a “powerful form of ritual activity” that can be detected in the archaeological record in part by studying the containers used for feasting.2 Feasting is also an ideal setting for investigating social change through time.3 This paper attempts to scrutinize the “proxemics” of drinking at the onset of the 3rd millennium BC in Mesopotamia via examining a particular type of drinking vessel, the so-called solid-footed goblet. The first part of the paper deals with chrono-stratigraphic and contextual distribution of drinking vessels, while the second part links material culture and feasting behaviors in early 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamia by using comparative and ethnoarchaeological analyses. Frances Pinnock’s research focused on the visual and material culture of Syria and Mesopotamia. Given her interest for the phenomenon of “banqueting” in early Mesopotamian and Syrian imagery,4 it seems appropriate to dedicate this essay to her. 2. Solid-Footed Goblets in the Mesopotamian Archaeological Record The solid-footed goblets (hereafter sfgs) are slender beakers with high solid foot, thin walls, flaring rim, and string-cut base. They are usually characterized by red I must thank my colleagues S. Renette and F. Zaina for sharing with me unpublished information on al-Hiba and Kiš and for valid feedback on the matters discussed in this paper. 1 For anthropological and ethnographic approaches on drinking habits see, among others, Dietler 2006; Dietler / Hayden 2001; Jennings et al. 2005. 2 Dietler 1996, 89; Hayden 2001, 40–41, tab. 2.1. On the use of the term feast I follow M. Dietler’s definition (2001). 3 Mills 2007, 210. 4 Pinnock 1994. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

54

G. Benati

dish/light brown fabric.5 Surfaces are often wet smoothed or slipped. Sfgs were mass-produced and wheel-thrown. The bases were seemingly twisted by hand by the potters while detaching the objects from the wheel. Although standardized, the manufacturing technique determined a high degree of variation for these forms. Hard evidence on the function is not available, but these vessels seem suitable for drinking moderate quantities of liquids. The average capacity calculated for full-fledged sfgs (h. 14/15 cm, d. 6 cm) is about 0.17 l (little less than half a pint). Due to the wide geographical distribution within the Mesopotamian alluvium and the presence in key stratified deposits, sfgs are considered reliable fossil-guides and in literature they are mostly used as chronological markers.6 A study of such devices based upon the perspective of commensal politics may help us bringing into focus past social dynamics.7 2.1 Geographical and Chronological Distribution Goblets are attested in central and southern Mesopotamian in the first part of the Early Dynastic period – i.e. ED I, ca. 2900–2700 BC (Fig. 1).8 The best chronological evidence comes from the unbroken sequences documented at Khafajah and at Nippur.9 Evidence from stratified deposits in Mesopotamia is marshaled below with the aim of highlighting chrono-stratigraphic patterns. 2.1.1 Diyala – Hamrin A review of the contexts of provenance of sfgs in the Lower Diyala sites has been carried out via consulting the Oriental Institute web database.10 This analysis revealed that sfgs have been found at Tell Asmar, Tell Agrab and Khafajah in the following loci:

The ones from the Tell Gubba are characterized by different fabric, greenish, yellowish, pinkish, cream (Ii 1993, 224). 6 Marchetti in Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, 17 fn. 7, 54 fn. 150. In this paper I adopt the readings proposed by G. Marchesi (in Marchesi / Marchetti 2011) for Sumerian proper names. 7 See Renette 2014 for a recent overview of the role of feasting in Mesopotamia and for the relevant bibliography produced on this topic (2014, 61 fn. 2). 8 On the chronology of the Early Dynastic period see Wright 1980 and for the ED I period the recent headways in Pittman 2012. In southern Iran, footed chalices are attested since the late 4th millennium BC within the so-called Proto-Elamite cultural sphere. A connection between the two phenomena has been recently proposed, without however conclusive evidence (Sürenhagen 2011). Further work on the development of goblets in southern Iran is required to bring these dynamics into clearer perspective. 9 On Khafajah see Delougaz 1952, 56–57; on Nippur cf. Hansen 1965, 209; Wilson 1986, 63 fn. 12, fig. 11:1. 10 http://diyala.uchicago.edu/pls/apex/f?p=101:111:7720960457705. 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

Site

Tell Asmar

Area

Level

Locus

NP Area

Elevation 28–29 m

NP Area

Elevation 26–27 m

Sounding D 15:3

Abu

Archaic III

Archaic I Houses

Khafajah

Tell Agrab

Elevation 27–29 m Elevation 26–27 m

D 17:26

D 17:10 H 18:14

55

Field No.

Field Type No.

As. NR:10

B.077.700

As. NR:11

B.077.700

As. 34:109

B.077.700a

As. NR:14

B.077.700a

As. 34:110a

B.087.700

As. 34:110

B.087.700

As. 34:203

B.087.700

As. NR:12

B.077.700

As. NR:13

B.077.700

Śamuš (Sin)

V and above

Q 42:17

Kh. NR:190

B.077.700a

VI

Q 42:9

Kh. NR:189

B.077.700a

Houses

10/9

O 43:29

Kh. NR:198

B.077.700b

Hill B

Top layer

-

Ag. 36:558

B.087.700

Tab. 1. Synopsis of data regarding the find-spots of sfgs in the Lower Diyala sites (burials are tabulated separately in Tab. 2).

This overview indicates that the best chrono-stratigraphic information comes from the sequences of the Abu and Śamuš temples and the burials excavated in the Houses operation (Table 2).11 The burials from the Houses show that the highest occurrence of sfgs is in Levels 11–9, while they occur in low numbers in levels 8–7, as noted also by Sürenhagen.12 In light of this new assessment, one may conclude that—at least in this sequence—sfgs are concentrated in the first half of the ED I period, with a peak at the onset of the period, while tapering off in the second half of the ED I. However, due to the lack of precise sherd counts it is not possible to completely discard the excavators’ hypothesis on the concentration of sfgs at the mid of the ED I period.13 As to morphology, Delougaz noticed—albeit without bringing conclusive evidence—that earlier specimens in the Lower Diyala seem shorter and with a wider Cf. Marchetti in Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, Table 12. Note that the overview of the ceramic repertoires from houses and temples indicate depletion patterns. In this light, the data from the graves are probably more trustworthy. 12 Sürenhagen 2011, 12. According to this author, House levels 11-7 may cover the whole span of the ED I. 13 Cf. Delougaz 1952, 56–57; and Sürenhagen 2011, 27–28, fig. 14. 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

56

G. Benati

Level

Houses 11

Locus

P 43:42

Context

Field No.

grave 33

Kh. IX 229 Kh. NR:165 Kh. NR:166 Kh. NR:167 Kh. NR:168 Kh. NR:169 Kh. NR:170 Kh. NR:171 Kh. NR:172 Kh. NR:173 Kh. IX 230 Kh. NR:184 Kh. NR:185 Kh. NR:186 Kh. NR:187 Kh. NR:188 Kh. NR:163 Kh. NR:164 Kh. NR:174 Kh. NR:175 Kh. NR:176 Kh. NR:177 Kh. NR:178 Kh. NR:179 Kh. NR:180 Kh. NR:181 Kh. NR:182 Kh. NR:191 Kh. NR:192 Kh. NR:193 Kh. NR:194 Kh. NR:195 Kh. NR:196 Kh. NR:199 Kh. NR:197 Kh. NR:161 Kh. NR:162 Kh. NR:158 Kh. NR:159 Kh. NR:160 Kh. NR:183 Kh. NR:215

grave 51

N 44:13

grave 56

P 43:40 P 43:41

grave 55 grave 62

Houses 10 grave 57 P 43:45 grave 65 grave 66

O 43:18

grave 72

P 43:33

grave 71

P 43:39

grave 69

O 42:8

grave 79

Houses 8

O 43:24

grave 80

Houses 7

P 43:53 P 43:33

grave 81 grave 83

Houses 9

Field Type No. B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.087.700 B.077.700 B.077.700 B.077.700 B.077.700 B.077.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.077.700b B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.076.700 B.087.700

Tab. 2. Data related to the occurrence of sfgs in the intra-mural burials from the Houses of Khafajah.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

57

foot.14 This assumption is not sustained by the analysis of the types of sfgs from graves and temples: an alternate or simultaneous use of the three sfgs variants (B.076.700, B.077.700b, B.087.700) is attested in these loci (Fig. 2:1–2). Again, this may be due to flaws in the documentation since data from the Hamrim sites and Jemdet Nasr indicate that Delougaz’s hypothesis may correspond to actual morphological trends. Turning to the Hamrin valley, goblets were retrieved in small numbers in the round building at Tell Gubba (VII), in domestic compounds (Gubba VI), in the cemetery of Kheit Qasim, and in the Ahmad al-Hattu settlement (Fig. 2:3–5).15 Notably, the goblets from Gubba level VI (Fig. 2:4) are bigger and with larger bases with respect to the forerunners retrieved in level VII (Fig. 2:5).16 The information from Jemdet Nasr is used below to shed more light on these trends. 2.1.2 Central Mesopotamia The evidence from Jemdet Nasr can be used to establish an evolutionary trend in the morphology of sfgs. According to R. Matthews the canonical sfg type is preceded by two forerunners: narrow-based cups (Fig. 3:1), and tall cups (Fig. 3:2–3), respectively attested in a rubbish dump (4C77, 4C88), and in a mud-brick building (4C45), providing two sequential snapshots.17 Stratigraphic evidence and associated material culture from the upper dump layers bolster Matthews’ interpretation of the dump as transitional JN-ED I (the dump covers a Late Uruk building), while the building 4C45—built above JN period deposits—probably marks the inception of the ED I period. Narrow-based cups are linked by Matthews to the specimens from Tell Gubba VII and Ahmad al-Hattu and defined as precursors of the proper sfg.18 Tall cups comparisons can be found with specimens from Abu Salabikh – West Mound, with the variant B.076.700, widely attested throughout the sequence of the Khafajah Houses graves (cf. Tab. 2), with a type of sfg from Nippur – In’anak X, and with the type JN.23 from Ur.19 As a whole, it seems that narrow-based cups can be considered true forerunners, while tall cups are probably better defined as morphological variations of full-fledged sfg.20 Data from Kiš are scanty. Sfgs were retrieved in sounding Y but only three Delougaz 1952, 57. On Tell Gubba cf. Fujii 1981, fig. 19: nos 5, 11; Ii 1993, fig. 31; on Kheit Qasim cf. Forest 1983, 136; and on Ahmad al-Hattu settlement Sürenhagen 2011, 16. Cf. also Renette 2010. 16 Fuji 1981, 159, and cf. Moon 1986, 113–114, figs 2.4, 2.6. 17 Matthews 1997, figs 5, 9. 18 Matthews 1997, 113. 19 Cf. respectively Postgate 1978, fig. 3:4; Delougaz, 1952, pl. 148; Wilson 1986, fig. 11: no. 1; Woolley 1956, pl. 56. 20 Cf. also Gruber 2015, 139, fn. 41. 14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

58

G. Benati

specimens have precise find-spots (Houses stratum I–II; levels 4a, 3b).21 All of them are of the full-fledged type. Of these, one specimen comes from a grave, while the other two were in domestic buildings that may be dated to the early/mid ED I period (F. Zaina p. c.). 2.1.3 Southern Mesopotamia The dataset from In’anak XII–IXA indicates that goblets were introduced in Level XII, reached a peak in level XI—therefore early in the ED I period—and then they gradually tapered off in levels X–IXB.22 It is worth noting that the one specimen illustrated, coming from Level X, resembles tall cups rather than full-fledged sfgs. A test pit also produced sfgs at Nippur in Area EA—seemingly from rubbish tips— and all of the full-fledged type (Fig. 3:9).23 This is however preliminary and partial information since final reports never appeared in print. A similar situation is observed at Ur, where sfgs were retrieved in two layers of the Pit F area (H–G), and in the debris of SIS 8, dating from the onset of the ED I on the basis of associated material culture and stratigraphy.24 Here sfgs seem to be concentrated at the very beginning of the ED sequence (Pit F–H). A somehow different picture emerges when turning to the burials of the so-called “Jemdet Nasr Cemetery” (hereafter JNC), long recognized as transitional or mostly ED I in date.25 Three variants of chalices have been distinguished (Fig. 3:6).26 JN.23 seems similar to the narrow-based cup of Jemdet Nasr and to the type B.076.700 of the Diyala, while JN.25 corresponds to the full-fledged type of sfg.27 A brief review of the dataset from the graves makes it clear that the “JN” burials in Pit X produced only specimens of type JN.23. Pit W graves mostly yielded type JN.23 goblets, but JN.25 examples appear in five graves.28 Overall, these data may suggest morphological variations over time that, however, cannot be precisely framed without a more thorough reanalysis of the JNC graves. Al-Hiba (ancient Lagaš) produced significant amounts of sfgs in well-stratified deposits excavated in Area G (levels IV-II), perhaps covering the first half of the ED I period (S. Renette p. c.). Superimposed floors of a building with probable administrative connotation yielded evidence of two types of goblets: one beaker with narrow foot and wide mouth and a slender beaker with high solid foot, perhaps sug-

Cf. Zaina 2012, tab. 1, fig. 6. Wilson 1986, 63 fn. 12, fig. 11:1. 23 Gibson / Armstrong / McMahon 1998, figs 9–11, 24:1–3. 24 Benati 2014, fig. 6:11. The Ur excavation archives and materials can be checked online here: http://www.ur-online.org/. 25 Cf. Kolbus 1983; Forest 1983. 26 Woolley 1956, pl. 56:JN.23, JN.24, JN.25. 27 Cf. Matthews 1997, fig. 5; Kolbus 1983, 16. 28 Cf. Woolley 1956, Appendix III; on Pit X see also Sürenhagen 1999, pl. 67. 21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

59

gesting a trend similar to that noted by Matthews and Delougaz (S. Renette p. c.).29 At Fara full-fledged sfgs were excavated in the sounding DE 48/39 in levels 3–5.30 Associated materials and stratigraphic data allow us to date these levels to the first half of the ED I period. The same goes for the specimens from Isin (Fig. 3:10), and Eridu – Palace Pit Levels IV–V (Fig. 3:8).31 Here one type of sfg is attested alongside a specimen resembling a narrow-based cup. Other sites in southern Mesopotamia produced significant evidence of sfgs, although without providing stratified sequences. At Isin and Sakheri Sughir sfgs came from horizontal digs.32 At Larsa sfgs were retrieved in large quantities in a small sounding in the northern area of the mound and, judging from the published drawings, they seem to be of full-fledged type.33 At Uruk, at least in one locus—a layer of pottery sherds located in operation OB 144—full-fledged specimens have been retrieved alongside examples resembling narrow-based cups.34 Sfgs were also retrieved in operation K/L 12/13 in levels 16 and 13 (= phases IV–III), that according to the excavators suggest a date between the early and the middle ED I period.35 Note however that according to the catalog, examples of sfgs came from locus 25 in phase V.36 Therefore the appearance of sfgs in this operation is in line with the general trend of southern Mesopotamia. In this case, both types of sfgs documented adhere to the full-fledged variant (Fig. 3:4).37 At Abu Salabikh large quantities of sfgs sherds have been found on the West (particularly in the central portion, levels I–II), East and Main Mound (Fig. 3:5).38 Careful sampling demonstrated that sfgs differ in the form of the foot and base, probably due to the production technique. A distinction between “genuine” sfgs and “tall cups” has been proposed by Postgate, who also hypothesized that genu-

The final reports of the six seasons of excavations carried out al-Hiba between 1968 and 1990 are being prepared at the University of Pennsylvania under the supervision of Holly Pittman. 30 Martin 1988, 21 Table 2, 176–177: no. 36. 31 Cf. respectively Sürenhagen / Wittmann 1992, pl. 53; and Safar / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, 298, 302 fig. 158: nos 62–63. 32 On Isin see Sürenhagen / Wittmann 1992; and on Sakheri see Wright 1969. 33 Calvet 2003, 28, fig. 3:N 34–35. 34 Lenzen 1965, 37, pl. 24b–d; Pongratz-Leisten 1988, 277 § h, 281, 289, nos 419–422. Also apparently in operations I 13, and K/L 12/13, cf. Nissen 1970, pl. 104: BT 2 and Pongratz-Leisten 1988, 303, fig. 1:2. 35 Cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1988, 194, 198, 211 nos 38–39. 36 Pongratz-Leisten 1988, 198; Gruber 2015, 137, fn. 25. 37 Note that in phases IV and V is also attested a type of conical beaker which closely resembles Matthews’ narrow-based cups, although cataloged as “flower pot” (cf. Pongratz-Leisten 1988, no. 26). In this case, narrow-based cups and sfg seem to be attested in the same phases. On the Blumentopf/flower pots see Gruber 2015, 136, fn. 22. Sfgs also came from a rubbish pit excavated in operation Ob XVI 4 (Gruber 2015, 137, fn. 25). 38 Moon 1987, 17; Postgate 1983, 48–52. 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

60

G. Benati Tell Asmar - “Abu”

Date JN

ED I

Earliest Early

Archaic I*–II

Middle

Archaic III***

Late

ED II

Archaic IV -Square I:1# Square I:2 Square II

Khafajah Śamuš Houses Below II 12–12 III 11** IV 10*** V*-VI* 9** 8* 7* VII VIII

6–4

Kiš -Y

Nippur In’anak

Pit F

1–2

XIV

K–I

XII*–XI***

H***

Ur

3* X* 4*

5-(6)

IXB–IXA* VIII#

G* F E ↓ (?)

SIS

8*** 7–6 5–4

Tab. 3. Main stratified sequences in Mesopotamia for the early 3rd millennium BC; * = sfg; # = statues holding cups (adapted from Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, tab. 14).

ine sfgs may have remained in production longer than the tall cups, following the suggestion by Delougaz.39 This hypothesis has been rejected by Moon due to the lack of stratified evidence.40 Few sfgs are among the grave goods retrieved from the burials of the Tell al‘Ubaid cemetery.41 According to the re-analysis carried out by H. Martin, sfgs have been detected apparently only in two graves, alongside spouted jars and conical bowls.42 All things considered, in Mesopotamia goblets seem to be concentrated in the first half of the ED I period and perhaps produced in at least two variants. In spite of the fact that full-fledged sfgs are found in all cases taken into consideration, stratified sequences attest that the peak of production may have been at the onset of the ED I period, and not at the middle, as suggested by Delougaz (cf. Tab. 4). It must be stressed however that the evidence from southern Mesopotamia is in a sorry state due to the lack of final publications of the major stratified sequences and to the inadequate collection methods adopted in the field. 3. Material Patterning of Consumption Activities In this section, contextual information is revised in order to eventually highlight use patterns for goblets. Table 4 makes it clear that goblets in Mesopotamia are most frequently attested in domestic contexts, or in refuse connected to dome-

Postgate 1983, 46, figs 16a–c. Moon 1987, 17. Cf. also Gruber 2015, 140 fn. 46. 41 Hall / Woolley 1927, pl. LV: type VII. 42 Martin 1982, tab. 1. 39 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

Domestic

Refuse

Supra-domestic/ Institutional/

Cultic

61

Funerary

elite

Isin – SA II (Houses I-II)

Isin – SA II (refuse pits)

Ur – Pit F (H-G)

Ur – SIS 8 (rubbish tips)

Ur – JN cemetery (Pits W–X) Tell al-‘Ubaid (gr. 10, 55)

Nippur – In’anak XII (-XI-X?)

Nippur – Area EA (rubbish tips)

Uruk – K/L 12/13, I 13

Uruk – Ob XVI 4 (refuse pit)

Nippur – In’anak (IXA?)

Tell Asmar Abu (Arch. III, I)

Agrab – Houses Hill B

Khafajah Śamuš (V-VI)

Khafajah – Houses (10/9) Kish – Y (3b, 4a) Jemdet Nasr – 4C45

Khafajah – Houses (11–7) Kiš (Y, G433)

Jemdet Nasr – 4C77, 4C88 (dumps) Al-Hiba – Area G (?)

Sakheri Sugir Fara – Area DE 38/39 (lev. 3–5) Abu Salabikh

(WM, 2G03–04) Ahmad al-Hattu settlement, Tell Gubba (VI)

Abu Salabikh (WM, 2G33, 2G79– 99, refuse deposits)

Abu Salabikh (NE mound, gr. 160) Tell Gubba, round building (VII)

Kheit Qasim

Tab. 4. Contextual distribution of footed chalices in Mesopotamia.

stic activities. Goblets are also frequent in burials and they occur in some cultic contexts. It must be stressed however that a rich understanding of the contexts is hindered by several factors: 1) floor assemblages are sporadic due to the systematic depletion of buildings, therefore pottery often comes from secondary contexts (refuse deposits) that are seldom excavated with care; 2) precise sherd counts are almost never provided in the reports; 3) overall lack of specific methodologies for investigating household contexts; 4) little or no investigation of the unbuilt spaces between houselots, where trash can usually be detected. For these © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

62

G. Benati

reasons, information on the in situ use of goblets is regrettably meager. These limitations notwithstanding, a brief review of significant contexts follows below. 3.1 Household Contexts (House Floor Assemblages and Domestic Refuse) In Mesopotamia, sfgs have been retrieved within domestic compounds in almost all the sites that produced evidence of this ceramic type.43 The buildings excavated at Isin – Süd-Abschnitt II are multi-room compounds equipped with open spaces and productive installations. House I seems a high-level tripartite household with a large central space, indoor and outdoor (cooking?) facilities. Many sherds of sfgs and bowls have been detected discarded in pits filled with ash (secondary deposition), and in the fills excavated in the courtyards of House I and House II (primary deposition).44 These loci produced ca. 200 whole sfgs and 160 “flower pots.”45 As indicated on the map, bowls and sfgs had been discarded separately in refuse pits, while these wares are attested together in the courtyards fills. This evidence suggests that food-related activities probably took place in courtyards using mass-produced service wares that were then disposed of in trash pits alongside ash. Different modalities of garbage disposal can be distinguished in Mesopotamia: small amounts of trash were disposed of in pits within the domestic compounds—as is the case of the abovementioned Isin houses (and perhaps Abu Salabikh WM and Uruk – Ob XVI 4)—or in the streets. Clutter refuse on the other hand was discarded in dumps usually located in open unbuilt spaces or at the borders of the settlement.46 This is the case of the SIS 8 layer at Ur, the dumps excavated at Jemdet Nasr, and likely the rubbish tips detected in operation EA at Nippur.47 In all the cases mentioned, sfgs sherds are retrieved in ashy layers, probably originated from periodical sweeping of house floors and cooking facilities. At Jemdet Nasr, narrow-based and tall cups have been retrieved in context, while full-fledged sfg only on the surface. Tall cups have been detected in situ in the corner of room pertaining to a plano-convex brick building, probably a large courtyard-house (4C45).48 The room was littered with sherds, complete ves In the House levels of Khafajah only one specimen of sfg was detected on a house floor (cf. Tab. 1). Sfgs in household contexts are documented on the Hill B of Tell Agrab where multi-room compounds with productive installations have been excavated (Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, 269, pl. 50A). The contextual information given in the reports is regrettably meager due to the careless collection methods, and no room-by-room analysis can be actually carried out. 44 Sürenhagen / Wittmann 1992, plan 12. 45 Sürenhagen / Wittman 1992, 35, pls 53–54. 46 Cf. Matthews / Postgate 1994. 47 On Ur see Woolley 1956, 79; on Nippur see Gibson / Armstrong / McMahon 1998, fig. 11. 48 Matthews 1989, fig. 9; 1990, fig. 8. 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

63

sels, clay lumps, clay sealings, and tools, pointing to food processing, serving, and other domestic activities.49 Narrow-based cups came from rubbish dumps (4C77, 4C88), containing also large quantities of clay sealings and ash.50 Sakheri Sughir is the only small-scale site affording evidence from this time period in southern Mesopotamia and therefore it deserves consideration. Wright noted interesting distributional patterns on the occurrence of cups.51 Narrow cups (i.e. sfgs) seem to be concentrated in a room equipped with ovens, a grinding slab, and a hearth, while in a different compound a rectangular room with a hearth yielded an assemblage dominated by wide cups.52 According to the excavator, this may indicate either a decrease in popularity of narrow cups or functional variations (in case the two compounds are not contemporary).53 3.2 Funerary Contexts According to the overview of the early 3rd millennium BC funerary customs provided by S. Canullo, food containers seem to be the most attested items among the grave goods.54 This author noted that sfgs, conical bowls and spouted jars are consistently associated in the Khafajah (Houses 11–8) burials, and on the benches outside the graves at Kheit Qasim.55 In this case, remains of consumption detected at Kheit Qasim are interpreted as material correlates of funeral feasts performed near the graves.56 Similar considerations can be extended to the graves goods from the JNC at Ur, where tumblers, bowls, spouted jars, wing-lugged jars, goblets and “ink pots” dominate the assemblages. The repertoire of ceramics from the graves reflects—to some extent—household assemblages and particular emphasis on the drinking equipment results from the survey proposed above. It is self-evident that food consumption played a pivotal role in the symbolic sphere of funerary rituals, be that as offerings for the dead in the netherworld or funerary feasts carried out by the living before the interment. 3.3 Cultic Contexts Well-documented cultic contexts are the Abu shrine at Tell Asmar and the Śamuš temple at Khafajah. Sfgs came from the cella (D 17:10) of the Abu Archaic I level, while a locus in level III (D 17:26), a small room adjoining the cella of the tem-

Matthews 1989, 244, figs 7–8; Matthews 1990, 31, fig. 9. Matthews 1989, fig. 6; 1990, figs 10–11. 51 Wright 1969, 77. 52 Wright 1969, figs 11–12. 53 Cf. also Gruber 2015, 130–131. 54 Canullo 2010. 55 Canullo 2010, 6. 56 Cf. Forest 1983, 136. 49 50

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

64

G. Benati

ple, produced more than 600 goblets.57 J. Evans on the basis of the position of the repository, located near an altar equipped with a jar set in the floor, inferred that sfgs were used to pour libations on it.58 However, one may speculate whether this deposit can be considered a proper “feasting midden” or not.59 In the Śamuš temple level V (and VI) sfgs were detected in open courtyards. In Level V in and around two large kilns, indicating in situ manufacture of such specimens.60 This is probably the only sfgs production context so far detected in Mesopotamia. Notably, the use of sfgs in such contexts is backed by the retrieval of hoards of sculptures portraying worshippers—both males and females—holding cups, resembling very closely sfgs (cf. Tab. 3).61 In this light, Evans theorized a shift of cultic practices. In a first phase temples were accessed by worshippers that poured libations on the altars with sfgs, then, access to the temples’ sancta was restricted and statues replaced human worshippers.62 According to the re-analysis of the contexts of provenance of the statues carried out by N. Marchetti, statues bearing cups come from a favissa likely pertaining to Abu – Square I:1 (or perhaps Archaic IV).63 Given that the statues were ritually buried once their life cycle expired, and are therefore retrieved in secondary deposition, we cannot be entirely sure about the level in which the statues were actually dedicated (we can only single out the moment in which the statues were buried). This entails that we cannot rule out the possibility that statues and sfgs had been used simultaneously in the Abu Archaic temple. A statue fragment of worshipper holding a cup also comes from the “Earlier” level of the Šara temple at Tell Agrab, but no sfgs have been detected in this temple.64 3.4 Supra-Domestic Contexts Evidence on supra-domestic and elite consumption is not available for Mesopotamia.65 In the Hamrin valley, goblets have been retrieved in the round building ex-

Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, pl. 20b. Evans 2012, 152–155. 59 Twiss 2008, 419. 60 Cf. Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, 34, pls 5a–6. 61 Cf. Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, 19 fn. 12. 62 Evans 2012, 155–158. 63 Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, 11–33, pl. 2:4. 64 Evans 2012, fig. 50. For the In’anak temple sequence at Nippur the only published findspot of sfgs is a “bin” in Level X (locus 272; cf. Wilson 1986, 86). It is important to note that the presence of a sanctuary is documented with some certainty only from Level IXB onwards (Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, 34 fn. 67). The remains below IXB indicate domestic and productive activities (cf. Zettler 2011, 275–276). 65 The only context which may have supra-household/institutional overtones in Mesopotamia—as far as the find-spot of sfgs is concerned—is Area G at al-Hiba. However 57 58

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

65

cavated at Tell Gubba (level VII).66 A part from some specimens retrieved in pits and in the fillings of the moat encompassing the building, most of the goblets from this level came from the inner part of the structure (corridors 2–3). The storage jars with carbonized seeds and working tools assemblage retrieved here indicate that the corridors were used as storage facilities, and perhaps as working spaces.67 4. Discussion: Solid-Footed Goblets’ Social Life in Early 3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamia The archaeological overview offered above suggests two main areas of use of footed chalices during the early 3rd millennium BC in Mesopotamia. The first sphere is the Hamrin valley, where goblets seem to appear at the transition between JN and ED period, or at the very inception of the ED I period.68 The second sphere is the Mesopotamian alluvium—comprised between the Lower Diyala valley and the Ur-Eridu region—where narrow-based cups appear at the onset of the ED I period, develop into tall slender footed chalices at the mid of the ED I, and then decrease dramatically, dropping out of the picture during the late ED I. In the alluvium, the goblets are clearly mass-produced and standardized. In the Hamrin valley, on the other hand, goblets are sporadic and not mass-produced, although morphologically connected to Mesopotamia. This area—probably inhabited by mobile pastoralist groups and small farming communities— functioned both as nexus and cultural border between the Zagros highland, the Iranian lowlands, and Mesopotamia.69 As far as pottery production is concerned, the inception of the ED period in the Mesopotamian alluvium is characterized by a major change, consisting of the shift from the polychrome horizons of the JN period to unpainted utilitarian wares. This pattern applies only in part to the Lower Diyala and the Hamrin where the “Scarlet Ware” painted ceramics virtually carry-on the tradition of polychrome ceramics of the JN period, but now within assemblages mostly characterized by unpainted utilitarian wares.70 The aggregate choices reflected in the dissemination of standard drinking vessels in the archaeological record may indicate dominant consumption processes nothing specific can be said without the final reports. Fujii 1981, figs 5–6, 64; Ii 1993, 224, fig. 1. Cf. also Émery 2005. 67 Renette 2010, 84. 68 Cf. Renette 2013, fig. 1. The Deh Luran plain and the Susiana region offer evidence of footed goblets in JN/Proto-elamite phases (cf. Sürenhagen 2011) that may be connected to a tradition established during the post-Uruk period in northern Fars (cf. Nicholas 1990, pls 13m–bb, 22a–c; Sumner 2003, fig. 22). Since no clear connection can be established between the Mesopotamian and the Iranian goblets without reviewing in detail the evidence from the Proto-elamite Iran, the issue is not addressed in this paper. 69 Renette 2010; 2013. 70 Thuesen 1987a; 1987b. 66

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

66

G. Benati

in the societies taken into examination.71 The high-level demand for standard drinking vessels during the first part of the ED period may therefore be connected to an upscaling of particular forms of beverages consumption. The contextual distribution of sfgs indicates that such devices occur in supra-household, funerary, and cultic contexts, but predominantly in households. This evidence, combined with the imagery from visual media, suggests that sfgs were not socially or gender restricted and moved across social arenas. In this case, a strong correlation between feasting behavior and the consumption of beverages can be inferred. Hence, goblets probably became socially valued goods used in domestic as well as collective forms of commensality.72 Given the importance of beer for the Mesopotamian diet, it seems straightforward to associate mass consumption of beverages with beer. However, due to the lack of chemical analysis of the residues, the association between sfgs and beer is only hypothetical. If beer was indeed consumed by using goblets, then it should have been filtered beer. Visual sources from early Mesopotamia and ethnographic evidence from agrarian societies indicate that unfiltered beer was/ is consumed by dipping long straws into ceramic vessels in order to penetrate the yeast floating on the surface.73 As attested by grave goods and housefloor assemblages, items related with feasting include objects that may have been used on a daily basis (spouted jars, bowls, stands, etc.). Therefore, contexts in which everyday items are retrieved in abundance, exceeding the household production levels, may be interpreted as potentially engaged in organizing feasts more frequently (i.e. frequent hosting of large feasts involves investment in feasting paraphernalia).74 In this case, wealthy households (Isin, Ur), and religious institutions (Abu temple), may have been engaged in substantial feasting practices. However, we have very little elements at disposal for assessing archaeologically food behavior in early Mesopotamia, be it daily consumption or ritual feasts. In agrarian societies, feasting events are paramount and may take place at different social and spatial scales, spanning from regular household production to large centrally sponsored lavish feasts.75 Feasting provide arenas for pursuing several socio-political and economic strategies: a) mobilize labor; b) negotiate social statuses; c) exchange wealth; d) create solidarity networks. Cf. Costin / Earle 1989; Twiss 2008, 419–422, tab. 1. Spielmann 2002. 73 Katz / Voigt 1986, figs 6a, 7; Dietler / Herbich 2006, 399, figs 1, 4; Marchesi / Marchetti 2011, pls 58–61. 74 Cf. R. L. Adams 2004, 67, 72; ethnoarchaeological studies attest that in some societies there is a good correlation between feasting scale and the presence of feasting utensils. However, we have no idea of how an average household cooking equipment would look like for this phase of Mesopotamian history. It is therefore difficult to evaluate the scale of the events taken into consideration. 75 Dietler 1996, 92–96. 71 72

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

67

Although different occasions (funerals, weddings, cultic festivals, etc.) may correspond to different feasting patterns, ethnoarchaeological studies indicate that feasts usually have a variety of functions.76 The scale of the ceremony, the wealth of the host and the distance between host and guests are the main indicators for correctly framing the nature of feasting events. Labor attraction mechanisms are particularly meaningful for this paper since little attention has been devoted in Mesopotamian literature to the “work feast” model.77 In farming communities the basic units of production are kinship groups.78 A common way for pooling labor is via organizing festive-labor parties, where a group of men or women works for the benefit of a host who in exchange provides food and drinks.79 Cooperative work feasts are not only fundamental for mobilizing inter-household labor flows during labor shortages, sustaining de facto domestic units, large-scale work groups for public undertakings can also be organized this way.80 According to Dietler and Herbich, two types of working feasts can be distinguished: the voluntary form in which participants (usually of equal socio-economic status), are drawn by the host’s reputation; and obligatory feasts, or corvée labor, where there is institutional authority. Notably, also corvée labor reflects the work feast scheme. Waged labor may represent a third way beside work feasts and corvée. In this case, workers are paid through fixed allotments of goods, mainly foodstuffs (plus eventually daily meals). People that do not possess the means to work their land, or that do not hold land, usually make themselves available for waged labor. Ethnographic research demonstrates that all these systems are often attested simultaneously.81 In addition to sheer hands multiplication, these are avenues for the creation of prestige and social capital.82 Though most household are able to engage in some sort of feasting, large-scale feasts require planning, manpower, and surplus of agricultural produce. Hospitality is therefore often exploited by the wealthy as strategy to build prestige and social inequality. Those without initial “capital” (the means to provide food and beer), are excluded from the cycle and reduced to be guests/workers. In this light, one can assume that beer was not only an essential element of the early Mesopotamian diet, but it may also have been a key element to mobilize collective work and produce social changes.83 Within centralized institution-

Cf. Clark 2001, 151. Cf. Dietler / Herbich 2001. 78 Şaul 1983; Ur 2014; Wilk / Netting 1984. 79 Adams 2004, 62; Kennedy 2012, 147; Şaul 1983, 77, 79. 80 Dietler / Herbich 2001, 244–246, 257. 81 Şaul 1983. 82 Dietler 2001, 80. 83 Şaul 1983. Beverages are often distributed during the work, while food is usually served at the end of the event (1983, 81–82) as a fullfillment of the host’s obligation towards 76 77

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

68

G. Benati

al frames, work mobilization may have taken the form of waged/corvée labor; while at household level, work feasts may have been the main system to mobilize short-term labor. In both cases, consumption of filtered beer through goblets probably was the focus these events.84 As demonstrated by Şaul labor patterns have differential costs. Cooperative labor tends to be inefficient and expensive, both in terms of immediate costs for provisioning food, and in terms of future engagement in other work-party networks (there is obligation to reciprocate work). Also, work feasts usually involve copious amounts of alcohol leading to general intoxication, which lowers the quality of the work carried out. Wage labor is generally cheaper and more efficient but it depends on the availability of paid workers. Although both modes accrue return of value for sponsors, waged labor is more affordable for large land-holders and provides the means to extact large surpluses. This may explain why institutions and large households adopted this model, as attested by the written records issued by institutional bodies in Mesopotamia. Early 3rd millennium BC written sources (mainly from Ur), in fact indicate the presence of large households, or institutions, functioning as social, religious and economic hubs. The activities of these economic nodes were financed by mobilizing labor and staple products, and within this frames beer is certainly one of the most valued provisions.85 Feasts involving the consumption of food and beverages are also explicitly mentioned in these sources.86 Pictorial evidence on feasting activities comes from a variety of seals and seal impressions, mainly from Ur, Nippur and Fara.87 The sealings from Ur in particular depict haphazard compositions with males and females engaged in drinking (both seated and standing), playing musical instruments, serving beverages, dancing and having sexual intercourses.88 5. Conclusive Remarks Overall, the archaeological record associated with the sfgs and the sociological instances analyzed above suggest that feast patterns in early 3rd millennium the workers. Notably, the administrative records of the Ur III period attest that beer was used as means to pay occasional or short-term labor (cf. Neumann 1994). 85 Cf. Earle 2002, 1–42. 86 Burrows 1935, 18 § N; Lecompte 2013, 11–12. 87 Cf. respectively Legrain 1936, nos 169, 368–374, 377, 381–384 [all from SIS 5/4 or connected discards]; Zettler 2011, figs 2–3 from In’anak XI; Martin 1988, nos 225–226 from Id dump. 88 As stressed by S. Renette (2014, 77), the ED I glyptic imagery is in stark contrast with the ED III “banquet scenes,” characterized by highly homogeneous and canonized compositions. 84

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

69

central and southern Mesopotamia may resemble a form of commensal politic defined as entrepreneurial feast by M. Dietler, a mechanism designed to create informal political power (i.e. prestige) and economic advantage.89 This entails that hospitality, rather than authority from formalized status and roles, was probably a key strategy for influencing group behavior. The common denominator in this case was probably the consumption of filtered beer through mass-produced serving vessels. Competitive commensal politics of this sort sort may suggest flexible power relations and, perhaps, the absence of fixed hereditary roles for this specific time period. Further work on the socio-economic patterns of early 3rd millennium Mesopotamia is however required to test these assumptions. This paper attempted in the first place to provide a more detailed analysis of the contexts of provenance of footed chalices in Mesopotamia. Then, empirical and theoretical lines of evidence have been used to propose an alternative model for connecting labor flows and commensality in early 3rd millennium BC. Within a framework in which hospitality is instrumental for creating power relations, changes seen in the production and use of special serving paraphernalia are important for looking at shifts in socio-economic trajectories.90 Much work needs to be done on the feasting landscape, as well as on food behavior, of early Mesopotamia, especially linking feasting with the economics of production. Bibliography Adams, R.L., 2004: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Feasting in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23/1: 56–78. Benati, G., 2014: The Beginning of the Early Dynastic Period at Ur. Iraq 76/1: 1–17. Burrows, E., 1935: Archaic Texts (UET 2). London / Philadelphia. Calvet, Y., 2003: Un niveau protodynastique à Larsa. In J.-L. Huot (ed.): Larsa: travaux de 1987 et 1989. Beyrouth. Pp. 23–34. Canullo, S., 2010: Funerary Customs in Central and Southern Mesopotamia during Early Dynastic I and II: A Study on Ritual Behaviour. Mesopotamia 54: 1–11. Clark, J.M., 2001: Akha Feasting: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In B. Hayden / M. Dietler (eds): Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DC. Pp. 144–167. Costin, C.L. / Earle, T.K., 1989: Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflected in Changing Patterns of Consumption in Late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity 54/4: 691–714. Delougaz, P., 1952: Pottery from the Diyala Region (OIP 63). Chicago. Delougaz, P. / Lloyd, S., 1942: Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region (OIP 58). Chicago.

Dietler 1996, 92–96. Cf. Hayden 2001, 54–58.

89 90

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

70

G. Benati

Dietler, M. 1996: Feasts and Commensal Politics in the Political Economy: Food, Power and Status in Prehistoric Europe. In P. Wiessner / W. Schiefenhövel (eds): Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford. Pp. 87–125. –– 2001: Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and Power in African Contexts. In M. Dietler / B. Hayden (eds): Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DC. Pp. 65–114. –– 2006: Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 35/1: 229–249. Dietler, M. / Hayden, B. (eds), 2001: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Experiences on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DC. Dietler, M. / Herbich, I., 2001: Feasts and Labor Mobilization. Dissecting a Fundamental Economic Practice. In M. Dietler / B. Hayden (eds): Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DC. Pp. 240–264. –– 2006: Liquid Material Culture: Following the Flow of Beer among the Luo of Kenya. In H.-P. Wotzka (ed.): Grundlegungen. Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K. H. Eggert. Tübingen. Pp. 395–407. Earle, T.K., 2002: Bronze Age Economics: The Beginnings of Political Economies. Cambridge, MA. Émery, A., 2005: La construction ovoïde de Tell Gubba dans le bassin du Hamrin, Iraq (début du IIIe millénaire): une nouvelle restitution architecturale. Paléorient 32/2: 137–156. Evans, J.M., 2012: The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture. An Archaeology of the Early Dynastic Temple. Cambridge. Forest, J.-D., 1983: Les pratiques funéraires en Mésopotamie du 5e millénaire au début du 3e, étude de cas. Paris. Fujii, H., 1981: Excavations at Gubba, Sungur and Hamediat (Preliminary Report). Al-Rafidan 2: 3–237. Gibson, McG., 1981: Uch Tepe I. Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat (Hamrin Report 10). Copenhagen. Gibson, McG. / Armstrong, J.A. / McMahon, A., 1998: The City Walls of Nippur and an Islamic Site Beyond: Oriental Institute Excavations, 17th Season, 1987. Iraq 60: 11–44. Gruber, M., 2015: “… somewhat smaller and shallower.” The Development of Conical Bowls in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. In R. Dittmann / G.J. Selz (eds): It’s a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s) (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 15). Münster. Pp. 129–168. Hall, H.R. / Woolley, C.L., 1927: Al-‘Ubaid: a Report on the Work Carried out at al-‘Ubaid for the British Museum in 1919 and for the Joint Expedition in 1922–3 (UE 1). London / Philadelphia. Hansen, D.P., 1965: The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia. Part II. The Pottery Sequence at Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the End of the Old Babylonian Period (3400–1600 B.C.). In R. W. Ehrich (ed.): Chronologies in Old World Archeology. Chicago. Pp. 201–213. Hayden, B., 2001: Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feast© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

71

ing. In M. Dietler / B. Hayden (eds): Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington DC. Pp. 23–64. Ii, H., 1993: Catalogue of Pottery from Tell Gubba: Level VII. Al-Rafidan 14: 209–265. Jennings, J. et al. 2005: “Drinking Beer in a Blissful Mood.” Alcohol Production, Operational Chains, and Feasting in the Ancient World. Current Anthropology 46/2: 275–303. Katz, S.H. / Voigt, M.M., 1986: Beer and Bread: The Early Use of Cereals in the Human Diet. Expedition 28/2: 23–34. Kennedy, J.R., 2012: Commensality and Labor in Terminal Ubaid Northern Mesopotamia. In S. Pollock (ed.): Between Feasts and Daily Meals: Toward an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces (eTopoi - Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volmue 2). Berlin. Pp. 125–158. Kolbus, S., 1983: Zur Chronologie des sog. Ǧamdat Naṣr-Friedhofs in Ur. Iraq 45/1: 7–17. Lecompte, C., 2013: Archaic Tablets and Fragments from Ur (ATFU) from L. Woolley’s Excavations at the Royal Cemetery (Nisaba 25). Messina. Legrain, L., 1936: Archaic Seal-Impressions (Ur Excavations 3). London / Philadelphia. Lenzen, H.J., 1965: XXI. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in UrukWarka: Winter 1962/1963. Berlin. Marchesi, G. / Marchetti, N., 2011: The Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (Mesopotamian Civilizations 14). Winona Lake. Martin, H.P., 1982: The Early Dynastic Cemetery at al-‘Ubaid, a Re-Evaluation. Iraq 44/2: 145–185. –– 1988: Fara: a Reconstruction of the Ancient City of Shuruppak. Birmingham. Matthews, R.J., 1989: Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1988. Iraq 51: 225–248. –– 1990: Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1989. Iraq 52: 25–39. –– 1997: After the Archive. ED I Occupation at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. Al-Rafidan 18: 109–117. Matthews, W. / Postgate, J.N. 1994: The Imprint of Living in an Early Mesopotamian City: Questions and Answers. In R. Luff / P. Rowley-Conwy (eds): Whither Environmental Archaeology? (Oxbow Monographs 38). Oxford. Pp. 171–212. Mills, B.J., 2007: Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72/2: 210–239. Moon, J., 1986: The Lower Diyala and the Hamrin Basin: Ceramic Relations During the Early Third Millennium. In U. Finkbeiner / W. Rollig (eds): Ğamdat Naṣr. Period or Regional Style? Papers given at a Symposium held in Tübingen November 1983 (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, 62). Wiesbaden. Pp. 112–119. –– 1987: Catalogue of Early Dynastic Pottery (Abu Salabikh Excavations 3). London. Neumann, H., 1994: Beer as a Means of Compensation for Work in Mesopotamia during the Ur III Period. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Sympo© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

72

G. Benati

sium held in Rome, May 17–19, 1990 (HANES 6). Padova. Pp. 321–331. Nicholas, I.M., 1990: The Proto-Elamite Settlement at TUV (University Museum Monograph 89; Malyan Excavation Reports 1). Philadelphia. Nissen, H.J., 1970: Grabung in den Quadraten K/L XII in Uruk-Warka. BaM 5: 101–191. Pinnock, F., 1994: Considerations on the “Banquet Theme” in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome, May 17-19, 1990 (HANES 6). Padova. Pp. 15–26. Pittman, H., 2012: Glypic Art of Konar Sandal South, Observations on the Relative and Absolute Chronology in the Third Millennium BCE. In H. Fahimi / K. Alizadeh (eds): NĀMVARNĀMEH. Papers in Honour of Massoud Azarnoush. Tehran. Pp. 79–94. Pongratz-Leisten, B., 1988: Keramik der Frühdynastischen Zeit aud den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. BaM 19: 177–319. Postgate, J.N., 1978: Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1977. Iraq 40: 77–86. –– 1983: The West Mound Surface Clearance (Abu Salabikh Excavations 1). London. Renette, S., 2010: A Reassessment of the Round Buildings in the Hamrin Valley (Central Iraq) during the Early 3rd Millennium BC. Paléorient 35: 79–98. –– 2013: The Trans-Tigridian Corridor in the Early Third Millennium BC. In K. De Graef / J. Tavernier (eds): Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009 (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse 58). Leiden / Boston. Pp. 43–50. –– 2014: Feasts on Many Occasions: Diversity in Mesopotamian Banquet Scenes during the Early Dynastic Period. In P. Altmann / J. Fu (eds): Feasting in the Archaeology and Texts of the Bible and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake. Pp. 61–86. Safar, F. / Mustafa, M.A. / Lloyd, S., 1981: Eridu. Baghdad. Şaul, M., 1983: Work Parties, Wages, and Accumulation in a Voltaic Village. American Ethnologist 10: 77–96. Spielmann, K.A., 2002: Feasting, Craft Specialization, and the Ritual Mode of Production in Small-Scale Societies. American Anthropologist 104: 195–207. Sumner, W., 2003: Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavatons at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran (University Museum Monograph 117; Malyan Excavations Reports 3). Philadelphia. Sürenhagen, D., 1999: Untersuchungen zur relativen Chronologie Babyloniens und angrenzender Gebiete von der ausgehenden ‘Ubaidzeit bis zum Beginn der Frühdynastisch-II-Zeit, I: Studien zur Chronostratigraphie der südbabylonischen Stadtruinen von Uruk und Ur (HSAO 8). Heidelberg. –– 2011: Urban Centers and Rural Sites in the Diyala Region during Early Dynastic I and II. Some Thoughts on Material Culture, Stratigraphy, and Relative Chronology. In S. Miglus / S. Mühl (eds): Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC (HSAO 14). Heidelberg. Pp. 5–28. Sürenhagen, D. / Wittmann, B., 1992: Die Grabung im Süd-Abschnitt II. In B. Hrouda (ed.): Isin-Išān Baḥrīyāt 4: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen, © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

73

1986‒1989. Munchen. Pp. 33–37. Thuesen, I., 1987a: Distributional Patterns behind the Scarlet Ware Tradition. In J.-L. Huot (ed.): Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie: La Mésopotamie préhistorique et l’exploration récente du djebel Hamrin: actes du Colloque international, Paris, 17‒18‒19 décembre 1984. Paris. Pp. 461–466. –– 1987b: Technical Analysis of Scarlet Ware Pottery from Mesopotamia. Paléorient 13/2: 123–131. Twiss, K.C., 2008: Transformations in an Early Agricultural Society: Feasting in the Southern Levantine Pre-Pottery Neolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27: 418–442. Ur, J., 2014: Households and the Emergence of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia. CAJ 24/2: 249–268. Wilk, R.R. / Netting, R.M., 1984: Households: Changing Forms and Functions. In R.M. Netting / R.R. Wilk / E.J. Arnould (eds): Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group. Berkeley, CA. Pp. 1–28. Wilson, K., 1986: Nippur: The Definition of a Mesopotamian Ğamdat Nasr Assemblage. In U. Finkbeiner / W. Röllig (eds): Ğamdat Naṣr. Period or Regional Style? Papers given at a Symposium held in Tübingen November 1983 (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients Reihe B, 62). Wiesbaden. Pp. 57–89. Woolley, C.L., 1956: The Early Periods: a Report on the Sites and Objects Prior in Date to the Third Dynasty of Ur Discovered in the Course of Excavations (UE 4). London / Philadelphia. Wright, H.T., 1969: The Administration of Rural Production in Ancient Mesopotamia (Anthropological Papers - University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, vol. 38). Ann Arbor. –– 1980: Problems of Absolute Chronology in Protohistoric Mesopotamia. Paléorient 6/1: 93–98. Zaina, F., 2012: Il sondaggio Y a Kiš: cronologia, stratigrafia ed architettura. In G. Guarducci / S. Valentini (eds): Il futuro dell’archeologia. Il contributo dei giovani archeologi. Roma. Pp. 195–204. Zettler, R.L., 2011: Banqueting and Music: An Early Dynastic I Sealing from Nippur. In W. Heimpel / G. Frantz-Szabò (eds): Strings and Threads. A Celebration of the Work of Anne Drafkorn Kilmer. Winona Lake. Pp. 275–286.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

74

G. Benati

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the sites cited in the article (based on NASA Blue Marble image December 2014 produced by Reto Stöckli, NASA Earth Observatory and obtained from NASA’s Earth Observatory, see http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=74518). For a more detailed map of the Hamrin sites see Gibson 1981, pl. 2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Solid-Footed Goblets and the Politics of Drinking

75

Fig. 2. Selection of goblets from the Lower Diyala and the Hamrin: 1) adapted from Delougaz 1952, pl. 148; 2) adapted from Delougaz 1952, pl. 46; 3) adapted from Forest 1983, fig. 5; 4) adapted from Fujii 1981, fig. 19; 5) adapted from Ii 1993, fig. 31.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

76

G. Benati

Fig. 3. Selection of goblets from central and southern Mesopotamia: 1) adapted from Matthews 1989, fig. 6 and Matthews 1997, fig. 5; 2) adapted from Matthews 1989, fig. 7 and Matthews 1998, fig. 9; 3) adapted from Matthews 1990, fig. 9; 4) adapted from Lenzen 1965, pl. 24; 5) adapted from Postgate 1983, fig. 16; 6) adapted from Woolley 1956, pl. 56; 7) adapted from Wright 1969, fig. 16; 8) adapted from Safar / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, fig. 158; 9) adapted from Gibson / Armstrong / McMahon 1998, fig. 24; 10) adapted from Sürenhagen / Wittmann 1992, pl. 53:2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit: On the Inscribed Cylinder Seal Florence Museum 85079 Again Marco Bonechi

The issues surrounding the modern studies and ancient history of the inscribed cylinder seal no. 85079 of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze (“Florence Museum 85079” in the following pages) are rather complicated and perplexing. This seal, bearing a cuneiform inscription, was made known to the scholarly community in three articles dated 1966. Since then, it has been republished and reanalysed in several studies, the latest of which is dated 2015. An examination of these studies clearly reveals how problematic are all the features it displays. And its discovery at Hagia Triada (Crete) in 1911 adds some rather thriller-like undertones to this object. As a matter of fact, both the figurative scene and cuneiform inscription of Florence Museum 85079 present very peculiar features, with the result that their date, meaning and reading have been the subject of debate. Furthermore, its Cretan context has led to the typical lack of coordination between scholars working in fields that are in fact complementary but separated academically, i.e., Near Eastern and Aegean studies. Moreover, the question of forgery has long hung over this seal. I hope that a comprehensive review of what has been written about this seal, followed by some suggestions on its nature, may be of some interest for Frances. 1. The Tangled Scholarly Biography of Florence Museum 850791 [1] In 1966, Paolo Emilio Pecorella publishes the photographs of the seal and its modern impression (Fig. 1).2 He briefly reports the discovery of Florence Muse1

2

This essay has been written in the framework of the activities of the Gruppo di Ricerca Interdisciplinare di Storia degli Studi Orientali (GRISSO) of the Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico (ISMA), CNR, Rome. I wish to thank Adelheid Otto, Nicolò Marchetti and Jean-Marie Durand, who read the manuscript and provided important insights. I am also grateful to Sebastiano Soldi, Amalia Catagnoti, Silvia Alaura, Marta D’Andrea, Silvana Di Paolo, Lucia Alberti, Maurizio Del Freo, Luca Girella and Angela Greco, who facilitated my research in various ways, and to Adam Thorn, who copy-edited my English text. Pecorella 1966. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

78

M. Bonechi

um 85079 by the Missione Archeologica Italiana in Creta, directed by Federico Halbherr, during its excavations at Hagia Triada more than a century ago: “Il sigillo, di forma cilindrica, in serpentina nerastra, alto mm. 35,5, con diametro di mm. 16,5, fu rinvenuto [...] fra il 26 e il 29 giugno 1911 [...]. Nel diario di scavo mancano più precise notizie sulle circostanze del ritrovamento e non v’è alcuna indicazione circa la relazione dell’oggetto con gli strati della villa minoica.”3

Furthermore, Pecorella reports that Luigi Pernier showed the Florence seal to Arthur Evans, who considered it “un falso o meglio una imitazione cretese di un sigillo orientale,” but these interpretations are rejected by Pecorella, not least because according to him “la incisione del testo [cuneiforme]—e quindi questo—risulta corretta.” Pecorella also notes that “il sigillo, di fattura decentemente accurata, non è affatto consunto dall’uso,” and admits that, concerning the iconography and style of the figurative scene, “nonostante la più accurata e minuziosa ricerca, non si è rinvenuto un solo confronto calzante tale da permettere di stabilirne provenienza e datazione palmari.”4 Pecorella concludes that the seal: “anche se presenta caratteristiche non comuni rientrerebbe nell’ambito della glittica mesopotamica del II millennio a.C. e più precisamente nella tradizione della I dinastia di Babilonia.”5

In the same year, Paolo Sacchi publishes in SMEA 1 his study of the five-line cuneiform inscription of Florence Museum 85079.6 He reads and translates it as (1) dNanna-ma-an- / (2) -sum dumu ša-dAš- / (3) -tár-tùm ìr dŠul- / (4) -pa-è ù d / (5) Nin-ḫur-sag-gá, “Nanna-mansum figlio di ša-Aštartum servo di Šulpae e di Ninḫursagga.” He considers the name of the father “di tipo semitico occidentale,” notes several peculiarities in the shape of the signs, and remarks that the names of men and gods: “non sono scritti, come normalmente accade, uno per ogni rigo, ma senza interruzione. D’altra parte, anche se raro, questo tipo di scrittura è documentato. Cfr. per esempio A. Moortgat, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel, Berlino 1940, n. 557, p. 136.”

Sacchi concludes that “il sigillo potrebbe essere datato intorno al XIX o XVIII secolo a.C.”7 Pecorella 1966, 67; in the asterisked note, L. Banti is thanked “per le notizie sui diari di scavo di Luigi Pernier,” so Pecorella probably did not see the field notebooks. 4 Pecorella 1966, 68. 5 Pecorella 1966, 68. 6 Sacchi 1966. 7 Sacchi 1966, 74f. As Paolo Sacchi kindly informed me in a conversation in 2016, Karlheinz Deller suggested to him the comparison with the Berlin seal at Rome, near the entrance to the Pontificio Istituto Biblico. 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

79

[2] However, even before its 1966 publication by Pecorella and Sacchi, Florence Museum 85079 had attracted the attention of other scholars of the ancient Near East. Indeed, Wilfred Lambert mentions it,8 when discussing a seal then in a private Birmingham collection (Fig. 2): “This [i.e., the Birmingham 55 seal] is not an original of a good Old Babylonian gem cutter, or cutters if, as is probable, the man who carved the relief did not normally carve the inscription also. First, the seated figure’s head is lower than that of the standing one, and while this is anatomically correct, it is not what is done on well-cut seals. Secondly, the inscription runs not from top to bottom as it should, following old Sumerian scribal practice, but from bottom to top. In addition it is divided at points which are not permitted in properly done work. It is the common type: ‘X, son of Y, slave of the god Z,’ but the last sign in each case of the two personal names is put on the following line, and the determinative of the divine name is put on line 3, but the name proper on line 4. A superficial study may incline one to dismiss this as a fake, but such pieces have turned up in scientific excavations. In Crete in 1911 a cylinder seal was excavated which seemed Babylonian, but the inscription, like this one, was divided at the wrong points, and even the sign NIN was broken into two parts on different lines. See P. E. Pecorella and P. Sacchi, ‘Sigillo babilonese rinvenuto ad Haghia Triada’, Miscellanea Egeo-orientale, Rome (in press: communication of E. Sollberger). Similarly the collection of seals found in recent excavations in the Greek Thebes contains, in addition to pure Greek and pure Mesopotamian specimens, imperfect copies of Mesopotamian seals which may well have been done in Thebes or in some place between Mesopotamia and Greece, such as Cyprus or Crete. There are modern imitations of ancient Mesopotamian seals in which the inscription so far as it consists of genuine cuneiform signs, reads from bottom to top (Berytus VIII pl. V 75, 79-85; ibid. V pl. I 11). These can with good reason be dubbed ‘fakes’, but our seal [i.e. the Birmingham seal] has a quite different character and can with good reason be taken as an ancient copy of an Old Babylonian seal [my italics], probably made in Syria or some region further to the west.”9

Lambert’s remarks—of which Pecorella and Sacchi were clearly unaware when publishing their articles—are important for various reasons.10 They indicate that in Lambert 1966. Lambert 1966, 75f. 10 To those discussed below, one can add that Lambert indirectly informs us of the genesis of Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici. Conceived in Rome on 5 April 1965 and published in 1966 as a series within the Incunabula Graeca (SMEA Fascicolo I in fact corresponds to Incunabula Graeca volume XI – see the preface by Carlo Gallavotti, pp. 7f.), Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici was transformed into an autonomous journal only years later, see Mirjo Salvini’s “Avvertenza” in SMEA 29, 1992, pp. 5f. Therefore, before the series Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici, in 1965–1966 a Miscellanea Egeo-orientale was 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

80

M. Bonechi

1966 not only Karlheinz Deller but also Edmond Sollberger knew of the Florence seal. However, probably Lambert’s imprecise statement that the “the sign NIN was broken into two parts on different lines” (on this, see below) is ultimately due to Deller, who had discussed the seal with Sacchi in Rome. Also the crucial remark that the cuneiform inscription runs in an unorthodox manner from bottom to top, unnoticed in the two SMEA 1 articles, may well be due to Deller, since most probably Lambert had not seen (a reproduction of) the seal when he published his Iraq 28 article. Furthermore, Lambert’s remarks introduce Syria, Cyprus, Greece and Crete as places in which “an ancient copy of an Old Babylonian seal” with deviating features might have been made. Moreover, Lambert evokes the notion of the fake, which is simply not taken into account by either Pecorella or Sacchi, but then resolves the doubt by suggesting, at least for the comparable Birmingham seal, that it is an “ancient copy.” Incidentally, it is worth noting that Lambert uses the word “fake” not “forgery,” two notions to be distinguished according to Judith Lerner, for example, for whom fakes are “genuine works of art altered in some way to increase their value” while forgeries are “objects made in a particular style deliberately to deceive.”11 [3] Pecorella’s and Sacchi’s 1966 publications of the Florence seal are immediately integrated into broader pictures by scholars working specifically on the ancient Aegean cultural sphere: Hans-Günter Buchholz includes it in his 1967 list of cylinder seals from the Aegean,12 while Victor Kenna briefly discusses it in his 1968 study on the use of the cylinder seal in Crete, cautiously suggesting a Syrian origin.13 However, Florence Museum 85079 is soon submerged in the sea of specimens flooding the literature, and furthermore Lambert’s remarks are forgotten. For a long time, our seal then disappears from the scholarly horizon, except when it receives cursory mentions in 1980, by Halbherr and two of his collaborators, among the imported objects found at Hagia Triada,14 and above all by Eva Møller in the same year, with a clear and important lowering of its chronology: “there is [...] nothing to suggest a date earlier than the second half of the second millennium B.C. for this seal.”15

[4] More than twenty years after its editio princeps, with a new and better photograph of the impression (Fig. 3) and an excellent hand copy of the figurative scene (Fig. 4), the Florence seal surfaces again in 1988 thanks to its publication planned by the Centro di studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici, “che come gruppo qualificato di ricerca scientifica è stato costituito in seno al Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche e riconosciuto come tale fin dall’inizio del 1965 e provvisto di un congruo finanziamento” (Gallavotti, loc. cit.; my italics: how times have changed!). 11 Lerner 1980, 5. 12 Buchholz 1967, 154, no. 21a. 13 Kenna 1968, 334f. 14 Halbherr / Stefani / Banti 1977 [1980], 13 n. 4, “un sigillo assiro.” 15 Møller 1980, 100 n. 4. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

81

by Dietrich Sürenhagen and Hartmut Waetzoldt as no. 287 of volume XI of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel.16 Sürenhagen and Waetzoldt’s conclusions are that: “wegen der aufgezeigten Unstimmigkeiten sollte von einer Deutung der bildlichen Darstellung ebenso abgesehen werden, wie von der sicheren Annahme, dass es sich um eine autentische Siegellegende handelt. Die Datierung des Siegels in altbabylonischer Zeit ist durch den Gewandtyp gesichert, während babylonische Provenienz wegen der Kopfbedeckung der linken Figure eher unwahrscheinlich ist. Eine nordmesopotamische oder nordsyrische Herkunft liegt trotz fehlender eindeutiger Parallelen im Bereich des Möglichen.”17

The inconsistencies they discuss include the garments, gestures and identification of the two male figures, as well as the direction of the legend “von oben nach unten” and the shape of several cuneiform signs. Importantly, in Waetzoldt’s study, Sa-Aštartum disappears, being replaced by Ša?-dAš- / -tár {x}, considered to be perhaps the name of the mother of Nanna-mansum. Observing that “die Legende ist deutlich besser geschnitten als die Darstellung, möglicherweise von anderer Hand” and that “ist die Schreibrichtung der Legende ‘falsch’,” Waetzoldt also states: “Gewissermaßen einen geographischen Widerspruch zur ‘syrischen’ Spitzmütze der bildlichen Darstellung stellt die Nennung des Götterpaares Šulpae und Ninḫursang dar, da es der sumero-babylonisch Nippur Tradition entspricht. Auf altbabylonischen Siegeln ist es sehr selten belegt. Angesichts der Schwierigkeiten, die der Graveur bei Anbringung und Ausführung der Siegellegende offensichtlich hatte, is nicht auszuschließen, daß es sich um die Kopie einer ursprünglich vierzeiligen Legende auf einem anderen Siegel handelt, deren Erhaltungszustand nicht mehr der beste war.”18

A few years later, Sürenhagen and Waetzoldt’s study is recorded by Karlheinz Deller and Horst Klengel in their Keilschriftbibliographie, where its results are summarised as follows: “5-zeilige Siegellegende authentisch? Nordmesopotamische oder nordsyrische Herkunft?”19

[5] In the meanwhile, Sürenhagen and Waetzoldt’s publication clearly prompts Lambert’s immediate note brève in N.A.B.U. in 1988, in which he addresses, and Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, who quote Pecorella 1966 and Sacchi 1966. Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 299f. The Florence seal can now be accessed on the website of the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel, at http://arachne.unikoeln.de/arachne/index.php?view[layout]=objekt_item&search[constraints][objekt] [searchSeriennummer]=167534. 18 H. Waetzoldt in Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 299. 19 Deller / Klengel 1991, 112*. 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

82

M. Bonechi

solves, the problem of the second personal name, suggesting Bur-dEN.ZU.20 Only considering the peculiar features of the inscribed text, in this renewed study Lambert further remarks that: “there is nothing impossible in such work in the ancient world, though the product looks like a modern forgery. However, comparison with similar items in the Royal Ontario Museum published by T.J. Meek in Berytus VIII (1943– 44) pl. v and one published by the present writer in Iraq 28 (1966) pl. xix no. 55, at least raises the question when there is no exact detail preserved about the find spot in Hagia Triada. Such an item could have been salted in the excavations, or handed in as a surface find by a joker.”21

Using “forgery” now rather than “fake,” Lambert’s verdict is: “it is clearly a poor copy of an Old Babylonian seal [my italics].”22

[6] During the 1990s, Florence Museum 85079 is rarely discussed, and only by scholars working in the field of Aegean studies. In 1990, it is published by Connie Lambrou-Phillipson as no. 24 of her Orientalia. Unaware of the 1988 studies,23 she accepts the reading of the legend given in Sacchi 1966 and catalogues the object—drawn in a rather remarkable way (Fig. 5)—as “Babylonia. Old Babylonian Period, ca. 1900–1700.”24 A few years later, in 1994, the reading in Sacchi 1966 is also adopted by Eric Cline in his catalogue of oriental objects found in the Aegean.25 Then, in 2000, new and important information on the archaeological context of the discovery of Florence Museum 85079 is provided by Vincenzo La Rosa:26 “there is also the case of a North Mesopotamian or North Syrian Early Babylonian (18th–17th century BC) cylinder seal found at Hagia Triada, whose exact provenance was unknown (Pecorella 1966, 67. Cline 1994, 160‒161, no. 223). Thanks to the Halbherr and Stefani notebooks it may be attributed to a very late context, and to a room in the settlement now dated to an advanced phase of LM IIIA2 [In Halbherr’s excavation notebook (for the days 26–29 June 1911, indicated in the inventory of the Museo Archeologico di Firenze, where the Lambert 1988, where he also corrects himself, writing that “the sign EN was split at the end of line 2.” 21 Lambert 1988, 57. 22 Lambert 1988, 56. 23 She quotes Pecorella 1966; Buchholz 1967 and Kenna 1968. 24 Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 194. 25 Cline 1994, 160f. no. 223, “LM I (?)” (it becomes “LM I” p. 258). 26 La Rosa 2000, 89 and 93 n. 4 (in the framework of a discussion of an “imported prestigious artifact,” i.e., the “Hittite or Anatolian-Mesopotamian steatite sphinx, dated in the 16th–15th century BC (Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, 195, no. 28, pl. 82: “Asia Minor, LB, Hittite Period.” Cline 1994, 133, no. 10),” for which “we cannot rule out the possibility that the sphinx, as a prestigious artifact, was still in circulation during LM III”). 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

83

seal is stored) is written (sic): ‘Nel locale K al livello della soglia della porta si trova un cilindro di pietra verde assiro con figure di due uomini, una sfinge e una lepre. È un sigillo perforato longitudinalmente. Le figure sono molto rozze. Saranno per caso un’imitazione minoica di un cilindro assiro? Evans lo dichiara cretese, LM III’].”

Further important information is provided soon afterwards by Nicoletta Momigliano, who in 2002 publishes a letter sent on 21 March 1914 by Arthur Evans to Federico Halbherr (A.J.E. 9, now kept in the archives of the Accademia degli Agiati, Biblioteca Civica G. Tartarotti, Rovereto), in which the discoverer of Knossos writes: “I was very much obliged to you for the photographs & was also much interested in the impressions of the cylinder. I have delayed writing to you about it as I wanted to consult one or two authorities. I have now shown the impression to Mr. L.W. King of the British Museum—our first authority on Babylonian & Assyrian antiquities & also to Hogarth who has thorough knowledge of Hittite seals. They are both agreed that the cylinder is neither Mesopotamian [n]or Syrian. On the other hand certain features in the design seem to me definitely Late Minoan. The griffin with the two wings spread [...] recurs on a L.M. III steatite lentoid in my collection from Central Crete though the monster in that case is more contorted. The long-robed adorants seem to me represent the long robed class of Minoan priests (?). That the cylinder type was making way from the Middle of the Late Minoan Age in Crete is clear. There is the important Syrian example found in the Palace at Knossos—lapis lazuli mounted with gold—which apparently belongs to the Fifteenth century B.C. and to the last age of the Palace. A faience specimen of Syrian fabric but belonging to a later date was found in Tomb 66 at Zapher Papoura (L.M. III a). It is probably of Palestinian fabric. I have seen several specimens of L.M. III Cretan fabric & possess one of haematite. Late Mycenaean cylinders are also known. I should set down the Hagia Triada specimen as of Cretan fabric L.M. III.”27

This accurate missive clarifies that, three years after its discovery, Florence Museum 85079 was still considered of great importance by Halbherr and Evans, and also informs us that, in England, Leonard William King and David George Hogarth saw the photograph of its modern impression.28 While I have no idea if such a photograph still exists, in Italy and/or England, it is noteworthy that Evans studied our seal in depth and considered it a Cretan production. [7] After a rather long hiatus, punctuated by a passing mention by Margerita

Momigliano 2002, 308f. Following this identification due to Pietro Militello, and quoting Pecorella 1966; Sacchi 1966; Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988; Cline 1994; La Rosa 2000; Momigliano 2002, 308 n. 153 concludes that “all strongly suggest that the seal now in Florence is the one discussed in this letter.”

27 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

84

M. Bonechi

Jasink in 2009,29 the most recent publication of Florence Museum 85079, with a good photograph (Fig. 6), is the work of Candida Felli, who in 2013 discusses it as no. 27 in her catalogue devoted to the “glittica e altri oggetti di artigianato in pietra” of the Museo Archeologico di Firenze, as the first specimen in the section “Sigilli cassiti e mitannici.”30 As for the provenance of the seal, Felli recalls that it was bought in 1911, adding (p. 304, n. 12) that: “n. inv. 85079, buono d’ordine n. 1563 del 15/11/11 [...], risulta proveniente genericamente da Creta; si veda tuttavia [...] la scheda del n. 27, per una provenienza del pezzo dagli scavi di Haghia Triada. Luigi Pernier fu stretto collaboratore di Federico Halbherr a Creta e ispettore presso i ‘Musei, Gallerie e Scavi di Antichità’ di Firenze tra il 1902 e il 1916 [...]. Questo arrivo si colloca all’interno del flusso di materiali cretesi richiesti da Milani a Halbherr per arricchire la sezione di ‘antichità preelleniche’ del museo.”31

As for the dating of the figurative scene, it is significant that Felli proposes the “periodo cassita iniziale [...] fine XV–XIV sec. a.C.,” suggesting a close compositive and stylistic comparison with a seal, now in Oxford, published in the fateful year of 1966 (Fig. 7), corroborated by further links with seals of that dating discussed by Edith Porada and Donald Matthews: “per un esempio simile per composizione e stile si veda Buchanan 1966: 101, 102, tav. 38.560, sigillo cassita con influenza mitannica.”32 Felli further identifies a “scena di adorazione” in which the man on the left (“non è chiaro se la figura di sinistra, che appare ribassata rispetto al resto del sigillo, sia frutto di una rilavorazione successiva”) approaches the god on the right, and indicates a “produzione settentrionale,” adding that: “quindi l’intaglio sarebbe successivo all’iscrizione, datata fra XIX e XVIII sec. [...], come sembrerebbe indicare il braccio della figura di ds che copre una parte del limite sin della prima casella della legenda.”33

At the end of Felli’s study of Florence Museum 85079, its cuneiform inscription is briefly analysed by Giovanni Conti,34 who adopts the 1966 readings, transliteration and dating of Sacchi and points out a comparison with the legend of an Old Babylonian seal now in the Louvre and published by Louis-Joseph Delaporte in his Catalogue, on which see below.35 [8] To my knowledge, the most recent chapter in the scholarly history of Florence Museum 85079 is contributed by Santo Privitera, who discusses it in his Jasink 2009, 78, who quotes Pecorella 1966, “sigillo paleobabilonese.” Felli 2013, 331f. (where she quotes Pecorella 1966 and Lambrou-Phillipson 1990) and 386 no. 27. 31 Felli 2013, 304 n. 12. 32 Felli 2013, 331f. 33 Felli 2013, 331. 34 In Felli 2013, 332 and n. 12. 35 Delaporte 1923, A.428. 29 30

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

85

2015 book on the Late Minoan III Buildings in the Villaggio of Hagia Triada:36 “In a note written in late June 1911, Halbherr reports the discovery of ‘an Assyrian cylinder of green stone next to the threshold of the door in room K’, that is, next to the doorway between spaced (sic) b and d.37 This seal eventually found its way into the Archaeological Museum of Florence.38 According to Pecorella, it is an Old Babylonian cylinder seal of hematite, representing a divine conversation between two people, probably dated to the first Babylonian dynasty or shortly thereafter. At first, it could seem puzzling for such an old object to turn up on a much later pavement. By the time of the abandonment of the building the seal represented a (sic) heirloom at least five centuries old. This does not imply, of course, that it was still in use as an administrative devise (sic). As is well known, in fact, cylinder seals were seldom used in Minoan Crete: it may be that the seal from Edificio Ovest was a personal belonging, used for example as a talisman. On the other hand, seals can be almost ‘eternal’ objects. At Neopalatial Hagia Triada, for instance, a clay nodule from the Villa Reale was stamped by an Akkadian cylinder, which was already about eight centuries old when the settlement was destroyed in LM IB.”

[9] To sum up, four certain elements emerge from this enquiry into the modern history of Florence Museum 85079. They relate to the scholarly discussions of this seal, to the archaeological context in which it was found, to the figurative scene carved in it, and to its cuneiform legend. (a) Firstly, between 1911 and 2015, no fewer than 23 scholars—Halbherr, Evans, King, Hogarth, Pecorella, Banti, Sacchi, Deller, Sollberger, Lambert, Buchholz, Kenna, Møller, Sürenhagen, Waetzoldt, Lambrou-Phillipson, Cline, La Rosa, Momigliano, Militello, Felli, Conti, Privitera—saw, worked on and discussed our seal, albeit with different kinds of knowledge of the object and degrees of analysis. The large majority of these scholars have considered (mainly implicitly, though in Pecorella’s case explicitly) Florence Museum 85079 to be a genuine ancient artefact, notwithstanding several observed peculiarities. Only four scholars—Halbherr, Evans, Lambert and Waetzoldt—have taken into account the possibility that our seal might be an ancient copy, imitation, or even a modern forgery, in the following ways: – Halbherr in his 1911 excavation note in the field notebook wondered whether it could be a Minoan imitation of an Assyrian seal;39 – Evans implicitly considered an LM III Cretan imitation of an oriental seal in his

Privitera 2015, 120f. (who quotes Pecorella 1966 and La Rosa 2000). Privitera 2015, 121 n. 377 reports the passage published in La Rosa 2000, 93 n. 4, with the indication “Notebook XVII, 46.” 38 Privitera 2015, 121 n. 378: “It is no. 85079 in inventory of that Museum: Pecorella 1966.” 39 Pecorella 1966, 68; Momigliano 2002, 308 n. 153; Privitera 2015, 121 n. 377. 36 37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

86

M. Bonechi

1914 letter to Halbherr,40 an interpretation possibly added in 1914 by Halbherr in his 1911 excavation note in the field notebook;41 Evans’s early interpretation of our seal as a forgery is only reported by Pecorella 1966, 68 (“falso”); – Lambert at first explicitly considered an ancient copy of a previous seal because he knew that our seal had been found “in scientific excavations;”42 – Waetzoldt suspected that Florence Museum 85079 does not bear “eine autentische Siegellegende” and that its legend was a “Kopie” of that of a previous seal in bad condition, without clarifying whether such a copy was ancient or modern;43 – Lambert later deemed Florence Museum 85079 a “poor” copy of an Old Babylonian seal, becoming more sceptical about the possibility of its being an ancient copy (the same was true of the similar Ontario and Birmingham unprovenanced seals he cites), notwithstanding its provenanced status, given that it looked “like a modern forgery [...] salted in the excavations, or handed in as a surface find by a joker.”44 (b) Secondly, as now shown by the publication of the relevant passage in the field notebook by La Rosa and Privitera, at the end of June 1911, Halbherr and Pernier found our seal at the level of the threshold of the door in Room K of the Hagia Triada Edificio Ovest, and later (in 1914 rather than 1911, it seems) the photographs of the seal and its impression (?) were shown to Evans. Today, the Edificio Ovest is dated to LM IIIA1–245 or to LM IIIA2 only,46 that is, around 1420–1315 BC.47 However, what is reported in the notebook cannot remove all doubt concerning the genuineness of the Florence seal, since—as Lambert insinuated—one cannot exclude the possibility that some joker was lurking in the Italian trench at Hagia Triada, in late June 1911, intent on playing a prank at the archaeologists’ expense. Therefore, it remains certain that our seal existed in 1911 AD. How much older it is, the Hagia Triada notebook cannot tell us definitively. (c) Thirdly, the two scholars who dated the figurative scene of the seal to the Old Babylonian period—Pecorella and Sürenhagen—found no evident parallels in the rich glyptic documentation of the first half of the 2nd millennium. Instead, having observed that the figurative scene was carved after the cune Momigliano 2002, 308f. P. Militello apud Momigliano 2002, 308 n. 153; cf. Pecorella 1966, 68; Privitera 2015, 121 n. 377. 42 Lambert 1966, 75f. Actually, he dubbed the Birmingham 55 seal rather than the Florence Museum 85079 seal an “ancient copy of an Old Babylonian seal,” but his line of reasoning leads to my conclusion presented above. 43 Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 299. 44 Lambert 1988. 45 Privitera 2015, 121. 46 Momigliano 2002, 308 n. 153. 47 Manning 2010, 75; also Cline 1994, 7 and Van de Mieroop 2007, 260. 40 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

87

iform legend, Felli has suggested a comparison with a genuine cylinder seal currently dated to the Kassite period, and moved the figurative scene of Florence Museum 85079 forward to the period between 1420 and 1300, a dating that overlaps with the aforementioned 1420–1315 dating of the Hagia Triada archaeological context in which, according to Halbherr’s field notebook, the seal was found. For Adelheid Otto, too, the figurative scene of our seal does not have “anything to do with Old Babylonian.”48 (d) Fourthly, Lambert’s and Waetzoldt’s remarks on the aberrant arrangement and execution of the cuneiform legend are clearly correct and must supersede any other evaluation: the legend of Florence Museum 85079 is “poor” and “falsch.” 2. Disentangling Florence Museum 85079 – Investigation and Solution(s) [10] Let us now discuss Florence Museum 85079 in greater detail. Considering firstly its cuneiform legend, in my opinion its actual inscription must be distinguished from the underlying text, in the sense that the latter is fully understandable and can be dated, while, following Waetzoldt and Lambert, the former shows unexpected and aberrant features. According to Lambert, the actual inscriptions of the Florence Museum 85079 and Birmingham 55 seals run as follows: Florence Museum 8507949

Birmingham 5550

(1) dNanna-ma-an(2) -sum dumu Bur-dE (3) N.ZU! ìr dŠul(4) -pa-è ù! d (5) Nin!-ḫur-sag-gá

(1) Šu-dx(-x)(2) -ur? dumu x-x(3) -x ìr d (4) Nin-šubur

Their underlying texts are: Florence Museum 85079 (1) dNanna-ma-an-sum (2) dumu Bur-dEN.ZU (3) ìr dŠul-pa-è (4) ù dNin-ḫur-sag-gá

Nanna-mansum son of Būr-Sîn, servant of Šulpaʾe and of Ninḫursaĝa.

Personal communication in an email dated 3 November 2016. In her email Otto also writes: “A North Mesopotamian/Syrian origin seems to me improbable. I do not see any reason for this.” 49 Lambert 1988, 57. 50 Lambert 1966, 75. 48

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

88

M. Bonechi

Birmingham 55 (1) Šu-dDN (2) dumu PN (3) ìr dNin-šubur

Šu-DN, son of PN, servant of Ninšubur.

It seems to me that—in agreement with all the philologists who have discussed its actual inscription—the underlying text of Florence Museum 85079 can be dated to the (early) Old Babylonian period only. Furthermore, even if my quick prosopographical investigation aimed at finding a Nanna-mansum son of Būr-Sîn in other cuneiform texts has produced no results (though this negative outcome can be explained in various ways), the underlying text can only refer to a man whose origin is rooted in South Mesopotamian culture. This is because of the typology of the two personal names, and also because the two divine names can relate only to that culture. Indeed, Šulpaʾe was the god of Keš and Adab, in what had been Sumer, and his wife Ninḫursaĝa originated from the same area.51 The genuine actual inscription of the above-mentioned Louvre Old Babylonian seal (Fig. 8)52 bears a cuneiform text which is indeed comparable with the text of the legend of Florence Museum 85079, but, I must add, only with the underlying text of the latter: Delaporte CCO II A. 428 (1) A-wi-li-ia (2) dumu dŠul-pa-è-ba-ni (3) ìr dŠul-pa-è (4) ù dNin-ḫur-sa-gá.

Awīliya son of Šulpaʾe-bānī, servant of Šulpaʾe and of Ninḫursaĝa.

The composition of the figurative scene of this Louvre seal also recalls in general terms that of the Florence one (and note the star on the left in both the seals), but various elements differ, and I cannot prove that in the latter scene the god depicted is Šulpaʾe. However, while it is certain that the Louvre seal as a whole is a genuine specimen of southern Mesopotamian glyptic of the Old Babylonian period, the legend of the Florence seal displays two main mistakes: (a) Not being able to write in four lines a text that was routinely written in just four lines, the engraver of Florence Museum 85079 actually wrote an inscription of five lines. As a matter of fact, the engraver split four words into different lines, and this can happen in genuine seals, as seen in this edition of the legend of the aforementioned Kassite Berlin seal pointed out to Sacchi by Deller in 1966, provided by Henry Limet:53

Delnero 2012; Heimpel 2000. See Braun-Holzinger 1996, 347 and pl. 42, no. 1148, who suggests that the god depicted in the Louvre seal is Šulpaʾe. 53 Limet 1971, 62. 51 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

89

Moortgat Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel 557 “fNa-ru-ub-tum Narubtum dumu.mí Ba-na-a- fille de Banâ-ša-Adad ša-dIškur dam I-d[in ?] épouse de Idin (?) d Nin-sùn Ninsun dumu Da-áš-pi fils de Dašpi um.mi.a.nì.kasx(ŠID) employé aux comptes, ir11 dLugal.bàn.da serviteur de Lugalbanda d Nin.é.an.na et de Nin-éanna.” Besides this, one can recall for instance the unprovenanced late 3rd millennium Philadelphia seal CBS 5005,54 in which the two cuneiform signs ŠEŠ and AB, forming the geographical name Ur, are respectively written in lines 2 and 3. However, the unorthodox splitting into two parts of the single cuneiform sign EN in lines 2–3 of Florence Museum 85079 is to my knowledge without parallel, whether in other seal legends, in clay tablets or in other kinds of inscribed objects. (b) Even worse, the engraver oriented the text from bottom to top rather than from top to bottom, if the bottom of the impression of the actual engraved seal is determined by the feet of the two figures, and in doing so the engraver furthermore wrote from left to right and not from right to left as was normal, thus producing a mirror-like text if the text was engraved after the figurative scene.55 [11] But there is more. Besides those in the cuneiform legend, further grave anomalies characterise the Florence Museum 85079 seal. (c) First of all, as Otto has pointed out to me in her email, in our seal the person on the left, supposed to be the adorant, lifts his left hand rather than his right as is usual, and furthermore he is surrounded by indeterminate objects without parallels, while the headgear of the person on the right, supposed to be the god, has a shape that would have been impossible in Old Babylonian times. (d) Then, as the photographs show, in Florence Museum 85079 the left arm of the person depicted on the right covers the incised line that borders the first line of text between the signs NANNA and MA. This has been rightly interpreted by Felli as an indication that the inscription was engraved before the figurative scene (indeed, around four centuries before, if the inscription was made in the 19th–18th and the scene in the 15th–14th centuries). When, in ancient times, a cylinder seal was made ex novo in a workshop, the normal procedure was the

Frayne 1997, 65, with insights by Piotr Steinkeller. However, this topic remains in general rather complicated, considering for example (as Jean-Marie Durand reminds me) the knotty case of the genuine 18th century BC inscribed seal mentioning Išḫî-Haddu king of Qaṭna which has been reconstructed from sealings found at Mishrifeh (on its oddities see Morandi Bonacossi / Eidem 2006; Durand 2006 and Sasson 2010).

54 55

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

90

M. Bonechi

opposite: the inscription was engraved after the figurative scene.56 As a guide to understanding how 2nd millennium BC inscribed cylinder seals were materially produced, one can now refer not only to general studies on Near Eastern glyptic,57 but also to an extraordinary Mari letter recently published by Dominique Charpin.58 According to A.4344, written by the “goldsmith” (kuṭimmum) Ēressum-mātum to king Yasmaʿ-Haddu’s secretary Sîn-muballiṭ, having obtained a cylinder from a piece of stone, an “engraver” (bur-gul, purkullum) “cut” (naqārum) the figurative scene of the seal. Then the same or another engraver “wrote” (šaṭārum) its cuneiform text, from right to left and from top to bottom. To inscribe a legend, the engraver copied a text written on small clay tablets. Tablets of this kind have been found, some of which have been published years ago (Fig. 9).59 Normally, the engraver had to take care to copy the tablet’s text in mirror image on to the seal (nowadays on our computer screens we can simply use the “Flip Horizontally” command) in order to obtain an impression bearing the correct arrangement of cuneiform signs. As suggested by Felli60 in the case of Florence Museum 85079, a recutting could be posited.61 However, if so, the recutter who made the figurative scene of Florence Museum 85079 ignored the correct arrangement of the cuneiform text in the legend itself, because near its first sign (the DINGIR of dNanna-ma-an-sum) he wrongly put the feet of the person actually depicted on the right of the figurative scene instead of the head of the person on the left of the scene. If this happened in ancient times, the recutter must have been unable to read a cuneiform legend; if it happened in modern times, the recutter must have been a very unskilled forger. Anyway, disregarding the chronological distance between the engraving of the actual inscribed legend and of the figurative

On this, reference can be made e.g. to Porada 1981–1982, 55; Lambert 1983, 243; Collon 1986, 20 and 1987, 103, and Charpin 2016, 91. 57 E.g., Collon 1986, 20 and 1987, 100–107. 58 Charpin 2016, 87–92. 59 See Beckman 1988 and Feingold 2002. 60 See Felli 2013, 331f.: “non è chiaro se la figura di sinistra, che appare ribassata rispetto al resto del sigillo, sia il frutto di una rilavorazione successiva,” “quindi l’intaglio sarebbe successivo all’iscrizione, datata fra XIX e XVIII sec. [...], come sembrerebbe indicare il braccio della figura di ds che copre una parte del limite sin della prima casella della legenda.” In her 2016 email Otto writes: “The seal may well be an ancient fake, or a recut one. If the depiction on the cylinder was too worn, a local seal cutter may have recut the object in order to make it more attractive,” concluding that our seal may be “a very crude ancient forgery or a recut seal without any knowledge of Near Eastern iconography.” In his email dated 26 March 2017 Marchetti suspects a Late Bronze recutting and, also considering the irregularity of the background of the figurative scene, suggests that the two figures have been altered rather than badly copied. A recut was not taken into account either in Pecorella 1996 or in Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988. 61 On the recutting of cylinder seals see e.g. Collon 1987, 120–122. 56

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

91

scene of our seal, it seems reasonable to suppose that the alleged recutter repeated the vertical orientation of the previous figurative scene to be substituted. But this means that the incorrect reciprocal arrangement of the two elements of our seal had always characterised it, even before the alleged recut.62 [12] In summary, observing the photography and drawings of the Florence Museum 85079 seal, one can note four main aberrant features: (1) The text of the inscribed legend is engraved in a mirror-like manner, from bottom to top rather than from top to bottom, and from right to left rather than from left to right; (2) The figurative scene engraved after the legend is placed incorrectly in respect of the legend; (3) One cuneiform sign in the legend is split into two lines; (4) The putative adorant lifts his left rather than his right hand. At this point in the investigation, it seems to me that the many strange features of Florence Museum 85079 definitely indicate that this object is not a well-executed piece of 2nd millennium BC Near Eastern art, in the sense of a genuine work of a skilled engraver and a skilled recutter in two Mesopotamian ateliers between the early Old Babylonian and Kassite periods, even if everything in this seal—text and iconography—derives from that cultural world. Accordingly, in a first approximation, one of the two following explanations must be taken into account: we have a modern forgery or an ancient forgery, in either case badly made. [13] That Florence Museum 85079 is a modern, pre-1911 AD forgery seems to me quite possible. One can imagine a scenario in which certain figures acted as the maker of the counterfeit seal and as its “discoverer” in the Hagia Triada trench. In such a case, it seems to me that the “discoverer” was more likely to have been a workman—who smuggled in the seal in order to obtain a baksheesh, as Otto speculates in her email—rather than one of the Italian archaeologists. In other words, I do not see reasons to add the case of Florence Museum 85079 to the list of controversial issues related to Federico Halbherr and Luigi Pernier between 1908 and that fateful 1911, i.e. the discovery on 3 July 1908 of the famous Phaistos Disc, and the homicide at Cyrene (Libya) on 11 March 1911 of the American archaeologist Herbert Fletcher De Cou,63 even if I have playfully titled this article “A Hagia Triada whodunnit.” One can also note that, in his 1979 edition of the Near Eastern seal collection of the Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham, Lambert significantly remarked that the fact that it only includes objects acquired before 1910 (i.e. just one year before the discovery of Florence Museum 85079) is important

All in all, it seems to me that a well-executed 2nd millennium BC recut is to be ruled out. One can also recall that Pecorella 1966, 68 remarked that our seal is not worn. 63 On these and related topics see the exonerating discussion in Cucuzza 2015, with further literature. 62

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

92

M. Bonechi

in evaluating its counterfeit seals: “dating from before 1910, they give valuable evidence of the types of forgeries then being made. Generally it is clear that they were copied from original seals, which contrasts with many of the best recent fakes, which are copied from books, often combining motifs from illustrations of more than one item.”64

Among the Durham “suspect pieces and forgeries” gathered by Lambert, the inscribed seals N 2420 and N 2386 = Gulbenkian 91 and 92 can be mentioned at this juncture (Fig. 10a–b). The former “is obviously based on an Old Babylonian seal,” the latter is a “copy of an Old Babylonian seal including the inscription,” and “perhaps some of Ashmolean, 1090–1100 (e.g.) are from the same workshop.”65 One can further note that two of these Oxford seals, i.e. Ashmolean 1909.3 and 1921.964,66 (Fig. 11a–b), share a common feature with the two Durham seals quoted above. The cuneiform inscriptions of all these four specimens are mistakenly oriented from bottom to top and, in the two Durham specimens, from left to right (the two Oxford specimens have meaningless inscriptions); furthermore, in the case of Gulbenkian 91 Lambert suggested the omission of the last sign(s) of each line of the original legend. [14] However, that Florence Museum 85079 is an ancient, 2nd millennium BC forgery seems to me also quite possible. There is not space here to enter into an indepth discussion of ancient Near Eastern forgeries and pious frauds (to my knowledge, a topic that has never been thoroughly explored, but one that is certainly rich in examples). However, with regard to the cylinder seals, these two remarks by Dominique Collon at the end of a chapter devoted to forgeries are worth quoting: “Modern forgers are not the only ones to have copied the seals of metropolitan Mesopotamia. On seal 12167 badly-proportioned figures face each other; the seated one should be on a padded stool, since his dress shows him to be a deified king [...], but he sits on a type of seat normally reserved for deities. The seal inscription indicates, however, that the owner of the seal was Tish-atal, the Hurrian scribe of the king of Simurrum on the eastern borders of Mesopotamia [...]. The lapidary who cut this seal was doing precisely what the modern forgers does, he was copying a good Mesopotamian style of the late 3rd millennium BC, and getting it wrong;” “we cannot regret the flight of fancy by which an ancient cypriote lapidary [...] embellished, in the 13th century BC a worn Isin/ Larsa presentation scene of the 19th century BC.”68

Lambert 1979, 28f. Lambert 1979, 30 and Pl. XI, in reference to the objects catalogued in Buchanan 1966, 218f. and Pl. 66. 66 Respectively nos 1099 and 1098 in Buchanan 1966. 67 That is, BM 102055, Collon 1987, 36f. 68 Collon 1987, 96, in the latter case with reference to one of the seals found at Thebes in Greece, on which see Collon 1987, 120f. no. 519. 64 65

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

93

Here, I would only point out that various cuneiform sources can be cited to affirm that the falsification of cylinder seals was practised in antiquity. The clearest case is the following: (a) A counterfeit seal is attested in a juridical text from Late Bronze Ugarit (reign of Niqmepaʾ, ca. 1332–1260). It follows the translation69 of the central part of RS 16.249 = PRU III 96f., ll. 13–26: “When Tābiyānu [...] Abdi-Rašap, son of Abdi-mir, and Munaḫḫimu committed a great fault, they have made a seal which is a copy of the great seal of the king (kunukku meḫer kunuk šarri rabî ītepšu) and wrote falsified tablets (ṭuppāti sarrūti ... išaṭṭarū) at Ugarit ... The guard caught them, but the king did not put them to death, (rather) he de[clared?] them forgers (sarrū). They are forgers (sarrū), their sons [are forgers?]. They cannot enter the royal palace, they cannot enter into Ugarit.”

This famous text, published by Jean Nougayrol in 1955,70 reports the dishonest activities of a small group of men that probably included a scribe and an engraver (they received a relatively mild penalty, however—a kind of ban rather than death). It explicitly recalls the notions of “copy” (meḫru), “to be false” (sarāru), and “forger” (sarru).71 Furthermore, other cuneiform texts make reference to situations akin to that reported in RS 16.249, showing that the genuineness of a seal impression could be doubted in ancient times: (b) the Old Babylonian Mari unpublished letter A.977,72 sent when Yasmaʿ-Haddu was king (ca. 1782‒1775) by the general Samidâḫum, in which lines 7‒14 report that a dubious letter—whose envelope was sealed by means of the royal seal, but whose outer and inner written “wordings” (tāwītū) were unusual since they lacked the addressee—had reached the sender at Yabliya;

Derived from that in Lackenbacher 2002, 226f. It has subsequently been quoted and discussed e.g. in CAD M/2 (1977), p. 56, CAD S (1984), p. 181, Singer 1999, 611 n. 27; Charpin 2002, 181; Márquez Rowe 2006, 135; Radner 2008, 489, and 2010, 467; Malbran-Labat 2009, 226; Paulus 2012, 363f. and n. 43; Matoïan / Vita 2015, 4f. 71 RS 16.249 was also used by Thomas Beran (Beran 1958) and others to argue that the inscribed stone stamp seal RS 14.202 of the Hittite king Muršili II—found at Ugarit (Yon 2006, 128f. no. 11) and also published in 1956 by C.F.-A. Schaeffer and H.G. Güterbock in Ugaritica III, Paris, pp. 87‒93 and 161–163—was an ancient forgery. A resumé of the interpretative history of this seal is found in Salvini 1990 and Neu 1995, 124f. However, such lingering suspicion has been dispelled by the recent discovery of a seal impression in the Westbau of the Nişantepe complex at Boğazköy/Ḫattuša (Singer 2011, 49 n. 109, and 2013, 12). 72 Quoted in Charpin 1988, 58 and discussed in Radner 2010, 467 (“a sealing is suspected of being forged”). 69 70

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

94

M. Bonechi

(c) the Old Babylonian letter CBS 1246 = AbB 11 90, most probably from Sippar, sent by Sîn-nādin-aḫḫē, in which lines 27–2973 rhetorically ask: “If the seal of a high-priest of Šamaš, (the seal of) a high-priest of Aya, and your (pl.) seals are being contested (b/paqārum), whose seal will (ever) be acceptable?;”

(d) the Neo-Assyrian letter SAA XV 125,74 probably sent by Šamaš-bēlu-uṣur, to be dated to Sargon II’s reign (721–705), whose lines obv. 2’ – rev. 5 read as follows: “The signet ring (impression on the letter) which he delivered is not made like the signet rings of the king, my lord. I have a thousand signet ring(-sealed letter)s of the king, my lord, with me and I have compared it with them – it is not made like the signet ring of the king, my lord! I am herewith sending the signet ring(-sealed letter) to the king, my lord. If it is genuine, let them write a copy of the signet ring(-sealed letter) which I am sending and I will place it with him, so that he may go where the king, my lord, sent him to.”

However, in my opinion, these four cuneiform passages are unlikely to have direct relevance to the question of the genuineness of Florence Museum 85079. They refer to ancient forgeries made to be used immediately in Near Eastern contexts in which sealing had juridical relevance, profiting from counterfeit seals of kings and high priests, not that of a certain Nanna-mansum son of Būr-Sîn servant of Šulpaʾe and Ninḫursaĝa. Our seal was found in a totally different context (Hagia Triada), where most probably it was only used as an amulet or, in any case, as an exotic object marking a specific status, so that its juridical relevance in Crete was null and void. [15] If a future scientific microanalysis determines that Florence Museum 85079 is a modern artefact, of course the terms “forgery” (i.e., “any piece of work falsely claimed to be genuine”) or “fake” (i.e., “anything that misleads, deceives, cheats, or fools others by seeming to be what it is not; counterfeit”) will be apt to describe it, considering the ascertained 1911 Hagia Triada context in which it was found. In the meanwhile one can speculate whether another explanation, which does not relate to fraud, may be considered. Florence Museum 85079 could essentially be a copy, i.e., “an imitation or reproduction of an original,” and more precisely an ancient copy that was not made in order to deceive. Indeed, we have seen the notion of the copy used explicitly by Halbherr, Lambert and Waetzoldt with regard to our Florence seal and the comparable (but unprovenanced) Birmingham one:

Stol 1986, 54f., and see CAD P, 2005, 133. Fales 2001, 124f.; Radner 2008, 488. One can also consult the Oracc and CDLI online editions.

73 74

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

95

‒ “un’imitazione minoica di un cilindro assiro?;”75 ‒ “ancient copy of an Old Babylonian seal, probably made in Syria or some region further to the west;”76 ‒ possibly “die Kopie einer ursprünglich vierzeiligen Legende auf einem anderen Siegel;”77 ‒ “a poor copy of an Old Babylonian seal.”78 However, if we postulate an ancient unskilled copyist who produced what for us today is a poor ancient copy, what did he copy? Let us imagine a genuine (early) Old Babylonian cylinder seal, with its legend “Nanna-mansum, son of BūrSîn, servant of Šulpaʾe and Ninḫursaĝa” correctly written in four lines, which was recut at the beginning of the second half of the 2nd millennium BC by an engraver who represented a genuine, even if today rarely documented, scene with two male facing figures. Well, is this the original seal copied by the ancient unskilled copyist—a Mesopotamian novice or pupil?—who introduced into Florence Museum 85079 the many mistakes noted above? My answer is “no.” The four different views of Sürenhagen’s 1988 drawing of the impression of our seal shown in Figs 12a–d show why such a negative response seems to me unavoidable. The unskilled copyist could have copied either from such an alleged original seal or from its impression. But in each of the four views there are features that are unacceptable in a genuine original Mesopotamian seal if one uses jointly two simple elements as diagnostic indicators of genuineness: the way in which the cuneiform text is arranged (top-to-bottom and right-toleft is the correct arrangement) together with which arm is lifted (the lifting of the right is correct). This applies even if, as Waetzoldt argues, the state of conservation of the original legend was “nicht mehr der best.” So, in my opinion there never existed a single, genuine, skillfully made, originally (early) Old Babylonian, subsequently recut at the beginning of the Kassite period, Mesopotamian cylinder seal that could have been at the disposal—in any state of conservation—of the alleged unskilled copyist who made Florence Museum 85079 before 1340 BC; the same is true if the unskilled copyist worked a short time before late June 1911 AD, copying from (an impression of) a real seal or even from a reproduction found in some publication. [16] If our seal is not a modern forgery, to my mind the only alternative solution at hand must give weight to the Hagia Triada setting of its discovery. There are no contraindications to identifying Hagia Triada, or more generally Crete, as the place where our seal was made, and this is in fact what Halbherr and Evans argued between 1911 and 1914. This is not inconsistent with what Lambert sug-

Halbherr between 1911 and 1914, assisted by Evans.

75

Lambert in 1966. Waetzoldt in 1988. 78 Lambert in 1988. 76 77

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

96

M. Bonechi

gested in 1966 with regard to the Birmingham 55 seal.79 Furthermore, considering the stone used to make our seal, one can note that Minoan serpentine objects have been very frequently found in Crete.80 A Cretan setting for the manufacture of Florence Museum 85079 seems to me a better solution than Levantine or Cypriote or South Anatolian settings if one considers another factor: the person who engraved our seal was probably almost completely incompetent with respect to cuneiform writing. The achieved result appears to have been determined by a visual rather than linguistic approach to the script, and Crete is a better place than the Levant, Cyprus or Southern Anatolia—where cuneiform was most probably a well-known script during the ancient periods so far considered—for locating such an approach. This is not contradicted by a remark made long ago by Porada when working on a seal impression from Nuzi: “No. 963, likewise showing a seated deity with a worshipper before him (or her), is characterized as provincial by the reversed inscription which we find again on numerous Cappadocian imprints [...]. This feature, which is found again in Nuzi glyptic [...], documents the fact that the seal-cutter who engraved such a ‘mirror inscription’ on the cylinder was not acquainted with the cuneiform signs; he merely copied a pattern given him, thereby producing the reversed writing on the impression. Another feature which confirms the classification of No. 963 as belonging to the ‘provincial Babylonian’ group is the head-gears of the figures. The brims of their caps are marked by vertical stripes, a practice typical of this group (see also p. 98 and note 191). [...] No. 972 also can be ascribed to ‘provincial’ sources because of the mirror-script, which corresponds to the inscription of No. 963. The sealing is badly preserved, however, and it is therefore also possible that it presents the copy of a Babylonian original by a Nuzi engraver.”81

Indeed, even if certainly much less peripheral than Crete with respect to the use of the cuneiform scripts, Nuzi shares with Hagia Triada a geographical position suited to the circulation of people ignorant about cuneiform writing, but nonetheless engaged in some business involving it. As for the cultural background of my alleged Hagia Triada unskilled copyist, one can imagine a person perhaps competent in one or more different writing systems (linear, hieroglyphic) in which the rules governing the distribution of the text were different from those of cuneiform script. Moreover, it seems more likely to me that this single copyist (the many mistakes can be better explained if only one person made both the figures and the text of our seal) copied from two objects (probably both cylin-

“Probably made in Syria or some region further to the west,” Lambert 1966, 76. See, e.g., Rehak / Younger 1998, 111 and n. 101. 81 Porada 1944‒1945, 92f. On these topics see also Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 1996, 68 with fn. 10 and 80–82. 79 80

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

97

der seals) rather than from only one. In doing so, I suggest that this copyist made what today is called a pastiche, i.e. “a piece of writing, music, or art that consists of ideas or techniques borrowed from other sources.” To my knowledge, pastiche is a notion only very rarely used in studies on ancient Near Eastern art and, it seems to me, only in connection with the idea of the modern fake or forgery.82 On this topic, the following recent remarks by Charpin are worth recalling: “One of the contributions of diplomatics—which lies at the very origin of the discipline—was the ability to detect forgeries, modern or especially ancient. Ancient forgeries are rare in Assyriology, but several do exist, and curiously, one of these long escaped the attention of specialists: the ‘cruciform monument of Manishtushu.’ This monument looks like an authentic inscription from the twenty-third century BCE. It contains the text of a royal donation to the great temple of Ebabbar in Sippar. It is in reality a pastiche, perhaps produced in the early part of the reign of Nabonidus (sixth century BCE), almost surely commissioned by the clergy of Sippar to obtain the king’s aid for their sanctuary.”83

In my conjecture, copying from two different objects, this alleged ancient unskilled copyist copied their main elements—the script from one seal and the bodies from the other—in both cases in mirror image. Because of this, I deduce that the copied figurative scene also derives from one engraved on a cylinder seal, and not from one on a different kind of support. These two main elements were available to such a copyist, because Near Eastern cylinder seals certainly circulated freely outside the areas in which their use was juridically motivated.84 If so, regarded as curiosa of some value, an old-fashioned Old Babylonian and a fashionable Mittanian genuine specimen were used as models85 a short time before the dating of the archaeological stratum in which Florence Museum 85079 was found, i.e. during the 14th century BC. Actually, in Crete, among the Near Eastern specimens genuine Old Babylo-

See, e.g., Porada 1982, 505 n. 12 and Albenda 2005, 87f. Muscarella 2014, 33 uses pastiche in the sense of “the joining together of several objects, all of which could be ancient or a mixture of ancient and forged units,” even if the correct definition only includes the notions of imitation of previous works and of a composition made up of selections from different works. 83 Charpin 2010, 42. 84 As for the Aegean area seen from the East see Collon 1987, 141. 85 If these remarks are correct, one can add “Nanna-mansum son of Būr-Sîn, servant of Šulpaʾe and Ninḫursaĝa”—that is, the underlying text of that in Florence Museum 85079—to the list of genuine Old Babylonian cuneiform legends only documented by non-genuine cylinder seals, which should also include e.g. Ia-aḫ-nu-ú dumu Sa-ba-a-úum ìr dAN-MAR-TU, i.e., the genuine text of the legends of two counterfeited specimens according to Collon 1987, 94f. no. 436, with literature. 82

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

98

M. Bonechi

nian seals have also been found, though rarely,86 and the general situation has been summarised by Olga Krzyszkowska as follows: “In the second millennium Eastern cylinder seals continued to reach the Aegean, though never in great numbers [...]. On arrival some were no doubt treasured as exotic curios, some were re-engraved, some may have been cut down to yield lapis lazuli or other fine stones for seals and jewellery. During the LBA, Aegean engravers retained (or copied) the cylindrical shape only occasionally.”87

As for arrivals into Crete of Mesopotamian cylinder seals around the middle of the 2nd millennium BC or even some centuries before, one can recall that two seals (one from Sumulael’s time, ca. 1880–1845 BC, with the cuneiform inscription dLa-ga-ma-al-ga-mil / dub-sar / dumu I-bí-dEN.ZU / ìr Su-mu-la-dingir) were used, most probably in the local Babylonian kārum, at Tilmen Höyük,88 not far from the Mediterranean shore, before the destruction of the site probably during the second half of the 17th century BC.89 [17] Although other scenarios can be envisaged, it may be that an unskilled, but possibly honest, Late Minoan cutter engraved Florence Museum 85079 at Hagia Triada in order to improve his own artistic skill. In doing so, such a cutter produced a small object, considered in the Cretan milieu an indicator of status, endowed with magical powers, perhaps to be used as a gift or to satisfy someone’s vanity. If so, Florence Museum 85079 may therefore be an ancient copy made in Crete by an unskilled Cretan engraver, who poorly imitated a genuine (early) Old Babylonian legend and a genuine Kassite figurative scene, thus producing an ancient pastiche. Bibliography Albenda, P., 2005: The “Queen of the Night” Plaque: A Revisit. JAOS 125: 171‒190. Alberti, L., 2012: Making Visible the Invisible: Cretan Objects Mentioned in the Cuneiform Texts of Mari and Archaeological Discoveries in Crete in the II Millennium BC. SMEA 54: 117‒142.

In the Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel cf. the two uninscribed seals II,1 206 (from Platanos, see Robinson 1968, 28f. with literature; Kenna 1968, 324ff.; Porada 1981–1982, 25; Collon 1987, 57 n. 11; Aruz 1998, 304) and II,2 287 (possibly from Western Crete), and the inscribed seal II, 2 206 (possibly from Jiophyrakia; see Th. Beran apud Platon / Pini / Salies 1977, 282, and also Kenna 1968, 328f.), whose legend reads A-wi-il-Eš4-tár dumu dAMAR.UTU-mu-ša-lim ìr dNa-bi-um, “Awīl-Eštar, son of Marduk-mušallim, servant of Nabiʾum.” 87 Krzyszkowska 2005, 30. See also e.g. Aruz 1998 and Kopanias 2008, 56f. 88 Marchetti (ed.) 2011, 109‒115, cat. 21–22, and Marchetti 2014, 50. 89 Furthermore, one can recall the meeting of men from Mari and Crete at Ugarit at the time of king Zimri-lim (1774‒1762 BC) on which see Durand 1999, Guichard 1999 and Alberti 2012. 86

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

99

Aruz, J., 1998: The Aegean and the Orient: The Evidence of Stamp and Cylinder Seals. In E. Cline / D. Harris-Cline (eds): The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium: Proceedings of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Cincinnati, 18‒20 April 1997 (Aegaeum 18). Liège / Austin. Pp. 301‒310. Beckman, G., 1988: A Draft for an OB Seal Inscription. NABU 1988/72: 50. Beran, Th., 1958: Review of C.F.-A. Schaeffer et al., Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra, Ugaritica III, Paris, 1956. Gnomon 30: 498‒499. Braun-Holzinger, E.A., 1996: Altbabylonische Götter und ihre Symbole. Benennung mit Hilfe der Siegellegenden. BaM 27: 235‒359. Buccellati, G. / Kelly-Buccellati, M., 1996: The Seals of the King of Urkesh: Evidence from the Western Wing of the Royal Storehouse AK. WZKM 86: 65‒99. Buchanan, B., 1966: Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum I. Cylinder Seals. Oxford. Buchholz, H.-G., 1967: The Cylinder Seal. In G.F. Bass (ed.): Cape Gelidonya: A Bronze Age Shipwreck (TAPS NS 57/8). Philadelphia. Pp. 148‒159. Charpin, D., 1988: Tâwîtum, “libellé, formulaire.” NABU 1988/85: 58‒59. –– 2002: Chroniques bibliographiques. 2. La commémoration d’actes juridiques: à propos des kudurrus babyloniens. RA 96: 169‒191. –– 2010: Writing, Law, and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Chicago / London. –– 2016: Un sceau gravé et inscrit sur commande d’après une lettre des archives royales de Mari. In J. Patrier / P. Quenet / P. Butterlin (eds): Mille et une empreintes. Un Alsacien en Orient. Mélanges en l’honneur du 65e anniversaire de Dominique Beyer (Subartu XXXVI). Turnhout. Pp. 87‒97. Cline, E.H., 1994: Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea. International Trade and the Late Bronze Age Aegean (BAR International Series 591). Oxford. Collon, D., 1986: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals III. Isin-Larsa and Old-Babylonian Period. London. –– 1987: First Impression. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. Cucuzza, N., 2015: Intorno all’autenticità del “Disco di Festós.” Quaderni di Storia 81: 93‒124. Delaporte, L.-J., 1923: Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental. II. Acquisitions. Paris. Deller, K. / Klengel, H., 1991: Keilschriftbibliographie. 50, Or NS 60: 1*‒145*. Delnero, P., 2012: Šulpaʾe. RlA 13: 284‒286. Durand, J.-M., 1999: La façade occidentale du Proche-orient d’après les textes de Mari. In A. Caubet (ed.): L’acrobate au taureau. Les découvertes de Tell el Dabʿa (Égypte) et l’archéologie de la Méditerranée orientale (1800‒1400 av. J.-C.). Paris. Pp. 149‒164. –– 2006: Le dieu majeur de Qatna. NABU 2006/87: 89‒90. Fales, F.M., 2001: L’impero assiro. Bari / Roma. Feingold, R., 2002: Texts from an Archive of a Seal Cutter. NABU 2002/44: 45. Felli, C., 2013: La glittica e altri oggetti di artigianato in pietra. In A. D’Agostino / C. Felli / S. Valentini (eds): La collezione orientale del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze. Vol. II. Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran. Roma. Pp. 301‒401. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

100

M. Bonechi

Frayne, D.R., 1997: Ur III Period (2112‒2004 BC) (RIME 3/2). Toronto. Guichard, M., 1999: Les mentions de la Crète à Mari. In A. Caubet (ed.): L’acrobate au taureau. Les découvertes de Tell el Dabʿa (Égypte) et l’archéologie de la Méditerranée orientale (1800‒1400 av. J.-C.). Paris. Pp. 165‒177. Halbherr, F. / Stefani, E. / Banti, L., 1977 [1980]: Haghia Triada nel periodo tardo palaziale. Annuario della Scuola Archeologica Italiana ad Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 55: 13‒296. Heimpel, W., 2000: Nin-ḫursaĝa. RlA 9: 378‒381. Jasink, A.M., 2009: La collezione di sigilli e cretule egee. In A.M. Jasink / L. Bombardieri (eds): Le collezioni egee del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze. Firenze. Pp. 77‒88. Kenna, V.E.G., 1968: Ancient Crete and the Use of the Cylinder Seal. AJA 72: 321‒336. Kopanias, K., 2008: The Late Bronze Age Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from Thebes (Greece) and Their Historical Implications. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Athenische Abteilungen 123: 39‒96. Krzyszkowska, O., 2005: Aegean Seals. An Introduction. London. Lackenbacher, S., 2002: Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit. Textes provenant des vingtcinq premières campagnes (LAPO 20). Paris. Lambert, W.G., 1966: Ancient Near Eastern Seals in Birmingham Collections. Iraq 28: 64‒83. –– 1979: Near Eastern Seals in the Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham. Iraq 41: 1‒45. –– 1983: Notes on the Cassite-Period Seal Inscription from Thebes and Elsewhere. Or NS 52: 241‒245. –– 1988: A Cylinder Seal found in Crete. NABU 1988/82: 56‒57. Lambrou-Phillipson, C., 1990: Hellenorientalia. The Near Eastern Presence in the Bronze Age Aegean, ca. 3000‒1110 B.C. Interconnections Based on the Material Record and the Written Evidence Plus Orientalia. A Catalogue of Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Mitannian, Syro-Palestinian, Cypriot and Asia Minor Objects from the Bronze Age Aegean. Göteborg. La Rosa, V., 2000: To whom did the Queen Tiyi scarab found at Hagia Triada belong? In A. Karetsou (ed.): Krete Aigyptos. Politismiki desmi trion chilietion. Athens. Pp. 86‒93. Lerner, J.A., 1980: Three Achaemenid “Fakes.” A Re-evaluation in the Light of 19th Century Iranian Architectural Sculpture. Expedition 22: 5‒16. Limet, H., 1971: Les légendes des sceaux cassites. Bruxelles. Malbran-Labat, F., 2009: Entre clémence et rigueur. Quelques sentences dans la Syrie du 13e siècle av. J.-C. In S.H. Aufrère / M. Mazoyer (eds): Clémence et chatiment. Paris. Pp. 221‒231. Manning, S.W., 2010: Chronology and Terminology. In E.C. Cline (ed.): The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000‒1000 BC). Oxford. Pp. 59‒81. Marchetti, N. (ed.), 2011: Kinku. Sigilli dell’età del Bronzo dalla regione di Gaziantep in Turchia. Bologna. –– 2014: Tilmen Höyük. RlA 14: 48‒50. Márquez Rowe, I., 2006: The Royal Deeds of Ugarit. A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Diplomatics (AOAT 335). Münster. Matoïan, V. / Vita, J.-P., 2015: Faire du faux, dire vrai et son contraire à Ugarit. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

101

Journal Asiatique 303: 1‒8. Møller, E., 1980: A Revaluation of the Oriental Cylinder Seals Found in Crete. In J.G.P. Best / N.M.W de Vries (eds): Interaction and Acculturation in the Mediterranean. Amsterdam. Pp. 85‒104. Momigliano, N., 2002: Federico Halbherr and Arthur Evans: An Archaeological Correspondence (1894‒1917). SMEA 44: 263‒318. Morandi Bonacossi, D. / Eidem, J., 2006: A Royal Seal of Ishhi-Addu, King of Qatna. Akkadica 127: 41‒57. Muscarella, O.W., 2014: Forgeries of Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts and Cultures. In B.A. Brown / M.H. Feldman (eds): Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. New York / Berlin. Pp. 31‒53. Neu, E., 1995: Hethiter und Hethitisch in Ugarit. In M. Dietrich / O. Loretz (eds): Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung (Vorträge gehalten während des Europäischen Kolloquiums am 11.‒12. Februar 1993) (ALASP 7). Münster. Pp. 115‒129. Paulus, S., 2012: Vom babylonischen Königssiegel und von gesiegelten Steinen. In G. Wilhelm (ed.): Organization, Representation,and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg 20‒25 July 2008. Winona Lake. Pp. 357‒367. Pecorella, P.E., 1966: Sigillo cilindrico da Haghia Triada nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze. SMEA 1: 67‒72. Platon, N. / Pini, I. / Salies, G., 1977: Iraklion, Archäologisches Museum. Die Siegel der Altpalastzeit, mit einem Beitrag von A. Dessenne (Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel II, 2). Berlin. Porada, E., 1944‒1945: Seal Impressions of Nuzi. AASOR 24: 1‒138. –– 1981‒1982: The Cylinder Seals Found at Thebes in Boeotia. AfO 28: 1‒70. –– 1982: Problems of Method in the Archaeology and Art History of the Ancient Near East. JAOS 102: 501‒506. Privitera, S., 2015: Haghia Triada III. Late Minoan III Buildings in the Villaggio (Monografie della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente XXIII). Athens. Radner, K., 2008: The Delegation of Power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals. In P. Briant / W.F.M. Henkelman / M.W. Stolper (eds): L’archive des fortifications de Persépolis. État des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France, 3‒4 novembre 2006 (Persika 12). Paris. Pp. 481‒515. –– 2010: Siegelpraxis. RlA 12: 466‒469. Rehak, P. / Younger, J.G., 1998: Review of Aegean Prehistory VII: Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and Postpalatial Crete. AJA 102: 91‒173. Robinson, P., 1968: The Three Scarabs and the Cylinder Seal from Tholos B, Platanos. SMEA 5: 25‒28. Sacchi, P., 1966: L’iscrizione cuneiforme del sigillo di H. Triada. SMEA 1: 73‒75. Salvini, M., 1990: Autour du sceau de Muršili II (RS 14.202). Syria 67: 423‒426. Sasson, J.M., 2010: On the “Išhi-Addu” Seal from Qatna with Comments on Qatna Personnel in the OB Period. In S. Dönmez (ed.): DUB.SAR É.DUB.BA.A. Studies Presented in Honour of Veysel Donbaz. Istanbul. Pp. 243‒250. Singer, I. 1999: A Political History of Ugarit. In W.G. Watson / N. Wyatt (eds): © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

102

M. Bonechi

Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (HdO 39). Leiden / Boston / Köln. Pp. 603‒733. –– 2011: The Calm Before the Storm. Atlanta. –– 2013: The ‘Royal Land Registry’ in Hattuša and Its Seal Impressions. BiOr 70: 5‒16. Stol, M., 1986: Letters from Collections in Philadelphia, Chicago and Berkeley (AbB 11). Leiden. Sürenhagen, D. / Waetzoldt, H., 1988: Siegel Nr. 287. In I. Pini et al. (eds): Kleinere europäische Sammlungen (Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel XI). Berlin. Pp. 298‒300. Van de Mieroop, M., 2007: The Eastern Mediterranean in the Age of Ramesses II. Malden MA / Oxford / Victoria. Yon, M., 2006: The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

103

Fig. 1. The Florence Museum 85079 cylinder seal and its modern impression (in Pecorella 1966, plate following p. 72).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

104

M. Bonechi

Fig. 2. Modern impression of the Birmingham cylinder seal (in Lambert 1966, pl. XIX no. 55).

Fig. 3. Modern impression of cylinder seal Florence Museum 85079 (in Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 298 [CMS XI no. 287]).

Fig. 4. Drawing of the modern impression of cylinder seal Florence Museum 85079 (in Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 298 [CMS XI no. 287]). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

105

Fig. 5. Drawing of the modern impression of cylinder seal Florence Museum 85079 (after Lambrou-Phillipson 1990, pl. 2, no. 24).

Fig. 6. Modern impression of cylinder seal Florence Museum 85079 (in Felli 2013, 386, no. 27).

Fig. 7. Modern impression of cylinder seal Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, no. 1953.113 (in Buchanan 1966, 102 and pl. 38, no. 560). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

106

M. Bonechi

Fig. 8. Modern impression of the Louvre cylinder seal Delaporte 1923, A.428 (in BraunHolzinger 1996, pl. 42, no. 1148).

Fig. 9. Clay tablets with trial pieces for the arrangement of signs in the inscriptions of cylinder seals (top: Beckman 1988; bottom: Feingold 2002). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Hagia Triada Whodunnit

107

a

b Fig. 10a‒b. Modern impressions of cylinder seals Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham, N 2420 and N 2386 (in Lambert 1979, 30, pl. XI nos 91 and 92).

a

b Fig. 11a‒b. Modern impressions of cylinder seals Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1909.3 and 1921.964 (in Buchanan 1966, pl. 66 and p. 219). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

108

M. Bonechi

a

b

c

d

Fig. 12a‒d. Different views of a drawing of the modern impression of the cylinder seal Florence Museum 85079: (a) as published in Sürenhagen / Waetzoldt 1988, 298, with the taller figure incorrectly lifting his left arm and with the incorrect bottom-to-top and left-to-right arrangement of the text; (b) drawing (a) flipped horizontally, with the taller figure correctly lifting his right arm, with the incorrect bottom-to-top arrangement of the text, and with its correct rightto-left orientation; (c) drawing (a) flipped vertically, with the taller figure correctly lifting his right arm, with the correct top-to-bottom arrangement of the text, and with its incorrect left-to-right orientation; (d) drawing (c) flipped horizontally, with the taller figure incorrectly lifting his left arm, and with the correct top-to-bottom and right-to-left arrangement of the text.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne : du temps long au temps politico-militaire Pascal Butterlin

L’histoire militaire de la Mésopotamie est un mal aimé de la bibliographie et de l’historiographie non seulement de la Mésopotamie ancienne mais aussi de l’histoire militaire, en dehors de la période néo-assyrienne. C’est là un singulier paradoxe : rares sont les manuels généraux qui consacrent un chapitre entier à son histoire militaire. Naturellement, de longs passages sont consacrés à la guerre sumérienne et aux relations politiques conflictuelles entre les « cités Etats », agrémentés d’analyses sur le conflit entre Umma et Lagash ou de commentaires sur l’étendard d’Ur. L’étude classique de Cooper sur le conflit entre Umma et Lagash1 a très largement figé la discussion sur la guerre sumérienne, une guerre entre Cité Etats agraires. Ce sont là autant de passages obligés d’une historiographie qui voit dans la guerre un élément majeur de la définition de la monarchie, surtout à partir de l’époque d’Akkad. Depuis le monumental ouvrage de Yadin2, centré rappelons-le, sur les pays de la Bible, pas sur la Mésopotamie ancienne, l’essentiel des études consacrées aux problèmes militaires proviennent du Levant nord et Sud, qui ont été, nul besoin d’insister ici sur ce point, d’extraordinaires laboratoires en la matière. C’est tout particulièrement le cas pour Ebla dont la documentation écrite mais aussi figurée a livré des informations révolutionnaires et c’est pour moi un grand plaisir d’offrir ces quelques réflexions venues des bords de l’Euphrate à Frances Pinnock, qui oeuvre tant pour la compréhension de la place qu’occupait Ebla dans les réseaux politiques et commerciaux du IIIe millénaire. Le décodage d’une « propagande » royale reste décisif pour comprendre comment ces Etats extrêmement divers du milieu du IIIe millénaire ont inventé un language commun qui leur permettait d’interagir, dans la guerre, voire dans la paix3. Une attention toute particulière a été portée ces dernières années sur les mutilations pratiquées et les rituels de victoire4. Mais ce n’est en somme qu’à l’époque

3 4 1 2

Cooper 1983. Yadin 1963. Pinnock 2014. Winter 1985 ; Nadali 2007 ; Bahrani 2008 ; Dolce 2006. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

110

P. Butterlin

néo-assyrienne que la multiplication des scènes militaires permet des études plus approfondies des tactiques ou stratégies employées. Il en a résulté une image très schématique de l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne. La première étape de cette histoire est la guerre entre Cités Etats, une guerre de fantassins, accompagnés de lourds chars de guerre tirés par des asiniens. Systématiquement comparée à la guerre entre cités grecques, la guerre sumérienne serait de la même manière le résultat d’une compétition accrue pour contrôler les terres irrigables : en somme une guerre de frontières entre Cités agropastorales, une guerre saisonnière qui finit par s’envenimer au point de déclencher des conflits de grande ampleur. C’est dans ce contexte qu’émergerait l’empire d’Akkad, un Etat arbitre qui impose de nouvelles méthodes de combat et surtout une armée permanente. Le développement de l’universalisme politique serait allé de pair avec une révolution militaire, une révolution militaire marquée notamment par la professionnalisation d’une partie de l’armée, l’introduction de l’arc composite et de nouvelles techniques de guerre (troupes légères notamment). La troisième étape de ces développements serait la période amorite – celle des textes de Mari – où toute une série de techniques sont alors parfaitement maîtrisées, notamment la guerre de siège. La guerre dans les textes de Mari est d’ailleurs généralement la référence majeure de l’historiographie de la guerre au Proche-Orient ancien avant la révolution du char de guerre et les spectaculaires développements de la fin du Bronze moyen et du Bronze ancien. L’omniprésence dans les textes de Mari de la guerre de siège et du type de savoir faire qu’elle implique5, explique pour une large part les théories les plus récentes sur la guerre au Proche-Orient. Le développement très rapide, dès la fin du IVe millénaire en Mésopotamie de système de défense, de remparts notamment, expliquerait pour une large part un blocage relatif de la guerre au Proche-Orient et une concentration au cours du IIIe millénaire sur la poliorcétique aux dépens d’autres types d’affrontements. Cette thèse, défendue par Dawson6, procède d’une idée très clairement primitiviste de la guerre au Proche-orient. Prise entre d’un côté la réhabilitation du caractère particulièrement destructeur de la guerre primitive7 d’une part, et d’autre part tout le courant historiographique qui insiste sur l’extraordinaire dynamisme du « modèle occidental de la guerre » défendue par Hanson8 (entendons par là la guerre hoplitique), la guerre au Proche-Orient ancien devient une affaire statique confinée au récit du développement de la poliorcétique. Il faut dire d’emblée aussi que cette conception de la guerre repose sur une idée de base : la guerre civilisée, c’est la bataille rangée en bonne et due forme, et ce phénomène n’apparaîtrait réellement précisément qu’avec les Grecs, plus précisément au moment de la naissance des premières cités grecques, avec l’hoplitisme. Keeley a largement démonté cette vision simpliste et hautement eth-

Sur la guerre dans les textes de Mari, voir Durand 1998 et Charpin 2004. Dawson 2001. 7 Keeley 2002. 8 Hanson 1990. 5 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

111

nocentrique de la guerre, construite par l’arrogance colonialiste de la fin du XIXe siècle et la mitrailleuse Maxim. Il s’agit en effet de se demander quelle culture de la guerre s’est construite à partir de la fin du IVe millénaire au Moyen Orient, non pas de se demander quelles sont les origines de la guerre qui sont bien plus anciennes naturellement que l’Etat lui-même au Proche-Orient. Il est en revanche essentiel de se demander comment construction étatique et guerre ont interagi, en terme de sécurité et de sanctuarisation des espaces. L’étude toute récente de Hamblin9 est venue modifier quelque peu cette image particulièrement réductrice de la guerre au Proche-Orient. A ses yeux, cette culture de la guerre est fondamentalement et d’emblée « guerre sainte ». En s’attachant à décrypter les mécanismes d’une véritable culture martiale, il revient sur les problèmes que pose l’étude de la guerre au Proche-Orient, avant le développement de la guerre de chars qui a profondément modifié tous les paramètres de la géopolitique du Proche-Orient ancien. Pour notre propos, cette étude est cruciale pour aborder des thèmes qui nous concernent directement. La documentation mariote joue un rôle de premier plan dans toutes ces discussions, mais Hamblin ne traite spécifiquement ce problème qu’à partir des textes lus dans le recueil de Heimpel10. Il en résulte une vision très limitée de la guerre à Mari : non seulement Mari n’est qu’une annexe du monde des cités suméro-akkadienne mais la documentation écrite n’est que très partiellement exploitée, dans un choix de textes traduits en anglais. Nous allons aborder ces problèmes en plusieurs étapes : d’abord que savons-nous des problèmes militaires de la ville I ? Deuxième problème : la destruction complète de Mari, ville II par les rois d’Akkad est la conclusion d’une période de conflits intenses, contemporains des guerres entre Cité Etats sumériennes. Il existe maintenant tout un dossier de données nouvelles sur ces conflits et leur nature, dans lesquels Mari a joué un rôle de tout premier plan11. Nous n’envisagerons pas ici en détail les problèmes posés par la guerre et son évolution au fil de l’existence de la ville III, car nous lui avons déjà consacré des publications préliminaires, dans le cadre de la présentation de la ville III12. 1. La ville I de Mari et la guerre C’est là un titre bien ambitieux, car il n’est guères question à l’heure actuelle de faire une synthèse sur les problèmes militaires du début du IIIe millénaire. Cet « âge obscur » de l’histoire du Proche-Orient, qui correspond au Dynastique archaïque I en Mésopotamie du Sud et du Centre et au Bronze ancien II de la vallée de l’Euphrate reste une grande énigme. Je retiendrai ici deux aspects complé-

Hamblin 2006. Hamblin 2006, 185–215. 11 Voir notamment Beyer 2016 ; Muller Margueron 2016. 12 Butterlin 2007. 9

10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

112

P. Butterlin

mentaires des recherches conduites sur la ville I de Mari contemporaine de cette période : d’une part, le développement du système de fortifications, d’autre part, il faut revenir brièvement sur l’invention de la roue. Considérons la carte de la situation « culturelle » que j’identifie au début du IIIe millénaire (Fig. 1). Je me suis demandé quel était le contexte culturel de la fondation de Mari et ai dressé très schématiquement une carte de la répartition dans l’espace d’une série d’aires culturelles : Mari est alors au cœur d’un complexe réseau de relations : au sud-est se trouve l’aire de répartition de la Scarlet Ware bien attestée dans la Diyala, le Hamrin et en Mésopotamie centrale. Au nord, c’est le monde de Ninive V, une période que l’on interprète ordinairement comme un moment de ruralisation relative et de déclin relatif : c’est là une vision très rapide de développements qui restent très mal connus mais dans lesquels on lit habituellement un recul par rapport à la phase proto-urbaine urukéenne. Sur le moyen Euphrate, enfin, se développent, dans le sillage de l’expansion urukéenne, les assemblages « post-Uruk » qui commencent à être mieux compris aujourd’hui. L’abandon des colonies urukéennes dans un contexte qui reste encore très mal compris a provoqué au moins en apparence un éclatement culturel en plusieurs ensembles qui recouvrent pour une part les aires culturelles antérieures à l’expansion urukéenne, notamment dans le nord mésopotamien. Ce que signifient ces aires culturelles est en l’état difficile à définir. Il faut ici insister sur la situation de Mari, au début du IIIe millénaire : elle occupe à mon sens ce que l’on peut appeler une «frontière tribale» : en effet, elle se présente comme l’un des rares noyaux urbains de la vallée de l’Euphrate, au point de contact entre le monde de Kish, dont on suppose qu’elle fut le grand centre politique du Dynastique archaïque I et un monde nord mésopotamien qui ne présente pas à ce moment de grands centres urbains, excepté peut-être Tell Brak. Je ne sais si Mari peut être considérée comme un avant poste du monde de Kish, les données disponibles sont pour le moins insuffisantes pour savoir quel fut le lien entre la fondation de Mari et Kish. Il est en tout cas certain que le développement d’une telle métropole n’a pu se faire qu’en relation avec Kish. L’ampleur du système de fortifications bâti au début du IIIe millénaire à Mari est tout à fait exceptionnelle et sans comparaison connue : si la ville a été fondée en 2900 comme l’indiquent les données chronologiques disponibles, la question qui se pose est de savoir si nous avons là un double système de fortifications sur fondations de pierres qui lui est inédit. A ce sujet, il se pose plusieurs problèmes. D’abord, il demeure une incertitude sur la ceinture. J’ai dégagé en 1997 dans les niveaux inférieurs de la digue un mur très grossier de pierres, large de 2 m et haut de 1,30. Des briques de ville I ont été repérées sur ce mur mais son état de dégradation était tel (Fig. 2) qu’une incertitude demeure sur l’existence d’un véritable mur dans ce secteur. Est-ce que la ceinture joue déjà un rôle défensif, c’est difficile à mesurer en l’état. En revanche, il est assuré que la ceinture existe dès la fondation de la ville. C’est là une différence majeure avec Khuera par exemple. Meyer a montré que le développement de la ceinture de cette fameuse Kranzhügel est postérieur aux niveaux les plus anciens de la ville © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

113

(Khuera I A, pour les niveaux les plus anciens et Khuera I B pour la construction de l’enceinte)13. A Mari, l’ensemble a été construit d’emblée et le système comprend aussi d’après Margueron l’enceinte intérieure. Là, la situation n’est pas si simple. Le mur de pierre intérieur dégagé à plusieurs endroits du site, depuis 2000, a été daté de la ville I, largement par analogie avec le mur extérieur. Toutefois, nos recherches récentes ont montré que ces fondations n’étaient pas le niveau le plus ancien de la ville, des niveaux de ville I plus anciens passant sous le mur de pierre (Fig. 3). Dans ce contexte, il faut en conclure que la ville de Mari ne présentait pas d’emblée une double ligne de défense, celle-ci ne se met en place qu’avec la ville II. Le périmètre enclos de la ville I est considérable, le mur lui-même est d’un module très limité, et il délimite surtout un périmètre de sécurité, qui enclot un espace dont la logique organisationnelle est celle d’un centre proto-urbain. On peut spéculer sur les vertus réciproques de lignes de défenses quadrangulaires, comme à Habuba ou plus tard Abu Salabikh, et des systèmes circulaires de défense. Margueron a suggéré récemment14 que le système circulaire était mieux adapté à la défense contre les eaux, c’est assurément un paramètre majeur sur lequel on ne revient pas ici. Je souhaite souligner ici un autre aspect. L’ensemble construit est à la fois un habitat permanent protégé et un espace susceptible d’accueillir des réfugiés, ou de fournir des terres cultivables. Il est adapté à des conflits que nous connaissons très mal. Même si quelques scènes de sièges sont connues pour l’époque d’Uruk, elles ne montrent pas des assauts : il s’agit d’échanges de projectiles. Le rempart de Mari, ville I, est une ligne statique de défense qui bloque le passage par sa masse. L’ensemble de la ville est conçu pour résister à un blocus et il semble bien que c’est là la seule technique connue alors de siège. La découverte au chantier J puis au chantier L d’importants lots de balles de fronde nous donne quelques informations sur la nature des contre-mesures pratiquées à cette époque : ces balles de fronde sont différentes de celles qui ont été retrouvées à Hamoukar. Il s’agit de balles en terre semi-cuite, au cœur noirci qui ont une forme ovoïde : elles peuvent peser jusqu’à 150 g mais le calibre courant est de 80 g, soit un calibre plus faible qu’à l’époque proto-urbaine. On a retrouvé un lot important dans le locus 134 du chantier L, dans la même pièce où a été trouvée l’une des roues de char du chantier L (Fig. 4). Je ne reviens pas ici en détail sur ces roues de chars (Fig. 5) auxquelles j’ai consacré deux publications, dont une en commun avec Margueron15. Deux points supplémentaires vont nous retenir ici. D’une part, il faut revenir sur le

Sur ce problème dont la présentation nous entraînerait trop loin voir notamment Meyer 2006, 182. 14 Margueron, communication au colloque de Mari à Damas, Damas musée national, 20 octobre 2008. 15 Butterlin / Margueron 2006 ; Butterlin 2008b, pour la roue elle-même, et Butterlin 2008a, pour le contexte stratigraphique de la découverte. 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

114

P. Butterlin

problème de la chronologie de l’invention de la roue, d’autre part, il faut insister sur l’importance militaire de ces roues, qui ne servent pas qu’à fabriquer des chariots de transport. J’ai suggéré que les roues tripartites découvertes à Mari appartiennent à un type différent de celui qui est connu à l’époque des dynasties archaïques « classiques », soit du Dynastique archaïque III. Il s’agit en effet de roues faites de trois planches rectilignes non du type lenticulaire bien connu en ville II à Mari même, à Ur ou même à Kish. Ce type de roue est connu également à Suse où de Mecquenem les date de 2750 avant notre ère (Fig. 6). Il souligne d’ailleurs que ces roues étaient conservées à l’état de charbon de bois et je soupçonne qu’elles étaient en fait bitumées comme nos roues de Mari. C’est surtout la roue du célèbre char de Tell Agrab qui présente clairement ces roues rectilignes. Ce char d’Agrab qui est un char à deux roues peut avoir été autre chose qu’un simple char de transport. C’est le cas aussi d’une célèbre représentation d’un char, cette fois tiré lui aussi par quatre asiniens, sur un vase en Scarlet Ware conservé au British Museum. Les roues qui sont curieusement montées par rapport à la caisse du char sont présentées pleines. Aucun détail précis n’est donné sur les différentes planches qui la composent. Il s’agit là d’un engin de prestige qui figure de concert avec une scène de banquet. Il signale clairement l’existence d’une élite sociale, une élite d’aristocrates dont les inhumations ont été retrouvées à Kheit Qasim par exemple en Irak16. Cette élite du « pays de Kish » célèbre des vertus tout à fait nouvelles par rapport à l’époque d’Uruk. Nous n’avons aucune preuve de l’existence de la roue à l’époque d’Uruk. Ce que nous voyons, ce sont des véhicules traîneaux. Le signe que Falkenstein interprétait comme le signe de la roue n’est qu’un signe numéral probablement et tout le dossier sur l’invention de la roue s’est complètement étiolé au cours de ces dernières années. Il est clair que cette invention a eu lieu beaucoup plus au nord, probablement dans les steppes d’Ukraine ou en Europe même17, si on suit les dernières datations C 14. Un fait assuré est le lien entre cette invention de la roue composite et la métallurgie : la solidité de ces roues repose sur les clavettes en bronze qui en assurent la cohérence. Les archéologues soviétiques ont fait depuis longtemps le lien entre la métallurgie du cuivre/bronze et le développement de la roue dans le steppes. Ce lien nous conduit plutôt vers l’Anatolie orientale et je me demande si ce n’est pas dans ces régions qu’il faut chercher un foyer d’invention de la roue. J’ai noté en particulier qu’à Arslantepe, l’équipe italienne a trouvé l’une des plus anciennes roues en terre cuite, dans le locus A 113, celui où ont été retrouvées les armes fameuses18. On sait l’importance qu’a joué Arslantepe dans le développement des techniques métallurgiques. Les armes découvertes au locus

Forest 1996. Sur ces problèmes, voir en dernier lieu les contributions réunies dans l’ouvrage collectif dirigé par Pétrequin et al. 2006. 18 Frangipane / Palmieri 1983. 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

115

A 113, et surtout la fameuse tombe princière assignée à la période VI B1 sont autant d’indices majeurs de ces développements. Notons ici que l’on a trouvé dans cette tombe des outils, notamment des gouges qui servent à travailler le bois19. Une de ces gouges, d’un type sensiblement différent à celui d’Arslantepe a été découverte à côté de l’asinien et de la roue découverts dans le locus 134, phase 4 du chantier L. Il y a là un lien entre métallurgie et fabrication des roues. Mari située sur la route commerciale de l’Euphrate a été une plate-forme de transfert technologique possible vers la Mésopotamie centrale. Comme dans les steppes à la fin du IIIe millénaire, ce transfert de technologie a permis le développement d’une aristocratie dont la puissance s’exprime à travers ces chars, des chars dont l’usage militaire n’est pas avéré. A Mari même, comme à Arslantepe, et tout le long de la vallée de l’Euphrate, la multiplication de tombes aristocratiques qui présentent un abondant matériel et notamment des armes est le symbole de ces mutations profondes des sociétés du Proche-Orient ancien. On pense ici tout particilèrement au célèbre tombeau 300 de Mari, ou bien à une tombe du même type découverte tout récemment à Terqa. Toutefois, il ne s’agit pas comme ce sera le cas plus tard de tombes à chars, ou accompagnées d’équidés, comme à Umm el Marra. A Mari toutefois, la mutation s’est accompagnée, comme à Kish du développement continu d’une bureaucratie20 dont l’essor a été interrompu dans la région de Malatya. Mari est située à la frontière de ces développements, comme la région du Hamrin à l’est. Le développement très précoce dans la vallée de l’Euphrate d’une part, dans le Hamrin d’autre part de systèmes de défenses complexes est le signe d’une insécurité réelle, dont les origines sont pour le moment mal définies. On a depuis longtemps fait observer que le développement d’un réseau de forteresses circulaires dans le Hamrin (Gubba ou Razzuk) correspond à des préoccupations qui ne sont pas seulement locales21. La découverte récente de forteresse circulaires plus au nord jusqu’aux bords du Tigre vient confirmer l’idée de l’existence possible d’un système linéaire, que l’on peut intérpréter soit comme des caravanserails soit comme de véritables établissements fortfiés, l’un n’excluant pas l’autre au demeurant. Ces forteresses qui ont fait l’objet de longs débats sur leur organisation et leur fonctionnement sont des installations d’une très grande originalité architecturale. Leur forme circulaire invite à se poser des questions sur les liens avec le développement des villes rondes même s’il faut reconnaître que les problèmes architecturaux, les différences d’échelle empêchent toute comparaison directe.

Sur la tombe princière d’Arslantepe, voir Frangipane 2000 ; 2001. On pense ici à la tombe aux sceaux-cylindres, découverte en 2003 au chantier L : là la marque du prestige n’est pas l’armement mais les sceaux cylindres outils de pouvoir bureaucratique. 21 Postgate 1986. 19 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

116

P. Butterlin

2. La ville II, entre guerre des Cités et guerres impériales Il est devenu classique dans toute présentation de la guerre en Mésopotamie au IIIe millénaire, surtout depuis Yadin d’opposer deux phases22 : celle des conflits entre Cités-Etats sumériennes et celle de la marche à l’empire, la phase proto-impériale puis impériale de l’époque d’Akkad. Entre les deux une véritable révolution militaire aurait eu lieu, mise en avant par Yadin : on serait passé de la lourde phalange sumérienne équipée de masses, de javelines et de lances, à une armée de professionnels équipée plus légèrement, notamment d’arcs composites. Les lourds chars de guerre des Sumériens disparaissent au profit d’une armée plus mobile capable de se déployer à longue distance, sur terre et éventuellement sur mer. L’invention de l’arc composite est pour Yadin une invention aussi importante que la poudre en son temps : « it is indeed no exaggeration to suggest that the invention of the composite bow with its comparatively long range was as revolutionnary, in its days, and brought comparable results, as the discovery of gunpowder thousands of years later »23. Yadin lui-même publie quelques années plus tard24 une nouvelle étude soutenant que l’archer représenté sur une plaque incisée découverte par Parrot à Mari25 présente elle aussi un arc composite si bien que la révolution militaire attribué aux Akkadiens s’avère de fait repoussée dans le Dynastique archaïque. Notre propos n’est pas ici de traiter in extenso de tous ces problèmes qu’a repris récemment Hamblin26. Je noterai simplement que des données nouvelles nous permettent de faire progresser une discussion qui, est-il besoin de le rappeler, repose sur des informations peu nombreuses et souvent difficiles à interpréter. De nouvelles informations invitent à s’interroger sur la pratique de la guerre au temps de la ville II de Mari. Il s’agit d’abord des informations provenant des fouilles de Mari, d’une part, d’autre part des discussions en cours actuellement sur l’évolution géopolitique du monde mésopotamien à la veille et pendant les premières années de l’empire d’Akkad. Les archives et documents d’Ebla ont en effet profondément modifié notre image de la guerre au Dynastique archaïque : Mari est confrontée à des adversaires et à des traditions militaires différentes, avant de

Yadin 1963. Yadin 1963, 48. 24 Yadin 1972. 25 Parrot 1971, 269, pl. 14.4. 26 Hamblin 2006, 35–73 (pour la guerre au Dynastique archaïque), 73–102 (sur l’empire akkadien), assortis de deux autres chapitres qui font appel à des informations sur le milieu du IIIe millénaire : chapitre 5 consacré au développement du char de guerre avec des réflexions sur le char sumérien et chapitre 6 consacré à la « Syrie et au Liban » (237– 269). La guerre à Ebla y est traitée là à part, la documentation mariote étant ventilée dans ces différents chapitres sans que l’on reconnaisse une unité au Dynastique archaïque III. Hamblin de toute manière ignore les recherches récentes à Mari dans l’ensemble, notamment les recherches archéologiques. Il ignore aussi les recherches récentes sur la guerre à Ebla, notamment les analyses les plus récentes de la documentation écrite. 22 23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

117

succomber sous les coups des rois d’Akkad. Il n’existe pas une culture mais des cultures martiales distinctes dans le monde des Cités-Etats. Revenons à la plaque décorée de Mari. Elle a été découverte par Parrot dans le palais P1, en 1968 (Fig. 7), conservée à Der ez Zor (n° 3746). Cette plaque qui a été souvent commentée27 est de fait un hapax du plus haut intérêt : non seulement on y voit un archer – une rareté pour la guerre au Dynastique archaïque – mais la position du tireur et l’ensemble de la scène, le type de bouclier et le personnage figuré, en haut à droite, suggèrent qu’il s’agit d’une scène de siège, là encore une nouveauté dans l’iconographie martiale suméro-akkadienne. Margueron a exploité ce document pour rendre compte de la distance de 300 m qui séparent la première enceinte de la deuxième enceinte de la ville II de Mari, une distance qui est déjà présente en ville I. Il lie cette distance à la portée de l’arc composite et soutient que cette arme existe donc en Mésopotamie avant l’époque d’Akkad, plus précisément dès l’époque d’Uruk. On en vient donc à une théorie complète du développement de l’art militaire qui est très différente de la vulgate véhiculée depuis Yadin et reprise inlassablement dans les manuels sur le problème. Hamblin lui va au départ dans le même sens que Margueron, au sujet de la plaque gravée : si de fait, l’arc représenté sur la plaque de Mari est composite alors il faut faire remonter son invention à l’époque d’Uruk28. L’usage de l’arc dans la Mésopotamie prédynastique est avéré mais semble marginal si on s’en tient à notre source la plus riche, les grands panneaux de mosaïque en nacre ou pierre. Le problème est de parvenir à interpréter précisément et en termes de technologie militaire des monuments gravés qui ne furent pas réalisés pour faire de la pédagogie balistique. Il est de fait bien connu que les arcs représentés à l’époque d’Uruk, notamment le fameux arc de la stèle de chasse, présentent une courbure et un épaississement de l’arc au niveau des points d’attache. Ce sont là des critères que Yadin a lui-même utilisés pour définir l’arc composite de Naram-Sin, sur la célèbre stèle du Louvre. Hamblin rejette en bloc toute cette ligne d’interprétation en estimant que l’arc composite n’existe pas au IVe millénaire, et qu’il est marginal dans les représentations de la période d’Akkad29. Il conclut : « If the composite bow existed in Akkadian times, I would suggest that it was a rare and expensive weapon used by kings and other elites »30. L’un des éléments clefs de son argumentaire est de souligner que même si cette arme peut avoir été utilisée par Naram-Sîn, elle ne fait pas partie de l’armement

Outre Yadin, la scène est commentée avec bibliographie par Hamblin (2006, 89–90, fig. 5 c, 218). Dernière publication avec bibliographie, in Aruz (éd.) 2003, n° 99, 158–159. Notice de Paul Collins qui ne se prononce pas sur l’interprétation de la plaque. Voir en dernier lieu Collon 2008, 95–96 qui opte pour l’arc composite, tout comme Muller Margueron 2016, 14–15, qui ne discute pas l’interprétation. 28 Hamblin 2006, 90. 29 Hamblin 2006, 93. 30 Hamblin 2006, 93–94. 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

118

P. Butterlin

standard des soldats akkadiens. Il s’appuie sur une analyse des calibres des armes représentées sur les reliefs akkadiens. Il ne revient toutefois pas sur les attestations plus anciennes si bien que l’ensemble de l’argumentation reste faible. En revanche, il semble bien que ce type d’armes disparaît de la documentation à la fin du IIIe millénaire et ne réapparaît qu’au Bronze moyen, surtout à l’époque de la guerre de chars. Il reste une incertitude sur la terminologie utilisée dans les textes d’Ur III31 puis de Mari32 sur l’arc composite si bien que ce dossier est là encore difficile à manier. Il en est de même quand on aborde la question de la portée de l’arc composite. C’est là un sujet qui dépasse très largement notre propos ici. Rappelons d’abord qu’il est classique en histoire militaire d’attribuer à l’introduction de l’arc composite une véritable révolution militaire suivie de considérables bouleversements socio-politiques : c’est vrai pour le Bronze ancien, pour le Bronze moyen et la guerre de chars, c’est vrai aussi pour la période romaine tardive ou byzantine (Xe siècle), la révolution militaire abbasside ou surtout pour expliquer les victoires mongoles. Il s’avère quand on survole toute la bibliographie qu’il existe de considérables désaccords sur les performances de l’arc scythe, turc ou mongol. Nous manquons là de données sûres et même les manuels mamlouks sont pour le moins confus sur ces questions33. Qu’il s’agisse de cadence de tir, de portée théorique en tir tendu ou de barrage, de vélocité des projectiles, de grandes différences apparaissent. Entre la portée théorique d’un tir tendu (jusqu’à 300 m apparemment) et l’efficacité réelle (plutôt fixée à une centaine de mètres), il existe un écart considérable. C’est vrai aussi pour l’arc standard qui existe depuis le Mésolithique34. Collon a fait récemment le point sur notre documentation concernant l’arc au Proche-Orient antique35. Son étude est liée à celle des pointes de flèches pour les périodes préhistoriques et on a longtemps cru que l’arc avait été présent plus tôt au Levant qu’en Mésopotamie même où il n’apparaîtrait que vers 3000. Toutefois, une représentation qui date de l’époque de Halaf (trouvée à Arpatchiyah en 1976) montre un arc à double courbure sans que l’on puisse dire s’il s’agit d’un arc composite. Collon considère elle comme acquis que l’arc composite est présent sur la stèle de Warka et dans les rares documents du IVe millénaire qui le montrent : elle note surtout que les flèches alors en usage sont des flèches transversales, notamment les 172 têtes de flèches retrouvées au Riemchengebäude d’Uruk. Wright a Sur la notion d’ « arc complexe » à l’époque d’Ur III, voir en dernier lieu, Lafont 2009, 30–31 : GISH.SHUB = illuru est mentionné dans l’hymne D de Shulgi et la Lamentation sur la destruction d’Ur, vers 384 («De terribles arcs, des arcs complexes allaient s’entredévorer avec des boucliers de cuir»). 32 Sur le problème de l’arc Tilpanum, voir Durand 1983 ; 1998. 33 Sur ces problèmes voir Nicolle 2007. 34 Guilaine / Zammit 2001, 97–102, pour le Mésolithique européen, les plus anciennes attestations se trouvant à Velmor (extrême fin du paléolithique, puis Vis Mor, en Russie). Notons à ce sujet la présence précoce d’arcs à double courbure. Sur les problèmes de portée, voir aussi Keeley 2002, 90. 35 Collon 2008. 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

119

étudié la répartition de ces pointes de flèches au Proche-Orient36. En tout cas elle considère que l’usage de l’arc composite est bien établi à la fin du Dynastique archaïque III en s’appuyant sur la plaque de Mari, puis sur les reliefs bien connus de la période d’Akkad. Elle mentionne rapidement l’absence de représentations d’arcs au début du IIIe millénaire, sans poser le problème que pose cette apparente rupture. Celle-ci est d’autant plus problématique que l’arc et le projectile représentés sur la plaque de Mari sont différents de ceux qui étaient attestés à la période d’Uruk. Il faut donc accepter l’idée qu’il s’est produit une importante innovation au cours du début du IIIe millénaire qui n’est documentée nulle part en Mésopotamie. A Ur, dans le cimetière royal, les pointes de flèches retrouvées dans le tombeau de Meskalamdug sont du type transversal37. L’innovation ne semble donc pas venir du pays sumérien. Collon ne se prononce guère sur l’efficacité de ces armes qui on fait l’objet de reconstitutions expérimentales38. La portée de l’arc composite fixée à 300 m est purement théorique et discutée. Récemment Keeley, Fontana et Quick ont proposé une synthèse de ces données et fait le lien entre espacement des bastions et développements de la balistique en estimant que l’espacement de base entre les bastions est de 25 à 40 m. Ils observent notamment que cet espacement a tendance à croître dans le temps et qu’un saut qualitatif ne s’opère réellement que vers 750 avant notre ère quand l’arc composite se généralise alors dans les troupes de base, puis vers 375 avant notre ère en Chine et au Proche-Orient quand apparaissent les premières formes d’arbalètes. L’espacement type tend alors à être de 60 m. Ils proposent aussi une table des portées supposées de l’arc composite qui varient considérablement39 : 37 à 114 m (Jenesss, Indiens du Canada), 100 à 180 m (Drews, Bronze récent au Proche-Orient), 150 m et plus (Lawrence, monde grec), 150 à 200 m (O’ Connell, synthèse générale), 180 à 275 m (Vancreveld, technology of war), 230 m (Gabriel and Metz, From Sumer to Rome), 230 à 275 m (Ferril, origins of war), 250 à 650 m (Wiseman, Assyriens ), 274 m (Keegan, history of war). On peut ajouter à ces données d’autres évaluations : 300 m encore pour Mac Leod par exemple. C’est la portée évoquée pour les arcs composites utilisés par les archers byzantins de la reconquista du Xe siècle40. On se contentera ici de noter qu’il manque une solide étude de l’évolution de ces arcs composites : il est établi que l’arc turco-mongol constitue une innovation nette par rapports aux arcs composites antérieurs (notamment en terme de performances)41, qu’il existe plusieurs manières de le bander (la manière méditerranéenne et la manière mongole) et on ne saurait donc amalgamer toutes ces données.

Wright 2002. Collon 2008, 95. 38 Miller / McEwen / Bergman 1986. 39 Keeley et al. 2007, 73–74, tableau 1. 40 McGeer 2008, 206–207 avec bibliographie. 41 Nicolle 2007, 98–102. 36 37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

120

P. Butterlin

L’usage de l’arc sur les champs de batailles sumériens est bien attesté, le problème est plus complexe pour évaluer les projectiles. Là, un autre paramètre intervient : l’efficacité de l’arc composite n’est réelle qu’avec des pointes de flèches en bronze qui ont un coefficient de pénétration et une vélocité suffisante pour être efficaces à plus de 100 m. Au Bronze ancien, l’essentiel des pointes de flèches est fait de silex pas de cuivre ou de bronze, comme c’était le cas à l’époque d’Uruk, on l’a vu plus haut. A Mari, les pointes de flèches restent en silex, et elles sont très comparables à celles qui ont été récemment mises à jour sur le site de Tell Bazi par A. Otto42. Toutefois, une importante mutation a lieu entre ville I et ville II. Les plus anciennes pointes de flèches en cuivre sont été trouvées dans les tombeaux en pierre. La plaque de Mari a là encore fait couler beaucoup d’encre : on a décrit la flèche comme une flèche barbelée, une flèche à feu43. Ce n’est qu’au Bronze moyen, que sont produites en masses des pointes de flèches en bronze, à un coût considérable, si l’on suit les informations données par les textes de Mari44. Le lien entre l’introduction de l’arc composite et le développement de ces pointes de flèches en bronze a aussi été fait pour le monde égéen45. C’est là un autre paramètre de la discussion. Ces problèmes de balistique qui ne se limitent pas rappelons-le à la question de l’arc mais comprennent aussi le dossier très mal connu des balles de fronde46. Elles sont de fait étroitement liés aux questions de poliorcétique et à l’évolution des techniques de combats. La documentation a considérablement évolué sur ce dernier point, grâce aux fouilles récentes et à l’approfondissement des recherches sur les textes d’Ebla. Ceux-ci ont permis de comprendre plus concrètement des affrontements que nous ne connaissions jusqu’ici que par des inscriptions royales et des documents stéréotypés. Il n’existe pas pour le moment de synthèse solide sur ces conflits du Bronze ancien, parce que les matériaux de base restent encore pour une large part inédits. On connaît mieux depuis peu la nature des armes utilisées grâce à une synthèse récente47 mais la nature des combats eux-mêmes reste pour l’instant une énigme. En dépit de ces réserves, il est possible de dessiner quelques remarques générales ou tout au moins des problèmes récurrents. Première observation. Si les textes d’Ebla mentionnent des campagnes répétées, sur un rythme annuel, celles-ci ne paraissent pas pour l’heure présenter des sièges en règle ou tout au moins des assauts. Le seul conflit précisément publié

Otto 2006. Collon 2008, 96. 44 Sur ces pointes de flèches, voir en dernier lieu Charpin 2004. 45 Drews 1993. 46 Portées estimées là aussi très variables de 27 m à 400 m (portée maximale). Rappelons que les frondeurs romains devaient être capables de toucher une cible à 185 m de distance (sur ce problème, voir Keeley et al. 2007, 73–74, tableau 1). 47 Biga 2008. 42 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

121

pour le moment48 est la guerre qui eut lieu entre Mari et Ebla peu d’années avant la chute d’Ebla (13e année d’Ibbi-Zikir). La campagne (níg-kas4) commandée par Ibbi-Zikir a conduit les troupes éblaïtes à Halabit, soit Halabiyé, où fut établi ce n’est évidemment pas un hasard le camp de base de l’armée éblaïte. La campagne se solde par la bataille de Terqa où les troupes d’Ebla eurent raison de celles de Mari et de son roi. L’armée éblaïte n’a pas marché sur Mari mais les négociations ont commencé immédiatement après la défaite. Une paix fut alors conclue accompagnée d’intenses tractations diplomatiques et matrimoniales entre les Eblaïtes et leurs alliés, Nagar et Kish pour l’essentiel. Aux yeux de Biga, il s’agit là d’un vaste règlement de comptes contre la puissance qui quelques générations auparavant sous Iblul-El exerça une hégémonie de fait sur toute la Syrie. Il est bien possible que certains niveaux de destructions observés sur l’Euphrate, notamment à Bazi soient liés à ces campagnes d’Iblul-El. De ces informations très limitées sur le conflit lui-même, il ressort que la bataille rangée est comme dans le Sud mésopotamien une norme, un fait que les historiens de la guerre continuent à ignorer, curieusement. Comme dans les textes de Mari, sept cents ans plus tard, c’est la bataille rangée qui construit la réputation d’un grand roi, pas un siège. L’existence de sièges en règle est toutefois clairement attestée, le problème étant de savoir quelles techniques d’attaques et quelles contre mesures étaient alors disponibles. La plaque de Mari, on ne revient pas dessus, évoque clairement une scène de siège mais n’indique pas d’assaut à proprement parler. On en a tiré l’idée qu’une fois les premiers remparts édifiés, la guerre mésopotamienne est devenue statique. Ce n’est qu’à la fin du IIIe millénaire que se développeraient des techniques de poliorcétiques plus active que de simples blocus, comme ce fut le cas plus tard en Grèce, de la période classique à la période hellénistique. Quelques nouveaux documents invitent à s’interroger sur cette chronologie de l’histoire de la poliorcétique. Il s’agit du sceau dit « sceau dynastique » et d’autre part des empreintes représentant des véhicules découvertes à Tell Beydar (Fig. 8)49. Les inventeurs de ces empreintes les ont interprétées comme des représentations rituelles mais il est plus que probable que certains de ces véhicules sont des représentations de tours de siège et béliers50. On retrouve des véhicules comparables dans la glyptique de Brak et des représentations de véhicules sur la dalle massive trouvée par Beyer dans les fondations du temple de Nini Zaza51. Cela nous ramène d’ailleurs à la question de la roue et de son usage. Il existe un dossier important sur le char sumérien bien sûr, sur le rôle militaire duquel on continue de s’interroger d’ailleurs. Il faut y ajouter maintenant d’autres véhicules militaires. Il faut d’ailleurs noter au passage que la représentation de ces tours de siège est très

Archi / Biga 2003 ; Biga, comm. colloque ARCANE Bruxelles déc. 2008. Bretschneider / Voet 1998, 167. 50 Hamblin 2006, 216–217 ; Nadali 2009 ; Rey 2012, 140–141 qui fait une étude typologique de l’ensemble de ces machines. 51 Beyer / Lecompte 2014. 48 49

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

122

P. Butterlin

similaire à ce que l’on trouve dans les manuscrits médiévaux notamment ceux des chroniques des croisades. Les fouilles récentes dans la ville est de Mari ont permis de dégager les vestiges massifs d’une des portes de la ville. Celle-ci était à simple tenaille, dotée de fondations de pierres surmontées d’un mur de briques crues. Noyées dans la masse des briques crues, quatre blocs gigantesques de gypse armaient le mur, probablement au niveau du sol (Fig. 9). Il s’agit là à mon sens d’un dispositif de protection du mur contre des sapes ou des béliers. La construction du rempart intérieur de Mari a constitué une mutation majeure (Fig. 10), et elle est peut-être une réponse au développement de la poliorcétique après la IIe révolution urbaine. Elle correspond aussi à la mise en place d’un système de défense échelonné, une innovation militaire majeure. La glyptique syrienne du milieu du IIIe millénaire valorise donc des situations qui ne sont pas ordinairement mises en avant dans le Sud mésopotamien. S’agitil là d’un choix délibéré ou bien avons-nous là le reflet d’un décalage entre les pratiques militaires du Sud et du Nord mésopotamien ? Il semble bien, après un rapide survol de la documentation disponible que les pratiques militaires en vigueur dans la Syrie proto-impériale sont effectivement sensiblement différentes de ce qui se passe à la même époque au pays de Sumer. Mari, qui fut l’avant poste en ville I du monde urbanisée est désormais prise entre deux traditions militaires distinctes : les nacres de Mari présentent, c’est un fait bien connu – des situations militaires qui relèvent d’une koinè techno-militaire commune avec Sumer (Figs 11–12), elles ont fait l’objet récemment de nouvelles études qui ont permis de mieux mesurer les normes et conventions d’une tradition déclinée selon un mode spécifique à Mari52. Le célèbre étendard de Mari a été retrouvé au sud du sanctuaire d’Ishtar virile et il continue de poser des problèmes de restitution53. La position même de ce sanctuaire situé le long du rempart intérieur, au nord de la porte ouest de la ville laisse supposer un lien particulier avec la version martiale d’Ishtar54. Outre le fameux étendard toute une série d’armes a été retrouvée dans le sanctuaire55 : poignards à soie et rivets, haches à languette repliée, une hache à collet et deux masses d’arme. La hache à collet, ornée d’un serpent a été rapprochée du fameux guerrier à l’herminette, un élément de plaquage en ivoire trouvé près de Mari figurant un soldat casqué56. La hache à languette repliée, le poignard à soie et rivets semblent être la panoplie de base du soldat mariote, on en a trouvé un bon exemple dans une tombe dégagée en 2006 dans les fondations de la ville II. Après la première destruction de la ville II, le sanctuaire a été reconstruit et probable-

Couturaud 2013 ; 2014a ; Muller Margueron 2016. Calmeyer 1967 ; Couturaud 2013 ; 2014b. 54 Margueron 2014. 55 Montero Fenollós 2014, 171–173. 56 Cluzan / Butterlin (éds) 2014, n° 94. 52 53

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

123

ment agrandi vers l’ouest. Cet édifice nous paraît surtout lié à des rituels royaux, peut-être des cérémonies d’intronisation (voire de triomphe) dans lesquelles la déesse Ishtar joue un rôle majeur au cours de la phase proto-impériale. A cet égard, il est possible que le temple d’Ishtar ait joué un rôle comparable à celui du temple de Kura à Ebla. Il n’est pas indiférent que c’est là précisément que fut retrouvée la statuette représentant Ishgi-Mari le dernier roi de Mari, dont les deux sceaux évoquant victoire et banquets auraient été gravés en vue de célébrer la destruction de Mari par Ebla57. La célèbre statuette d’Ishgi-Mari elle-même aurait pu d’après les restitutions récentes figurer le roi muni d’une arme, peut-être une lance58. Parmi les statuettes retrouvées au temple d’Ishtar, l’une d’entre elles pourrait avoir été un soldat ou un officier, d’après les marques qu’il porte sur le visage59. Quelles que soient les circonstances qui ont conduit à la production de ces sceaux, le règne d’Ishgi-Mari intervient à une époque de très intense compétition, au cours de laquelle les rois luttaient pour l’hégémonie, le titre même de vicaire d’Enlil traduisant ces prétentions. La déesse Ishtar est présente à travers son cimeterre parmi les divinités représentées sur le scellement et il est bien possible qu’elle ait joué un rôle majeur au cours des dernières années de la ville II, un rôle majeur que l’on peut comparer à celui qu’elle jouera à Akkad. En somme, on dispose avec ces ensembles de représentations d’un corpus assez diversifié mettant en scène les soldats mariotes, à la fois dans les coquilles mais aussi dans la statuaire. Un hapax comme la plaque gravée que nous avons évoquée indique d’autres pratiques. Il est bien possible que ce type de plaques gravées révèle d’autres scènes « exotiques », si le hasard en livre d’autres. A cet égard, les scellements d’Ishgi-Mari sont peut-être l’expression de ces pratiques particulières : on y voit une scène de combat et peut-être sur le deuxième sceau d’Ishgi-Mari d’exécution (Fig. 13). Enfin, il faut rappeler la présence d’une tête, peut-être un trophée, dans le chariot figuré sur ces empreintes de sceaux. Les éléments de panneaux d’Ebla mettent en avant d’autres scènes types. On y voit tout un cortège de scènes d’exécution, de présentation ou de comptage de têtes. Ces scènes que j’ai commentées ailleurs60 sont tout à fait originales et évoquent la pratique rituelle de massacres, accompagnées de décollation figurées sur les plaques sculptées découvertes dans le palais G61. Les philologues d’Ebla se sont depuis longtemps demandés pourquoi certains textes évoquaient des centaines de têtes. Biga récemment62 est arrivée à la conclusion très logique que ces

Voir en dernier lieu pour ces empreintes object de nombreux commentaires et débats, Beyer 2016 en réponse à Bretschneider / Van Vyve / Jans 2009. 58 Cluzan / Lecompte 2014. 59 Cluzan 2014 ; Cluzan / Butterlin (éds) 2014, n° 96. 60 Butterlin 2005. 61 Dolce 2006. 62 Biga 2008. 57

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

124

P. Butterlin

têtes ne sont pas des têtes de moutons mais les têtes récupérées sur le champ de bataille ou à la suite d’exécutions rituelles. De telles exécutions sont tout à fait typiques d’un univers tribal dans lequel la violence extrême est une norme et il semble bien qu’Ebla soit un des premiers grands Etats prédateurs de l’histoire du Proche-Orient, une sorte de laboratoire de la violence d’Etat, une violence qui se généralise à l’époque d’Akkad. Dans cette mesure au moins, les pratiques des rois d’Akkad apparaissent comme l’introduction dans le Sud mésopotamien de pratiques couramment en usage dans le Nord mésopotamien ou au Levant Nord. Dans ce jeu à acteurs multiples, Mari a dû s’adapter à des techniques très diverses de combat, qui ne sont pas loin s’en faut toutes évoquées avec la même intensité dans le répertoire iconographique. Bibliography Archi, A. / Biga, M. G., 2003 : A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla. JCS 55: 1–45. Aruz, J. (éd.), 2003 : Art of the First Cities : The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York. Bahrani, Z., 2008 : Rituals of War : The Body and Violence in Mesopotamia. New York. Beyer, D., 2016 : Some Observations on the War Scenes on the Seals from Mari City II. Dans L. Battini (éd.) : Making Pictures of War. Realia et Imaginaria in the Iconology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford. Pp. 5–13. Beyer, D. / Lecompte, C., 2014 : La glyptique du secteur du temple d’Ishtar à Mari. Dans S. Cluzan /P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 275–283. Biga, M. G., 2008 : Au-delà des frontières : guerre et diplomatie à Ébla. Orientalia 77/4 : 289–334. Bretschneider, J. / Van Vyve, A.-S. / Jans, G., 2009 : War of the Lords. The Battle of Chronology. Trying to Recognize Historical Iconography in the 3rd Millennium Glyptic Art in Seals of Ishqi-Mari and from Beydar, Ugarit-Forschungen 41 : 5–28. Bretschneider, J. / Voet, G., 1998 : La glyptique syrienne et les nouvelles découvertes à Tell Beydar. Dans Ph. Tallon / K. van Lerberghe (éds) : En Syrie. Aux origines de l’écriture. Turnhout. Pp. 161–170. Butterlin, P., 2005 : La figure du massacre dans l’Histoire du Proche-Orient ancien : du stéréotype à la terreur calculée. Dans D. E. Kenz (éd.) : Le massacre, objet d’Histoire. Paris. Pp. 49–72. –– 2007 : Mari, les Shakkanakkû et la crise de la fin du IIIe millénaire. Dans C. Kuzugluoglu / C. Marro (éds) : Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du IIIe millénaire : une crise a-t-elle eu lie en Haute Mésopotamie ? Actes du colloque de Lyon, 5–8 décembre 2005, Institut français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil-Istanbul. Paris. Pp. 227–247. –– 2008a : L’évolution de la ville 1 de Mari : problème de stratigraphie au chantier L. Dans H. Kühne et al. (éds) : Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE. Wiesbaden. Pp. 343–354. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

125

––2008b : Ville et campagnes en Mésopotamie, la logistique des révolutions urbaines. Dans J. Guilaine (éd.) : Villes, villages, campagnes de l’âge du Bronze, Paris. Pp. 28–44. Butterlin, P. / Margueron, J., 2006 : Deux roues à Mari et l’invention de la roue en Mésopotamie. Dans J. Pétrequin et al. (éds) : Premiers chariots, premiers araires, la diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IVe et IIIe millénaires avant notre ère. Paris. Pp. 317–328. Calmeyer, P., 1967 : Zur Rekonstruktion der ‘Standarte’ von Mari. Dans J.R. Kupper (éd.) : La civilisation de Mari, XVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Liège, 4–8 juillet 1966). Paris. Pp. 161–169. Charpin, D., 2004 : Histoire politique de la Mésopotamie (2002–1595). Dans D. Charpin / D.O. Edzard / M. Stol : Mesopotamien : Die altbabylonische Zeit (OBO 160/4). Fribourg. Pp. 1–178.  Cluzan, S., 2014 : La sculpture votive du temple d’Ishtar. Dans S. Cluzan /P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 241–253. Cluzan, S. / Butterlin, P., 2014 (éds.) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari, guides archéologiques n° 11. Beyrouth. Cluzan, S. / Lecomte, C., 2014 : Les statues inscrites du temple d’Ishtar. Dans S. Cluzan / P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 253–271. Collon, D., 2008 : Le développement de l’arc en Mésopotamie. Dans P. Abrahami / L. Battini (éds) : Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill), Actes du colloque international organisé à Lyon les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerrané (BAR–IS 1855). Oxford. Pp. 93–112. Cooper, J., 1983 : Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions : The Lagash-Umma Border Conflict (SANE II/1). Malibu. Couturaud, B., 2013 : Mise en scène du pouvoir au Proche-Orient au IIIe millénaire, étude iconographique du matériel d’incrustation en coquille de Mari, thèse non publiée, soutenue en juillet 2013, Université Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines. –– 2014a : L’image et le contexte, nouvelle étude des panneaux figuratifs incrustés de Mari. Syria 91 : 77–99. –– 2014b : Reconsidération iconographique de l’Étendard de Mari et des incrustations en coquille du temple d’Ishtar. Dans S. Cluzan / P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 295–301. Dawson, D., 2001 : The First Armies. London. Dolce, R., 2006 : Têtes en guerre en Mésopotamie et Syrie. Dans S. D’Onofrio / A.C. Tayloer (éds): La guerre en tête. Paris. Pp. 33–46. Durand, J.M., 1983 : Textes administratifs des salles 134 et 16 du Palais de Mari (Archives royales de Mari 21). Paris. –– 1998 : Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari II. Paris. Drews, R., 1993 : The End of the Bronze Age : Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. Princeton. Frangipane, M. / Palmieri, A., 1983 : A Protourban Centre of the Late Uruk Period. Origini 12/2, 5 : 287–454. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

126

P. Butterlin

Frangipane, M., 2000 : The Late Chalcolithic/EB I Sequence at Arslantepe. Chronological and Cultural Remarks from a Frontier Site. Dans C. Marro / H. Hauptmann (éds) : Chronologie des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate, aux IVèmes et IIIèmes millénaires. Paris. Pp. 439–471. –– 2001 : The transition between two opposing forms of power at Arslantepe (Malatya) at the beginning of the 3rd millennium. Tüba-Ar 4 : 1–24. Guilaine, J. / Zammit, J., 2001 : Le sentier de la guerre, visages de la violence préhistorique. Paris. Hamblin, W.J., 2006 : Warfare in the Ancient Near East to 1600 BC : Holy Warriors at the Dawn of History. London. Hanson, V.D., 1990 : Le Modèle occidental de la guerre : la bataille d’infanterie dans la Grèce classique, Paris. Keeley, H.L., 2002 : Les guerres préhistoriques. Paris. Keeley, H.L. / Fontana, M. / Quick, R., 2007 : Baffles and Bastions, the Universal Features of Fortifications. Journal of Archaeological Research 15 : 55–95. Lafont, B., 2009 : The Armies of the Kings of Ur, the Written Evidence, CDLI Journal 2009 :5 (http ://www.cdli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_005. html). McGeer, E., 2008 : Sowing the Dragoon’s teeth, Byzantine Warfare in the tenth century. Washington. Margueron, J., 2014 : Le temple d’Ishtar : ce que l’on peut en dire 80 ans après la fouille. Dans S. Cluzan / P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 131–149. Meyer, J.W., 2006 : Zur Frage Urbanisierung in Tell Chuera. Dans P. Butterlin et al. (éds) : Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens, Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien, volume d’hommages offert à Jean-Claude Margueron (Subartu 17). Turnhout. Pp. 179–189. Miller, R. / McEwen, E. / Bergman, C., 1986 : Experimental Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Archery. World Archaeology 18/2 : 178–185. Montero, Fenellós, J.-L., 2014 : Le métal du temple d’Ishtar et ses abords : dépôts de fondation et autres objets. Dans S. Cluzan /P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar, Syrie janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari. Beyrouth. Pp. 167–175. Nadali, D., 2007 : Monuments of War, war of Monuments : Some Considerations on Commemorating War in the Third Millennium B.C. Orientalia 76/4 : 336– 367. –– 2009 : Representations of Battering Rams and Siege Towers in Early Bronze Age Glyptic Art. Historiae 6 : 39–52. Nicolle, C., 2007 : Crusader Warfare Volume I : Byzantium, Western Europe and the Battle for the Holy Land. London. Otto, A., 2006 : Archaeological Perspectives on the Localization of Naram-Sin’s Armanum. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58 : 1–43. Parrot, A., 1971 : Les fouilles de Mari, dix-neuvième campagne (Printemps 1971). Syria XLVIIII : 253–270. Pétrequin, J. et al. (éds), 2006 : Premiers chariots, premiers araires, la diffusion de la traction animale en Europe pendant les IVe et IIIe millénaires avant notre ère. Paris. Pinnock, F. 2014 : The Image of Power at Mari Between East and West. Dans M. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

127

al Maqdissi et al. (éds) : Mari ni est ni ouest (Syria Supplément 2). Beyrouth. Pp. 674–685. Postgate, J.N., 1986 : The Transition from Uruk to Early Dynastic : Continuities and Discontinuities in the Record of Settlement. Dans U. Finkbeiner / W. Rollig (éds) : Ğamdat Nasr, Period or Regional Style? Wiesbaden. Pp. 90–106. Rey, S., 2012 : Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient à l’âge du Bronze. Fortifications urbaines, procédés de siège et systèmes défensifs (BAH 197). Beyrouth. Winter, I.J., 1985 : After the Battle is Over : The ‘Stele of the Vultures’ and the Beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East. Dans H.L. Kessler / M.S. Simpson (éds) : Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Washington. Pp. 11–32. Wright, H.T., 2002 : Arrows and Arrowheadsin the Uruk World. Dans L. Al-Gailani Werr et al. (éds) : Of Pots and Plans. Papers Presented to David Oates. London. Pp. 373–378. Yadin, Y., 1963 : The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands : In the Light of Archaeological Discovery. London. –– 1972 : The Earliest Representation of a Siege Scene and a ‘Scythian Bow’ from Mari. IEJ 22 : 89–94.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

P. Butterlin

Fig. 1. Ensembles culturels du début du IIIe millénaire, carte P. Butterlin.

128

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

129

Fig. 2. Evolution de la ceinture extérieure de Mari, P. Butterlin, mission archéologique française de Mari.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

130

P. Butterlin

Fig. 3. Mari, chantier N 4, paroi est et ouest du chantier état 2010, dessin S.Rey, mission archéologique française de Mari.

Fig. 4. Mari, balles de fronde, ville I, chantier L, P. Butterlin, mission archéologiqe française de Mari.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

131

Fig. 5. Mari, chantier L, empreinte de roue in situ, P. Butterlin, mission archéologique française de Mari.

Fig. 6. La roue en Mésopotamie, planche P. Butterlin. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

132

P. Butterlin

Fig. 7. Mari, plaque au décor incisé détail de l’archer, AP 15680, mission archéologique française de Mari.

Fig. 8. Beydar, empreintes portant des chariots, planche P. Butterlin. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

133

Fig. 9. Mari, fondations du rempart de ville II, porte sud de la ville, état 2009, mission archéologique française de Mari.

Fig. 10. Mari, restitution du rempart de ville II, Artefact, mission archéologique française de Mari. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

134

P. Butterlin

Fig. 11. Mari, coquille nacrées, scènes de chariots, planche P. Butterlin.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mari et l’histoire militaire mésopotamienne

135

Fig. 12. Mari, coquille nacrée palais P1, soldats et prisonniers, A-P, mission archéologique française de Mari.

Fig. 13. Mari, empreinte du sceau du roi Ishgi-Mari, mission archéologique française de Mari. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC in Southern Mesopotamia Eloisa Casadei*

1. Introduction: The Origin of the Problem and the State of Research 1.1 Temple as Urban Building The present paper intends to analyze the storage facilities recognized inside the temple buildings during the final 4th and the 3rd millennia BC in Southern Mesopotamia. This topic is part of my PhD dissertation on the role of temples in Southern Mesopotamian society from the Jemdet Nasr to the Early Dynastic periods (JN–ED III, 3100–2750 BC). During this period, the urban society characterizing Southern Mesopotamia is subdivided into social units by household. A household is a kin-based unit, economically self-sufficient, in which all the components are associated with the same house. Consequently, a household can be detected in the archaeological record starting from the edifice they occupied.1 Many researchers now agree on the idea that during the 3rd millennium BC temple agencies were organized as households, with their own self-sufficient economy linked to everyday-life needs.2 In this respect, it is important to track a clear separation between temple building and temple agency. While a temple agency represents one of the It was Frances Pinnock who inspired me in this thesis argument related to the ancient Mesopotamia, who motivated and supported me during these years. Hence, I am pleased to be represented in this collection of studies in her honor by an article concerning some aspects and considerations from my research. 1 The first definition of household archaeology was formulated by Wilk and Rathje (1982). The definition of household was initially conceived as an anthropological concept; it represents the level at which social groups articulate directly with economic and ecological process (Wilk / Rathje 1982, 618). A household is defined as a “group of people living under a single roof and cooperating economically on a daily basis” (Wilk / Rathje 1982, 620). For a general discussion of this topic see Hendon 2004. 2 The first attempts to analyze ancient Mesopotamian urban society began in the 1990s (Veenhof ed. 1996; Wattenmaker 1998; Brusasco 1999‒2000). Pollock (1999, 117) introduced the idea of oikos, suggesting a connection between the family and the development of the economy during the 3rd millennium BC. For a recent discussion related to the ancient Near East see Parker / Foster (eds) 2012. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

138

E. Casadei

pivotal point of the historical-philological debate regarding the late 4th and the 3rd millennia BC (see § 1.2), temple building has never been taken into account as part of a strictly archaeological discourse. Temple building has to be seen as the building physically constructed and integrated inside the urban settlement, being part of it.3 Nevertheless, what happened inside the temple precinct, the type of activities undertaken, as well as the relationship between inside and outside the temple, are all still obscure questions. Storage practices are one of the most interesting aspects related to the temple precincts, because they can help in defining the everyday-life economy of a group. Again, a distinction is necessary between agency and building. Regarding agency, the storage activities are integrated into a complex economic system that is able to administrate substantial amounts of different kinds of goods. Focusing on the building, storage practices are related to everyday-life activities that involved the group of people gravitating around the building itself. Solid and liquid containers make food and drink easily accessible. In the first case, researchers have to look at large storage buildings or a consistent series of storage structures related to each other. In the second case, we must concentrate on every kind of storage facility that can be detected inside the temple or that are directly connected with it. The present research focuses on this second aspect, and aims to understand where the storage facilities were located, what was their capacity and, possibly, for which purpose foodstuffs were preserved. 1.2 The Historical Background: Social Structures and the Urban Compound during the 3rd Millennium BC The economic history of the 3rd millennium BC, and especially the reconstruction of temple economy, is mostly based on the textual sources. In fact, thanks to the high number of administrative tablets discovered, the identification of at least three important archives dating from the second half of the Early Dynastic period (henceforth ED) has been possible. The E-Mi/E-Bau archive from Girsu (modern Telloh) was the first that was recognized, and it is the largest archive of this period thus far attested.4 Other textual sources come from Fara (ancient Shuruppak), where a series of rations can be related to a single huge administration center, probably a temple.5 Several texts from Umma show a similar

The processes by which temple buildings expanded, and the factors involved, has been discussed by G. Gates in his analysis of ancient cities (Gates 2003, 1), where architecture appears as the key for understanding ancient urban society and represents one of the main sources of archaeological information (Gates 2003, 3‒4). 4 It has been extensively published and discussed; for recent remarks and the status quaestionis see Powell 1990; Prentice 2010; Shrakamp 2013. 5 See Martin 1988; Pomponio / Visicato 1994; Visicato1995; Paulette 2016. 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

139

situation.6 The three groups of texts provide mostly economic and administrative information about complex agencies that can be confidently interpreted as temple organizations.7 The kinds of information provided by the archives—all pertaining to a highly specialized bureaucracy—list a series of dispositions about the transition of different kinds of goods that have been interpreted as payments for a variety of activities.8 This suggests reciprocal and manager-dependent economic relationships, which encompass all aspects of everyday life.9 The household-model appears to be described in detail in the textual sources, and the temple can be interpreted as a proper agency.10 Nevertheless, most of the activities described are related to a countryside environment, such as agriculture, fishing, metallurgy, pottery production, etc., while urban life might be only partially integrated within such organizations, as there is virtually no information on them that is traceable in the texts. In fact, only a few of the documents discovered can be considered “private,” which means independent from the main agency. Therefore, only one of such agencies, and possibly the main one, is represented by the textual sources, probably representing the elite, whereas most of the urban population remain under-represented. To tackle this problem, the settlement must be analyzed from a purely archaeological point of view. As already highlighted by G. Stein, the reconstruction of the complex dynamics of a given society must be a combination of both archaeological and textual materials as complementary information.11 1.3 Food-Storage as a Key Element for the Comprehension of the Economic Sphere From an archaeological perspective, storage facilities represent one of the foundations for the interpretation of any economic activity. The importance of storage in understanding redistribution lies in the fact that it is an intermediate stage in a complex process of production, distribution, and consumption of goods, and it determines the immediate availability of food.12 Analyzing the problem from an archaeological perspective can help in reducing the problem of the over-repre-

Monaco 2013, 746; Almamori 2014, 4. While the attribution of the Girsu’s archive to the E‒mi/E‒Bau temple is clear, the other cases are more problematic. For a specific discussion of this problem see Cripps 2007. Other texts were found in several sites, but they are not enough for the precise identification of a separate archive. 8 Roaf 2013, fig. 7. 9 Prentice 2010, 205. 10 See Schrakamp 2013. 11 Stein 1994, 11. 12 Halpering 1994, 188‒189. 6 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

140

E. Casadei

sentation of the elite group who maintained control over bureaucracy.13 As discussed by Paulette, centralized storage facilities are often cited as key factors in the emergence of the first cities and states in Mesopotamia.14 The author focuses to the “presumed link between surplus and storage,” re-introducing the concept of gastro-politics and moral economy, and recalling the well-known relationship between grain and redistribution.15 In this regard, the properties of the land guaranteed a constant flow of commodities that constituted a fixed income, recalling the concept of surplus. As recently stated, the importance of storage activities related to palaces and temples needs a re-evaluation.16 The concept of surplus in the development of ancient societies has to be analysed from a material perspective, deep into the archaeological record. This article presents some preliminary remarks about the temple contexts, and proposes a functional interpretation of spaces and features which were probably related to storage activities. Their presence and capacity could be decisive in the analyses of the actual economic impact of the temple in ED urban life. The following discussion has a twofold aim: firstly indicating the archaeological markers determining storage facilities, and, in the second place, mapping such facilities in the temple complexes. 2. How to Identify Places Devoted to Storage Activities? The first task is to recognize places where food and other goods were stored. Unfortunately, the old excavation methods, the state of publications, as well as the forced interruption of archaeological research in Iraq have strongly affected a clear identification of such kinds of structures, making a functional interpretation quite hard. According to Tunça, no storage or production installations can be detected in ED temples except for those from the Temple Oval at Khafaja, the Archaic Building at Ur, and the Eanna precinct at Uruk.17 Nevertheless, an accurate and critical study of the old reports may provide some additional elements. The area analyzed is located between the Diyala River Valley to the north, and the Persian Gulf to the south, representing the southern alluvial plain of ancient Sumer. Several examples of storage buildings have been recently presented.18 In this article, I will discuss other examples deriving from single or isolated elements (as it will be explained at § 3). First, the method used for recognizing ancient storerooms will be pointed out in detail. Because of the paucity of archaeological

Christakis (2011, 198) well demonstrates the divergent conclusions reached by the archaeological analysis of the palatial storage rooms in Minoan Crete as a key study. 14 Paulette 2015, 15. 15 Paulette 2015, 40. 16 Rothman 2016, 27. 17 Tunça 1984, 228. 18 See Paulette 2015 and Manazilla / Rothman (eds) 2016. 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

141

data derived from old excavations, ethnographic observations are also included in the parallels used to integrate the evidence. To identify the presence of storage practices, five categories have been selected as key features: – architectural layout; – presence of technical devices or installations; – presence and types of containers; – botanical or faunal remains; – administrative materials. In some circumstances, researchers can recognize storage areas thanks to the specific layout of different modular rectangular rooms, usually running parallel to each other. Parallels, including examples from outside the southern alluvial plain, can help to define given areas or buildings within certain sites as storerooms, according to the type of finds. In several cases, a series of rooms, all opening into the same space (a corridor?) have been interpreted as storerooms in which food or liquids were stored in containers. Long and narrow rectangular rooms may suggest a type of space suitable for keeping storage containers (pottery jars or baskets) aligned in rows.19 In some other cases, the absence of doors or openings of any kind may suggest storage of bulk items.20 Food storage needs particular devices in order to prevent humidity and animals. Floors and walls made of backed bricks and/or coated with bitumen or mud plaster provide useful devices for the storage of both solid food and liquids. The most common feature both in modern and ancient times is the silo. It can be circular or quadrangular, usually partially sunken; a thin mud or mud-brick wall without an evident entrance, usually coated with mud plaster or bitumen, delimits the surface.21 At Fara (ancient Shuruppak) 32 silos were detected by the German expedition, and—as already stated above—they were correlated to the storage of grains used in the redistribution process described in the texts (§ 1.2). In addition to silos, the preservation of solid food and liquids requires containers. During excavations, pottery jars and remains of baskets could be recognized.

E.g. Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna, Operation J, phases 38‒37 (Morandi Bonacossi 2008, fig. 6; 2014, 240‒241). A large mud‒brick granary for long‒term preservation was found, composed by six rooms in a double row, with mud‒plastered floors and mud‒brick walls with lime plaster in which charred cereals were found. 20 Tell Bderi, house I phase 8, the northern side of room O is isolated from the rest of the room with a thin wall without opening. Inside this space, 22 storage jars and 4 bowls were found (Pfälzner 1996, 120, fig. 3). 21 Again, a very interesting comparison is provided by the site of Tell Mishrife/Qatna, Operation J, phases 36‒31 (Morandi Bonacossi 2008, fig. 8; 2014, 240‒241). In this level, the area is characterized by a system of circular storage pits and silos, bordered by circular mud‒brick walls associated with crop processing installations, as lime plastered basins, and large plastered work surface. 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

142

E. Casadei

Unfortunately, the outdated methods of old excavations impacted on the systematic collection and registration of pottery sherds, and the number of documented storage jars is rather limited.22 The presence of seeds and remains of food related to architectural features can provide clear evidence of storage. Nevertheless, the presence of food remains could also be related to discard areas or remains of rituals. Although in many cases the methodology of the old excavations was not meticulous enough, sometimes the final reports refer to the presence of organic material found in situ, especially when related to food preservation, processing and consumption. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine which of these three activities were carried out in antiquity. However, the identification of seeds related to storage jars, baskets, silos, or other kinds of container, could represent a fundamental data set for the identification of storage activities.23 Among the administrative materials, tablets and seal impressions are the most useful for identifying storage practices and the only two kinds of evidence taken into consideration for the analysis presented herein.24 Unfortunately, the two wellknown sites yielding administrative tablets, Abu Salabikh and Fara, did not retourned buildings confidently interpretable as temples (see §1.2). Nevertheless, we have already discussed the problem of the identification of temple archives thanks to the great number of tablets from illicit excavations and now collected in museums and private collections (§ 1.2). More relevant to our discussion is the presence of seal impressions, which reveals the effective occurrence of transactions.25 The image on the front side bears the seal impression, and, therefore, represents the person or institution responsible for the transaction. The rear side may preserve the impression of the material or object sealed, and so testifies to the type of container or place where the good was stored (e.g. pottery vessels, baskets, door’ bolts).

A particular case is the site of Abu Salabikh, where the excavators delineated two well-preserved domestic compounds. An interesting example is represented by the rooms 1 and 2 of the so-called Southern Building in area A, where a fire sealed the original assemblage of the room. The nature of the findings on the floor of the two rooms has a distinctly “utilitarian” nature, leading the excavator to hypothesize that room 2 was a workroom or storage (Postgate 1977, 271). Among the pottery repertoire, six small and medium pottery jars were found. 23 At Tell Brak area CH, level 6, a complex of three rooms (61, 62, and 63) were found in which several pieces of evidence point to storage and food‒related activities (Oates / Oates / McDonald 2001, 28). A large amount of storage‒jar fragments was placed in room 61; two ovens were located in room 62; in room 63 there were a grinding stone, a storage jar and several seeds. 24 Seals are not useful to identify storage activities. They are noticeably abundant in temple contexts, usually collected in small rooms close to the cella, and, therefore, they have to be considered cultic offerings rather than indicators of administrative activities. 25 For a discussion about the importance of the sealing impressions for the understanding of ancient economy see Benati 2015, 7. 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

143

3. A Tentative Typology of Storage Facilities It could be interesting to try and subdivide the storage facilities identified in southern and central Mesopotamia according to the abovementioned distinctive characteristics (Tab. 2). The distribution of individual elements inside the buildings highlights the presence of seven well-distinguished types of storage equipment, divided between “multi-evidence types” and “single evidence types.” The typological categories are shown below (Tab. 1). Types composed by several kinds of evidences Store Complex

System of two or more rooms, rectangular elongated shape, linked together or opened to a common space (court?)

Storerooms

Single room where storage activity is the only one attested

Production room

Single room where different kind of activities related to food manipulation can be detected Types consisting in single or scattered evidence

Silos-like installation

Simple curvilinear structure delimitated by small mudbrick walls and plastered with bitumen

Pottery

Concentration of storage ware fragments

Sealing and seal impressions

Concentration of sealings or seal impression

Tab. 1. Types of storage facilities identified according to the presence/absence analyses of the evidences recognized.

3.1. Storage Complexes Among the fixed features, the most recognizable are the series of parallel oblong rooms built one adjacent to the other. The rooms can be linked to each other, or the doors can open into the same space (a court or corridor). Pertaining to the former case, a well-known example in the southern alluvial plain is provided by the so-called Kitchen Temple at Ur, Archaic Levels II–I of the Ziqqurat area, in the northern corner of the terrace.26 Here, three elongated rectangular rooms linked to each other were interpreted by Woolley as storerooms, although they were found empty (Fig. 1:C). Likewise, inside the sacred precinct at Eridu dated to the late 4th or early 3rd millennium BC, the so-called Portico Building (Fig. 1:A) is composed of a series of parallel rectangular rooms connected with a central space preceded by a small open atrium delimited by pillar bases.27 As for the findings inside the rooms, only spouted jars and coarse handmade conical bowls are mentioned, sometimes containing fish bones.

Woolley 1939, pl. 64. Safran / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, 84.

26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

E. Casadei

Tab. 2. Distribution of the evidences of storage activities used in the present analysis.

144

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

145

Among the second case, parallel rooms opening into a common open (?) space, the best-known example is again from Ur, Archaic Building 1, where a row of six modular rooms were interpreted by the excavator as subsidiary rooms and called “the Six Shrines” (Fig. 1:D).28 Besides the layout of the rooms, as already pointed out before, the technical characteristics can also indicate their function. The floors are composed of 14/15 rows of backed bricks coated with a thick layer of bitumen on the top, so that the surface is ca. 85 cm above the level of the court (L.316). In one of the rooms, a brick-lined pit (P.471) was sunken into the pavement. All the rooms were found empty. A similar example can be identfied in level III of the Eanna complex at Uruk. Here, square OaXVI3 of the Stampflehmgebäude is characterized by the presence of a series of parallel rectangular rooms opening into an open space, whic have been interpreted as storerooms,29 and which also seem connected with food production. 3.2 Storerooms or Granaries Sometimes, single elongated rectangular rooms or small irregular rooms have returned a range of archaeological data relating exclusively to storage activities. The first example comes from Eridu, from the so-called Priest’s House in square H/5 (Fig. 1:B), again to be dated to the JN period and strongly related to the production activities conducted in the building. Here, an elongated rectangular room was found and interpreted by the excavators as a “storage chamber,” even though it was found empty. The adjacent room is identical in shape, but it was only partially excavated and its relationship with the building itself is not clear.30 From the Sin Temple at Khafaja, the small room or niche Q 43:17 is probably related to a specific kind of good. It consists of a small space without a proper door but accessible by means of a sort of “window.” Inside, inserted into a niche in the wall, several small pottery bottles and flasks were found. Unfortunately, only one picture is available and no pottery containers were listed in the Diyala Project database.31 Several interesting examples of storage practices are attested inside the Temple Oval at Khafaja,32 but only one can be correlated with this type of storeroom. Woolley 1939, 64; Benati 2013, area 1. Lenzen 1966, pl. 28; 1967, 24, pls 29‒30. The nature of this building is still uncertain. Nevertheless, its presence inside the Eanna precinct indicates a link with the cultic sphere. The fact that many administrative documents were found in this building testifies to its administrative character (see below). 30 Safran / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, 71‒72. 31 Reichel 2004/2005. 32 For its intricate articulation and the extension of the archaeological investigations, the Temple Oval at Khafaja can be considered an interesting key‒study. Founded during the ED II (or ED IIIa, according to Evans 2007, 599), it remained in use until the end of the ED IIIb, when a great fire caused the destruction of most of the quarter. After that event, 28 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

146

E. Casadei

Room L44:7 is a small irregular room located in the northern corner of the inner oval wall. It is composed of two further thin walls plastered with bitumen. The first wall divides L44:7 and the adjacent L44:3. The second wall has no door, and was probably used as an inner partition, so creating two sectors differing 10 cm in height. According to the excavator, that room might be a granary.33 Again, in the Temple Oval, rooms N46:1+N46:4+O46:1 form a separate unit, with only one access to the court from N46:1, and are mainly related to food storage: several large storage jars, basket impressions, and several flint sickles were found. In O46:1, a circular installation was identified as a “granary” by the excavator, and it recalls the circular spaces delimited by the thin mud walls of the Nippur contexts. During period I.3, similar structures were built in N46:1 and they are interpreted as storerooms. Notably, a food-related installation, probably an oil press, lays in front of the same unit, between the entrance and the rear of the temple terrace. In addition to the jars, it is interesting to notice the presence of two seal impressions and one cylinder seal. Another seal impression comes from the adjacent room O46:1. The presence of agricultural tools in the same room, as well as the installation from the earlier stratum, may indicate that specific activities were carried out in this sector of the building.34 3.3 Production Rooms and Production Units This is the most frequent type of context attested in temple buildings. It is represented by a room (or a well-defined group of rooms) in which different kinds of activities related to food processing can be detected. They are attested almost ubiquitously in northern and southern Mesopotamian contexts. In the Temple Oval, adjacent to the northern corner of the inner oval wall in House D, rooms L43:8+L43:10 form a sector (Fig. 2:D, at the top, in gray). Room L43:10 is accessible only from L43:8, it is quite irregular in shape and it is constructed on two levels. During period I.3, a small wall was built, isolating the southern corner of the room. It was maintained during period II, when a second wall (made with a reed core and thick mud plaster) was built in the middle of the room. Ten seal impressions were probably found in this place, though unfortunately from an unknown stratigraphic position. During the last occupation level, a fireplace with traces of blue-black mussel shells, charred seeds, grinding stones, pottery and stone vessels, and domestic small tools was found. Traces of fire might be related to the final phase of House D. From the adjacent room L43:8, eight pottery and stone containers were found. Maybe this sector could be related

the temple was rebuilt deviating a little from the original plan, and it was found in a poor state of preservation. The following description is therefore related to the ED levels, TO I‒II. 33 Delougaz 1940, 34, pl. III. 34 Delougaz 1940, 30, fig. 24; pl. III. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

147

to the large oven in L43:9. Again, in House D of the same temple building, room K43:5 is a small room opening up into K43:3, with a pebble floor in front of the entrance. In this room, many barley seeds and lentils were found inside small pottery vessels and baskets (indicated by traces of woven vegetal fibers). Also flint and bitumen sickles were found. In the middle of the room, a stone slab set into the floor was probably related to the preparation of food. In the adjacent room K43:3, several food-related installations and three seal impressions were found.35 This plan, characterized by two or three rooms linked to each other but rather isolated from the rest of the complex and related to food processing activities, finds a precise parallel from levels IV of the Sin Temple. Unfortunately, in this case the rooms were found empty, except for those in which only an oven was present (e.g. rooms Q43:18 and R42:12, level VI; Q43:13 level VII.1; Q43:11 level VIII‒IX).36 Again, from the Diyala valley, room M14:17 of the earlier level of the Shara temple at Tell Agrab returned two silos made by small plastered mudbrick walls and related to a hearth, food installations, traces of reed matting and small and large pottery vessels.37 From the Square Temple at Tell Asmar, D17:6 represents a similar utilitarian room, with a small hearth in the middle of the room, traces of reed matting (probably a basket) and a good quantity of storage ware sherds (Fig. 2:C).38 In general, from the earlier levels of the Abu Temple, many storage vessels were found scattered in all the rooms of the temple (see below § 3.5). An analogous situation to the rooms in the Diyala valley is found at Nippur, both in the Inanna Temple and the Northern Temple (see Fig. 2:E for some examples from Inanna Temple, level IXA).39 3.4 Silos Regarding silos and bins, when their limits are not marked by the presence of thin brick walls, they consist of either thin mud wall-like edges (in the case of both bins and silos) or of just the limits of the pit (in the case of silos). The technical components are represented by bricks and plaster. Bricks can be baked or sundried (mudbricks). Plaster can be made with mud, lime, or bitumen. Similar characteristics appear on small square or rectangular rooms, but their proper function cannot be easily determined. From Nippur, both from the Northern Temple and from the Inanna Temple, several installations like silos are represented in the plan,

Delougaz 1940, 56. Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, 43, 45, 69. 37 Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, 258, pl. XXVII:B. 38 Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, 176‒77. 39 For the Inanna Temple see Zettler 1992, 20– 24. For the Northern Temple see McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, 3– 23. 35 36

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

148

E. Casadei

but they are not described in detail.40 In the former temple, two well-preserved examples were found in room 134 level VIII.1, with plastered walls and floor, and in the external space in level V, the latter one related to food installations. At Lagash, area B, a peculiar building was found immediately east of the Bagara.41 A functional link between the two edifices has been hypothesized.42 In the central court, a circular installation made with baked bricks is called a “storage tank (?),” but probably it has to be interpreted as a basin. At Telloh (ancient Girsu), several rectangular structures were found in the so-called “Maisonne des Fruits” in tell K,43 all apparently recovered by bitumen plaster. While some of them are clearly related to water, as demonstrated by the link with channels, as found in parallels with other sites,44 the three “bassins” in the northern part could be interpreted as storage facilities.45 In fact, they are made of baked bricks and the inner small walls are made of bitumen, a technique already employed in similar installations in the Temple Oval at Khafaja. At the latter site, a small room pertaining to period II is found in House D, M43:11. Almost the whole room is occupied by a curvilinear space delimited by a small mud-brick wall. The interior of this installation is lime (?) plastered, with the lower part probably coated with bitumen.46 3.5 Reed and Pottery Containers Regarding movable items, pottery and reed containers can be considered together, being found scattered all over the area or in concentrations, sometimes in a precise line. In some cases, this is the only type of evidence that provides reliable data on stored goods (Fig. 3). In general, from the early levels of the Abu Temple, a great quantity of storage ware sherds was found throughout the building (Fig. 4:1– 2, 5). Some storage ware jars were found in N46:1 and O46:1 in the Temple Oval (Fig. 4:3–4). For the Northern Temple at Nippur, only sherds usable for dating are mentioned in the texts.47 A fragment of storage jar shoulder from floor 7 (NT 132) is characterized by the presence of a lug handle and incised decoration, and according to parallels, can be associated with typical ED I storage jars.48 From level McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, pls 27:A, 29:B, 32:A (for the Northern Temple); Zettler 1992, figs 4, 7‒8 (for the Inanna Temple). 41 Hansen 1978, 82. 42 Ashby, pers. comm. 43 Paulette 2015, 90. 44 Especially with the circular basin in the Temple Oval at Khafaja. 45 Forest (1999, 18) highlights how the stratigraphic attribution is problematic for these structures. It is possible that they pertain to a later phase, probably contemporaneous with Gudea. 46 Delougaz 1940, 93. 47 McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, 27‒29. 48 Delougez 1952, pl. 191:D.504.353. 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

149

X, a jar shoulder with reserved slip and oblique verticals cut by two horizontals (not illustrated) was found. A fragment of a storage jar with a vertical spout was registered from level IX,49 and several Scarlet Ware fragments were found in level VIII (not published). Two medium-size ED III jars (3P 621 and 4P262),50 found in level IV come from the houses outside the temple, while a third one (3P 529),51 was found on the top of the altar in the cella (NT 96) associated with a conical bowl, and are probably related to libations. Some exemplars of small and medium jars were recovered in the Inanna Temple.52 At Lagash, several vats ware found in different parts of the eastern building in area B.53 They are thought be used for both mixing and storage. At Uruk, in the Riemchengebäude, Lenzen found an impressive number of storage jars arranged along walls of the outside corridor.54 3.6 Seal Impressions Administrative activities are represented by seals, seal impressions, and tablets, and can be found either scattered or concentrated in a precise place. At Ur, Archaic Building I, Benati noted a series of seal impressions evidently used for keeping jars closed, found in L.303, left of the SE entrance. All the impressions bear the same motif.55 As pointed out in the preceding paragraphs, seal impressions were found scattered in the Temple Oval, in association with other storage installations (e.g. N46:1+N46:4+O46:1 complex and L43:10 in House D). The most significant assemblage comes from L43:10, where 10 sealings bearing the same motif were found together (Fig. 5, top). They are mentioned for the first time in the Diyala Project database, where it is said that they come from the southern end of the room. Finally, a deposit of sealings was found in the building adjacent to the Inanna Temple IX at Nippur, from room IT 395‒396.56 Since this group was separated from the temple proper by a street, whether it was correlated to the temple or to a different household is debatable (Fig. 5, bottom).

McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, pl. 44:2 from NT 123. This sherd has to be considered as related to liquids, because of the presence of the spout and because it was found in association with a tronco‒conical bowl (4P 305, McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, pl. 44: 1). 50 McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, pl. 45:1‒3. 51 McCown / Haines / Biggs 1978, pl. 45:4. 52 Ehrich 1965, 209. 53 Hansen 1978, 82. 54 Lenzen 1958; 1959. See the comments in Forest (1999, 67). Apparently with at least two stoppers (18672a‒b) and some bowls for the same purpose (18700/71, 72, 73). 55 Benati 2013, cat. 1, 6, 12. 56 Hansen 1978, 47. 49

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

150

E. Casadei

4. Conclusions When trying to investigate the impact that storage practices had on the economy of a building, one must first note that little to no quantitative information comes from the pottery and baskets, which dramatically affects the precise estimation of the goods stored. In this article, an alternative—and partial—attempt has been tried in calculating the total area employed in this activity from fixed features, e.g. complexes, production units/rooms, silos. The graphic indicates the total percentage of area occupied by these three elements compared to the total area for each building. It is possible to see that the great majority of storage features are included in production units, so representing part of a complete cycle of storage, preparation, cooking, and, probably, consuming food. In many cases, food consuming is attested by the high quantity of tableware cited in the reports, even if the sherds are not appropriately published.57 Silos do not represent a significant element for this purpose, and it is important to highlight that in most cases they can be also interpreted as basins for the collection of water. The preliminary analysis of the distribution of seal impressions (Fig. 5) testifies to a clear shift in the administration of the exchange. Looking at Khafaja, while in the earlier level 3 almost all the sealing fragments come from the Temple Oval, in the succeeding level 2 they are a prerogative of the houses’ contexts. Nippur shows a different pattern, with all the sealings found outside the two temple buildings, but nevertheless confined in one single private area. To conclude, the data presented point to a series of different trajectories that characterized the organization of the different temple buildings (Fig. 6). Dated to the LU/JN period, the Portico building excavated inside the temenos indicated a precise need for storing a large number of goods, both solid and liquid. On the other hand, the contemporary house in square H/5 (the Priests House) can be related to food-processing activities, also demonstrated by the presence of an oven in room 8, connected with a high quantity of serving vessels, mainly conical bowls and small jars.58 The Stampflehmgebäude at Uruk suggests a similar situation, with a stronger connection between storage and cooking. While storage buildings tend to disappear from the temple precincts (the only exception being the Archaic level of the Ziqqurat at Ur, see below), single utilitarian rooms, related to different practices, persists during the 3rd millennium BC, even if in different forms. In fact, production rooms or production units are well attested in almost all the contexts analyzed. At Lagash, the building in area B close to the Bagara temple is supposed to be related to brewing, as suggested by the presence of basins embedded into the floor, the intensive usage of baked bricks and plaster, and the presence of silo-like

From Eridu, many conical bowls, sometimes associated with fish bones, are attested in both the buildings. Solid footed goblets are attested in the Sin temple at Khafaja and in the Archaic phases of the Abu Temple at Tell Asmar. 58 Safran / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, 72. 57

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

151

or basin structures.59 A similar group of evidences finds good parallels with the Plano-convex building at Kish, and in the Northern Palace at Tell Asmar, both contemporaneous or slightly later than the building in Lagash. At Nippur, both the Inanna and the Northern temples are characterized by the presence of smallscale storage facilities that can be represented by silo-like installations. The rooms at Tell Asmar (D17:6), Tell Agrab (M14:17) and Khafaja, House D (L43:10 and K43:3), represent more examples in which storage facilities are directly connected to food-processing practices, represented by grinding stones, tools, hearths and ovens. All these examples point to a kind of everyday-life activity related to food storage, preparation and consumption in a short time interval. The cases of Girsu and Ur represent a slightly different situation, but they both conduct to a similar conclusion. The presence of food-related installations, better documented at Ur than at Girsu, allow for the reconstruction of a similar organization, but wider in scale. In fact, the so-called Kitchen Temple and the SE sector provide a series of installations similar in purpose to that of the temple at Nippur and in the Diyala, even though they must be related to a large number of participants involved. Finally, only the well-documented presence of seal impressions can clearly indicate the occurrence of economic transactions. The three assemblages found at Ur, Nippur and Khafaja might indicate the particular role of these complexes. The storage practices detected inside the temple buildings are clearly related to a series of activities organized by production and consumption, which can be related to the offerings system. The large amount of food and goods that were part of the redistribution process have to be searched for outside the temple perimeters. Bibliography Almamori, H.O., 2014: The Early Dynastic Monumental Buildings at Umm al-Aqarib. Iraq 76: 149–187. Benati, G., 2013: “The “Archaic I” Phase of the Ziqqurat Terrace at Ur: A Contextual Re-Assessment.” Mesopotamia 48: 197–220. ‒‒2015: Re-modeling Political Economy in Early 3rd Millennium BC Mesopotamia: Patterns of Socio-Economic Organization in Archaic Ur (Tell al-Muqayyar, Iraq). CDLJ 2: 1–37. Brusasco, P., 1999–2000: Family Archives and the Social Use of Space in Old Babylonian Houses at Ur. Mesopotamia 34–35: 3–173. Christakis, K.S., 2011: Redistribution in Aegean Palatial Societies. Redistribution and Political Economies in Bronze Age Crete. AJA 115: 197–205. Cripps, E.L., 2007: Land Tenure and Social Stratification in Ancient Mesopotamia. Third Millennium Sumer before the Ur III Dynasty (BAR IS 1676). Oxford. Delougaz, P., 1940: The Temple Oval at Khafaja (OIP 53). Chicago. — 1952: Pottery from the Diyala Region (OIP 63). Chicago.

Hansen 1978, 82.

59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

152

E. Casadei

Delougaz, P. / Lloyd, S., 1942: Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region (OIP 63). Chicago. Ehrich, R.W., 1965: Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Chicago. Evans, J.M., 2007: The Square Temple at Tell Asmar and the Construction of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, ca. 2900-2350 B.C.E. AJA 111: 599–632. Forest, J.D., 1999: Les prémiers temples de Mésopotamie (4e et 3e millénaires) (BAR IS 765). Oxford. Gates, C., 2003: Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Second Edition. New York and London. Halpering, R.H., 1994: Cultural Economies: Past and Present. Austin. Hansen, D.P., 1978: Al-Hiba: A Summary of Four Seasons of Excavation: 19681976. Sumer 34: 72–85. Hendon, J., 2004: Living and Working at Home: The Social Archaeology of Household Production and Social Relations. In L. Meskell / R. Pruecel (eds): A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden. Pp. 272–286. Lenzen, H.J., 1958: XIV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Berlin. — 1959: XV. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Berlin. — 1966: XXII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Berlin. — 1967: XXIII. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Berlin. Manazilla, L.R. / Rothman, M.S. (eds): Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control. New York / London. Martin, H.P., 1988: Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient City of Shuruppak. Birmingham. McCown, D.E. / Haines, R.C. / Biggs, R.D., 1978: Nippur II. The North Temple and Sounding E (OIP 97). Chicago. Monaco, S.F., 2013: Some New Light on Pre-Sargonic Umma. In L. Feliu et al. (eds): Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona. 23‒30 July 2010. Winona Lake. Pp. 745–750. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2008: The EB/MB Transition at Tell Mishrifeh: Stratigraphy, Ceramics and Absolute Chronology. A Preliminary Review. In M. Bietak / E. Czerny (eds): The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean (CChEM 17). Vienna. Pp. 127–152. — 2014: Early Bronze Age Crops and Storage Techniques at Mishrifeh, Central-Western Syria. In L. Milano (ed.): Paleonutrition and Food Practices in the Ancient Near East: Towards a Multidisciplinary Approach (HANE/M XIV). Padova. Pp. 237–252. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

153

Oates, D. / Oates, J. / McDonald, H., 2001: The Excavations at Tell Brak 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium BC. Cambridge. Parker, B.J. / Foster, C.P., (eds) 2012: New Perspectives on Household Archaeology. Winona Lake. Paulette, T., 2015: Grain Storage and the Moral Economy in Mesopotamia (3000– 2000 BC). Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Chicago. — 2016: Grain, Storage, and State Making in Mesopotamia (3200–2000 BC). In: L.R. Manazilla / M.S. Rothman (eds): Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control. New York / London. Pp: 85–109. Pfälzner, P., 1996: Activity Areas and the Social Organisation of 3rd-Millennium BC Households. In K.R. Veenhof (ed): Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. XXXXe Rencontre Assyriologique Intemationale. Leiden. Pp. 117–127. Pollock, S., 1999: Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge. Pomponio, F. / Visicato, G., 1994: Early Dynastic Administrative Tablets of Šuruppak (Series Maior V). Naples. Postgate, J.N., 1977: Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1976. Iraq 39: 269–299. Powell, M.A., 1990: Urban-Rural Interface: Movement of Goods and Services in a Third Millennium City-State. In E. Aerts / H. Klengel (eds): The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient Near East. Leuven. Pp. 7–14. Prentice, R., 2010: The Exchange of Goods and Services in Pre-Sargonic Lagash (AOAT 368). Münster. Reichel, C., 2004/2005: Diyala Project. Oriental Institute Annual Report: 27–35. Roaf, M., 2013: Temples and the Origin of Civilisation. In K. Kaniuth et al. (eds): Tempel im Alten Orient (CDOG 7). Wiesbaden. Pp. 427–444. Rothman, M.S., 2016: Storage and Analytical Markers for Studying Cultural Evolution. In: L.R. Manazilla / M.S. Rothman (eds): Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Control. New York / London. Pp. 19–38. Safran, F. / Mustafa, M.A. / Lloyd, S., 1981: Eridu. Baghdad. Schrakamp, I., 2013: Die “Sumerische Templestadt” heute: Die sozioökonomische Rolle eines Temples in frühdynastischer Zeit. In K. Kaniuth et al. (eds): Tempel im Alten Orient (CDOG 7). Wiesbaden. Pp. 445–465. Stein, G., 1994: Introduction Part II: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity in Greater Mesopotamia. In G. Stein / M.S. Rothman (eds): Chiefdoms and the Early States in the Near East: The Organizational Dynamics of Complexity. Madison. Pp. 11–22. Tunca, Ö., 1984: L’architecture religieuse protodynastique en Mesopotamie (Akkadica suppl. 2). Leiden. Veenhof, K.R., (ed.) 1996: Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 40th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden, July 5–8, 1993. Istanbul. Visicato, G., 1995: The Bureaucracy of Šuruppak: Administrative Centers, Central Offices, Intermediate Structures and Hierarchies in the Economic Documentation of Fara. Münster. Wattenmaker, P., 1998: Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia: Specialized © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

154

E. Casadei

Economy and the Social Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society. Washington D.C. Wilk, R.R. / Rathje, W.L., 1982: Household Archaeology. The American Behavioral Scientist 25: 617–639. Woolley, C.L., 1939: Ur Excavations. V. The Ziqqurat and Its Surrounding. London. Zettler, R., 1992: The Ur III Temple of Inanna at Nippur: The Operation and Organization of Urban Religious Institutions in Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B.C. Berlin.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

155

Fig. 1. Storage complexes: re-elaborations by the author (A: Safran / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, fig. 3; B: Safran / Mustafa / Lloyd 1981, fig. 19; C: Woolley 1939, pl. 64). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

156

E. Casadei

Fig. 2. Production palces: re-elaborations by the author (A: Woolley 1939, pl. 64; B: Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, pl. 27:B; C: Delougaz / Lloyd 1942, pl. 22; Delougaz 1940, pl. III; E: Zettler 1992, fig. 5).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

Fig. 3. Quantitative analysis of the storage ware per temple.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

157

158

E. Casadei

Fig. 4. Some example of the storage ware jars from the sites of Khafaja and Tell Asmar. Re-elaborated by the author from Delougaz 1952, pl. 176 (1); pl. 92 (2, scale 1:5); pl. 195 (3); pl. 191 (4); pl. 194 (5). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Storage Practices and Temple Economy during the 3rd Millennium BC

Fig. 5. Quantitative analysis of the seal impressions.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

159

160

E. Casadei

Fig. 6. Spatial analysis of the total area involved in the storage activities.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB à Tell Al-Rawda : l’usage local d’une pratique sigillaire en Syrie intérieure Corinne Castel*

Les plus anciens fragments de vases connus portant l’empreinte d’un sceau-cylindre déroulé avant cuisson sont originaires de Byblos et remontent à la deuxième moitié du IVe millénaire1. D’autres sont attestés sporadiquement au Bronze Moyen en Syrie (notamment à Ebla)2, en Palestine et en Mésopotamie, au Bronze récent en Anatolie et à l’Âge du Fer en Urartu, comme l’a montré Stefania Mazzoni3. Mais c’est au cours de la deuxième moitié du IIIe millénaire que cette tradition est florissante4. Elle est alors diffusée en particulier dans l’ensemble du Levant5, où les sceaux-cylindres sont exclusivement réservés à imprimer des vases6, et en Syrie du centre-ouest7 où elle fait son apparition et coexiste avec l’emploi plus traditionnel des sceaux-cylindres utilisés pour sceller un panier jusqu’à un bâtiment tout entier.8 La centaine d’étiquettes scellées en argile portant une empreinte découvertes dans le Palais G d’Ebla, par exemple, attestent cette fonction de protection. Les empreintes sur céramique sont particulièrement nombreuses au Bronze ancien III‒IV au nord de la Palestine, sur la côte libanaise et dans l’Amuq, comme dans la région de l’Oronte et dans la Chôra d’Ebla9. Leur relative fréquence à cette

*



1 2



3 4

7 8 9 5 6

C’est avec un réel plaisir que je dédie cette modeste contribution à l’histoire de la glyptique syrienne à Frances Pinnock, que j’ai eu la chance de connaître sur le terrain, en Syrie, avant même que nos sujets d’étude et nos équipes nous rapprochent encore. Mazzoni 2013a, 193. Différents fragments de jarres globulaires du Bronze Moyen II ont été mis au jour dans le secteur P (Mazzoni 2002, 78, note 84). Mazzoni 2013a, 193. Mazzoni 2013a, 193. L’ouvrage de Stefania Mazzoni (1992) reste à ce jour l’inventaire le plus complet des empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique découvertes au Proche-Orient. Son article, paru en 2013 (Mazzoni 2013a), ainsi que celui de Matthias Flender (2000), complètent utilement cet ouvrage pour le Bronze ancien. Ben-Tor 1978 ; Mazzoni 2013a, 195. de Miroschedji 1997, 191 ; Thalmann 2013, 256. Mazzoni 1984 ; 1992 ; 1993 ; 2002. Charpin 1985, 18. Pour une liste complète et récente de ces attestations, cf. Mazzoni 2013a, 193 et la carte qui © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

162

C. Castel

époque a pu être mise en relation avec le développement économique et social de l’ensemble du Proche-Orient et, de façon peut-être moins convaincante on le verra, avec la multiplication concomitante des réseaux politiques et commerciaux. Dans la région du centre-ouest de la Syrie, deux cas de figures existent. Dans le cas d’Ebla, les empreintes sur céramique sont apposées soit sur le col court de vases à large ouverture et fond arrondi, souvent désignés à tort, selon Jean-Paul Thalmann10, par le terme de « jarres » globulaires, soit sur l’épaule ou la panse de grands pithoi, tripodes ou non11. En dehors d’Ebla, seul le premier type de récipients, avec ou sans col, est attesté. Deux nouvelles empreintes sur céramique, déroulées à partir de sceaux-cylindres distincts, complètent désormais ce corpus pour le IIIe millénaire, dans la Syrie du centre-ouest. Ces empreintes ont été mises au jour in situ à Tell Al-Rawda, ville la plus avancée vers l’est dans la Syrie steppique au Bronze ancien, qui a été fouillée entre 2002 et 2010 par une équipe franco-syrienne12 (Figs 1 et 2). Leur contexte stratigraphique et leur décor géométrique, notamment, permettent de rattacher ces artefacts à une aire chrono-culturelle précise et nous conduisent à ébaucher quelques éléments de réponse concernant les pratiques sigillaires sur céramique et les modes de production dans la région de la Shamiyeh au Bronze ancien. 1. L’empreinte RW1.2251.1 1.1 Description et parallèles L’empreinte RW1.2251.1 (Fig. 3) a été déroulée sur la paroi externe d’un vase dont il ne reste qu’un tesson large de 10,2 cm, haut de 9,1 cm et épais d’1,7 cm, à l’emplacement de l’empreinte. Il s’agit d’un tesson de rebord de marmite qui porte sur la panse un décor de lignes horizontales incisées, un peignage qui procure à sa surface externe une texture rugueuse, alors que le col est simplement lissé.13 Le diamètre supérieur de la marmite mesurait 21 cm, soit une dimension

présente l’ensemble des sites où des empreintes sur vases du IIIe millénaire ont été découvertes (fig. 1, p. 194). On peut donc y rajouter les deux empreintes d’Al-Rawda et celles découvertes à Tell Sha’irat et Tell Al-Sur (communication personnelle G. Mouamar). 10 Thalmann 2013. 11 Dans son dernier article portant sur la poterie du Palais G (Mazzoni 2013b, 93), Stefania Mazzoni décrit désormais ainsi ces deux types de récipients portant une empreinte de sceaux-cylindres : « corrugated globular jar/pot with vertical rim » par opposition à « ovoid and tripod jar with thickened rim » qu’elle illustre par deux exemplaires de chaque type : fig. 5.34–35 pour le premier type et 5.32–33 pour le second. 12 La Mission archéologique franco-syrienne d’Al-Rawda est dirigée par l’auteur de ces lignes et Nazir Awad, Directeur du Patrimoine et des Monuments historiques à la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie. 13 Cette description caractérise tous les récipients culinaires d’Al-Rawda (T. Babour dans © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

163

moyenne par rapport aux autres marmites trouvées à Tell Al-Rawda. La pâte, de couleur orangée comme la surface, laisse visible à l’œil nu un dégraissant minéral assez grossier, dont la blancheur et la forme évoquent la calcite. Quelques inclusions noires ont pu être observées également. L’empreinte, retrouvée sur une longueur conservée de 7,5 cm, est déroulée à l’horizontale, sur le col court. Elle est réalisée dans un style linéaire qui évoque les empreintes de sceaux-cylindres d’Ebla et de Hama14, et celui employé pour un sceau-cylindre d’Al-Rawda (RW.1.4103.1) qui a été découvert sur le sol d’une maison fouillée dans le secteur 4 (la maison C42, état I), au sud-ouest du site. Le contexte stratigraphique et l’ensemble du mobilier mis au jour dans l’habitation qui a livré le sceau-cylindre permettent de le faire remonter au Bronze ancien IVB et au dernier état de restructuration de la ville, vers 2200 av. J.-C. L’incision de l’empreinte sur vase, quant à elle, est peu profonde et dessine des profils légèrement arrondis. Le motif géométrique est déroulé sur un bandeau large de 2 à 2,5 cm. Il se caractérise par un remplissage du champ qui rend la lecture de l’image assez difficile15. Celle-ci est divisée en panneaux où se succèdent de gauche à droite, ce qui paraît être une échelle, un motif vertical de chevrons ou en arête de poisson, puis deux rangées de gros points, disposées verticalement et parallèlement, puis de nouveau des chevrons orientés verticalement et une échelle. Ce dernier motif se retrouve sur le sceau-cylindre RW.1.4103.1, où il est représenté de manière plus soignée. La symbolique de l’empreinte sur céramique d’Al-Rawda nous échappe, elle pourrait être purement décorative. Mais sa ressemblance avec plusieurs empreintes d’Ebla est frappante : A1016 (TM.70.H.927), A2317 (TM.80.G.200) et A2418 (TM.82.G.58), en particulier, présentent le même type d’iconographie avec une composition similaire et une forte densité de motifs géométriques, dont celui de l’arête de poisson ou du chevron19, motif dont Pierre Amiet a montré, dès 1963, qu’il est caractéristique de la glyptique syrienne archaïque20. Les deux empreintes d’Ebla A 23 et A24, ont été découvertes dans le Palais Royal G21, dans un contexte du Bronze ancien IVA. La troisième en revanche, A10, de facture plus grossière, provient d’un contexte mal assuré, mais peut être attribuée, selon Stefania Maz-

Castel et al. 2014a, 28). Mazzoni 1992, 57. 15 Stefania Mazzoni (1992, 63) parle, à propos d’empreintes comparables d’Ebla (A5, A23, A24, A29), d’une « horreur du vide » comme l’atteste la forte densité décorative des motifs. 16 Mazzoni 1992, 69, Tav. V et Tav. XII. 17 Mazzoni 1992, 72, Tav. XIV. 18 Mazzoni 1992, 69, Tav. VII et Tav. XV. 19 Ce motif est fréquent à Ebla comme l’attestent les empreintes numérotées A4, A10, A23, A24, A35, A43 (Tav. IV, V, VII, IX, X) répertoriés dans l’ouvrage de Stefania Mazzoni (1992). 20 Amiet 1963, 71. 21 A23 a été découvert dans la cour 2913. 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

164

C. Castel

zoni22, au Bronze ancien IVB. Ces empreintes ont été apposées sur des récipients dont la forme et la pâte, fortement dégraissée à la calcite, rappellent celles de la marmite d’Al-Rawda et la classe fonctionnelle des céramiques culinaires. C’est également le cas de deux autres empreintes d’Ebla, découvertes dans les années 2000 dans le secteur HH, TM.07.HH.107 et TM.07.HH.636, qui figurent aussi, comme l’empreinte d’Al-Rawda, une « arête de poisson » (Fig. 7). TM.07. HH.107 frappe également par la densité des motifs, tandis que TM.07.HH.636, présente aussi une silhouette humaine. La première de ces empreintes a été mise au jour dans un contexte du Bronze ancien IVA, mais hors du Temple du Rocher (le Temple HH1). La seconde a été trouvée à proximité des temples, mais en lien avec des constructions attribuées au Bronze ancien IVB23. Il est à noter que le motif de l’arête de poisson est également attesté sur plusieurs empreintes découvertes à Hama, qui mêlent des motifs géométriques et floraux : 3H194a (B106), 3H195 (B107), 3H518, 3H525 ; 3B 800 (B88), 3C 662 (B92) et 3F 341 (B103)24 (Fig. 8). Celles-ci ont été mises au jour en contexte domestique, dans les niveaux J5 et J6. Elles sont donc attribuables au Bronze ancien IVA. Elles se distinguent parfois néanmoins des empreintes d’Al-Rawda par leur composition, en deux bandeaux superposés, et leur situation, sur le corps du vase. 1.2 Contexte archéologique et stratigraphique Le tesson RW1.2251.1 d’Al-Rawda, sur lequel a été déroulé un sceau-cylindre, a été découvert lors de la campagne de fouille de 2005, dans le secteur 2c destiné à explorer la Porte orientale de la ville et les quatre lignes de fortifications (un rempart, un avant-mur et deux fossés) qui la ceinturaient25. Il se trouvait dans l’espace qui s’étend à l’est de l’avant-mur (E227), au-dessus du fossé interne (E224), contre la face extérieure nord de la tour E221 (Fig. 4). Il s’agit d’un contexte secondaire puisque le locus 2251 consiste en une couche de remplissage formée d’un limon gris « cendreux » contenant quelques galets. Cette couche a livré également une base de figurine anthropomorphe en terre cuite en forme de colonne avec des jambes indifférenciées (RW1.2251.2), caractéristique de la coroplastie de la Syrie du centre-ouest au Bronze ancien IV, et un fragment de figurine animale (RW1.2251.3). Le tesson se trouvait haut dans le remplissage, à une altitude de 524,70 m. Le fouilleur précise  : « il est difficile de définir d’em Mazzoni 1992, 14. Je dois ces détails à Valentina Tumolo qui a bien voulu me faire parvenir les dessins et les photographies de ces deux tessons imprimés et que je remercie ici vivement. 24 Mazzoni 1992, 149–153, Tav. XXXII et XXXIV ; Matthews 1996, empreintes n°18, 19 et 20, table II. 25 Cette fouille, placée sous la responsabilité de Philippe Quenet, a donné lieu à un article préliminaire paru dans Akkadica (Castel et al. 2008, 28–32). Elle fera l’objet d’une description plus détaillée dans la monographie d’Al-Rawda en cours de finalisation (Quenet à paraître dans Castel, Barge, Awad, à paraître). 22 23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

165

blée si (cette couche) est strictement postérieure à l’abandon de l’établissement vers la fin du IIIe millénaire av. J.C. ou si elle atteste l’existence d’une couche d’occupation appartenant au Bronze Ancien – sa composition actuelle, d’apparence « cendreuse », pourrait résulter d’une décomposition de matériaux organiques –, mais postérieure, en ce cas, à la destruction des vestiges architecturaux sous-jacents »26. L’abandon complet de la ville se situant aux alentours de 2200 av. J.C.27, le tesson marqué d’une empreinte de sceau-cylindre RW1.2251.1 nous paraît pouvoir être attribué, avec une grande vraisemblance, au Bronze ancien IVB et au tout dernier niveau d’occupation de l’établissement. 2. L’empreinte RW.1. 6140.5 2.1 Description et parallèles RW1.6140.5 (Fig. 5) est un fragment de bord de marmite de 2,5 cm d’épaisseur portant l’empreinte d’un autre sceau-cylindre. Il s’agit d’une marmite globulaire sans col, dont la forme est connue grâce à des exemplaires de type similaire et en meilleur état de conservation, mais qui ne portent pas d’empreinte. Sur RW1.6140.5, l’empreinte a été déroulée horizontalement sur la paroi externe du vase. Le tesson était trop petit et son rebord trop irrégulier pour l’orienter correctement, a fortiori pour restituer le diamètre supérieur du récipient. Le tesson présente une pâte poreuse, de couleur marron, contenant de nombreuses inclusions minérales de couleur blanchâtre et de taille moyenne. Des traces de lissage en humide, effectué à l’horizontal, sont visibles sur la surface interne comme sur la surface externe du fragment. Ces dernières ont été effectuées simultanément au déroulement du sceau-cylindre. Alors que la couleur rouge-orangé de la surface interne est uniforme, les tâches irrégulières, de couleur marron foncé, révèle l’exposition aux flammes de la surface externe du vase, vraisemblablement lors de son utilisation sur le feu plutôt que lors d’un traitement de surface post-cuisson, effectué par enfumage28. L’empreinte est marquée profondément et présente un profil légèrement arrondi. Elle est constituée d’un motif géométrique large de 4,5 cm environ et conservé sur une longueur de 12,5 cm. Ce dernier se compose de trois registres superposés qui font alterner de haut en bas une série de triangles emboîtés, un motif en arête de poisson (ou chevrons) disposé à l’horizontale et une série de losanges emboîtés. Ce type d’empreinte à motifs géométriques simples est particulièrement fréquent dans la glyptique éblaïte, telle qu’elle se révèle dans le Palais G. Le motif du chevron ou de l’arête de poisson y est banal, comme on l’a vu, tan-

Quenet à paraître. Brochier / Castel à paraître. 28 Je dois ces remarques à Taos Babour, doctorante en charge de l’étude de la poterie d’Al-Rawda en 2009 et 2010, que je remercie ici chaleureusement. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

166

C. Castel

dis que les losanges multiples29 apparaissent comme le motif le plus répandu à Ebla30. Stefania Mazzoni (1992) a publié plusieurs empreintes qui l’attestent : A6 (TM.69.G.128), A12 (TM.71.E.448), A26 (TM.83.G.27), A36 (TM.88.G.615) et A40 (TM.89.G.305) (Tavv. IV‒V, VII, IX‒X), sachant qu’A6, A36 et A40 ont été obtenues à partir du même sceau-cylindre (Fig. 9). Un tesson de Hama de la phase J5, B101 (3F183)31, présente une empreinte identique à ces derniers trois exemplaires, ce qui permet d’assurer la contemporanéité du niveau J5 de Hama et de la phase finale du Palais G d’Ebla32 et les liens entre les deux sites. D’autres sites syriens, encore, confirment la popularité de ce motif de losanges emboîtés qui a déjà une longue histoire au Bronze ancien IV, puisqu’il trouve son origine à l’époque d’Uruk33, avant de se diffuser de Mésopotamie vers la Syrie entre le Bronze ancien I et le Bronze ancien II34. C’est un motif répandu pendant tout le Bronze ancien en Syrie occidentale, qui est attesté également en Syrie de l’est (à Tell Brak)35. Plus généralement, la duplication de losanges et de triangles emboîtés est très fréquente dans la région et attestée jusqu’à Ras Shamra, sur la côte syrienne36. Deux empreintes sur céramique d’Ebla présentent de grandes similitudes avec notre exemplaire d’Al-Rawda puisqu’elles associent triangles emboîtés et chevrons disposés à l’horizontale : l’une, TM.93.G.150, trouvée dans le Palais G et attribuée au Bronze ancien IVA1, est décrite ainsi : « Impression on the outer rim of a globular hole-mouth jar [...] Fig. : geometric pattern : two ( ? ) rows of multiple triangles separated or framed by a herringbone or foliate motive »37. L’autre, TM.04.B.951, encore inédite a été découverte en 2004 dans le secteur B, probablement dans un contexte secondaire38 (Fig. 7)39. Mais c’est un autre tesson d’Ebla, TM.90.P.40 ou A4540, qui présente la ressemblance la plus troublante avec le tesson d’Al-Rawda RW1.6140.5 (Fig. 7). Le tesson éblaïte, découvert dans le bâtiment P4, au pied de la pente nord de l’Acropole, dans la Ville basse, est décoré sur sa paroi externe d’une empreinte qui fait alterner des registres horizontaux de triangles, de motifs en arêtes de poisson et

Donald Matthews (1996) désigne ce motif « the diamond pattern ». Mazzoni 1992, 58. 31 Ingholt 1940, pl. XV : 1 ; Matthews 1996, empreintes n° 26, table V. 32 Mazzoni 1982, 58. 33 Matthews 1996, 122 et note 10. 34 Mazzoni 1982, 58–61. 35 Matthews 1996, 130. 36 Mazzoni 1993, 412. 37 Mazzoni 2002, 78 note 83, pas d’illustration. 38 Je dois ces précisions à Valentina Tumolo que je remercie vivement. 39 Je remercie chaleureusement Paolo Matthiae qui m’a autorisée à faire état de cette découverte et à publier une photographie de ce tesson. 40 Mazzoni 1993, 408, pl. 8. 29 30

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

167

de losanges41. Seuls, le nombre de registres superposés et la dimension des motifs (ainsi que le sens du déroulement du cylindre) diffèrent, ce qui permet de considérer que les deux empreintes ont été obtenues à partir de sceaux-cylindres distincts. En effet, le tesson d’Ebla présente un registre de chevrons et un registre de triangles emboîtés supplémentaires par rapport à celui d’Al-Rawda, alors même que la hauteur conservée de l’empreinte éblaïte est de 4,8 cm, soit une dimension comparable à celle de l’empreinte d’Al-Rawda. Le tesson d’Ebla peut être attribué au Bronze ancien IVA42. 2.2 Contexte archéologique et stratigraphique RW1.6140.5 a été découvert à Tell Al-Rawda en 2010, dans un quartier d’habitation fouillé au croisement de deux grandes rues, dans le secteur 6, au nord-ouest de la ville43. Ce chantier visait à explorer en stratigraphie un carrefour à la jonction entre la voie concentrique C2 (voie concentrique médiane dans le plan d’urbanisme radioconcentrique de la ville neuve) et la voie radiale R3 (qui relie le centre de la ville et une porte au nord-ouest). Trois niveaux de construction superposés ont été mis au jour. Tous respectent le carrefour, ce qui témoigne de la primauté du réseau viaire sur le bâti et de l’existence d’une autorité à la tête de la ville suffisante pour la faire respecter. Le tesson a été mis au jour dans le bâtiment C63, découvert au niveau 2, au sud-ouest du croisement. Le tesson reposait directement sur le très beau sol en terre battue, partiellement recouvert d’un cailloutis (sol 6140), mis au jour dans l’espace E611 (Fig. 6). Le sol de couleur grisâtre et de texture compacte, là où l’empierrement n’est pas conservé, a reçu une recharge identifiable à sa couleur orangée. On remarquera que le tesson portant une empreinte de sceau-cylindre est associé à des fragments de « gobelets de Hama », découverts sur le même sol d’habitat. Parmi ces derniers, RW1.6140.1, dont le type est bien attesté par ailleurs à Tell Al-Rawda intra-muros (secteurs 1, 2a et 4) et, sous la forme d’un exemplaire complet (RW2.3101.4)44, dans la tombe en puits fouillée dans la nécropole qui surplombe le site à l’ouest, est documenté dans les niveaux J7‒J4 de Hama et semble correspondre au type GII de la classification établie par Ingholt45. Un second gobelet, RW1.6140.2, est orné d’un décor d’ondulations réservées horizontales attesté à Hama à partir du niveau J5 et caractéristique, selon Taos Babour, de la fin du Bronze ancien IVB46.

Je remercie vivement Paolo Matthiae qui m’a autorisée à publier la photographie du tesson et Valentina Tumolo pour m’avoir fourni des détails sur son contexte de découverte. 42 Mazzoni 1993, 405. 43 Ce secteur a été décrit par T. Babour et B. Perello dans Castel et al. 2014a, 13–16. 44 Castel et al. 2004, 71, fig. 19. 45 Fugmann 1958, 3G903 fig. 64, 3F849 fig. 85 ; Ingholt 1940, n° 4 pl. VIII. 46 Pour une description de ces deux tessons de « gobelets de Hama », cf. Taos Babour dans 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

168

C. Castel

Au sud-est du croisement, un autre bâtiment contemporain de la maison C63, le bâtiment C61 au niveau 2 (Fig.  6), a livré dans l’espace E605, sous le sol de la pièce, un ensemble de petits vases complets (6081) dont la fonction reste énigmatique. Il est composé de cinq gobelets, six bols, une gargoulette miniature accompagnés de 122 coquillages de types variés, provenant tous de la Méditerranée47. L’étude céramologique conduite par Taos Babour confirme l’attribution chronologique de ces vases, et plus largement celle du niveau 2 du secteur 6, au Bronze ancien IVB48. Le tesson RW1.6140.5 d’Al-Rawda, découvert in situ sur un sol d’habitat, se trouve donc en contexte primaire, scellé par le niveau supérieur, dans un niveau attribuable sans conteste au Bronze ancien IVB. Les similitudes avec l’empreinte TM.90.P.40 d’Ebla révèlent que le type de motifs géométriques que ces empreintes documentent perdure dans la région du Bronze ancien IVA au Bronze ancien IVB. 3. La pratique sigillaire sur céramique en Syrie du centre-ouest au Bronze ancien IV Plusieurs empreintes de sceaux-cylindres déroulés sur des vases sont ainsi attestées à Ebla et à Hama au Bronze ancien IV  : une cinquantaine à Ebla, une quarantaine à Hama49. Les autres attestations dans la région sont sporadiques. En plus des deux empreintes d’Al-Rawda, quatre exemplaires à motifs géométriques et figuratifs ont été mis au jour à Qarqur50, quelques-unes à Tell Sha’irat et à Tell Al-Sur51. Deux autres, enfin, qui illustrent la même scène présentant un être humain en prise avec trois animaux, proviennent de Qatna, dans la zone du Palais Royal, en contexte secondaire52.

Castel et al. 2014a, 30 et fig. 20 n° 5, fig. 23 n° 9 pour le premier, fig. 20 n° 4, fig. 22 n° 3 pour le second. 47 Castel et al. 2014a, 15, fig. 6b. 48 Castel et al. 2014a, 29–30, 37, fig. 21. 49 Mazzoni 1992, 13–77 et 79–168 ; Matthews 1996. 50 Quatre empreintes de sceaux-cylindres ont été découvertes dans le secteur A, dans les niveaux 13 et 14 (Dornemann 2003, 102). Elles ont été apposées sur le col de grands récipients décrits ainsi : « cooking-pot ware jar with vertical rim and corrugated upper vessel body » (Dornemann 2003, 82). L’une des empreintes, trouvée en 2002 et datée de la fin du Bronze ancien IVA, présente un motif de zigzags (Dornemann 2008a, 86, fig. 25). TQ02–139 est ornée d’un motif de rosettes (Graff 2012, 26, fig. 1.6). Une troisième illustre une scène d’élevage (Dornemann 2003, fig. 197). Enfin, une autre empreinte (TQ02.139–A6.7.29.55), découverte en deux parties, l’une en 2006, l’autre en 2008, provient du secteur D (Dornemann / Casana / Maxwell 2008). Elle est datée du Bronze ancien IVA et déroulée également sur le col d’une jarre (Dornemann 2008b, 150, fig. 6). 51 Georges Mouamar, communication personelle. 52 Morandi Bonacossi 2007. L’une au moins a été trouvée sous le Palais Royal, dans un © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

169

Le déroulement de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique est donc une pratique assez peu fréquente au Bronze ancien IV, mais partagée dans la région qui s’étend d’Ebla au nord à Tell Sha’irat au sud. Elle est désormais attestée jusque dans la frange orientale de la Syrie steppique, à Tell Al-Rawda. Ce site s’inscrit ainsi dans une tradition propre au Levant Nord. Sur le plan de la chronologie, à Ebla, les empreintes de sceaux-cylindres déroulées sur des vases ne sont attestées qu’à l’époque du Palais G, au Bronze ancien IVA, à l’exception probable de deux empreintes trouvées en contexte secondaire dans le secteur des temples : TM.07.HH.636 (Fig. 7) et TM.70.H.927. À Hama, il ne semble pas qu’il en ait été trouvé au-delà du niveau J5‒J53. Les empreintes d’Al-Rawda, comme celles de Sha’irat, découvertes in situ, révèlent désormais que la pratique sigillaire sur céramique est encore assurément en usage dans la région au Bronze ancien IVB54. Par leur style et leur répertoire iconographique, les empreintes RW1.2251.1 et RW1.6140.5 de Tell Al-Rawda se rattachent donc à la région de la Syrie centrale et occidentale qui témoigne d’une unité culturelle du point de vue de la glyptique au Bronze ancien IV55. Elles illustrent, comme toutes les empreintes de cette région, l’existence d’une glyptique de facture « populaire » en parallèle avec la glyptique « officielle », utilisée par l’administration palatiale d’Ebla. Toutes les empreintes à décor géométrique frappent par la grande ressemblance des motifs, voire par leur caractère stéréotypé. Ainsi, au-delà d’une même pratique sigillaire, ces parallèles témoignent indéniablement d’une même tradition iconographique et d’une unité culturelle que révèlent également d’autres artefacts, comme les figurines anthropomorphes ou les « gobelets de Hama ». Peut-on aller plus loin en termes d’interprétation de ces empreintes ? Pourraient-elles traduire la matérialisation d’échanges régionaux entre des terroirs complémentaires ? S’inscrivent-elles toujours dans le contexte d’une gestion administrative complexe et dans le cadre d’une économie centralisée de redistribution, comme cela est régulièrement proposé à partir de la cinquantaine d’empreintes découvertes dans le Palais G d’Ebla ? Y a-t-il un lien entre les marmites de Tell Al-Rawda et les « jarres » d’Ebla, souvent considérées comme contenant des denrées alimentaires collectées dans les provinces et envoyées dans la capitale espace non bâti, utilisé semble-t-il comme dépotoir et attribuable au Bronze ancien, sans doute aux derniers siècles du IIIe millénaire. Elle était associée à des tessons de « gobelets de Hama » (Barro 2003, 82–83, 91, fig. 16). Je remercie Georges Mouamar de m’avoir signalé cette découverte. 53 À l’exception d’un unique tesson peut-être, 3E 745- Table V, p. 155 n° 36 (Matthews 1996, 131). 54 Certaines empreintes de sceaux-cylindres apposées sur les vases de Qarqour pourraient provenir d’un contexte du Bronze ancien IVB, mais le contexte stratigraphique n’est pas clair, à en juger par les articles publiés à notre disposition. 55 Mazzoni 1992 ; Matthews 1996. Jean-Paul Thalmann, qui constate également cette unité, parle du groupe de « Syrie centrale » (Thalmann 2013, 289). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

170

C. Castel

régionale de l’époque56 ? C’est là que doit intervenir une discussion sur la fonction des empreintes sur céramique. 4. Discussion sur la fonction des empreintes sur céramique La question se pose tout d’abord de savoir si ces empreintes ont été déroulées dans un but de marquage ou de décoration, pour reprendre la distinction opérée par Jean-Paul Thalmann57. Les empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique d’Ebla et de Hama, comparables à celles d’Al-Rawda, peuvent toutes être interprétées comme des marques58, puisqu’elles ne recouvrent pas la circonférence des vases. C’est également le cas de l’impression TQ02.139 de Tell Qarqur59. En revanche, la situation est moins claire pour les deux empreintes d’Al-Rawda. Celles-ci, déroulées à l’horizontale, se situent dans la partie haute des pots, sur leur paroi externe, à des emplacements parfaitement visibles (à condition que les vases ne soient pas obturés par un tissu maintenu serré autour du col à l’aide d’une cordelette). L’empreinte RW1.2251.1 a été déroulée juste au-dessus de la jointure entre la panse et le col du vase. Le déroulement du cylindre, régulier semble-t-il, est donc parfaitement adapté à la forme du pot et à ses articulations et sa situation s’accorde bien avec une visée décorative. En ce qui concerne l’empreinte RW1.6140.5 apposée sur la marmite sans col, le déroulement se développe régulièrement également, à moins d’1 cm du bord. Les deux empreintes, pour leur partie conservées, se déroulent sur dix à douze centimètres de long et, dans les deux cas, ne s’interrompent qu’à chaque extrémité des tessons. Elles devaient donc se poursuivre et pouvaient être déroulées sur la totalité du pourtour des marmites, un argument en faveur de l’usage décoratif des empreintes60. Le caractère fragmentaire des marmites ne permet pas, malheureusement, de s’en assurer. De même, le répertoire iconographique, strictement géométrique, pourrait nous conduire à considérer que ces empreintes n’ont d’autre fonction que décorative. Cependant, leur inscription parfaite dans le contexte régional et, surtout, leur rareté (deux tessons marqués seulement, malgré les milliers de tessons mis au jour en fouille au cours des neuf campagnes de terrain qui ont été conduites à Tell Al-Rawda), incitent à considérer qu’elles ont servi de marques, au-delà de leur caractère esthétique, comme à Ebla et Hama. La fonction de ce type de marquage a fait l’objet de plusieurs interprétations : marque de fabri-

Mazzoni 1984 ; Matthews 1996. Thalmann 2013, 282. 58 Thalmann 2013, 283. 59 Graff 2012, 26, fig. 1.6. 60 L’empreinte TM.88.G.615 d’Ebla (A36 selon la nomenclature de Stefania Mazzoni) est déroulée sur 11,3 cm de long, mais s’interrompt clairement. 56 57

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

171

cant, de propriété, indication d’un centre de production ou de transformation (dans le cas de l’huile ou du vin), de la capacité du contenant, de la qualité du produit contenu dans le vase61, le plus souvent dans le cadre d’une économie de redistribution. La rareté des empreintes sur céramique, malgré la profusion des tessons découverts en fouille, la nature même des récipients portant une marque à Tell Al-Rawda, de banales marmites, et leur contexte de découverte, nous paraissent des arguments suffisants pour exclure l’interprétation comme marque de fabricant ou comme marque de propriété, même si à Mari, à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, les archives semblent mentionner l’existence d’un système de consigne pour certaines jarres d’huile et de vin qui avaient manifestement une valeur marchande62. Stefania Mazzoni a montré que l’on peut abandonner aussi l’interprétation des empreintes comme mesures de capacités, notamment parce que des empreintes de sceaux-cylindres différents ont été déroulées sur des récipients de même capacité63. Il est très peu probable, également, en ce qui concerne Tell Al-Rawda, que cette pratique sigillaire particulière soit destinée à l’identification d’un centre de production ou de transformation. En effet, les empreintes géométriques d’Al-Rawda sont clairement apposées sur des marmites ou « cooking pots », et non sur des jarres. Or, ces récipients à large ouverture, dont la pâte est poreuse et relativement friable, n’ont pas vocation à être transportés sur de longues distances. Il ne nous paraît pas possible, pour des raisons pratiques, que les marmites aient servi dans le cadre d’échanges de produits agricoles. Certains récipients d’Ebla eux-mêmes, sur lesquels ont été déroulés des sceaux-cylindres, ont clairement eu une fonction culinaire, même si Stefania Mazzoni considère que les vases d’Ebla ont pu servir dans un premier temps pour cuisiner, avant de servir éventuellement dans un second temps pour le stockage64. C’est le cas assurément de ceux retrouvés in situ dans ou à proximité immédiate des foyers de la pièce L.2890/283465, qui se situe immédiatement au nord du « Quartier des Audiences » du Palais G. Quatre tessons proviennent des foyers eux-mêmes : TM.89.G.383/1, impression A41, foyer 4 ; TM.89.G.395/1, impression A44, foyer 3 ; TM.89.393/1, impression A42, foyer 1 et TM.89.394/1, impression A43, foyer 2. Les autres étaient dispersés sur le sol, à proximité immédiate66. Du reste, le très faible nombre de restes carbonisés d’espèces comestibles (dont les céréales) dans les sédiments archéologiques prélevés dans cette pièce, malgré la présence de huit foyers et d’une grande quantité de sédiments archéologiques flottée, semble

Mazzoni 1984, 31–34 ; 1992, 193–194 ; 1993, 413–414. Michel 1994, 290. 63 Mazzoni 1984, 32. 64 Mazzoni 1993, 407. 65 Mazzoni 1993, 402, fig. 3. 66 Mazzoni 2013b, 97, note 13. 61 62

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

172

C. Castel

contredire l’usage des vases comme récipients de stockage67. On peut, dès lors, se poser la question de la validité d’une interprétation qui privilégie l’utilisation des récipients portant une empreinte de sceau-cylindre pour transporter des denrées, destinées à être échangées ou transformées ailleurs que sur leur lieu de production, pour tous les sites de la région. Sarah Graff a proposé récemment, sur la base de leurs caractères céramologiques et de leur contexte de découverte, que tous les récipients d’Ebla portant une empreinte de sceaux-cylindres, comme ceux de Hama, de Qatna et de Qarqur, aient eu, sans doute, une fonction culinaire68, même si l’on ne peut exclure, au moins pour les vases de Hama, que les « cooking pots » aient pu également avoir servi au stockage69. Les contextes de découverte de ces vases (à l’exception de certains récipients d’Ebla conservés dans les magasins et dans les zones de préparation de denrées alimentaires)70 sont, dans la grande majorité des cas, secondaires et, malheureusement, les tessons sont le plus souvent trop fragmentaires pour que d’éventuelles traces de feu aient pu être observées. Les indices manquent donc, en général, pour être sûrs de l’usage des récipients71. On pourra noter seulement qu’à Hama les tessons qui portent une empreinte de sceau-cylindre proviennent tous d’un contexte domestique72. À Qarqur, si le contexte archéologique, dans lequel les tessons portant une empreinte ont été mis au jour, est peu clair, il s’agit néanmoins aussi d’un contexte domestique. C’est peut-être enfin le cas pour au moins un des tessons de Qatna73, trouvé dans une grande quantité de cendres74. À Tell Al-Rawda, la présence de traces de feu sur l’une des marmites (RW1.6140.5), qui n’est originale que parce qu’elle est marquée d’une empreinte, assure son usage culinaire. Le contexte stratigraphique sûr de ce tesson, trouvé in situ sur un sol d’habitat, confirme l’utilisation du récipient en contexte domestique. Ainsi, la plupart des tessons portant une empreinte de sceau-cylindre dans la région sont des fragments de récipients culinaires, qu’ils aient été trouvés en contexte domestique ou, dans le cas d’Ebla, dans une cuisine du Palais G. En ce qui les concerne, l’hypothèse selon laquelle les impressions de sceaux-cylindres déroulées avant cuisson au Bronze ancien IV ont à voir avec l’identification d’un centre de production ou de transformation nous paraît donc peu convaincante et même exclue. En revanche, celle qui met en relation les empreintes de sceaux-cylindre et l’identification des produits ou des activités liés à l’utilisation des produits conteWachter-Sarkady 2013, 380. Graff 2012, 27. Georges Mouamar (comm. pers.) précise que les empreintes de Tell Sha’irat sont également apposées sur des récipients culinaires. 69 Graff 2012, 30. 70 Mazzoni 1992, 11–21. 71 Les marmites de Tell Arqa sont de trop grande contenance (30 à 50 litres, voire plus) pour avoir servi à la cuisson de l’avis de Jean-Paul Thalmann (Thalmann 2013, 265). 72 Matthews 1996, 133. 73 Morandi Bonacossi 2007, 68. 74 Barro 2003, 83. 67 68

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

173

nus dans les récipients75 nous paraît la plus vraisemblable. Quant à savoir ce pour quoi elles ont servi précisément, c’est une autre question. On a proposé récemment que les empreintes aient eu pour vocation de marquer des pots réservés à une consommation rituelle76 ou cérémonielle77. Sarah Graff a avancé qu’elles ont été utilisées pour marquer des récipients réservés à la préparation de produits potentiellement toxiques mais comestibles une fois préparés comme l’ers78 (Vicia ervilia), une légumineuse pouvant servir, après trempage ou après avoir bouilli, à l’alimentation du bétail ou au traitement de certaines maladies79. Des restes carbonisés d’ers sont attestés en stratigraphie sur le site d’Al-Rawda dans les niveaux du Bronze ancien IVB80. Dans le secteur 6, qui a livré la marmite marquée d’une empreinte RW1.6140.5, la découverte de fragments de légumineuses en contexte domestique paraît témoigner de leur utilisation dans l’alimentation à cette époque. Cependant, si l’on ne peut exclure a priori que le récipient portant une empreinte ait servi à préparer l’ers, on ne note pas de concentration particulière de restes de légumineuses dans la pièce 611 du bâtiment C63, ni dans les pièces alentours81. Un autre argument est en défaveur de cette interprétation, comme le signale Stefania Mazzoni82 : à Ebla, les fragments de récipients portant une empreinte découverts dans la pièce 2890/2834 du Palais G ont une capacité trop grande (40 à 70 litres) pour avoir contenu une denrée réservée, sans doute, à un usage limité. Cette interprétation ne nous paraît donc pas suffisamment fondée pour pouvoir être assurée. Un des vases marqués d’Ebla, qui présente en outre l’intérêt majeur d’avoir été trouvé en contexte primaire, à proximité immédiate des foyers 7 et 8 de la pièce L. 2890/283483, contenait « une substance bitumeuse »84, décrite aussi comme une « croûte collante résineuse »85, qui n’a malheureusement pas pu être analysée. Claudia Wachter-Sarkady a constaté que cette pièce a livré, par ailleurs, fort peu

Mazzoni 2013a, 199. Graff 2012, 38. 77 Mazzoni 2002. 78 Graff 2012, 38. Cette hypothèse est liée à la découverte d’une grande quantité de ce taxon dans la pièce adjacente à celle qui a livré l’un des tessons de Qarqur marqué d’une empreinte (Dornemann 2003, 81–83, 117). 79 Smith 2005. 80 Herveux in Castel et al. 2014b ; Herveux à paraître. 81 Selon Linda Herveux, archéobotaniste de la mission d’Al-Rawda (mail du 25/03/2015) : « L’ers est présente à Al-Rawda, mais en très faible quantité. Elle a été identifiée seulement dans le secteur du rempart (loc. 2022, 2049 et 2294). Cependant, les restes de Pisum/Vicia/Lathyrus qui représentent des fragments de légumineuses (et qui peuvent correspondre à l’ers) sont présent de façon ubiquiste dans l’ensemble des échantillons ». 82 Mazzoni 2013b, 93. 83 Wachter-Sarkady 2013, 382. 84 Mazzoni 2013b, 97, note 13. 85 Wachter-Sarkady 2013, 382. 75 76

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

174

C. Castel

de céréales (et peu de restes animaux) et qu’on y a trouvé en revanche beaucoup d’espèces sauvages86. Elle en conclut, selon une interprétation séduisante, que les foyers ont été vraisemblablement utilisés pour préparer des onguents ou des substances pour la médecine87, d’autant qu’une tablette des archives du Palais G (TM.75.G.1623) mentionne l’usage de plantes médicinales88 et du miel pour confectionner des pilules89. Il semble cependant que plusieurs tessons de cette pièce aient livré le même type de résidu90, mais l’article ne précise pas s’il s’agit de tessons de bords, de panse ou de fond et l’on ne peut donc pas vérifier si tous les récipients portant une empreinte de sceau-cylindre ont eu le même usage. Dans tous les cas, la rareté même des récipients portant une empreinte nous paraît un argument majeur pour penser qu’ils ont servi dans des occasions très particulières, qu’il s’agisse de préparer des traitements médicamenteux spécifiques ou lors d’évènements sociaux peu fréquents. L’absence totale d’empreinte sur céramique dans le sanctuaire du secteur 1 d’Al-Rawda, dont le dernier niveau a été fouillé en extension, exclut a priori, l’usage des vases marqués dans le cadre de pratiques rituelles à l’échelle communautaire. Dans l’enceinte sacrée du sanctuaire, malgré l’existence très probable de rituels en lien avec l’eau ou d’autres liquides, de dépôts d’offrandes au pied du bétyle et de la préparation de repas sur place, de tels récipients ne sont pas attestés91. La marmite RW1.6140.5 a été trouvée en contexte domestique ; elle porte de surcroît des traces de feu, ce qui confirme qu’elle a servi à faire cuire un ou plusieurs ingrédients et exclut son usage pour le stockage. Mais son marquage indique qu’elle n’appartient pas à la batterie de cuisine habituelle au Bronze ancien IVB, malgré la banalité du récipient lui-même. Rien n’exclut qu’elle ait pu servir pour des rituels à l’échelle familiale, mais rien n’exclut non plus qu’elle ait servi, comme l’autre récipient marqué d’Al-Rawda, pour des occasions ou des évènements sociaux particuliers comme les mariages par exemple, selon l’hypothèse avancée par Jean-Paul Thalmann pour la jarre décorée de Tell Arqa92. La découverte de fragments de vases portant des impressions de sceaux identiques, comme ceux retrouvés à Hama et à Ebla, confirme le lien direct entre ces deux sites, comme on l’a vu. Il est frappant également que le même sceau-cylindre a été déroulé sur le même type de récipient et au même emplacement, sur le col court de vases à large ouverture et fond arrondi. Ces éléments prouvent qu’ils ont été fabriqués par le même artisan93 ou, tout au moins, qu’un même artisan itinérant

Wachter-Sarkady 2013, 380–381. Wachter-Sarkady 2013, 382. 88 Fronzaroli 1996, 235. 89 Fronzaroli 1996, 238. 90 Wachter-Sarkady 2013, 382. 91 Castel 2010. 92 Thalmann 2013, 298–300. 93 Mazzoni 1984 ; 1993 ; Matthews 1996, 130. 86 87

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

175

a déroulé son sceau-cylindre sur ces récipients avant cuisson. Il reste possible que les récipients eux-mêmes aient circulé, attachés à des ânes, mais cela nous paraît peu probable étant donné la forme ouverte des vases. Seule la comparaison de la composition physico-chimique des pâtes céramique permettraient d’assurer que ces marmites de Hama et d’Ebla ont été fabriquées au même endroit et conduiraient peut-être à identifier l’atelier à l’origine de cette production. Les arguments manquent pour attribuer avec certitude une fonction précise aux récipients portant une empreinte d’Al-Rawda RW1.6140.5 et RW1.2251.1. Il nous semble clair en revanche, étant donné leur nature, de grosses marmites malaisées à transporter, qu’ils n’ont pas circulé, soit qu’un artisan itinérant venu d’ailleurs ait apposé son empreinte, soit qu’elle ait été déroulée par un artisan local au fait des pratiques sigillaires dans la région. Cette dernière hypothèse est vraisemblable d’autant qu’un sceau-cylindre figuré en calcaire a été découvert in situ dans une maison d’Al-Rawda. La pratique sigillaire était donc en usage à Tell Al-Rawda même, ville la plus avancée vers l’est dans les marges arides du Croissant Fertile, au Bronze ancien IVB. Ce rapprochement est d’autant plus saisissant que le sceau-cylindre présente un style linéaire et schématique de facture « populaire », comme celui en usage pour les empreintes déroulées sur céramique, et évoque une production régionale, sinon locale. Nombreuses sont les interprétations qui font le lien entre les pratiques sigillaires sur céramique et des pratiques administratives plus ou moins complexes, dans le cadre d’une économie centralisée. Concernant Ebla, les récipients portant une empreinte de style « populaire » révèleraient l’existence d’une production extérieure aux ateliers du Palais G, en provenance des centres ruraux94. L’administration centralisée de la capitale régionale auraient concentré les produits agricoles avant de les redistribuer95. Dans les différents modèles proposés, on retrouve toujours le contrôle des économies rurales par les centres urbains96, comme le souligne à juste titre Jean-Paul Thalmann97. Quant à interpréter Tell Al-Rawda comme l’un de ces centres ruraux, et les empreintes qu’on y a trouvé comme portant le témoignage de pratiques gestionnaires en contexte institutionnel, en lien avec Ebla ou simplement au sein même de la ville, il y a un pas que rien ne nous autorise à franchir. Les indices convergent pour penser qu’Al-Rawda est une ville d’importance régionale, largement insérée dans les courants d’échanges de l’époque98. Ses liens avec la région éblaïte sont multiples, ce n’est pas le lieu d’y revenir ici. Mais, malgré une diversité de types de constructions avérée (quartiers d’habitation, complexes religieux clairement isolés du bâti domestique, fortifications et

Mazzoni 1984, 34 ; 1992, 187. Mazzoni 1984, 33–34. 96 Matthews 1996, 137–139. 97 Thalmann 2013, 291. 98 Castel / Peltenburg 2007. 94 95

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

176

C. Castel

peut-être un grand bâtiment communautaire au centre de l’agglomération)99 qui traduit dans l’espace urbain une certaine complexité sociale, et malgré une prospection géophysique offrant une image particulièrement claire du tissu urbain au Bronze ancien IV, aucun grenier communautaire n’a été décelé100. En revanche, les grandes jarres de stockage, posées sur les sols d’occupation ou semi-enterrées, sont abondantes dans les quartiers d’habitation, semblant indiquer que l’entreposage des ressources s’organisaient à court terme et à l’échelle d’un groupe restreint, notamment au sein de la cellule familiale. De plus, divers indices convergent pour penser que les ressources agricoles ne pouvaient être que saisonnières et destinées à la consommation locale, même si l’agriculture irriguée existait certainement dans la ville d’Al-Rawda101, implantée en milieu semi-aride. Même si l’environnement du site était peut-être, lorsque la ville était occupée, un peu plus favorable qu’aujourd’hui aux cultures, ce qui reste encore à démontrer, il est vraisemblable qu’il y était difficile de dégager des surplus agricoles destinés à l’exportation. Il est donc exclu a priori que les productions agricoles d’Al-Rawda aient circulé, de même qu’il nous paraît peu probable que les marmites, fort peu maniables, aient été transportées d’une ville à l’autre. Ces récipients paraissent peu propices au transport étant donné leur forme et la piètre qualité de leur pâte. De plus, leur porosité paraît exclure le transport de produits liquides. Elles sont bien moins susceptibles d’être transportées qu’une petite jarre ou une jarre de taille moyenne qui pouvaient permettre d’exporter du vin ou de l’huile102. Il est donc difficile de croire que ces récipients, qui n’ont de particulier que leur marquage, s’inscrivaient dans le cadre d’une économie de redistribution des denrées alimentaires à l’échelle régionale. Les produits cuits dans les marmites devaient être réservés à un usage local. Le marquage des vases qui unissent, de manière indéfectible, les empreintes aux vases après cuisson, peut avoir servi à distinguer les vases et leur contenant spécifique des autres pots, les empreintes permettant d’identifier l’usage exclusif de certains récipients lors d’occasions particulières comme cela a été proposé par Sarah

Castel et al. 2014a, 21. Seules les tours que l’on a identifiées en microrégion, qui ont indéniablement joué un rôle défensif étant donné leur situation dominante et l’intervisibilité de plusieurs d’entre elles (Quenet in Castel et al. 2014b), ont pu éventuellement servir de greniers fortifiés, comme cela a pu être proposé pour les nombreuses tours repérées dans le Hauran et le Léja (Braemer 2011, 45). 101 Castel 2008, 275 et Barge / Castel / Brochier 2014, 177. 102 En revanche, comme le dit C. Nicolle les « jarres à empreintes de Jawa contenaient des grains qui ne pouvaient pas provenir de la région car celle-ci est inapte à toute forme d’agriculture céréalière. Dans ce contexte, il est raisonnable de considérer ces jarres comme la trace d’une partie des échanges de produits agricoles entre différents terroirs engagés dans des productions spécialisées » (Nicolle 1997, 114). 99

100

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

177

Graff103 ou Jean-Paul Thalmann104 ou bien pour des préparations particulières. 5. Conclusions L’intérêt des deux tessons portant des empreintes de sceaux-cylindres découverts à Tell Al-Rawda est multiple. Les types de vases marqués, des récipients culinaires de forme globulaire, et leurs caractères céramologiques (des pâtes grossières riches en inclusions de calcite en particulier)105, leurs motifs géométriques, où l’on retrouve des losanges et des triangles emboîtés ainsi que des arêtes de poissons ou chevrons, leur style linéaire et schématique et la disposition même des empreintes, déroulées à l’horizontale sur le rebord des marmites, les inscrivent clairement dans une tradition de la Syrie du centre ouest, diffusée de Tell Sha’irat au sud à Ebla au nord et de Hama à l’ouest à Al-Rawda à l’est. Leur découverte en contexte stratifié permet de les attribuer au Bronze ancien IVB, à la fin de l’histoire de la ville d’Al-Rawda. Or, on sait désormais, grâce à une analyse bayésienne des datations radiocarbone que la ville neuve est abandonnée vers 2200 av. J.-C., après une occupation ininterrompue depuis le milieu du IIIe millénaire106. Ces découvertes conduisent donc à documenter une période restée jusque-là méconnue dans la région, celle qui suit la destruction du Palais G. Jean-Paul Thalmann se demandait si la production des « jarres » à empreintes de sceaux-cylindres dans le groupe de « Syrie Centrale » « à dater essentiellement, sinon exclusivement au Bronze ancien IVA, en chronologie syrienne entre 2500 et 2300 environ »107 se poursuit au Bronze ancien IVB. Les découvertes d’Al-Rawda le confirment donc désormais, de manière assurée. Le marquage de récipients par des sceaux-cylindres est une technique diffusée au Levant Nord jusque dans la région steppique des franges semi-arides du Croissant Fertile au Bronze ancien IVB. Les contextes de découverte des fragments portant une empreinte et le type de récipients marqués permettent de considérer la fonction administrative du déroulement des sceaux-cylindres sur céramique fort peu probable, notamment à Tell Al-Rawda. Il est très peu probable également que les marmites aient circulé dans le cadre d’une économie centralisée. Ces récipients nous semblent échapper aux circuits économiques régionaux. De même, leur rareté à Tell Al-Rawda et la découverte dans une maison d’habitation de l’un d’entre eux semblent indiquer qu’ils ne relèvent pas d’un système de gestion formalisé au sein même de la ville. Les marmites, vraisemblablement marquées sur place, ont eu un usage local

Graff 2012, 37–40. Thalmann 2013, 298–300. 105 Observation effectuée par les Missions archéologiques d’Al-Rawda, Sh’airat et Ebla. 106 Brochier / Castel à paraître. 107 Thalmann 2013, 289. 103 104

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

178

C. Castel

et culinaire, et pour l’une d’entre elles au moins, assurément en contexte domestique. Le déroulement d’une empreinte de sceau-cylindre a eu sans doute pour fonction de désigner l’usage particulier des récipients ou leur contenu spécifique, dont on ignore malheureusement tout à ce jour. Espérons que les analyses physico-chimiques de pâtes en cours de nombreux tessons recueillis dans la région constitueront108 une nouvelle étape dans la compréhension des pratiques sigillaires sur céramique dans la région de la Syrie du centre ouest, au Bronze ancien IV. Il serait essentiel notamment de confirmer l’existence d’ateliers régionaux et la production locale des marmites portant une empreinte, à une période où les productions spécialisées se standardisent. Bibliographie Amiet, P., 1963 : La glyptique syrienne archaïque. Notes sur la diffusion de la civilisation mésopotamienne en Syrie du Nord. Syria XL : 57–83. Barge, O. / Castel, C. / Brochier, J.É., 2014 : Human Impact on the Landscape around Al-Rawda (Syria) during the Early Bronze IV : Evidence for Exploitation, Occupation and Appropriation of the land. Dans D. Morandi Bonacossi (éd.) : Settlement Dynamics and Human-Landscape Interaction in the Steppes and Deserts of Syria (Studia Chaburensia 4).Wiesbaden. Pp. 173–185. Barro A., 2003 : Rediscovering “Le Palais” : New Data from the Royal Palace at Qatna (Operation H). Akkadica 124 : 78–96. Ben-Tor, A., 1978 : Cylinder Seals from Third Millennium Palestine (BASOR suppl. 22). Cambridge. Braemer, F., 2011 : Badia and Maamoura, the Jawlan/Hawran Regions during the Bronze Age : Landscapes and Hypothetical Territories. Syria 88 : 31–46. Brochier, J. É. / Castel, C., à paraître : Fondation, occupation et abandon de la ville d’Al-Rawda ; analyse bayésienne des déterminations radiocarbone. Dans C. Castel et al. (éds) : Des villes neuves aux franges du désert de Syrie à la fin du 3e millénaire, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient, Lyon. Castel, C., 2008 : Stratégies de subsistance et modes d’occupation de l’espace dans la microrégion d’Al-Rawda au Bronze ancien final (Shamiyeh). Dans D. Morandi Bonacossi (éd.) : Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 283–294. Castel, C., 2010 : The First Temples in antis : The Sanctuary of Tell Al-Rawda in the Context of 3rd millennium Syria. Dans J. Becker / R. Hempelmann / E. Rehm (éds) : Kulturlandschaft Syrien, Zentrum und Peripherie, Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer (AOAT 371). Münster. Pp. 123–164. Castel, C. / Awad, N. / Barge, O. / Boudier, T. / Cuny, A. / Delattre, L. / Joannès, F. / Moulin, B. / Sanz, S., 2004 : Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la pre-

Des programmes d’analyses archéométriques sont en cours de réalisation dans le cadre des Missions archéologiques d’Ebla, de Sh’airat et d’Al-Rawda en collaboration avec Georges Mouamar, Agnese Vacca, Marta D’Andrea et les laboratoires de Lyon et de Rome.

108

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

179

mière mission archéologique franco-syrienne dans la micro-région d’al-Rawda (Syrie intérieure) : la campagne de 2002. Akkadica 125 : 27–77. Castel, C. / Archambault, D. / Awad, N. / Barge, O. / Boudier, T. / Brochier, J.É. / Cuny, A. / Gondet, S. / Herveux, L. / Isnard, F. / Martin, L. / Quenet, Ph. / Sanz, S. / Vila, E., 2008 : Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la mission archéologique franco-syrienne dans la micro-région d’Al-Rawda (Shamiyeh)  : quatrième et cinquième campagnes (2005 et 2006). Akkadica 129/1 : 5–54. Castel, C. / Awad, N. / Al-Kontar, R. / Babour, T. / Bano, M. / Chiti, B. / Cuny, A. / Emery, A. / Hammad, K. / Munschy, M. / Munos, S. / Perello, B. / Wild, A., 2014a : Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la mission archéologique franco-syrienne d’Al-Rawda, travaux 2007–2010 - Première partie. Akkadica 135/1 : 1–54. Castel, C., Awad, N. / Barge, O. / Brochier, J.É. / Calastrenc, C. / Couteau, S. / Herveux, L. / Kudlek, V. / Laliberté, F. / Pélissier, A. / Quenet, Ph. / Regagnon, E. / Sanz, S., 2014b : Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la mission archéologique franco-syrienne d’Al-Rawda, travaux 2007–2010 - Deuxième partie. Akkadica 135/2 : 109–144. Castel, C., Barge, O. / Awad, N. (éds), à paraître : Des villes neuves aux franges du désert de Syrie à la fin du 3e millénaire : Travaux de la mission archéologique franco-syrienne d’Al-Rawda 2002-2010 ; Travaux de la mission syrienne de Tell Sha’irat 2007–2008 et Tell Al-Sur 2009 (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient). Lyon. Castel, C. / Peltenburg, E., 2007 : Urbanism on the Margins : Third Millennium BC Al-Rawda in the Arid Zone of Syria. Antiquity 81 : 601–616. Charpin, D., 1985 : Des scellés à la signature : l’usage des sceaux dans la Mésopotamie antique. Dans A.-M. Christin (éd.) : Écritures II. Paris. Pp. 13–24. Dornemann, R.H., 2003 : Seven Seasons of Excavations at Tell Qarqur in Syria, 1993–1999. ASOR 56 : 1–142. Dornemann, R.H., 2008a : Tell Qarqur Excavations (1999–2008). Studia Orontica I : 21–152. Dornemann, R.H., 2008b : Evidence from two transitional periods, Early Bronze IV and Iron I, at Tell Qarqur, Syria. Dans H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (éds) : Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 81–96. Dornemann, R.H. / Casana, J. / Maxwell, L., 2008 : The 2008 Season of Excavations at Tell Qarqur. Studia Orontica 1 : 142–152. Flender, M., 2000 : Cylinder Seals impressed vessels of the Early Bronze Age III in Northern Palestine. Dans G. Philip / D. Baird (éds) : Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (Levantine Archaeology 2). Sheffield. Pp. 295–313. Fronzaroli, P., 1996 : A Pharmaceutical Text at Ebla (TM.75.G.1623). ZA 88 : 225–239. Fugmann, E., 1958 : Hama, fouilles et recherches de la fondation Carlsberg, 1931–1938, II.1 : l’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques. Copenhague. Graff, S.R., 2012 : Culinary Preferences : Seal-Impressed Vessels from Western Syria as Specialized Cookware. Dans S.R. Graff / E. Rodriguez-Alegría (éds) : The Menial Art of Cooking, Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation. Boulder. Pp. 19–45. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

180

C. Castel

Herveux, L., à paraître : Stratégies de subsistance et exploitation de la steppe : les ressources végétales à Tell Al-Rawda. Dans C. Castel / O. Barge / N. Awad (éds) : Des villes neuves aux franges du désert de Syrie à la fin du 3e millénaire. Ingholt, H., 1940 : Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932–1938). Copenhague. Matthews, D., 1996 : Seal Impressions on Sherds from Hama. EVO XIX : 121–155. Mazzoni, S., 1984 : Seal Impressions on Jars from Ebla in EB IV A–B. Akkadica 37 : 8–45. –– 1992 : Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla I . Le impronte su giara eblaite e siriane nel Bronzo Antico. Roma. –– 1993 : Cylinder Seal Impressions on Jars at Ebla  : New Evidence. Dans M.J. Mellink / E. Porada / T. Özgüç (éds) : Aspects of Art and Iconography : Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara. Pp. 399–414. –– 2002 : The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in Northwestern Central Syria. Dans M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (éds) : Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I : La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 69–96. –– 2013a : Seals and Visual Communication Across the 3rd Millennium Mediterranean. Dans G. Graziadio et al. (éds) : Φιλική Συναυλία. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology for Mario Benzi (BAR-IS 2460). Oxford. Pp. 193–203. –– 2013b : Centralization and Redistribution. The Pottery Assemblage of Royal Palace G. Dans P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (éds) : Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek. Pp. 89–111. Michel, C., 1994 : Une maison sous scellés dans le kârum. Dans D. Charpin / J.M. Durand (éds) : Florilegium marianum II. Paris. Pp. 285–290. Miroschedji de, P., 1997 : La glyptique palestinienne du Bronze ancien. Dans A. Caubet (éd.) : De Chypre à la Bactriane : les sceaux du Proche-Orient ancien. Paris. Pp. 189–227. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2007 : Qatna and its hinterland during the Bronze and Iron Ages. A preliminary Reconstruction of Urbanism and settlement in the Mishrifeh Region. Dans D. Morandi Bonacossi (éd.), Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital. Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 65–90. Nicolle, C., 1997 : Un usage économique inédit dans la production et la diffusion des produits agricoles : les empreintes de sceaux sur les jarres levantines de l’âge du Bronze. Dans R. Gyselen (éd.) : Sceaux d’Orient et leur emploi (Res Orientales X). Bures-sur-Yvette. Pp. 109–132. Quenet, Ph., à paraître : Le secteur 2c. Dans C. Castel / O. Barge / N. Awad (éds) : Des villes neuves aux franges du désert de Syrie à la fin du 3e millénaire. Smith, A., 2005 : Climate, Culture and Agriculture  : Examining Change in the Near East during the Bronze and Iron Ages, Ph D diss., Boston University. Thalmann, J.-P., 2013 : Le Lion, la Chèvre et le Poisson. À propos d’une jarre à empreintes de sceaux-cylindres de Tell Arqa (Liban). Syria 90 : 255–312. Wachter-Sarkady, C., 2013 : Consuming Plants. Archaeobotanical Samples from Royal Palace G and Building P4. Dans P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (éds) : Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek. Pp. 376–402. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

181

Fig. 1. Situation de Tell Al-Rawda.

Fig. 2. Plan topographique du site d’Al-Rawda et secteurs de fouille avec indication des lieux de découverte des tessons portant une empreinte de sceau-cylindre. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

182

C. Castel

Fig. 3. Dessin et photographie du tesson RW1.2151.1.

Fig. 4. Plan masse du secteur 2c avec lieu de trouvaille du tesson portant l’empreinte du sceau-cylindre RW1.2151.1 (d’après Quenet à paraître). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

183

Fig. 5. Dessin et photographie du tesson RW1.6140.5.

Fig. 6. Plan masse du secteur 6 avec lieu de trouvaille du tesson portant l’empreinte du sceau-cylindre RW1.6140.5 (d’après Castel et al. 2014, fig. 5). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

184

C. Castel

Fig. 7. Empreintes de sceaux-cylindres à décor géométrique d’Ebla TM.69.G.128 (A6), TM.90.P.40 (A45), TM.04.B.951, TM.07.HH.107, TM.07.HH.636 ©Mission archéologique d’Ebla, Mazzoni 1992, tav. XII et Mazzoni 1993, fig. 8, pl. 73,1. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Deux empreintes de sceaux-cylindres sur céramique du Bronze ancien IVB

185

Fig. 8. Empreintes de sceaux-cylindres à décor géométrique de Hama 3F183 (B101), 3H194a (B106), 3H195 (B107), 3H518, 3H525 ; 3B 800 (B88), 3C 662 (B92) et 3F 341 (B103) d’après Mazzoni 1992, tavv. XXXII et XXXIV et Matthews 1996, empreinte n° 18, table II, p. 152.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

186

C. Castel

Fig. 9. Empreintes d’Ebla (A6) et de Hama (B101) réalisées à partir du même sceaucylindre d’après Mazzoni 1992, tavv. XII et XXXIV.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

Manuel Castelluccia and Roberto Dan

1. Introduction1 There is no doubt that metalwork production is the most distinguished aspect of Urartian art. This circumstance was certainly favoured by the presence in Urartian territory of rich deposits of metal ores (generally lacking in Mesopotamia), as well as important trade routes running from the Iranian plateau and the Caucasus. Ambition regarding the direct ownership and exploitation of these mineral deposits was certainly one of the main reasons for the conflict between Assyria and Urartu. The purpose of this study is to analyse the series of metal objects which can be considered components of horse harnesses. Items belonging to war-chariots are not included, since they will be the subject of a further specific study. This article —after a series of detailed studies—is devoted to a general review of Urartian metalwork production.2 The kingdom of Urartu expanded greatly in a rather brief period, between the 9th and 7th centuries BC. Notwithstanding this limited chronological span, the amount of metal artifacts ascribed to the Urartian culture is far larger than any other cultural sphere of the Ancient Near East, except probably the well-known and much discussed corpus of the “Luristan Bronzes.” Numerous studies have been devoted over the years to metalwork production and its artistic features; today this constitutes the most developed field of Urartian studies.3 Despite the richness of this specific literature, several problems still limit our understanding of Urartian metalwork production. These problems mainly depend on the lack of a sufficient number of well documented excavation reports regarding Urartian sites. Moreover, numerous objects are of unknown provenance, since they have come to notice via the antiquities The contents of this article are the work of both authors. Specifically, Manuel Castelluccia wrote §§ 1–4, while Roberto Dan wrote §§ 5–10. 2 Castelluccia / Dan 2011; 2013; 2013–2014; 2014a; 2014b; 2016. 3 On this topic see especially Merhav (ed.) 1991 and Seidl 2004. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

188

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

market. Many previous studies concerning Urartian metalwork production were thus mainly based on the analysis of such objects, which cannot offer reliable data concerning chronology and artistic development, since there are also many doubts about their authenticity. The present article, on the contrary, is mainly based on material from documented contexts. Only a few items without provenance are considered, and only for the purpose of comparison. In order to properly identify objects belonging to horse harnesses, we have taken as basis for comparison the highly detailed Assyrian reliefs, since no available Urartian art reaches such a level of detail. The objects considered in this study can be divided into eight main categories: bits, bells, frontlets, blinkers, collars, breastplates, shoulder ornaments and discs on straps. It should be noted that some of these categories are not known from regular archaeological excavations. In general, with respect to material from the antiquities market, there are but few objects from regular excavations. Moreover, some of the items considered in this article bear cuneiform inscriptions, usually short texts bearing only the name of the king. Most of the artifacts included in this study come from excavations of fortresses in Turkey, Iran and Armenia. Few of them have previously been fully published. The most important site is the fortress of Karmir-blur, located on the outskirts of the capital of present-day Armenia, Yerevan, where most of the material presented in this article was discovered. Few objects come from graves. Funerary evidence regarding the Urartians is quite abundant, but few cemeteries have been fully published. Urartian burial customs are characterized by their diversity. Both cremation and inhumation are known, sometimes even found together within the same grave. Rock-cut and underground chamber tombs constitute the most elaborate structures, but many simple pit and cist graves are also attested. Despite the richness of the grave goods from Urartian tombs, especially weapons, the custom of burying horses together with their owner is not found in the Urartian culture, although several examples are known involving contemporary native cultures of the Iranian plateau and the Caucasus. 2. Bits A bit is part of horse tack that is placed in the animal’s mouth in order to give the rider greater control over it by means of pressure and leverage and rests on the lower jaw in the interdental region between the incisors and molars. It may have various components; the bit itself, the mouthpiece, is usually composed of two independent horizontal rods joined in the middle by rings. At the outer ends of the rods there are other rings through which the reins passed. Additionally, there were two sidebars, which rested on the horse’s cheeks. These might be fused with the mouthpiece or fixed to it through two holes. Each sidebar is equipped with loops or holes for the attachment of bridle cheek straps. Urartian sites have yielded © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

189

several metal bits of various shapes. One bit from an archaeological excavation, found in Karmir-blur in Room 36,4 bears two royal inscriptions of King Minua (CTU IV B 5–3). The first type consists of simple plain bits, characterized by two undecorated mouthpiece rods joined at their inner ends by intersecting loops. Such bits do not necessarily require the use of cheek pieces for controlling the horse, but they provide a lesser degree of maneuverability. Urartian sites have yielded only five bits of this shape, all made of iron. They come from three sites, all located in the Republic of Armenia: Karmir-blur/Teišebai URU, Davti-blur/Argištiḫinili and an underground chamber-grave in Yerevan (Fig. 2a–b). Their length ranges from 13 to 20 cm. It is interesting to note that in Karmir-blur such objects were generally associated with typical Scythian bone cheek-straps. The second group has H-Shaped bits with rigid sidebars. The form is a typical H-shape, with the sidebars fused to the mouthpiece elements; the sidebars are thus not flexible. There is a variety of different types, all of which share a twisted decoration of the rods and the presence of animal protomes at the lateral extremities (Fig. 2c). Four bronze exemplars of this type are known and they were all discovered in Grave III, Room 1, in Altıntepe, Eastern Turkey.5 Another important corpus is composed of H-shaped bits with flexible sidebars: cheekpieces pass thought perforations in the centre of each sidebar, making the joints flexible. The most distinguished piece comes from Karmir-blur, where an inscribed bit was found in Room 36. It bears an inscription of King Minua that reads: “(object) of (belonging to) Minua” (Fig. 3a). A similar piece was found during construction work in the village of Makarašen,6 near Vanadzor, in northern Armenia, well beyond the limit of Urartian domination in Transcaucasia (Fig. 3b). Along with this bit, half of a similar item was also recovered, belonging to the same category but of different shape, plus two round bronze plaques, probably also pertinent to horse equipment. Another very interesting item comes from the cemetery of Nor-Areš, located near Arin-berd/Erebuni (Fig. 3c). It is distinguished by a grooved decoration at the end of each extremity, associated with a cylindrical termination. Several bits of this type have been found in various cemeteries of local Transcaucasian cultures.7 The most distinguished collection of horse bits was found in a chamber grave in the village of Geghovit, on the southern shore of Lake Sevan, dated to the second half of the 7th century BC. Several individuals were placed in the rock-cut chamber, some of whom even seem to have been slaughtered as a sacrifice for the high-ranking person buried in the grave. The richness of the burial is further increased by the presence of several pieces of bronze chariot equipment. Four horse

6 7 4 5

Barnett 1959, 15, fig. 12. Özgüç 1969, 68. Martirosjan 1964, 212. Kuftin 1941, 58, fig. 56; Aslanov / Vaidov / Ione 1959, pl. 34. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

190

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

bits were recovered, one (decorated) in bronze (Fig. 4a) and three in iron (Fig. 4b). Another item was found in the Astchadzor cemetery (Fig. 4c) near Martuni, on the southern shore of Lake Sevan.8 Along with the horse bits, some cheekpieces were also found. At least two items from Altıntepe have the shape of a horse’s head (Fig. 4d). Two others found in Karmir-blur were undecorated bars with loops for suspension. More common are bone cheekpieces, found in Karmir blur in association with the “Scythian-type” iron bits,9 as well as decorated examples from Çavuştepe.10 Part of a Scythian cheekpiece made of bone (Fig. 4e), typical of the late seventh century, was discovered during the excavation of a storeroom in Yukarı Anzaf.11 3. Bells Metal bells are generally associated with horse harnesses. Neo-Assyrian orthostates show these objects fixed to the harness under the horse’s jaw or on the neck. Metal bells can be divided into two main categories: the first is that of so-called “open-cage,” “bird-cage” or “rattle” bells. These are small, mostly just a couple of centimeters in height, and globular, with a series of parallel vertical slits from top to bottom; shapes vary and a small metal or stone ball with the function of clapper is usually still present inside. The upper part finishes in a ring, through which passed a chain. The second group consists of the “closed” type bells. These are conical or polygonal in shape, with an opening at the bottom and an iron clapper inside. In some cases one or more slits may be present on the body. Only a few items have been found on Urartian sites, whereas many more are known from the antiquities market. They come from Ališar, Karmir-blur, Yerevan, Bastam, Dizginkale and around the city of Patnos and Van. Apart from two “opencage” bells found in a grave of the early Urartian period near Karmir-blur,12 they all belong to the “closed” category with a typical octagonal shape. Most of items were again discovered in Karmir-blur (Fig. 5). The only inscribed bells found in definitely Urartian contexts date to the reigns of kings Sarduri II13 and Argišti I.14

Martirosjan 1964, 213. Piotrovskij 1950, 94–95, figs 61–62. 10 Erzen 1988, pl. 47. 11 IV No.lu Pithoslu Depo Odası; Belli / Ceylan 2002, 277, pl. 4. 12 Martirosjan 1956, 71, fig. 10. 13 CTU IV B 9–29; Seidl 2004, 115, fig. 87.b. 14 Seidl 2004, 115, fig. 87.c; CTU IV B 8–22. There are many bells recorded from the antiquities market; see Seidl 2004, Minua (C.49, C.50), Argišti I (E.25, E.26), Sarduri II (F.186), Rusa I (H.4). 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

191

4. Frontlets Only a few frontlets have been discovered during archaeological excavations. They were found in Karmir-blur, Aznavurtepe, Giyimli and in the “Yerevan Colombarium.” An unknown number of bronze frontlets (Fig. 6a–d) bearing cuneiform inscriptions comes from Karmir-blur.15 These specimens bear inscriptions of Minua (CTU IV B 5–1)16 and Sarduri II (CTU IV B 9–26A–X; B 9–33). At least two of these pieces were discovered in Room 36 of the fortress alongside other horse harness items.17 One has a decoration of two rows of dots that run parallel along the edges of the frontlet. Another three frontlets were probably discovered in proximity to the Aznavur Tepe fortress; all bear an inscription of Sarduri II (Fig. 6e–f).18 These have a simple embossed decoration, with twin parallel lines running inside the frontlet’s outer margin. From Giyimli come two specimens discovered during salvage excavations conducted by Afif Erzen on the site, after the appearance on the antiquities market of the famous bronze plaques.19 One is in a fragmentary condition and is decorated with a single bud-garland band and a stylized tree of life in the centre (Fig. 6g). The second is decorated with rows of repoussé dots and a repoussé human face in the middle (Fig. 6h). It is highly probable that all the decorations made in repoussé were made after the defunctionalisation of the original object, as attested for many other plaques from the Giyimli hoard. A fragmentary bronze frontlet was discovered in the so-called “Yerevan Columbarium,” a multiple cremation burial in an underground stone chamber found by chance in the centre of Yerevan (Fig. 6i). The frontlet is trapezoidal in shape and is decorated with ridges, two horizontal and one vertical.20 The majority of Urartian frontlets are of thin bronze sheet and typically T-shaped, and may be further divided into two main variants:21 the first group consists of items from Karmir-blur. They have an elongated T-shape with two symmetrical rounded lateral projections located at the mid-point of the frontlet (Fig. 7a, c). The second type has symmetrical rectangular lateral projections positioned immediately beneath the horizontal part of the frontlet (Fig. 7b). Both

A critical discussion of some of these specimens from Karmir-blur is given by Sevin (1979, 128), who considered them to be blinkers. This hypothesis was discussed and refuted by Pecorella (1980, 193). 16 Piotrovskij 1955, fig. 33. 17 Piotrovskij 1955, 43–44. 18 Taşyürek 1975, 151, 154, figs 32b, 33c; Pecorella 1980, 193. This inscribed specimen is not present in CTU IV. 19 Erzen 1974, figs 27–28, 38–39. 20 Esajan et al. 1995, pl. VII.11. 21 Pecorella (1980, 193–194, fig. 1) gave three types, but one is only known from the antiquities market. 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

192

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

possess holes for hooks to secure the frontlet to the bridle straps.22 A detailed analysis of the decoration is impossible due to the small number of items known. Those found are decorated with the tree-of-life motif with bud-garland, rows of dots or other patterns. The inscribed exemplars all date to the 8th century BC. 5. Blinkers The only archaeological site in which Urartian blinkers were discovered is Karmirblur.23 Unfortunately not all of them have been fully published. It is known that nineteen blinkers have been found (Fig. 7a–d).24 At least three of these bear inscriptions of Sarduri II (CTU IV B 9–25A–X; B 9–28A–X); one is fragmentary (CTU IV B 18–11). They are spade-shaped, which is typical of most such objects in the Near East. The few published items are undecorated, but due to the lack of images and descriptions of the other blinkers discovered in Karmir-blur it remains unknown whether some of them were decorated. In fact the specimens from the antiquities market usually feature hunting or combat scenes.25 6. Collars No collars have been discovered during excavations of Urartian archaeological sites. Unfortunately, our knowledge of these objects is therefore entirely based on material from the antiquities market.26 These bronze collars were equipped at their centre with a hinge mechanism which gave some flexibility to them. The decorations show vertical ridges terminating in snakes’ heads or figurative motifs.27 As with many other metal objects from the antiquities market, these too often possess royal inscriptions. 7. Breastplates Contemporary Neo-Assyrian specimens probably inspired Urartian breastplates. Most of the items known today come yet again from the antiquities market. These, all richly decorated, sometimes even bearing royal inscriptions, can be divided into two main categories: those composed of two parts, an upper gorget to which was fixed a panel with a curved trapezoidal base. The second type, more common, Azarpay 1968, 10. For example, we cannot consider the blinkers published by Ghirshman (1964–1965), discovered in a tomb in a mountainous region in the south-western part of the Caspian region, on the origin of which Muscarella had many doubts (Muscarella 2000, 214). 24 Salvini 2012, 54. 25 Seidl 1991, 79. 26 On these materials from the antiquities market see Seidl 1991, 80, pl. 55. 27 Seidl 1991, 80, fig. 12, pls 45bis, 55. 22 23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

193

has a typical curved shape.28 To date, the only specimens from regular excavations were all found in Room 48 in Karmir-blur.29 Unfortunately, neither images of these objects nor information about their dimensions are available. We only know that both bear inscriptions of Argišti I (B 8–23A–B) and one of the two exemplars has a bull’s head under the inscription.30 8. Shoulder Ornaments No discoid ornaments were discovered during excavations of Urartian archaeological sites. A few objects are once again known only from the antiquities market. These ornaments consist of three sections of bronze sheet: a loop for suspension, an intermediate tongue and a disc of about 25 cm in diameter.31 9. Discs on Straps and Knobbed Bosses These discs, of various dimensions and shapes, were fixed to leather straps and fastened to the bit’s cheek-pieces, holding them in place.32 Many of these kinds of discs have been discovered on Urartian archaeological sites. The discs may be undecorated, or have decorations on the outer, visible side. Several such discs have been discovered in Karmir-blur, some of them bearing inscriptions of Argišti I (CTU IV B 8–25A–X). They have diameters ranging from 6.4 to 9.5 cm. These discs are mainly of two types: the first is a plate with small projecting parts in the centre of the circle (Fig. 9d–e); the second has a more conical shape, with an additional circular component fixed to the end of the cone, which may be flat or rounded. The cones are not decorated or had two rows of triangles crossing the entire bronze disc (Fig. 9a–c).33 Nine items were also discovered in the Yerevan Columbarium, in association with other horse harness elements (Fig. 9g–f). Three discs are flat, and from 4.2 to 6 cm in diameter. Two of them are decorated with embossed concentric lines and a band of dots.34 The five knobbed bosses are conical in shape with conical heads, and usually arching loops on the back.35 Another item, with a rare inscription of Inušpua (CTU IV B 7), was discovered

Seidl 1991, 80, tabs 43–44, 71–74. Piotrovskij 1956, 80; Piotrovskij 1960, 108. 30 Seidl 2004, 33. 31 Seidl 1991, 80. 32 Seidl 1991, 79. 33 Piotrovskij 2011, figs 1055–1058, 1060–1069. 34 Esajan et al. 1995, pls 9.1–2, 9. 35 Esajan et al. 1995, pls 9.3–8. 28 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

194

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

in the fortress of Dizginkale near Patnos36. Twelve bronze discs with diameters of 18–19.5 cm were discovered in a grave in the necropolis of Lori-Berd, near a bronze helmet (Fig. 9h). These discs, decorated with rosettes with eight angular petals, surrounded by a few concentric circles in relief, have a central hole that is 0.5 cm in diameter.37 From the Urartian grave of Alişar38 come two further specimens of knobbed bosses, cylindrical in shape and with cylindrical terminations.39 One was decorated with triangular and circular holes, 5.1 cm in diameter and 4.2 cm high, while the second bore an incision depicting a tower with a curved spear on top. The diameter of this specimen is 5.8 cm and the height 4.5 cm (Fig. 9j). 10. Conclusions In general, few horse harness components have been found in Urartian archaeological excavations with respect to the quantity of material known from the antiquities market. This lack might be partially explained by the fact that few burial grounds have been fully investigated, for metal horse bits are quite common among the grave goods accompanying the deceased. The key site for the study of these materials appears to be Karmir-blur, where most of the specimens discussed in this article were found. Karmir blur was well excavated by a Soviet team led by Piotrovskij, starting in 1939. Despite the presence of four monographs, several aspects of the excavations—as well as photographs, drawings and descriptions of all objects—have not been completely published. Information regarding other sites is, though, often even less detailed. However, it is possible to draw some conclusions. The most well known part of the horse harness is the metal bit. Bronze bits are usually decorated with animal protomes in the shape of birds and horses, whereas those in iron have simple standardized forms, mostly related to the Scythian type. The bronze bits date mostly to the 7th century BC. It is interesting that the type with animal protome decorations shows clear similarity to the contemporaneous “Scythian”-type bits. Strongly associated with the bits, and thus well attested, are the discs on straps found in both fortresses and tombs. Blinkers and frontlets are represented by several finds, while there is information about only two breastplates. These objects might have been used to give further protection to the horse during combat. The fact that some are however decorated or bear royal inscriptions might suggest that they were merely parade

Sevin 1981. Devedžjan 2010, 79, fig. 8, pl. XV. 38 The burial chamber of Ališar, on the River Araxes, was discovered in 1859. The tomb yielded interesting artistic metalwork, including a bell inscribed with a short text of Argišti I (CTU IV B 8–22). 39 Piotrovskij 2011, figs 6–7. 36 37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

195

objects. The usage of decorating horses for ceremonial purposes is well known through its portrayal on Assyrian reliefs. We do not know, however, if the horses were mainly used to pull war-chariots or belonged to cavalry, two military corps both known to have been present in the Urartian army. Despite the existence of some items of unknown provenance, no collar or shoulder ornaments have actually come from documented excavations. Their dating, as well as their authenticity, remains in doubt. The presence of several royal inscriptions identify some of these objects as property of the king. This is a typical custom within Urartian culture, in which numerous items of metalwork bear royal dedications; these have been mainly found within temples and sacred areas. An increase in the circulation of these objects seems discernible after the first half of 7th century, the time of the foundation of Karmir-blur; naturally enough, this increase seems in some cases to have led to a standardization of production. It is interesting to note the increase in Scythian-style objects, mostly indeed related to horse harnesses, which represents one of the oldest attestations of the presence of the Scythians in Transcaucasia and the Near East. Bibliography Aslanov, G.M. / Vaidov, R.M. / Ione, G.I., 1959: Drevnij Mingečaur (epocha eneolita i bronzy). Baku. Azarpay, G., 1968: Urartian Art an Artifacts. A Chronological Study. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Barnett, R.D., 1959: Further Russian Excavations in Armenia (1949–1953). Iraq 21/1: 1–19. –– 1963: The Urartian Cemetery at Igdyr. Anatolian Studies 13: 153–198. Belli, O. / Ceylan, A., 2002: 2000 Yılı Anzaf Kaleleri Kazı ve Onarım Çalışmaları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23.2: 275–286. Castelluccia, M. / Dan, R., 2011: Le faretre e i turcassi in bronzo nella produzione toreutica urartea. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici 53: 13–53. –– 2013: Urartian Bronze Helmets. Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Siberia 19: 277–313. –– 2013–2014: Metal Horse Bits from Urartian Sites. In A. Kosyan / Y. Gregyan / A. Bobokhyan (eds): The Black & White. Studies on History, Archaeology, Mythology and Philology in Honor of Armen Petrosyan in Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Aramazd 8/1–2). Yerevan. Pp. 36–47. –– 2014a: Caucasian, Iranian and Urartian Bronze Bells. Ancient Civilization from Scythia to Siberia 20: 67–104. –– 2014b: Očerki o kavkazckich i urartskich bronzovych kolokol’čikach. Middle East 9/10: 174–191. –– 2016. Kolčany urartskogo carstva. Rossijskaja Archeologija 3: 73–83. CTU IV = Salvini 2012 Devedžjan, S.G., 2010: Some Urartian Objects from the Tombs of Lori Berd. Aramazd 5/2: 76–89. Erzen, A., 1974: Giyimli Bronz Definesi ve Giyimli Kazısı. Belleten 38/150: 191–213. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

196

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

–– 1988: Çavuştepe I, Urartian Architectural Monuments of the 7th and 6th Centuries B.C. and a Necropolis of the Middle Age. Türk Tarih Kurumu. Ankara. Esajan, S.A. / Bijagov, L.N. / Amajakjan, S.G. / Kanecjan, A.G. 1995: Biajnskaja grobnica v Erevane, 2. Archeologičeskie pamjatniki Armenii, 16. Urartskie pamjatniki III. Yerevan. Ghirshman, R., 1964–1965: Notes Iraniennes XIV. Deux oeillères en bronze des rois d’Urartu. ArA 27: 49–60. Kuftin, B.A., 1941: Archeologičeskie raskopki v Trialeti. Tbilisi. Martirosjan, A.A., 1956: Raskopki v Kirovakane i nekotorye pamjatniki ranneurartskogo perioda. Izvestija akademii nauk Armjanskoj SSR 9: 61–83. –– 1964: Armenija v epochu bronzy i rannego železa. Yerevan. –– 1974: Argištichinili. Archeologičeskie Pamjatniki Armenii 8 (Urartskie Pamjatniki). Yerevan. Merhav, R. (ed.), 1991: Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium BC. Jerusalem. Meshinyan, A., 2014: Metal of Urartu from the Collection of Erebuni Historic-Archaeological Museum-Reserve within the European Heritage Days (2014 September 27–October 27). Yerevan (in Armenian). Muscarella, O.W., 2000: The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures. Groningen. Özgüç, T., 1969: Altintepe II: Tombs, Storehouses and Ivories. Ankara. –– 1989: Horsebits from Altıntepe. In L. de Meyer / E. Haerinck (eds): Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Van Den Berghe. Gent. Pp. 409–419. Pecorella, P.E., 1980: Un frontino urarteo del regno di Minua. Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici XXII: 191–199. Piliposyan, A.S. / Mkrtchyan, R.A., 2001: Vantospskaia (urartskaia) peshchernaia grobnits a Gekhovita (Arkheologicheskie pamiatniki Armenii 18, Urartskie pamiatniki, vypusk 4). Yerevan. (In Armenian with Russian and English summary). Piotrovskij, B.B., 1950: Karmir-blur I. Rezul’taty raskopok 1939–1949 (Akademija Nauk Armijanskoj, Sovetskaya Sotsialisticheskaya Respublika). Yerevan. –– 1955: Karmir-blur III. Rezul’taty raskopok 1951–1953 (Sovetskaya Sotsialisticheskaya Respublika). Yerevan. –– 1956: Klinoobraznye Urartskie nadpisi iz raskopok na Karmir-blure 1954 g.. Epigrafika Vostoka 11: 80–82. –– 1960: Urartskie nadpisi iz raskopok Karmir-blure 1939–1958 g. Epigrafika Vostoka 13: 105–109. –– 2011. Istorija i kul’tura Urartu. Sankt-Peterburg. Salvini, M., 2012: Corpus dei Testi Urartei. Iscrizioni su bronzi, argilla e altri supporti. Nuove iscrizioni su pietra. Paleografia generale Vol. IV (Documenta Asiana VIII). Roma. Seidl, U., 1991: Horse trappings. In Merhav (ed.): Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium BC. Jerusalem: 79–113. –– 2004: Bronzekunst Urartus. Mainz am Rhein. Sevin, V., 1979: Asur ve Urartu At-Koşum Takımları Üzerine Bir Not/A Com© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

197

ment on the Assyrian and Urartian Horse Trappings. Anadolu Araştırmaları VI: 111–132. –– 1981: Menua’nın oğlu Inušpua/Inushpua, the son of Menua. Anadolu Araştırmaları 7: 1–11. Taşyürek, O.A., 1975: Some Inscribed Urartian Bronze Armour. Iraq 37/2: 151–155.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

198

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

Fig. 1. Distribution map of the sites quoted in the text.

Fig. 2. Bits from A) Davti-blur (after Martirosjan 1974, 140, fig. 87a); B) Yerevan Columbarium (after Esajan et al. 1995, pl. VII.17); C) after Özgüç 1989, pls 3–4.

Fig. 3. Bits from A) Karmir-blur (after Barnett 1959, 14, fig. 12); B) Makarašen (after Martirosjan 1964, 212, fig. 84); C) Nor-Areš (after Barnett 1963, 196, fig. 45). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

199

Fig. 4. Bits from A–B) Geghovit (Piliposyan / Mkrtchyan 2001, pl. 15); C) Astchadzor (after Martirosjan 1964, 228, fig. 87); D) Altıntepe (after Özgüç 1989, pl. 5); E) Yukarı Anzaf (Belli 2002, 277, pl. 4).

Fig. 5. Bells from Karmir-blur: A–B) after Piotrovskij 2011, 643, figs 1058, 1059; C) after Piotrovskij 1955, 46, fig. 35; D–E) after Seidl 2004, 115, fig. 87, a–c; F–G) courtesy of Erebuni Museum.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

200

M. Castelluccia and R. Dan

Fig. 6. Frontlets from A–D) Karmir-blur (Piotrovskij 1955, fig. 33; Piotrovskij 2011, figs 1046–1048); E–F) Aznavurtepe (Taşyürek 1975, pl. XXXIII); G–H) Giyimli (Erzen 1974, figs 27, 39); I) Yerevan Columbarium (Esajan et al. 1995, pl. VII.11).

Fig. 7. Urartian frontlets (after Pecorella 1980, fig. 1).

Fig. 8. Blinkers from Karmir-blr (after Piotrovskij 2011, figs 1049–1052). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Remarks on Urartian Horse Harnesses

201

Fig. 9. Disc on straps and knobbed bosses from A–E) Karmir-blur (A–D: Piotrovskij 2011, figs 1055–1057, 1069; Piotrovskij 1955, fig. 36); G–F) Yerevan Columbarium (Meshinyan 2014, 13, 125/23–125/24; Esayan et al. 1995, pl. IX); H) Lori-berd (Devedžjan 2010, fig. 8, pl. XV.1); I–J) Ališar (Piotrovskij 2011, figs 6–7).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura. Adaptaciones a medios áridos durante la Edad del Hierro. Notas rápidas sobre dos recientes y singulares hallazgos Joaquín María Córdoba*

1. Introducción Tal vez el tema de este trabajo parezca extraño: la arqueología de la agricultura. Es lógico. La arqueología es una práctica sobre límites, espacios tangibles y estratigrafías de la Antigüedad. Recuperar, mediante excavación arqueológica, las parcelas agrícolas donde los hombres, con sus herramientas y animales, se afanaban en cultivar plantas y obtener cosechas, parece improbable. Más aún, una “arqueología de la agricultura” puede suponerse un empeño inútil, porque al fin y al cabo y en general, la tierra cultivada ha sido removida durante miles de años. Objetivo, por tanto, más que problemático o, lisamente, imposible. Pero si el asunto presenta la misma dificultad que hallar las superficies donde se fabricaban los adobes para una construcción, acaso no lo sea tanto. Por comparación con la etnología de los pueblos modernos de Oriente, suponemos que en la Antigüedad, los adobes se hacían sobre el suelo inmediato al lugar de la nueva edificación. La diferencia entre el adobe zarinnum y el ukurrum sugeriría que el primero al menos, de calidad mediocre, debió hacerse con tierra arqueológica, es decir, en la vecindad inmediata de la nueva construcción.1 En una buena parte de los espacios de la Historia de Oriente antiguo tuvo que ser así, como corrobora el silencio sobre lugares de fabricación en los tratados dedicados a los materiales de construcción. Sólo los hornos de cocción para ladrillos han proporcionado evidencias tangibles.2 Al menos hasta hace poco. Porque en la Península de Omán, una insistente búsqueda específica, en cooperación constante con las ciencias físicas y de la naturaleza, añadidas a las especiales condiciones geográficas y climáticas de la región y a la singular formación de aquel territorio arqueológico nos llevaron Como muestra de mi sincero homenaje a Frances Pinnock, a su persona, su obra e intensa actividad arqueológica en Oriente, ofrezco estas breves notas dedicadas a lo que considero dos hallazgos singulares, uno, de apenas unos meses. Notas breves, pero unidas a mi agradecimiento por tantos años de afecto y colaboración cuantas siempre hemos recibido de ella, tanto yo mismo como mis alumnos y colaboradores. 1 Sauvage 1968, 18. 2 Merluzzi 1997. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

204

J.M. Córdoba

a descubrir lugares de fabricación de adobes de la Edad del Hierro.3 Pues bien, la misma combinación de circunstancias—línea de investigación, interdisiplinariedad, especiales condiciones geo-climáticas y naturaleza del suelo arqueológico— nos han proporcionado otro hallazgo sorprendente: las parcelas agrícolas y los usos de los antiguos campesinos de la Edad del Hierro en los oasis de Emiratos Árabes y en las planicies del actual desierto de Dehistán en Turkmenistán. Por eso estimo que el título de mi trabajo es correcto, y que podemos hablar ya de una verdadera “arqueología de la agricultura”, incluso de una arqueología de la tierra cultivada. 2. Tras la agricultura En alguno de los yacimientos excavados en la segunda mitad del siglo XIX hubo un temprano interés por la agricultura, aunque esta línea de trabajo no se desarrolló luego apenas. En 1879, el virólogo R. Virchow dedicó una consideración interdisciplinar, avant la lettre, al yacimiento de Troya. Entre otras cosas se le ocurrió tomar muestras carbonizadas de cereales y legumbres4 para su estudio en Alemania. No obstante, la búsqueda de la agricultura misma a través de la práctica arqueológica se retrasó mucho más. La misma posibilidad de hacerlo ni siquiera se planteó—considerarlo sólo se habría tomado por empeño vano—, y la captura de tablillas y obras de arte para los museos marcó el tono de la mayoría de las excavaciones arqueológicas en Oriente Próximo y Medio. Parece pues que existía una opinión bien extendida de que la agricultura del pasado sólo podía abordarse considerando las plantas o pautas de cultivo documentadas por los textos. Al temprano estudio de B. Hrozny sobre los cereales5 siguió una larga relación de trabajos sobre plantas, campesinos, propiedades de la tierra agrícola o su venta y otros aspectos que llegaron a ser relativamente abundantes, y parejos con una muy escasa consideración del fenómeno en la arqueología. Con excepción, claro está, de las obligadas menciones a herramientas supuestamente agrícolas o los útiles domésticos relacionados con la preparación de alimentos y, por tanto, sugerentes del tipo de planta manipulada para su consumo. Pero dos obras, en mi opinión, marcan un hito: la Agricultura mesopotamica (1968)6 y Alimenta hethaeorum (1974).7 Tras los estudios de A. Salonen y H. A. Hoffner, la cuestión de la agricultura ha ido adquieriendo enfoques cada vez más diversos y completos, sin contar con que desde las excavaciones arqueológicas

Córdoba 2006a; 2006b; 2012; del Cerro 2008. Korfmann 2006, 127. Cita M.O. Korfmann el informe de R. Virchow “Beiträge zur Landeskunde der Troas” (1879), que señala tan temprana implicación de las ciencias de la naturaleza en el trabajo arqueológico en Oriente. 5 Hrozny 1913. 6 Salonen 1968. 7 Hoffner 1974. 3 4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

205

de Abu Hureyra (1973–1974), la investigación interdisciplinar aplicada sobre el terreno se ha hecho imprescindible y, con ello, la información sobre la agricultura en general. Pero ni siquiera en un proyecto pionero y metodológicamente modélico, como fue el de Abu Hureyra, se pudo atender a la cuestión que nos ocupa: dónde y cómo se practicó la agricultura. Es decir, no qué se cultivó o recolectó— lo que quedó allí bien claro, por otra parte8—, sino el lugar preciso y su forma. 3. Caminos posibles de la arqueología: el agua o la tierra Si de práctica arqueológica hablamos, habría que buscar un hilo para llegar a las parcelas roturadas. Y pueden ser dos: el agua o la tierra, ambas con sus problemas particulares. Siguiendo los canales antiguos debería llegar a entenderse dónde y cómo se cultivó: eso, para los regadíos. Pero en áreas de secano, si consideramos los yacimientos y su potencial territorio agrícola, tal vez podría entreverse el espacio roturado. Dicho así parece fácil, pero en la práctica es algo bastante complejo. Como es bien sabido, el problema principal de Oriente Próximo y Medio es la aridez y la búsqueda y explotación del agua precisa.9 Teniendo en cuenta que tanto las llanuras del sur como las mesetas septentrionales del actual Iraq, fueron escenario preferido de las investigaciones tempranas, es lógico también que los primeros intentos por desvelar la tierra cultivable—regadíos y secanos—se hayan dado allí. Los territorios de secano en la Yazira iraquí y siria, fueron los primeros ámbitos de la agricultura y el aprovechamiento del agua, aunque en aquella región se tratara del agua de lluvia. Pero allí tenemos evidencias tempranas muy interesantes: la azada durante el periodo Hassuna IA10—luego fundamental para abrir las acequias durante la colonización de las llanuras mesopotámicas gracias al regadío—, y la determinación de las primeras parcelas cultivadas, aunque en este caso y en realidad, más intuidas que vistas. Intentos de verificarlas los hubo primero en el norte de Iraq. Según J. Oates, el arqueólogo iraquí I. Jijara había llevado a cabo la primera prospección de los yacimientos Halaf en el norte de Iraq, con resultados muy interesantes: constataba grupos o racimos de 5 o 6 pequeños yacimientos—con cierta relación unos con otros, evidentemente—, separados entre sí por un espacio de 10–12 km, aunque lo más importante fuera que podía identificarse en sus aledaños la tierra cultivada, significativamente, constituida por unos suelos de color marrón oscuro.11 En mi opinión, dicha percepción sugiere insospechadas posibilidades. Pues teniendo en cuenta la degradación general del entorno a fines del III milenio,12 y en especial de la banda meridional de al Yazira—de extraordinaria aridez actualmente, que sin embargo aparece cuajada de ya-

Moore / Hillman / Legge (eds) 2000, 327–422. Sanlaville 1981. 10 Cauvin 1981, 29. 11 Oates 1980, 308. 12 Cordova 2005, 123–124. 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

206

J.M. Córdoba

cimientos fechados en el III milenio y periodos anteriores—, un área considerada atentamente por T. Willkinson,13 podemos hallarnos ante algo muy especial. Y es que considerando un espacio tan grande de agricultura de secano, cultivado intensivamente durante siglos pero abandonado a fines del milenio, y nunca ocupado después, creo que mediante fotografías por satélite de especial resolución, y prospectando el terreno con ese objetivo, podrían tal vez individualizarse, si no parcelas, al menos las áreas de cultivo de dicha época, vista la experiencia de J. Jijara. Siglos de tormentas de arena y lluvias más o menos intensas sobrevenidas no han borrado las evidencias en el territorio que nosotros estudiamos en la actualidad. Allí, es cierto que la compactación de los sedimentos depositados en los causes de canales y acequias marcan los límites. Pero de forma parecida, tal vez fenómenos atmosféricos y climáticos parecidos podrían no haber borrado substancialmente las evidencias de los secanos en la banda meridional y desértica, desde omienzos del II milenio a. C. en al Yazira. En todo caso, parece que hasta ahora al menos no se han buscado las antiguas tierras cultivadas en el registro arqueológico de la región, en la senda marcada por I Jijara. La cosa no es fácil, evidentemente: C.E. Cordova recuerda que incluso los cultivos de olivo, presumiblemente llevados a cabo en las mismas terrazas cercanas a Jerusalén, desde el Neolítico, ni siquiera allí son fáciles de datar.14 La reconsideración actual de la agricultura de secano en el norte tiende más a gestión, técnica y procedimientos que,15 siendo encomiables, no van en la línea que propongo todavía. Si en las regiones dependientes del agua de lluvia, la tierra y el agua en combinación y como medios de búsqueda no han proporcionado hasta ahora buenos resultados—que en mi opinion tienen que darlos recurriendo a los medios actuales, en la banda meridional de la Yazira por lo menos—, en los espacios de regadío los resultados son también moderados en cuanto a definición precisa de las parcelas y espacios cultivados. Otra cosa ha sido la visualización de las parcelas a través de los textos. Parecería lógico pensar que si reconstruimos la red de canales y establecemos la de asentamientos humanos asociados, y si definimos mapas regionales según periodos, como llevaron a a cabo en su día R.McC. Adams en la región del Diyala y aledaños de Bagdad,16 o él mismo y en asociación con H.J. Nissen en el área de Uruk,17 estaríamos cerca de los objetivos planteados. Pero no es tan fácil, como se ha ido viendo a lo largo del tiempo. B. Lafont ha hecho balance del camino teórico,18 recordando la aproximación antropológica y medio-ambiental de T.E.

Wilkinson 1997. Cordova 2005, 119. 15 Jas 2000. 16 Adams 1965. 17 Adams / Nissen 1972. 18 Lafont 2009. 13 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

207

Downing y McG. Gibson19 en los años setenta, la aportación de los seminarios derigidos por J. y F. Métral sobre el uso y dominio del agua20 en los ochenta, junto al Coloquio de Damasco21 y las publicaciones del Sumerian Agriculture Group22 o en los textos, la publicación de M. Civil23 en los noventa, que tanto ha facilitado la comprensión de técnicas para la agricultura mesopotámica. El famoso croquis de J.N. Postgate sobre una supuesta zona agrícola mesopotámica (Fig. 1)24 es una aguda hipótesis de visualización, que suma los indicios hallados en los textos escritos con los deparados por la etnología comparada de las explotaciones agrícolas. Pero no es la imagen planimétrica deparada por una excavación arqueológica, por muy lógica y documentada que esté la hipótesis. Así que parece imposible recuperar el paisaje agrario. Otra tentativa a partir de los textos ha sido realizada por M. Liverani: la forma de los campos durante la III Dinastía de Ur en la región de Lagaš.25 En algunas tablillas de la época se bosquejó la forma de las parcelas, convencionalmente orientadas a los puntos cardinales: pero su corto número no permite reconstruir el paisaje. Sin embargo, mucho más numerosas son unas tablillas en las que las parcelas se detallan de forma implícita: son las tablillas redondas, redactadas poco antes de la siega y pensadas para establecer los impuestos. Por ellas sabemos de las dimensiones de las parcelas y su forma— sobre todo estrecha y alargada,26 con el fin de aprovechar al máximo el surco del arado sin tener que girar—, y el riego necesario, asegurado mediante la red de acequias derivadas del canal. El paisaje resultante sería de “doble peine” o “espina de pescado”, con campos a ambos lados del canal, sobre cuyos diques laterales corrían sendas por las que se movían los campesinos y sus animales.27 Posteriormente, en otro trabajo intentaba definir el paisaje agrícola para un periodo mucho más amplio, desde la época Uruk hasta el Aqueménida.28 La reconstrucción del paisaje es asombrosa, con sus diferencias entre las meridionales y las septentrionales. Pero naturalmente, nada de ello se refiere a un ejemplo concreto hallado sobre el terreno. Así pues y en resumen, a pesar del magnífico cúmulo de datos y elementos aportados por estos trabajos, ni unos ni otros se refieren a evidencias arqueológicas, puesto que cuando éstas existen, se limitan a los canales principales y las esclusas, pero no a las parcelas. Al fin y al cabo, el mismo croquis de J.N. Postgate es indicativo de que si se están cultivando las mismas tierras duran Downing / Gibson 1974. Métral / Métral (eds) 1981; 1982; Métral / Métral / Louis (eds) 1986; 1987. 21 Geyer 1990; 2001. 22 Postgate / Powell (eds) 1988; 1999. 23 Civil 1994. 24 Postgate 1994, fig. 9.1; 1999, 214. 25 Liverani 1988–89. 26 Liverani 1988–89, 300–310, figs 5–9. 27 Liverani 1988–89, 316. 28 Liverani 1996. 19 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

208

J.M. Córdoba

te siglos, difícilmente se podrá recuperar la imagen de las parcelas antiguas. Pero recientemente y como he apuntado ya, dos evidencias arqueológicas han sacado a la luz lo inesperado: los campos y parcelas cultivadas durante la Edad del Hierro. 4. Arqueología de la agricultura durante la Edad del Hierro: acequias, alcorques, campos, canales y parcelas Con la experiencia acumulada en los años pasados, creo que la arquelogía de la agricultura de regadío practicada en la remota Antigüedad, en regiones tempranamente abandonadas y convertidas luego en desiertos, parte con una ventaja inicial de valor inapreciable: las huellas del agua. Porque la necesidad de obtener y distribuir el agua para el riego nos lleva a buscar el origen de ésta, la forma de distribución y, en el extremo final, a localizar los antiguos campos de cultivo. Como hemos comprobado en este tiempo, la sabana predesértica del piedemonte de las montañas de Omán es por completo distinta de las lisas llanuras del Dehistán tukmeno, pero el problema al que se enfrentaban los campesinos de la Edad del Hierro en ambas regiones era parecido: captar el agua precisa, distribuirla y asegurar una agricultura suficiente para sus comunidades. Climas ligeramente distintos y diferentes entornos naturales llevaron a soluciones opuestas entre sí, en su raíz por la forma; captación y distribución de aguas freáticas mediante galerías subterráneas y redes de acequias en superficie, en Omán; captación de cursos fluviales mediante derivación de canales y distribución posterior por acequias, en Dehistán. Parecidas en su fase final, las dos se aplicaron al cultivo de modo distinto, de acuerdo con plantas, suelos y clima diferentes, dentro de una común aridez. Aunque tales soluciones fueron igualmente eficaces durante mucho tiempo. Una línea de investigación sobre el terreno, orientada a resolver este problema mediante excavación arqueológica, nos ha llevado al hallazgo e interpretación de lo que constituye el negativo de las correspondientes redes de distribución y con ellas, al positivo de lo que fueron las parcelas y zonas cultivadas por las poblaciones del oasis de al Madam y los alrededores de Izat Kuli, en el Dehistán turkmeno, aportaciones originales más novedosas que trato aquí. 4.1 Arqueología de la agricultura en al-Madam (Emiratos Árabes Unidos) La Edad del Hierro en la Península de Omán (c. 1300–300 a.C.)29 fue una época pujante, y desde luego, en el territorio de los Emiratos Árabes Unidos, donde se enclava el yacimiento (Fig. 2). El catálogo de sitios es tan numeroso, su adapta-

La cronología aceptada sigue la propuesta por P. Magee, que define tres periodos: Hierro I c. 1300–1100 a.C., Hierro II c. 1100–600 a.C. y Hierro III c. 600–300 a.C. Así, Magee 1996, 249.

29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

209

ción a los distintos ecosistemas—costa del Golfo, oasis del piedemonte interior con valles y wadian de la montaña y, en fin, costa del mar de Omán—tan variada y flexible, que llamó pronto la atención,30 y animó una ordenación aceptada por su misma evidencia.31 Los diferentes grupos humanos supieron sacar ventajas de sus circunstancias medioambientales, pero los del interior fueron los que mejor supieron explotarlo, conveirtiéndose en el centro demográfico y económico de la Cultura de la Edad del Hierro de la península: y los del piedemonte occidental de las montañas del Hajjar sobre todo. En la línea de contacto que corre entre la estepa abierta al pie de las montañas y las primeras dunas del extremo nordeste del Rub al Khali se alzan los oasis de una línea que se sigue desde el inmenso de al-Aïn hasta el de al-Dhaib y la costa. La línea de oasis mayores—al-Aïn, al-Madam, Mleiha, Dhaib—y otros puntos de menor relevancia marcan las etapas de la antigua ruta principal de comunicación y comercio, por la que circularon personas, ideas y mercancías, una ruta que, en mi opinion, llegó a constituir la columna vertebral de aquella cultura, tan unitaria en creencias, ocupación del territorio y urbanismo rural, técnicas y materiales de construcción, arquitectura hidráulica, producción de cerámica, bronce y hierro, así como en los usos económicos. Las tempranas excavaciones en el oasis de al-Aïn—en los yacimientos de Rumeilah, Hili 1432 o Hili 233—, sugirieron la base principal de la economía rural de la época: la agricultura de regadío, gracias a la introducción del falaj.34 Tal agricultura habría sido capaz de sustentar a numerosas y crecientes comunidades campesinas que mediante docenas de grandes poblados ocuparon el territorio y explotaron intensamente los recursos de los oasis. En consecuencia y como es lógico, sobre el falaj de la Península de Omán y sus circunstancias ha habido un intenso debate,35 en el que hasta hace poco faltaba un elemento esencial: la evidencia arqueológica. Como los modelos teóricos propuestos partían del paradigma de Irán,36 la demostración sobre el terreno del piedemonte parecía a veces compleja. Pero una propuesta de R. Boucharlat37—que apoyo sin reservas en virtud de mi propia experiencia arqueológica en al-Madam—ha modificado profundamente la cuestión de los aflaj en su origen y, sobre todo, en su naturaleza, introduciendo el concepto “galeries de captage / water-draining galleries”. Pero como esa no es la cuestión ahora, creo que conviene centrarse en la que nos ocupa: las parcelas cultivadas o la arqueología de la agricultura.

Lombard 1989. Potts 1992, 359–375; Córdoba 2010, 145–148. 32 Boucharlat / Lombard 1985. 33 ur-Rahman 1980. 34 Potts 1992, 390. 35 Wilkinson 1977; 1983. 36 Lombard 1991. 37 Boucharlat 2003. 30 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

210

J.M. Córdoba

4.1.1 El poblado de AM 1 – Thuqaibah En 1993, la entonces Misión Arqueológica Francesa en Sharjah llevó a cabo una prospección general del oasis de al-Madam, para levantar la carta arqueológica del mismo: los 54 yacimientos catalogados cubrían todas las épocas, desde los orígenes hasta la islámica.38 El yacimiento nº 1 era el llamado Thuqaibah (AM 1) (Fig. 3)—ya identificado antes por la Dirección de Antigüedades de Sharjah—, situado en el extremo meridional del oasis, junto a la aldea de al-Thuqaibah: allí, bajo las dunas que se mezclaban con la estepa del piedemonte, se había descubierto una casa de la Edad del Hierro, en excepcional estado de conservación. A la vista aún, cuando comenzamos nuestro trabajo, la dura consistencia de sus adobes, su color blanquecino y su textura fue lo primero que llamó mi atención, aconstumbrado como estaba al aspecto y débil consistencia del adobe mesopotámico y sirio. Iniciado el trabajo en 1994, en cooperación con la misión francesa, dos años después lo continuamos en solitario, junto con la Dirección de Antigüedades de Sharjah, y así ha seguido hasta que en 2014 yo haya cerrado la I Fase y dejado la dirección:39 el proyecto prosigue en la actualidad, en una nueva II fase.40 No quiero detenerme ahora en la descripción del poblado, cuya original tipología, arquitectura, instalaciones domésticas e hidráulicas han sido señaladas en distintas ocasiones: tampoco en otro de nuestros más importantes hallazgos: cómo y donde conseguían las materias primas con las que elaboraban sus singulares adobes, y dónde los fabricaban,41 en esta estepa desértica cercada por las dunas. Sin miedo a exagerar, considero éste uno de los hallazgos más importantes de la arqueología de la península en los años pasados, porque la enorme superficie del área de elaboración de adobes, las huellas de quienes allí trabajaron, petrificadas al secarse el área tras su abandono, los montones de material y adobes rotos y enteros, la curiosa planificación de balsas y canales menores, el pozo de alimentación y mil detalles más constituyen un descubrimiento42 único,43 aunque ya tratado anteriormente. En cuanto al poblado, baste decir que a diferencia de Rumeilah o Hili, en AM 1 documentamos un patrón de construcción separado: casas de superficie notablemente menor (50 o 68 m² de media), completadas con grandes espacios abiertos delimitados por pequeños muretes, espacios que fueron verdaderos ámbitos comunes de la vida cotidiana, donde se cocinada, se almacenaban elementos

Mouton 1992. Los resultados de esta primera fase de nuestra investigación serán dados a conocer en la memoria correspondiente, actualmente en estado de elaboración: Córdoba (ed.) forth. 40 La II Fase está ya dirigida por la Prof. Dra. Dª Carmen del Cerro Linares, profesora en el Departamento de Historia Antigua y Medieval de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, que junto conmigo ha estado siempre presente en el desarrollo del proyecto durante la pasada I Fase. 41 Córdoba 2006a. 42 Córdoba 2006b; 2012; del Cerro 2008. 43 Boucharlat 2001, 166–167. 38 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

211

y se reunía el ganado.44 Tan original tipología45 y los abundantes hallazgos de huesos de cabra y oveja, o de moluscos de Therebralia palustris, junto a la ausencia de graneros o grandes tinajas para almacenar grano descubiertas in situ— sí documentadas en otros poblados—, indicaba una economía diversificada, que compaginaba la explotación de una ganadería menor de relativa importancia junto a una agricultura de temporada, avalada por los molinos de mano y la ausencia total de cereales en los análisis de flotación.46 Ello quedaba refrendado además por estructuras hidáulicas como los pozos excavados en los espacios abiertos, cuyo brocal revela que sirvieron, además de para el uso común de todos los habitantes, para dar de beber al ganado.47 La maestría demostrada en la excavación de tales pozos domésticos, y el buen conocimiento de las posibilidadaes del subsuelo que así revelaban se ha completado con otro de los descubrimientos que considero trascental: la agricutura y sus espacios. Y la buscamos porque un poblado sin producción de alimentos resulta algo extraño. Por eso se imponía el estudio de sus posibilidades agrícolas, y ello tenía que demostrarse en la existencia de un posible falaj y del área que atendía. 4.1.2 Agricultura en los oasis: de la “galerie de captage” a los campos de cultivo Si en los oasis radicó el núcleo principal de las poblaciones del interior durante la Edad del Hierro, la agricultura debería haber sido parte relevante de su economía. Así que teníamos que verificar cómo y dónde se cultivó. La teoría de los aflaj, como mecanismo de provisión del agua necesaria durante esa época está sólidamente aceptada: antes de nuestro hallazgo, incluso existía una cierta tradición de descubrimientos en el oasis de al-Aïn, donde en 1983, W.Y. al Tikriti encontró en Hili 15 una especie de distribuidor para acequias, como extremo final de un pequeño canalillo alimentado por un falaj, del que llegó a excavar lo que parecía el último pozo, cercano a la salida.48 Pero nada descubrió del sistema de explotación agrícola que usó el agua repartida por el distribuidor—si había o no acequias menores o indicio alguno de uso agrícola del espacio; y el falaj en sí tampoco fue excavado entonces, dado que se encontraba fuera del área arqueológica. A principios de los noventa, la prospección realizada en el área de al-Madam catalogó varias alineaciones de colinas blanquecinas, que desde la estepa se di-

Córdoba 2003. D.T. Potts señalaba que la cuestión del papel jugado por un pastoreo extenso en la Edad del Hierro aún estaba abierta, así como la poca evidencia existente sobre los pastores y sus poblados. Así Potts 1992, 389–390. Yo creo que AM 1-Thuqaibah viene a documentar esta peculiar y característica forma de vida, más propia de la ecología de la región, incluso en los oasis. 46 Córdoba / Mañé 2000; Córdoba 2008. 47 Córdoba / del Cerro 2005. 48 Boucharlat 2001, 164–166. 44 45

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

212

J.M. Córdoba

rigían hasta el oasis.49 La identificación de estas colinas con los pozos cegados de antiguos aflaj parecía segura: estarían formadas por la extracción de material rocoso profundo durante la construcción y conservación de las galerías subterráneas. En el curso de la primera campaña conjunta se hicieron tres cortes en colinas de otras tantas alineaciones: algunos fragmentos cerámicos de la Edad del Hierro parecían confirmar la datación.50 Por esos años, el hallazgo en el área de al-Aïn, de un nuevo falaj en Bida’ Bint Sa’ud, que desembocaba en una especie de estanque excavado en el suelo y revestido de piedras—alimentado por el último tramo de la galería—, y al que se bajaba por una escalinata,51 se fechaba bien por la abundante cerámica allí hallada. Fueron excavados varios pozos de servicio y un sector de la galería subterránea, muy recta, que alcanzaba los 4 m de profundidad. Pero tampoco se documentó la parte alta del sistema ni esos tramos de la galería. Y naturalmente, es complejo relacionar el agua retenida en el estanque, bajo el suelo de uso, con los supuestos campos cultivados de los alrededores, aunque nada se indicaba, por más que algún sistema de alzado del agua y sus estructuras debiera haber existido. En todo caso, a partir de esos hallazgos se ha propuesto una teoría general como modelo de referencia para este tipo de construcción hidráulica en la región:52 pero no se ha considerado plausible el debate suscitado en el asunto de las galleries de captage, ni se ha avanzado en el tema del aprovechamiento agrícola del agua—la verdadera “arqueología de la agricultura”—ni, desde luego, se han tenido en cuenta las evidencias simultáneas y posteriores conseguidas y, entre ellas, los descubrimientos alcanzados en AM 2. Con la certeza de la tipología del poblado, su condición ganadera y agrícola estacional y avanzada la cuestión de la arquitectura hidráulica y la elaboración de adobes, emprendimos la búsqueda del área agrícola relacionada con el antiguo poblado que, según norma, debería haber estado no muy lejos y alimentada por el agua de un falaj. La línea de colinas más cercana era la catalogada como AM 2, al sudeste del oasis, en plena estepa y fuera de la zona cultivada en la actualidad. A unos mil metros, no lejos del actual oasis, pegadas a un tramo de las muchas pistas que surcaban la llanura, se distinguía una larga secuencia de pequeñas colinas blanquecinas (AM 2), interpretadas como pozos cegados de falaj. Localizamos hasta siete pozos, alguno con brocal muy bien conservado (Fig. 4). Rebajando el relleno de uno de ellos alcanzamos una galería subterránea no recta, cavada en el suelo natural rocoso blanquecino. En varias campañas documentamos una alineación de pozos en superficie que marcaba una orientación hacia el nordeste y, bajo tierra, casi 40 metros de galería continuada, con trazado intencional en zig-zag. La porción superior y más antigua de la galería tenía 1,60 m de altura y 0,50 m de anchura, pero en determinado momento, todo el suelo de la galería

Mouton 1992, 3–10, fig 2. Benoist / Córdoba / Mouton 1997, 67. 51 Al Tikriti 2002a, 124–129, fig. 15. 52 Al Tikriti 2002b; 2011. Sobre la cuestion de las galerías, al Tikriti 2011, 130–132. 49 50

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

213

había sido reexcavado—probablemente en busca de la capa freática perdida por un brusco descenso, debido a un proceso de sequía y aridez general, razón última del abandono de los oasis y los poblados de la Edad del Hierro—hasta alcanzar al final casi los 4 m de altura total (Fig. 5). Un proceso semejante aunque contemporáneo a la época de su proyecto, había sido constatado por G. Weisberger en Omán, en el curso de sus excavaciones en Maysar.53 Descubierta la galería necesitábamos localizar la salida a superficie y el área agrícola, potencialmente relacionada con nuestro poblado. El trazado de la galería iba hacia el nordeste, a una llana extensión de terreno que durante años había llamado mi atención por tres factores: lo llamativamente liso y plano del terreno, la ausencia absoluta de cerámica en su superficie y la existencia de una serie de anchas y potentes colinas artificiales, con mucha gravilla oscura, que parecían rodearla (Fig. 6). Como la línea de pequeñas colinas blanquecinas desaparecía poco después de abrirse el terreno llano, en la necesidad de encontrar el extremo final, llevamos a cabo una prospección geomagnética. Ésta corroboró la hipótesis, proporcionando la certeza del trazado y una fuerte irregularidad en su extremo noroeste.54 Allí, en el sondeo abierto, a unos 50 cm bajo el suelo arenoso actual alcanzamos la capa de natural de gravilla que yace sobre el natural rocoso duro. Allí se encontró lo que parecía una zanja o acequia alargada, de la que salían a uno y otro lado otras zanjas o acequias menores y una especie de pozas en línea con éstas (Fig. 7). Aquí, por primera vez apareció cerámica de la Edad del Hierro y sólo de esa época. Además, abundantes conchas de Thiaridae demostraban la limpieza de las aguas que habían circulado por esas acequias:55 poco después, con otras conchas de Therebralia halladas también allí se fechó el conjunto,56 corroborando lo apuntado por la cerámica. Pues bien, tras las oportunas ampliaciones (Fig. 8) del sector y la reciente extensión del mismo hasta una de las colinas circundantes de la llanura, hemos descubierto y confirmado la naturaleza de la agricultura practicada durante la Edad del Hierro en la zona. En el momento actual tenemos a la vista casi 1167 m² de superficie de lo que fueron los campos antiguos de cultivo. Pero en negativo. Lo que tenemos es una red de acequias muy regular, ordenada a ambos lados de la acequia principal, ali Weisgerber 1981, 247. Meyer / Pilz 2010. 55 El Prof. A. Morales Muñiz, del Departamento de Biología d ela Universidad Autónoma (Laboratorio de Arqueozoología) de la misión verificó rápidamente la naturaleza de las conchas. 56 El Prof. Dr. H.-P. Uerpmann, de la Universidad de Tübingen y el Dr. Bernd Kromer han llevado a cabo un análisis de conchas de Terebralia recogidas en los canales de la red de acequias. Se utilizó el acelerador de partículas de Mannhein. La fecha obtenida tiene como referencia los datos “Labor-Nr. MAMS-14003: Radiocarbon-Datum 3337+/-23 bp” Tras calibración con la curva de calibración marina “marin09.14c”, con un efectoreserva de 200+/- 60 años, las conchas pueden fecharse entre el 882 y el 1160 a.C. en un 68% de probabilidad, y con un 95% entre el 808 y el 1160 a.C. 53 54

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

214

J.M. Córdoba

mentada por las aguas de la galería subterránea, que salían a superficie unos 400 m al sureste, al otro lado de la carretera moderna que ha cortado el área arqueológica. Durante un trayecto, la acequia debía seguir hasta alcanzar la zona dedicada al cultivo. Allí, a ambos lados de la acequia principal tenemos documentadas más de 15 acequias menores, 44 alcorques y cinco grandes estanques de reserva de agua (Fig. 9). En los alcorques se debieron plantar palmeras: aunque no se han hallado macrorrestos vegetales de ningún tipo, ni la palinología ha dado resultado—por la naturaleza arenosa del terreno—, sí aparecieron dos huesos de dátil en niveles profundos. Además, en la techumbre de las casas del poblado se habían usado esteras de hojas de palmera. Los agricultores árabes actuales señalan el parecido de los supuestos “alcorques” con los agujeros que ellos abren hoy cuando plantan palmeras en la zona. Por otra parte, una plantación de palmeras es el sistema típico para proteger los cultivos de temporada de la excesiva insolación, como se hace en Iraq o en el mismo al Madam. Una parcela muy cercana al área arqueológica me parece perfecto ejemplo de lo que debió ser la agricultura durante la Edad del Hierro (Fig. 10). Como hacían los campesinos de la región, antes de la introducción del petróleo y las técnicas modernas de explotación:57 se plantaba sobre la misma arena, en una o dos cortas épocas del año, regando a mano las plantas abonadas. Las cosechas eran rápidas, en apenas uno o dos meses. El resto del tiempo, con el calor propio de la zona, la práctica agrícola debía limitarse a mantener las palmeras. Por esa razón y como deja de relieve el registro arqueológico del poblado en AM1, una parte importante de la economía era la ganadería de caprinos, y por esa razón también, aunque en las casas y con los molinos de mano se machacaran leguminosas y plantas parecidas, no se ha hallado evidencia alguna de cultivo de cereal, ni en el poblado, ni en el área agrícola. En fin, lo que tenemos hoy a la vista en al-Madam es el esqueleto de la red hidráulica y los campos de cultivo de la Edad del Hierro, es decir, su misma agricultura, cuyos usos se han conservado por su perfecta adecuación al medio hasta casi nuestros días. 4.2 Arqueología de la agricultura en Dehistán (Turkmenistán)58 Al igual que en la lejana Península de Omán, la Edad del Hierro en Asia Central fue una época de cambios profundos y pujantes desarrollos. Durante los años cincuenta del pasado siglo, la arqueología soviética empezó a definir con claridad

Al Khalifa 2011–12, 72, 75. En la tradición científica, se habla de “Dehistán” para referirse a la región durante el Medievo o la actualidad (Misrián-Dehistán), mientras que se usa “Dahistán” para los periodos de la Antigüedad—por la tierra de los daha-dahi—, aunque también se hable de la parte septentrional de Vehrkānā-Hircania. Así, Mamedov 2014, 38–40, 199.

57 58

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

215

periodos y procesos culturales,59 y entre ellos, la Edad del Hierro (1500–500 a.C.), determinada por dos regiones con ciertas peculiaridades, definidas en la Cultura del Dahistan60 Arcaico—que cubrió la llanura de Misrian, entre las orillas del Caspio, la llanura irania de Gurgan y el Kopet Dagh—, y la Cultura de Yaz, asentada en el piedemonte nordeste del Kopet Dag, su llanura cercana y el delta del río Murgab61 (Fig. 11). Rasgos distintivos comunes en las dos áreas—fortalezas, plataformas y canales—, así como ciertas diferencias puntuales—cerámica pintada en Yaz I—fortalecen la impresión de comunidad y desarrollo emanado del pasado inmediato. Pues más allá de una supuesta ruptura con el Bronce, marcada por la crisis de la Civilización del Oxus hacia el 1500 a.C., cada vez es más evidente que los habitantes de la Edad del Bronce del valle del Sumbar y su cerámica fueron los antepasados directos de quienes, a comienzos del Hierro, colonizaron la llanura de Misrián, trazaron la red de canales, definieron los asentamientos y una cerámica que identifica esa nueva cultura: el Dahistán Arcaico. El descubrimiento y la determinación de la cronología y los rasgos propios del periodo se deben a V.M. Masson, que en los años cincuenta prospectó la región y excavó en varios lugares, especialmente en los yacimientos de Izat-Kuli y Madau Depe. Otros trabajos atendieron al descubrimiento y documentación de la red de canales que había hecho posible la vida en esta región de clima y condiciones tan extremas, a la arqueología del Periodo Islámico y a la mejora de la información relativa al periodo que parece más singular y original: la Edad del Hierro.62 En esa época, la enorme llanura había sido ocupada por una cultura singular—fechada entre el 1250 a.C. + 50 y el 590 a.C. + 50 según C1463—, marcada por una economía agrícola asentada en una poderosa red de canales y asentamientos, algunos muy grandes—de más de 100 Ha—y otros menores, aunque la sensación parecía ser la de una sociedad descentralizada. En los últimos años, siguiendo unas líneas de investigación parejas a lo que estábamos llevando a cabo en la Península de Omán, emprendimos un proyecto de investigación de Dehistán. Un periodo apenas estudiado, una cultura potente y casi anónima, que sin embargo debió constituir el núcleo de uno de los estados pre-aqueménidas de Asia Central, nos animaron a recoger el testigo de misiones anteriores, como las soviéticas ya citadas, la de I.M. Muradova en Benguvan e Izat Kuli64 y la de O. Lecomte en Geoktchik Depe.65 En el futuro pretendemos establecer una cronología más precisa de esta cultura, caracterizar con claridad sus aspectos materiales y técnicos, urbanos y rurales, así como reconstruir su do-

Atagarryev / Berdyev 1970. Así: Dahistán. Reitero lo apuntado en la nota 59. 61 Masson / Sarianidi 1972. 62 Массон 1956. 63 Kohl 1984, 226. 64 Мурадова 1999. 65 Lecomte 1999. 59 60

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

216

J.M. Córdoba

minio del medio ambiente, la agricultura y el paisaje propios de la región en la Antigüedad. Apenas en sus pasos iniciales, los primeros resultados están empezando a publicarse.66 Pues bien y como reza el tema de este trabajo, la agricultura y el dominio ejercido sobre un entorno de extraordinaria aridez que las gentes del Dahistán Arcaico dominaron profundamente, constituyen una línea prioritaria. Y ciertos hallazgos de la última campaña justifican su comentario aquí. 4.2.1 Campesinos y canales colonizan la llanura de Misrián-Dehistán La región turkmena de Misrián-Dehistán y la del valle del río Gurgan, en la República Islámica de Irán, cerrada al sur por las estribaciones del Elburz, formaron en la Antigüedad la parte más sustancial de la Vehrkānā-Hircania aqueménida (Fig. 12). La feracidad del valle de Gurgan se opone a la seca inmensidad de la llanura desértica del takyr, que es la naturaleza geográfica del Dehistán. Llanura aluvial formada por las variaciones del Caspio, los sedimentos aportados por los ríos Atrek y Uzboy, así como la erosión del Kopet dagh, la región es plenamente desértica y carente de rios, manatiales o pozos. Según todos los indicios, el descenso paulatino del nivel del Caspio durante el II milenio hizo posible que en la segunda amitad del mismo, campesinos que bajaban del valle del Sumbar, siguiendo las orillas del río Atrek, empezaran a colonizar la llanura, en un proceso parecido al que los campesinos del Tigris, identificados en Tell es Sawwan, por ejemplo, llevaron a cabo en Mesopotamia en los orígenes de la Cultura Obeid. Los pequeños canales iniciales, las granjas y las acequias se transformaron pronto en una densa e importante red que llegó a vertebró una cultura sólida y unitaria que apenas si estamos ahora empezando a comprender. Los investigadores soviéticos67 determinaron la extensión y cronología de la enorme red de canales (Fig. 13). La red estuvo viva entre la Edad del Hierro y la invasión de los mongoles, en el siglo XIII, que la destruyó. En su estadio último alcanza unos ciento treinta kilómetros, desde la orilla derecha del Atrek hasta que se pierde en la llanura desértica del noroeste. El canal principal, llamado Shadyz, vertebra el conjunto: tenía entre 8 y 10 m de anchura y 3 ò 4 de profundidad. Según O. Lecomte, dos derivaciones principales, los canales de Benguvan y Akhur se alejan hacia el suroeste, marcando la zona de mayor concentración aparente de asentamientos de la Edad del Hierro.68 Pero resulta obvio que la red de época islámica, por mucho que estuviera mejor trazada, atendida e incluso potenciada, no debió diferir demasiado de la que existió en todas las épocas de la Edad del Hierro. El imponente Geoktchik Depe—ya edificado a comienzos del Hierro y usado hasta época aqueménida69—no pudo ser construido sin un importante y continuo

Córdoba / Mamendov en prensa. Атагаррыеб / Лисицына 1970. 68 Lecomte 2009. 69 Lecomte 2009, 135–170. 66 67

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

217

aporte de agua, imprescindible para elaborar los miles de adobes necesarios en su construcción.70 La aparente ausencia de asentamientos de esa época en los alrrededores está falseada por potentes e inexplicables depósitos aluviales sobrevenidos en la zona.71 Así que en mi opinión, durante toda la existencia de la Cultura del Dahistán Arcaico, la red de canales que hoy nos devuelve la cartografía levantada por los soviéticos y actualizada por la misión francesa se corresponde más o menos con el área de ocupación de los poblados y yacimientos principales de la Edad del Hierro. En principio, eso explicaría aparentes sinsentidos, como la soledad de Geoktchik Depe—un gigantesco centro ceremonial, que sin duda tuvo una radical importancia en esa cultura—, o la proximidad entre sí de grandes asentamientos urbanos o protourbanos como Izat Kuli, Madau y Tangsikyldza, mientras que otras zonas parecen sólo colonizadas por pequeños poblados y granjas esparcidas. Precisamente en uno de aquellos grandes centros, cuya excavación hemos inicado recientemente, hemos registrado evidencias relacionadas con la agricultura. 4.2.2 Izat Kuli y sus presumibles áreas agrícolas Desde la inicial prospección en Dehistán (2006) y los primeros sondeos (2011) Izat Kuli ha sido objeto de atención preferente por su valor de referencia estratigráfica para Geoktchik depe, y por su segura importancia histórica (Fig. 14). A unos 28 kilómetros al sur de éste último, Izat Kuli ha despertado la atención de distintas generaciones de investigadores soviéticos y turkmenos, como V.M. Masson (1951–1953). Una gran superficie y una topografía definida por una poderosa colina central, de unos 300 x 300 metros, concentraciones de edificios en la supuesta “ciudad baja” y dos grandes canales como límite norte-noreste y sur-suroeste, marcan la importancia de un yacimiento abandonado a fines de la Edad del Hierro y nunca más ocupado después. Por ello y por ciertos hallazgos,72 V.M. Masson propuso que Izat Kuli pudiera haber sido uno de los asentamientos centrales de toda la cultura de Dahistán. Y por eso ello y pese a las enormes dificultades logísticas que supone trabajar en este lugar, en 1980, E.A. Charyeva (Muradova) llevó a cabo excavaciones en un sector de hornos de cerámica en la ciudad baja,73 y no mucho después, la misma E.A. Muradova estableció en Izat Kuli una secuencia estratigráfica y una periodización de la cerámica.74 En la pasada campaña iniciamos una topografía, primera completa del yacimiento que, aún no finalizada todavía por la magnitud de su superficie, las difi-

Córdoba 2011. Lecomte 1999, 149. 72 Массон 1956, 390–402. Un interesante altar de libaciones tallado en piedra, que comenta y publica (398–299, fotos 12 y 13), sugeriría la existencia de un templo. 73 Чарыеба 1981 (apellido de casada de E.A. Muradova con el que firmó algunos trabajos iniciales). 74 Мурадова 1991. 70 71

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

218

J.M. Córdoba

cultades y el tiempo disponible, nos ha proporcionado ya varios datos substanciales: que el área habitada y cultivada estaba limitada por dos grandes canales que encierran una superficie de 150 ha, y que a ambos lados de los canales, aunque no con exacta regularidad, se explotaron cultivos agrícolas alimentados por otros pequeños canales derivados, que están siendo integrados en la topografía. En el centro, en la colina principal (Sector IK1) (Fig. 15) abrimos dos sondeos: uno estratigráfico—que sigue en curso—y otro en extenso, para relacionar una plataforma de adobe—hallada otra anterior campaña—con una colina que parecía ocupar su punto más alto. Pues bien, allí hemos comenzado e descubrir un edificio de compleja planta y orientación E-W, alzado sobre otra plataforma menor. El trazado, los materiales, los rellenos de arena y la estratigrafía sugieren una función religiosa. Un depósito de cerámicas quebradas intencionalmente, localizado bajo la cimentación del ángulo sureste corroboraría la impresión inicial. Pero lo que nos interesa ahora es cuanto se relaciona con la agricultura. Cuando prospectamos la superficie del canal norte buscamos lo que V.M. Masson señalaba en su informe como “campos de cultivo”, en el extremo más alejado del trazado por él dibujado75 (Fig. 16). Pero la realidad superaba cuanto podíamos imaginar, pues cuanto a simple vista, al sur del canal septentrional se abrían canales menores y acequias que marcaban varias parcelas. La compactación de los sedimentos limosos en el lecho de los canales y acequias antiguos ha resistido la erosión de los vientos y tormentas de Asia Central, que se han llevado una buena parte de la tierra agrícola a lo largo de los siglos, y que han dejado consistentemente visible y como si fuera un esqueleto, la red de canales y acequias. Y así, lo que V.M. Masson apuntaba en su obra se nos ha revelado mucho más grande y extendido, como iremos documentando en el futuro. Pero en el canal meridional, además, lo hemos verificado arqueológicamente. 4.2.3 Arqueología en el Sector IK2: canales, acequias y parcelas agrícolas El canal meridional tiene un trazado más recto que el septentrional. Fechado también en la Edad del Hierro, en la prospección a lo largo de todo su trazado, verificamos en superficie cerámica, única y exclusivamente del Dahistán Arcaico. Desde la mitad SW más o menos de su trazado y hacia el interior del recinto “urbano”, delimitado por los grandes canales, cada 20 m más o menos se distinguen otros canales menores y deferentes, de los que a su vez, a derecha e izquierda, salen lo que interpretamos como acequias (Fig. 17). Por la compactación de sedimentos de los cauces se nos abría ante los ojos una verdadera retícula parcelaria agrícola de la Edad del Hierro, increiblemente conservada y visible, como un positivo. Como digo, el sistema parece muy regular, pues a ambos lados de los canales deferentes, de una anchura media de 2 o 1,50 m, parten acequias que de manera igualmente muy regular y casi ortogónica, delimitan parcelas de cultivo, de tamaño variable,

Массон 1956, fig. 6, 391, 402.

75

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

219

las más de unos 10 x 10 m. Toda la cerámica visible en superficie es del Periodo Dahistán Arcaico. Tan soprendente y contundente evidencia tenía que ser verificada. Al suroeste, a unos 20 metros del Canal Sur, en este Sector IK2 abrimos un sondeo (Fig. 18) que cortaba la loma de uno de estos canales deferentes y las supuestas parcelas abiertas a ambos lados. La estratigrafía final del sondeo (Fig. 19) viene marcada en el centro por sedimentos curvados de 1,65 cm de anchura, que testimoniaban el cauce de una acequia marcada por su forma, los limos compactos y alguna cerámica. A ambos lados, la estratigrafía de las supuestas “parcelas” se señalaba por tierras más sueltas, aterronadas y con escasa cerámica. En uno y otro caso, la cerámica recogida se fecha en el periodo Dahistán Arcaico. En fin, a unos 90 cm de profundidad y en la vertical de la loma del pequeño canal, alcanzamos el suelo natural, duro y compacto. Hemos tomado muestras de sedimentos y tierras para su análisis geomorfológico y palinológico. La conclusión parece tan obvia como sorprendente, incluso increíble si no fuera por nuestro testimonio profesional y la documentación acompañada: en una gran extensión de terreno que en el futuro mediremos con exactitud, a uno y otro lado del canal septentrional y al lado norte del meridional, todavía hoy pueden distinguirse los sistemas de riego y cultivo practicados durante la Edad del Hierro en esta región de Asia Central. Ante nosotros tenemos una verdadera red de canales y acequias que definen parcelas de distinto tamaño, pero regularmente organizadas, formando un verdadero damero de campos y canales. Contra lo que parece lógico, la agricultura de la Edad del Hierro en Dahistán sale así a la luz, allí donde se practicó. 5. Conclusiones Al final de este trabajo la evidencia se impone por sí misma. En determinadas circunstancias es posible una arqueología de la agricultura de la Antigüedad, de sus sistemas, campos y parcelas. En la Península de Omán y la región de al Madam, las galerías subterráneas de captación han sido el hilo seguido. Estas galerías sacaban a superficie el agua de las capas freáticas. Ya en superficie, las aguas llegaban a una soprendente red de acequias, alcorques y estanques de reserva que permitieron una agricultura muy próxima a los usos actuales. Resulta así que en negativo, la arqueología nos devuelve tanto la realidad agrícola como la vista misma del paisaje agrícola en la región. Pero lejos de allí, en Asia Central, el hilo de los grandes canales nos ha llevado hasta la misma tierra explotada. Porque en Izat Kuli se nos ha revelado, esta vez en positivo, el sistema de cultivo del área agrícola durante la Edad del Hierro, constituido por una planificación ordenada del terreno en parcelas cuadrangulares, delimitadas por la red de canales deferentes y acequias secundarias. La naturaleza de los cultivos allí aún se nos escapa, en el inicial estado actual de nuestra investigación. Pero creemos tener ante los ojos la estructura de la implantación agraria o la agricultura misma. En resumen, ambos ejemplos sugieren que hay una © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

220

J.M. Córdoba

posibilidad más de nuestro trabajo: hacer una arqueología de la agricultura en los mismos espacios donde fue desarrollada. Bibliografía Adams, R.McC., 1956: Land behind Baghdad. A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago / London. Adams, R. McC. / Nissen, H. J., 1972: The Uruk Countryside. Chicago. Atagarryev, E. / Berdyev, O., 1970: The Archaeological Exploration of Turkmenistan in the Years of Soviet Power. East and West 20/3: 285–306. Атагаррыеб, E. / Лисицына, Г. Н., 1970: Работы над сотавлением археологической карты Мешхед-Мисрианской равнины – Чатского массива. Ашхабад. Benoist, A. / Córdoba, J.Mª / Mouton, M., 1997: The Iron Age in Al-Madam (Sharjah, UAE): Some Notes on Three Seasons of Work. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 27: 59–73. Boucharlat, M., 2001: Les galeries de captage dans la péninsule d’Oman au premier millénaire avant J.-C.: questions sur leurs relations avec les galleries du plateau iranien. Persika 2: 157–184. –– 2003: Iron Age Water-draining Galleries and the Iranian Qanat. In D.T. Potts / N. Nabbodah / P. Hellyer (eds): Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the UAE. London / Abu Dhabi. Pp. 162–172. Boucharlat, R. / Lombard, P., 1985: The Oasis of Al Ain in the Iron Age: Excavations at Rumeilah 1981–1983. Survey at Hili 14. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 4: 44–73. Cauvin, M.-Cl., 1981: Le problème de l’eau. In J. Métral / P. Sanlaville (eds): L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient. Lyon. Pp. 23–30. del Cerro, C., 2008: Grundgestein und Baustoffe in AM1 Thuqeibah (Sharjah, VAE) in der Eisenzeit. Eine intakte Anlage zur Herstellung von Lehmziegeln. In H. Kühne et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Wiesbaden 2008. Pp. 43–50. Чарыеба, Э.А., 1981: Раскопки гончарных печей на Изат-кули // Археологические открытия г. Москва. Civil, M., 1994: The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis, Supplementa 5). Sabadell. Córdoba, J.M., 2003: Villages of Shepherds in the Iron Age. The Evidence of Al Madam (AM 1 Thuqaibah Sharjah, U.A.E.). In D.T. Potts (ed.): Proceedings of the First Archaeological Conference on the U. A. E. Abu Dhabi. Pp. 173–180 –– 2006a: The Mudbrick Architecture of the Iron Age in the Oman Peninsula. A Mudbrick Working Area in al Madam (Sharjah, U. A. E.). In F. Baffi et al. (eds): Ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma. Pp. 95–110. –– 2006b: Al-Madam (Sharjah) in der Eisenzeit. Die Grundlagen der Wasserbaukunst und der Wohnbauarchitektur nach den letzten Erkenntnissen. ISIMU 9: 241–258. –– 2008: Informe preliminar sobre las últimas campañas en al Madam (2003– © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

221

2006). In J.Mª Córdoba et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Madrid. Pp. 493–508. –– 2010: L’architecture domestique de l’Âge du fer (1300–300 av. J.-C.) dans la péninsule d’Oman – Quelques documents sur les villages et la culture des oasis. In A. Avanzini (ed.): Eastern Arabia in the First Millennium BC. Roma. Pp. 143–157. –– 2011: Turkmen-Spanish Archaeological Mission in Geoktchik Depe / 2010-njy yylda Gökçikdepede Tükmen-Ispan arheologik toparynyñ gçeíren ilkinji ylmy-barlaglary / Первая туркмено-испанская археологическая экспедиция иа Геокчик-депе в 2010 г. In M. Mamedov (ed.): Türkmenistayn Taryhy we Medeni Yadygärlikleri / Historical and Cultural Sites of Turkmenistan / Памятники истрии и культуры Туркменистана. Ashgabat. Pp. 256–263. –– 2012: Al-Madam 1-Thuqeibah (Sharjah, UAE.). Recent Findings in the Mudbrick Working Area. In D.T. Potts / P. Hellyer (eds): Fifty Years of Emirates Archaeology – Proceedings of the Second International Conference on the Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi. Pp. 141–147. Córdoba, J.Mª (ed.), forth.: La Edad del Hierro y la cultura de los oasis en la Península de Omán (1300–300 a.C.). Al Madam (Sharjah, Emiratos Árabes Unidos). Informe final de la I fase. Madrid. Córdoba, J.Mª / del Cerro, M. C., 2005: Archéologie de l’eau dans al Madam (Sharjah, Emirates Arabes Unies). Puits, aflaj et sécheresse pendant l’âge de Fer. Iranica Antiqua XL: 515–532. Córdoba, J.Mª / Mañé, M.: 2000: Spazio architettonico e società ad al-Madam (Sharjah EAU) durante l’età del Ferro. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Roma. Pp. 237–267. Córdoba, J.Mª / Mamedov, M., en pr.: L’âge du fer à Dehistan. Nouvelles recherches archéologiques turkmènes et espagnoles dans les sites de Geoktchik Depe et Izat Kuli (Province de Balkan, Turkmènistan). In R.A. Stucky / O. Kaelin / H.-P. Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, June 9th–13th, University of Basel 2014. Wiesbaden. Pp. 1663–1676. Cordova, C.E., 2005: The Degradation of the Ancient Near Eastern Environment. In D.C. Snell (ed.): A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Malden. Pp. 109– 125. Downing, T.E. / Gibson, McG. (eds), 1974: Irrigation’s Impact on Society. Tucson. Francfort, H.P. / Lecomte, O., 2002: Irrigation et société en Asie centrale des origines à l’époque achéménide. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 57/3: 625–663. Geyer, D., 1990: Techniques et pratiques hydro-agricoles traditionelles en domeine irrigué. Approche pluridisciplinaire des modes de culture avant la motorisation en Syrie (BAH 136). Beyrouth. –– 2001: Conquête de la steppe et appropiation des terres sur les marges arides du Croisant fertile (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen 36). Lyon. Hoffner, H.A., 1974: Alimenta hethaeorum. Food Production in Hittite Asia Minor. New Haven. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

222

J.M. Córdoba

Hrozny, B., 1913: Das Getreide im alten Babylonien. Sitzungsberichte der Kais. Wien. Jas, R.M., 2000: Rainfall and Agriculture in Northern Mesopotamia. Leiden. al Khalifa, W.S., 2011–12: Tradiciones de la vida rural en la región de al-Madam (Emirato de Sharjah, EAU). La agricultura y los usos del entorno. ISIMU 14–15: 69–80. Kohl, P.L., 1984: Central Asia: Palaeolithic Beginnings to the Iron Age / L’Asie Centrale des Origines à l’Âge du Fer. Paris. Korfmann, M.O. (ed.), 2006: Troia. Archäologie eines Siedlungshügels und seiner Landschaft. Mainz am Rhein. Lafont, B., 2009: Eau, pouvoir et société dans l’Orient ancient: approaches théoriques, travaux de terrain et documentation écrite. In M. Al-Dbiyat / M. Mouton (eds): Stratégies d’acquisition de l’eau et société au Moyen-Orient depuis l’antiquité. Beyrouth. Pp. 10–23. Lecomte, O., 1999: Vehrkānā and Dehistan: Late Farming Communities of South-West Turkmenistan from the Iron Age to the Islamic Periods. Parthica 1: 135–170. –– 2009: Origine des cultures agricoles du Dehistan (Sud-Ouest Turkménistan). Mise en oeuvre et gestión de l’irrigation de l’âge du Fer à la période islamique. In M. Al-Dbiyat / M. Mouton (eds): Stratégies d’acquisition de l’eau et société au Moyen-Orient depuis l’antiquité. Beyrouth. Pp. 69–77. Liverani, M., 1988–89: La forma dei campi neo-sumerici. Origini XIV: 289–327. –– 1996: Reconstructing the Rural Landscape of the Ancient Near East. JESHO 31/1: 1–41. Lombard, P., 1989: Âges du fer sans fer: le cas de la Péninsule d’Oman au 1er millénaire avant J.-C. In T. Fahd (ed.): L’Arabie Préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel. Leiden. Pp. 25–37. ––1991: Du rythme natural au rythme humain: vie et mort d’une technique traditonelle, le qanat. In M.-Cl. Cauvin (ed.): Rites et rythmes agraires. Lyon. Pp. 69–86. Magee, P., 1996: The Chronology of the Southeast Arabian Iron Age. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 7: 240–252. Mamedov, M., 2014: Dehistanyn binagärlik medeniyeti. Building Culture of Dehistan. Стрителная культура дехистана. Asgabat. Массон, В.М., 1956: Памятники культуры архаичекого Дахистана в ЮгоЗападной Туркмении. Ашхабад. Masson, V. M. / Sarianidi, V. I., 1972: Central Asia. Turkmenia before the Achaemenids. London. Merluzzi, E., 1997: Archeologia e luoghi di produzione artigianale in Mesopotamia dal periodo Proto-dinastico al Paleobabilonese: Luoghi e prospettive. CMAO 7: 329–349. Métral, F. / Métral, J. (eds), 1981: L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient I. Lyon. –– 1982: L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient II. Aménagements hydrauliques, état et législation. Lyon. Métral, F. / Métral, J. / Louis, P. (eds), 1986: L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient III. L’eau dans les techniques. Lyon. –– 1987: L’homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient IV. L’eau dans © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

223

l’agriculture. Lyon. Meyer, C. / Pilz, D., 2010: Geophysical Prospection in Al Madam (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates). Berlin. Moore, A.M.T. / Hillman, G.C. / Legge, A.J. (eds), 2000: Village on the Euphrates. Oxford. Mouton, M., 1992: Archaeological Survey of the Region of al-Madam: A Preliminary Report. In R. Bourcharlat (ed.): Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1990 and 1992 – a Sixth Interim Report. Lyon. Pp. 3–10. Мурадова, Э. А., 1991: Поселения архаического Дахистана. Ашхабад. Oates, J., 1980: Land use and Population in Prehistoric Mesopotamia. In M.T. Barrelet (ed.): L’archéologie de l’Iraq: perspectives et limites de l’interprètation anthropologique des documents. Paris. Pp. 303–314. Postgate, J.N., 1994: Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London. –– 1999: La Mesopotamia arcaica, Madrid. Postgate, J.N. / Powell, M. (eds), 1988: Irrigation and Cultivation in Mesopotamia (Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture IV). Cambridge. –– 1999: Irrigation and Cultivation in Mesopotamia (Bulletin of Sumerian Agriculture V). Cambridge. Potts, D.T., 1992: The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Vol. I. From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford. ur Rahman, S., 1980: Report on Hili 2 Settlement Excavations 1976–1979. Archaeology in the United Arab Emirates 2–3: 7–27. Salonen, A., 1968: Agricultura mesopotámica nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Helsinki. Sanlaville, P., 1981: Réflexions sur les conditions générales de la quête de l’eau au Proche-Orient. In J. Métral / P. Sanlaville (eds): L´homme et l’eau en Méditerranée et au Proche-Orient. Lyon. Pp. 9–21. Sauvage, M., 1968: La brique et sa mise en oeuvre en Mésopotamie. Paris. al Tikriti, W.Y., 2002a: The South-East Arabian Origin of the falaj System. Seminar for Arabian Studies 32: 117–138. –– 2002b: al āflāj īi daulat al imarāt al mutahida dirasa azāria fi ‘anzima alrī alqadīma (en árabe). Abu Dhabi. –– 2011: Archaeology of the falaj. A Field Study of the Ancient Irrigation Systems of the United Arab Emirates. Abu Dhabi. Weisgerber, G., 1981: Mehr als Kupfer in Oman. Der Anschnitt 33/5–6: 174–263. Wilkinson, J.C., 1977: Water and Tribal Settlement in South-East Arabia. Oxford. –– 1983: The origins of the aflaj of Oman. Journal of Oman Studies 6: 177–194. Wilkinson, T., 1997: Environmental Fluctuations, Agricultural Production and Collapse: A View from Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia. In H. Dalfes / G. Kukla / H. Weiss (eds): Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse. Berlin. Pp. 67–106.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

224

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 1. Esquema hipotético de un área agrícola en Mesopotamia meridional (según Postgate 1994, fig. 9.1; 1999, 214). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

225

Fig. 2. Yacimientos principales de la Edad del Hierro en la Península de Omán. En el centro, al Thuqaibah = al-Madam) (según Magee 2003, 1).

Fig. 3. Localización de los sectores mencionados. 1, localización de al-Madam. 2 y 3, aldeas donde investigamos sobre usos antiguos del entorno por la población beduina. 5 y 4, centro del poblado y área de elaboración de adobes. 6, porción excavada de la galería subterránea. 7, área de acequias y canales (Imagen Google Earth, tratada, s. M. Mañé). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

226

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 4. Sector de AM 2 con la fila de pozos de acceso a la galería subterránea, descubierta en principio (foto: misión española). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

227

Fig. 5. Planta y sección de la porción excavada de la galería subterránea (dibujo: M.Á. Núñez).

Fig. 6. Vista aérea de la llanura a la que se dirige la galería. Abajo, a la derecha, sector de los pozos en curso de excavación (foto: misión española).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

228

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 7. A 50 cm de profundidad aparece el terreno natural cortado por zanjas y espacios mayores. Aquí se halló cerámica de la Edad del Hierro y numerosas conchas (foto: misión española).

Fig. 8. Dibujo parcial del canal de reparto principal y los secundarios a uno y otro lado, con sus alcorques y estanques (dibujo: M.Á. Núñez). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

229

Fig. 9. Vista aérea del estado actual del área agrícola antigua. Como se ve, es un auténtico negativo de los cultivos antiguos (foto: departamento de Antigüedades de Sharjah y misión española).

Fig. 10. Thuqaibah. Unos cultivos modernos próximos al área de excavación. A cubierto de las palmeras se plantan cultivos delicados (foto: misión española).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

230

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 11. Hircania-Dehistán en Turkmenistán (s. Francfort / Lecomte 2002, fig. 10).

Fig. 12. Turkmenistán, con la localización de la llanura de Misrián-Dehistán y los yacimientos citados en el artículo (Imagen Google Earth, tratada, s. C. Martínez de Ibarreta).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

231

Fig. 13. A partir de los planos levantados por los soviéticos A.S. Kes. V.P. Kostjuchenko y G.N. Lysitsyna (1980), la misión francesa levantó este otro mapa con selección de yacimientos arqueológicos (s. Francfort / Lecomte 2002, fig. 12). Los números 21 y 31 corresponden a Geoktchik depe e Izat Kuli, mencionados en este trabajo.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

232

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 14. Foto satélite de Izat Kuli (gentileza de la Escuela de Topografía de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid).

Fig. 15. Desde el interior de la supuesta “ciudad baja” y no lejos de los campos marcados por V.M. Masson, vista de la colina central de Izat Kuli (foto: misión turkmenoespañola). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Arqueología de la agricultura

233

Fig. 16. Plano abocetado del yacimiento de Izat-kuli, realizado por Masson (1956, 391, fig. 6). Junto al canal septentrional marcó los campos de cultivo (поля) y sugería una zona de acequias.

Fig. 17. En la línea del horizonte se marca el curso del canal principal meridional. De él se desprenden canales menores y, a los lados de estos, acequias que marcan las distintas parcelas (foto: misión turkmeno-española). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

234

J.M. Córdoba

Fig. 18. El sondeo abierto en IK 2 cortaba un canal deferente y las supuestas parcelas situadas a ambos lados del mismo (foto: misión turkmeno-española).

Fig. 19. Perfil SW del corte abierto en IK 2. Se perciben los sedimentos del cauce, los laterales de las supuestas parcelas y el fondo del corte en el suelo natural (foto: misión turkmeno-española).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia from the Mid-Third to the Later Second Millennium BC Harriet Crawford

It is a pleasure to contribute to this volume dedicated to Frances Pinnock, one of whose many scholarly interests has been the place of women in past societies.In spite of problems with the nature of the evidence, changes in the position of women in society from the early third to the later 2nd millennium can now be outlined, but as yet, little attempt has been made to understand the reasons for this change. This article will discuss some of the factors which contributed to the change in the social status of women which took place between ca. 2500 BC–ca.1200 BC and will make a first attempt to determine the reasons for the change. This period of time has been chosen because it provides the evidence for a striking change in the position of women, a change which had implications for the whole of society. This change can be observed in spite of the fact mentioned above that the evidence is often unsatisfactory and is beset with problems. However, we are fortunate in having textual, iconographic and funerary evidence from the second half of the 3rd millennium for the position of elite women. Such a variety of sources makes the evidence for this group of women compelling, in spite of its limitations. On the other hand, we know virtually nothing about the bulk of the population, the female farmers and other menial workers for example. They only appear in the documentation as the recipients of rations in one of the great households, or occasionally as litigants. Nor is there much evidence for the nomadic or semi-nomadic groups which played an important part in the economy and in the formation of the Amorite states of the early 2nd millennium. The Ebla and Mari texts of the late third and early 2nd millennium, as is well known, provide a notable exception to this generalisation. Let us look rapidly at some of the problems associated with each of the classes of evidence mentioned above. The problems with the texts have been recycled many times: the texts we have do not represent an unbiased sample of the whole, but simply reflect the accident of discovery; they often have no provenience, being the result of looting or of unscientific excavation as carried out in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. When the find spots are known the tablets are predominantly from public buildings, another reason for the biased nature of the textual data; some private archives are known from the late 3rd millennium onwards, but, once more, usually as the result of chance rather than a deliberate research policy. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

236

H. Crawford

Archaeologists are often unaware of some of the technical problems encountered in transliterating and translating cuneiform. At each stage the expectation of the translator can influence which of the multiple possible readings is chosen and what modern word is used to translate the transliteration; for instance the use of the word ‘Harem’ may be used to translate the word used for the quarters of the queen within the palace thus implying a whole social system for which there is little evidence in the 3rd millennium. The Sumerian language has no means of indicating whether a noun is masculine or feminine. For example the Sumerian DUMU1 is used in the early periods for both sons and daughters and so can only be correctly translated as child rather than son. This is not always done. Later, from the Akkadian period onwards, daughter is sometimes written DUMU MUNUS, but Enheduanna, Akkadian princess and priestess, still calls herself DUMU of Sargon. The problem does not arise in the Akkadian language which has separate words for son and daughter.2 There also seems to have been a (sub-conscious?) bias on the part of the mainly male Sumerian scholars of the past to see certain classes of nouns, those describing professions for example, as masculine, when the noun may, originally, have been used for both males and females. This can lead to misleading generalisations about the presence or absence of women in various fields as the gender neutral nature of the word for the profession or trade may simply not have been recognised. In other cases scholars determine the gender of a person by the actions described, or by the context alone, which leads to a circular argument and a further underrepresentation of women. There are also aspects of life which do not appear at all in the earliest texts. It is only in the 2nd millennium that texts appear dealing with the private concerns of individuals and their families who are not from the elite. Nor is it always easy to determine the sex of a person from their personal name and once again the assumptions of scholars about the likely gender of practitioners of certain jobs may colour the decisions taken. To further complicate the picture the possibility has recently arisen that some names may have been given to both sexes, like Evelyn or Lesley in England. One possible example of this is the name Enmebaragisi. A ruler of that name has been known for many years as one of the rulers of the first dynasty of Kish, but more recently a new fragment of the Gilgamesh epic appears to say that Gilgamesh had a sister of that name who he offers as a bride to Humbaba, the monster of the Cedar mountains.3 Some scholars suggest that this a joke to show the audience how ignorant the monster was.4 Then there is the curious statue of the singer Ur-Nanshe from Mari whose name is known to have also been that of an early ruler of Lagash whose own monuments show him as firmly masculine. The sex of the statue is not easy to identify

3 4 1 2

Capital letters are used for Sumerian words. Lion 2009. Gadotti 2011, 199. Michalowski 2003. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia

237

on the basis of its physical attributes, but it is usually thought to be male in spite of breasts and long hair. Do we have here another example of unconscious bias on the part of scholars which rules out the possibility of the singer being female or possibly a castrati?5 The statue of Ur-Nanshe is by no means unique in its ambivalent nature. Many cylinder seals of the Jemdat Nasr period show kneeling or squatting figures carrying out a variety of tasks which include weaving. Because the figures have long pigtails they are thought to be female, but the so-called page boy on the top register of the Uruk vase has an identical hair style. The identification of the weavers as female may also reflect the view common today that weaving is woman’s work, although many examples of male weavers can be found in the anthropological literature and in cuneiform sources. Slightly later texts refer in the main to female weavers, but men are also present in the workshops. There is an additional problem with iconographic evidence as much of it comes from objects with no find spot or stratigraphic position so that there is no direct dating evidence. Arguments about dating, or even about the authenticity of the item are sometimes based on stylistic comparisons with other objects, which may themselves have been bought in the market. However, when all the evidence from a variety of sources and media points in the same direction it is possible to be reasonably confident that we can trust the results. Happily this is the case when reviewing the position of women in the mid-3rd millennium. We have evidence from texts such as those from the archive of the temple of Bau at Lagash;6 we have evidence from votive objects such as statues and vessels; we have iconographic evidence from stone plaques and from the seals, and we have archaeological evidence from graves, most spectacularly from the Royal graves at Ur. There can be little doubt that elite women had real power and that they wielded it in a primarily female world. However, it must not be forgotten that, ultimately, they often owed their positions to their male relatives. For example, the first wife of the ruler had cultic, economic and diplomatic responsibilities which she seems to have carried out largely free from male interference. Other elite women seem to have carried out similar duties on a smaller scale and we also have evidence for professional women in a number of fields, most notably perhaps in the priesthood.7 Legally, too, we find evidence for women as purchasers, witnesses, litigants and as parties to agreements.8 The evidence for the Ur III period is less diverse and less informative as the plaques and the votive statues go out of fashion, while the popularity of banqueting seals declines and they, too, virtually disappear from the repertoire. In their place are a formulaic series of presentation seals where women are infrequently

For a similar discussion see Van de Mieroop 1999. Prentice 2010. 7 For details see Crawford 2014. 8 Westbrook (ed.) 2003. 5 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

238

H. Crawford

depicted. However, there is a plethora of textual data such as the archive from the centre at Puzrish Dagan. This was a depot for the reception and dispersal of livestock for various different purposes under the authority of the queen and indicates that her duties continued to be important both economically and cultically till the end of the millennium. It is also noteworthy that the queen still seems to have dealt mainly with other elite women.9 Legally the position of women seems much the same as in the Early Dynastic period and it seems that “Free women had full capacity in private law.”10 The evidence for the early 2nd millennium is even slighter in Babylonia and in practice is restricted to the texts. From them we learn of the class of priestesses called naditu who were dedicated women living in ‘cloisters’ who had considerable freedom in the business world, but whose dealings were mostly carried out by their stewards or men of business. They seem to have had complete control over their dowries and other possessions during their lifetime and could leave the goods they had “earned” as they pleased on their death. It seems that free women could be the head of a household and, as in Ur III, they could and did initiate lawsuit.11 The later part of the 2nd millennium, which is poorly understood in southern Mesopotamia, appears to see a gradual erosion of women’s position until by the time of the promulgation of the Middle Assyrian law code in the last quarter of the 2nd millennium they were virtually reduced to the status of the chattels of their father or husband. The evidence from the north suggests a similar shift in the status of women. It, too, is also restricted to texts of which the most illuminating come from Kültepe/ Kanish in the early 2nd millennium. It consists largely of correspondence between merchants from Ashur working in Anatolia, and their wives at home in Ashur. These women played a crucial part in the trade network supplying the textiles which formed the main exports, most made in the home. They also dealt with the officials in Ashur, paying taxes and debts or disputing them if necessary. Sometimes they even took part in trading ventures on their own account rather than that of their husbands. Some of them seem to have been literate, writing their own letters using a simplified cuneiform which was not always very accurate or well written. Some were, to a degree, numerate as well, working out profit and loss on individual consignments, for example.12 All this is again, in conflict with the situation in the last quarter of the millennium when the Law code was drawn up. It has, however, recently been shown that it was still possible for the wives of high officials to stand in for them when they were away, even in the reign of Shalmaneser.13 Perhaps the Code was more honoured in the breach than in the

Van de Mieroop 1999, 158. Lafont / Westbrook 2003, 198. 11 Westbrook (ed.) 2003, 369. 12 See Michel 2014 for references. 13 Postgate 2014, 240. 9

10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia

239

observance, at least among the elite? The evidence cited above from both north and south raises the question of whether the changes indicated were a slow cumulative process or the result of a single cataclysmic event. More modern history suggests, by analogy, that such change was a process which may have reached its tipping point as the result of a single event. Such was the case with the long struggle for the emancipation of women in Britain for example, which culminated in the granting of the vote after the end of the First World War. The major event does not have to be a war, famine and plagues can have a similarly weakening effect on the structure of society making major social change easier to achieve. Only one thing is relatively clear, the change in status is not due to some natural cycle of development from Barbarism to Civilization similar to the developments proposed by Darwin for the natural world. The nineteenth century argument ran that matriarchy was the first social system to develop and that a gradual advance then took place leading eventually to patriarchy. Engels saw the change in the status of women as being intimately linked to the rise in the concept of private property and the emergence of the nuclear family as the predominant form in society. His argument, and that of Marx, rested on the assumption that as private property was accumulated largely by the males in society, men wanted their possessions to be passed down to their offspring. In order to achieve this it was important that they could be sure that the children in question were indeed theirs. It therefore became desirable to limit the contact women had with males outside the immediate family and to achieve this women were more and more circumscribed in what they could do.14 Engels also claimed that this process led to the rise of a class society. These views were immensely influential and for many years it was deemed unnecessary to look for any other explanation. The profound change in the status of women apparently taking place over a long period of time is no longer seen an inevitable evolution and does not seem to have been the result of a single momentous event, although it may have been accelerated by one. There is some slight evidence at the end of the 3rd millennium for such a momentous series of disasters at the city of Ur which are commemorated in the famous Lamentation poem.15 Here it seems that the fall of the ruling dynasty was due to a series of disasters which probably included treachery, famine and plague. The coup de grace was given by a coalition of its enemies which sacked the city and carried off the ruler in chains. Such a series of events must surely have had a profound effect on the structure of society in Ur. In another scenario it is possible to suggest that sometimes war is associated with the arrival of new people who settle in the war-torn centre they have conquered. Their customs may be different and the vacuum created by war can enable these new customs to dominate. Over the period we have been looking at most of the wars seem to reflect

14 15

Engels (ed. Leacock) 1972. Black et al. 2004, Section D. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

240

H. Crawford

the jockeying for position and the ever-changing balance of power between the city states within southern Mesopotamia, all of whom shared a common culture, rather than the arrival of new peoples. However, there are two occasions when newcomers seem to have entered the southern plain. The first is the appearance of the Amorite dynasties at a number of the old city states in the early 2nd millennium and the second is a takeover by the Kassites in the middle of the same millennium. These two events will be looked in a little more detail as possible catalysts. The Amorite rulers moved into the vacuum left by the defeat of the last of the Ur III kings by a coalition led by the Elamites, but this cannot really be classified as the arrival of large numbers of strangers with different cultural norms. Amorites had been present in the south in small numbers for many years, often in the military. There is no empirical evidence for large scale infiltration by Amorites in the Ur III period16 and the Ur III kings themselves seem to have seen the Tidnum and the Ia’madum as their main enemies, not the Amorites. The new Amorite rulers, like those at Ur, seem to have adopted the bureaucratic practices of their predecessors and official documents continue to be written in Sumerian or Akkadian, all of which argues for a degree of cultural continuity rather than the introduction of major social change. Although senior positions in the administration, and probably the army, were held by members of the extended Amorite royal family the middle and lower ranking bureaucrats remained in post.17 If we look outside the southern plain at Amorite dynasties established at Mari, for example, the royal women there seem to have played much the same role as that of the Sumerian queens of the later 3rd millennium and may even have had greater powers. The queen at Mari in the early years of the 2nd millennium acted as regent when her husband left the city18 and slightly earlier, the Ebla queen also seems to have played a vital role in the religion and administration of Ebla. Matthiae suggests that: “Depuis la Période Protosyrienne des Archives Royales jusqu’à la Période Paléosyrienne des Dynasties Amorrites, à Ébla le rôle et le prestige de la reine, aussi bien dans la documentation textuelle que dans le domaine iconologique, ont une position éminente qui semble un caractère spécifique de la société de la Syrie interne de l’Âge du Bronze, probable reflet d’une position tout à fait particulière de la femme dans cette même société.”19 There was much intermarrying among the royal families of the long-established city states both inside and outside the Mesopotamian plain so it would be no surprise if there was much borrowing of social customs and similar roles for the elite women in many of them. Unfortunately there is little evidence for the activities of non-royal women

Michalowski 2011, 111. Michalowski 1991, 48, 50. 18 Ziegler 1999. 19 Matthiae 2014, 225. 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia

241

at Ebla and it would be dangerous to deduce such activities from the role of the elite women. We are lucky, however, in having evidence from the northern city of Ashur which was also ruled by an Amorite dynasty which was to conquer Mari. The wives of merchants living in Ashur and trading with Anatolia played a significant role in that trade as we saw above. They were responsible for providing the textiles which were the main export and were expected to deal with the officials of the Ashur ‘karum’, which regulated the trade, over matters such as taxes and loans. They do not seem to have suffered from many social restriction.20 The conclusion has to be that there is no evidence that the Amorites, some of whom were already present in south Mesopotamia, had radically different social customs to those of the local people. If anything their women seem to have had more freedom so it is hard to see them as responsible for the deterioration in the status of women within south Mesopotamia. The second influx of foreigners was that of the Kassites, probably a hill people from the north-east, who appear in the south around the middle of the 2nd millennium.21 Sadly for us, there is little evidence for the early years of their rule. Very little is known about them until the fourteenth century, although it is generally suggested that they were a patriarchal society with a strong emphasis on horses and warriors. Land seems to have been held in return for military service. Their great achievement was to unite north and south into one single kingdom of Babylonia which they were able to rule for about four hundred years. Owing to the lack of evidence we are unable to say anything about the position of women in their apparently patriarchal society. The possibility remains that it may have deteriorated under their rule, moving towards the situation we find in the Middle Assyrian laws were women seem to have had few rights.22 Other factors may also have played a part in bringing about social change, but our evidence is too slight to do more than list them and hope that in the future more evidence may be forthcoming. Some of these possible causes are touched on here. Many people held land from the state in return for a certain amount of time spent in the army or doing essential public works such as maintaining the canals on which the agricultural economy was based. In theory this obligation was common to all classes of society, but the well-to-do could probably provide substitutes to do the work on their behalf. As a standing army grew out of the royal bodyguard we can suggest that military service became less onerous. Fewer men may have been absent from home for long periods during which, in earlier times, their women may well have had to keep their businesses running. It is also interesting to ask what impact the development of a standing army had on the duty of civil service. We know that the army was also called on to undertake public works such as the maintenance of canals referred to above suggesting the

Van de Mieroop 1999, 93–95. Kuhrt 1995, 333. 22 Roth 2014. 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

242

H. Crawford

possibility that there may have been a gradual falling off in the obligations which went with the awarding of land grants by the state. By the Middle Assyrian period this obligation, then called ilku, was certainly avoided by the wealthy who could send substitutes, often slaves, to serve in their place. There is evidence, too, from the later periods for cities being given exemption from taxes and the ilku, as a reward for loyalty or exceptional services. If fewer people were liable for service of one sort or another this in turn might mean less autonomy for the women who no longer had to deal with the outside world and keep family businesses running, instead becoming increasingly home-bound. Once elite men were able to avoid the ilku service altogether, by buying substitutes, their women would have been the first to be withdrawn from the outside world and the work force. Those lower down the developing social hierarchy might well have seen this sequestering of elite women as a status symbol and have followed suit whenever they could, withdrawing their own women in emulation. A second factor to be considered is population growth which resulted in part from better nutrition and which would have brought more men into the work force. At the same time, more food and other resources would then have been required by the population as a whole. Some of this growth in production was achieved by intensification of agriculture, for example, by the introduction of summer crops, such as sesame, from the mid 3rd millennium onwards, and by the extension of the irrigated fields.23 This intensification required additional workers in what were, by tradition, heavy manual or male jobs and these could be provided from the increase in population. When jobs become scarce women are often pushed to the fringes of the workforce and back into their homes, or reduced to low skilled work. Many analogies for this situation can be found in more recent history. Today, archaeology has moved on. It is no longer enough to chronicle the facts, we must also try to understand the reasons behind them. Sadly, when it comes to discussing the position of women in the past it is very difficult to move on beyond the listing of such insufficient facts as we have. There is enough evidence from a variety of sources to show that women in the mid 3rd millennium in south Mesopotamia wielded considerable power and participated in many aspects of public life. By the late 2nd millennium the Middle Assyrian Law code indicates that women were little more than chattels in the eyes of the law, but beyond that it is difficult to go. This article has looked at some of the factors which may have caused this fundamental change in social attitudes in the hope that it will be possible for other scholars to find further information. It is argued that the change was a slow process rather than a sudden shift and an attempt has been made to list some of the potential drivers of change such as changes in the ilku obligation on people who held land from the state and a steady increase in population. The role of war, which could break down the fabric of society, and bring in numbers of new people with different social customs, is also reviewed. The Amorites who ruled the south

Potts 1997, 66–68.

23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Changing Position of Women in Mesopotamia

243

in the early 2nd millennium seem to have had a tradition of strong women who played various roles in political and economic life. It would seem that Amorite elite women had as many opportunities as their Mesopotamian counterparts, if not more, so that their arrival is unlikely to have caused the change. The Kassite invaders, however, must remain a possible factor, largely because we know so little about them. It cannot be ruled out that these people may have introduced a more patriarchal society where the opportunities for women were very restricted. These possible causes need proper inter-disciplinary investigation by social scientists, ancient linguists, historians and archaeologists if we are to make progress in this field. There may well be other causes, too, which have not yet been identified. In spite of the difficulties, we should not retreat into merely listing events or changes, but should continue to try to piece together the reasons for them. We may not be able to solve the problem of why the changes took place, but at least by posing the question we are providing a target and a starting point for scholars who come after us. Bibliography Black, J. et al., 2004: The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford. Crawford, H., 2014: An Exploration of the World of Women in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. In M.W. Chavalas (ed.): Women in the Ancient Near East. London / New York. Pp.10–27. Engels, F. (ed. E.B. Leacock), 1972: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. London. Gadotti, A., 2011: Portraits of the Feminine in Sumerian Literature. JAOS 131: 195–206. Kuhrt, A., 1995: The Ancient Near East. 2 vols. London / New York. Lafont, B. / Westbrook, R., 2003: Mesopotamia: The Neo-Sumerian Period. In: R. Westbrook (ed.): A History of Near Eastern Law. 2 vols. Leiden / Boston. Pp. 183–226. Lion, B., 2009: Sexe et genre (2). Des prétresses fils de roi. In F. Briquel-Chatonnet et al. (eds): Femmes, cultures et sociétés (Topoi supplement 10). Lyon. Pp. 165–182. Matthiae, P., 2014: Muliebris imago: Reines, princesses et prêtresses à Ebla. In L. Marti (ed.): La famille dans le Proche Orient ancien. Winona Lake. Pp. 207–226. Michalowski, P., 1991: Charisma and Control: On Continuity and Change in Early Mesopotamian Bureaucratic Systems. In McG. Gibson / R. Biggs (eds): The Organisation of Power. Chicago (2nd edition). Pp. 45–58. –– 2003: A Man called Enmebragesi. In W. Sallaberger et al. (eds): Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Wiesbaden. Pp.195–208. –– 2011: The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. Winona Lake. Michel, C., 2014: Akkadian Texts-Women in Letters: Old Assyian Kaniš. In M.W. Chavalas (ed.): Women in the Ancient Near East. London / New York. Pp. 205–212. Postgate, J.N., 2014: Bronze Age Bureaucracy. Cambridge. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

244

H. Crawford

Potts, D.T., 1997: Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations. Oxford. Prentice, R., 2010: The Exchange of Goods and Services in Pre-Sargonic Lagash (AOAT 368). Münster. Roth, M., 2014: Women and Law. In M.W. Chavalas (ed.): Women in the Ancient Near East. London / New York. Pp. 144–174. Van de Mieroop, M., 1999: Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. London / New York. Westbrook, R. (ed.), 2003: A History of Near Eastern Law. 2 Vols. Leiden / Boston. Ziegler, N., 1999: Le harem de Zimri-Lim (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 5). Paris.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis: The Cult Stands

Paola D’Amore

1. Introduction: Tell Afis Tell Afis, in the Idlib Mohafazeh (Northern Syria), is the most important site of the 1st millennium BC between Aleppo and Hama. The city is known for the stele of Zakkur, brought to light by H. Pognon, French Consul in Aleppo in the 1903.1 On the basis of its inscription, Tell Afis was identified with the ancient city of Hazrek. After the Assyrian campaigns of Tiglathpleser III and Sargon II, Hazrek, known like Hatarikka in the Assyrian sources, was conquered and the city became the seat of the provincial Assyrian governor (738 BC). The favorable position of Tell Afis, dominating the southern part of the alluvial plain, known in medieval times as Jazr, the trade routes to the Orontes, the coast of Mediterranean Sea, the Taurus Ranges, the Nahr el Quweiq and the marshes of Matakh and Jabbul, made a long development possible, as testified by the excavations, started in 1970. The site, occupied without interruptions, from the Chalcholithic to Persian Periods,2 reached its highest development during the Iron Age (12th–7th century BC) when the Acropolis was occupied by cultic and public buildings. The excavations, carried out in Area A, on top of the Acropolis, brought to light a long and complete sequence of the Iron Age, testifying to the process of cultural transformation of the Northern Levant in this important period. The first excavations in Area A were conducted in 1970 and 1978 by P. Matthiae, and brought to light, below the topsoil, part of a monumental building, tentatively identified as the reception room of a palace or as a room of a cult building.3 The excavations, carried out again in this area from 2000 to 2010,4 Dion 1997, 136–170; Lipinski 2000, 255–258. The French Consul never named the provenance of this stele, now in the Louvre; some years later R. Dussaud (1922, 175– 176) reported that Pognon had found it in Tell Afis. 2 Ciafardoni 1992, 37–65; Mazzoni, 2008, 5–14. 3 Matthiae 1979, 2–5. 4 D’Amore 2002, 9–12; 2005, 17–21; Matermawi 2005, 30–31; Mazzoni 2012, 30–32; Minunno 2005, 29–30; Soldi 2005, 24–29; 2009, 108–113. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

246

P. D’Amore

brought to light a sequence of temples (Area A1, A1W, A1Est, A1Sud, A1Nord, A2 and J), providing an important evidence of the sacred architecture in Northern Syria during the Iron Age I–III. The temple sequence begins with Temples A III 1–2, dating to Iron Age I and probably dedicated to a Weather God.5 The stone foundations of Temple II were superimposed on the eastern and western walls of Temple AIII and in the Iron Age II–III the great Temple AI was built directly above, incorporating in its substructure, the stone foundations of Temple II.6 Temple AI is a massive freestanding tripartite building (38 x 28 m) with rooms on the long walls and two towers flanking the entrance. In front of its entrance, there is an open space with whitish plastered floor (Plaza F) with cultic paraphernalia. In the southern part of the open space two buildings were built, as well as three partially underground structures (Unit H), lying on either side of a street, coming up from the Lower City to the Acropolis.7 In front of the southern façade of the temple, the open space (36 x 15 m), called Plaza F, surrounded the building; it was entirely covered by the collapsed mud bricks of the southern façade which had sealed the last phase of occupation. In the Plaza, in front of the entrance, a rectangular podium with an oval basin in the middle, filled with pebbles and ashes, was erected. The corners of the podium were oriented towards the cardinal points; in front of the western tower a basalt basin with two vats was brought to light8 in the western side of the podium, close to the stone threshold many fragments of incense burners of various types were collected. In the Area A1Est a freestanding structure was excavated:9 its cultic function is well documented by findings and architecture. This structure, called Terrace J, is a large brick structure, made of two blocks, juxtaposed in two different periods: the western block presents the southern front decorated with slabs and in the southern–east corner there is a basalt base for a stele or a statue. The second block on the western and northern sides was reinforced outside by four rows of large stones. On its top there were a plastered basin covered by a basalt stone and a plastered altar with ashes and burnt bones inside, some cult stands and twenty– one astragali.10 Terrace J was in use with Temple AII and was separated from it by a street running south–north; in fact, the southeastern foundation of Temple AI cut the Among the items brought to light in the Temple A III 1-2, there is a cylinder seal with the figure of the Weather God: Mazzoni 2012, 23–26. 6 D’Amore 2005, 17–21; Mazzoni, 2012, 30–32. 7 Mazzoni 2012, 30–33. 8 The basin (TA.08.A.243), 27 cm high and 72 cm long, has two small vats almost square (each 30 x 35 cm), divided by a strip 4 / 4.5 cm thick, with comparisons at Qatna. During the Middle Bronze Age, these items seem to be typical of the Ebla region where they are richly decorated. In the Iron Age they occur without decoration and reduced size respect to the oldest examples: Du Mesnil du Buisson 1928, pl.V.4, pl.VI.1, pl. XIII: top. 9 Mazzoni 2012, 33. 10 Carenti 2012, 183–190. 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

247

debris, fallen from the bricks of the western side of the freestanding structure.11 In the eastern part of the Acropolis the Italian Archaeological Mission brought to light a Square Court (m 15.50 x 15), in Area G.12 It is an underground cobbled area, without an apparent entrance, dated to the Iron Age II, on the basis of the Red Slip fragments found on the cobbled floor, under the debris created by collapsed walls. When the structure collapsed, the place became a particular waste pit: it contained many bones of different animals, many Red Slip fragments and many objects in bronze and basalt, a juglet handle with an impression of the royal stamp seal with a four-winged scarab and three incised ostraca.13 Two fragments of painted cult stands come from Area G. 2. Cult Stands Types in the Levant In Syria–Palestine, different types of incense burners are known. In 1987, de Vries identified six classes14 on the basis of form and material, including also rectangular altars in limestone and small cuboid stands in clay and limestone that appear in the Iron Age II and are identified as incense stands. Specific studies, in particular on the materials of the Southern Levant, were carried out by P. de Miroschedij (2001),15 Z. Zevit (2001)16 and H. Katz (2006);17 for Syria, instead, specific studies were carried out only for the “architectural” stands.18 The most popular types are: the cylindrical cult stands, often having a bowl at the top, also identified as tower models or offering stands, or supports; the architectonic stands, or supports; the shrines denominated “sacelli;” the limestone stands; the bronze tripods and finally the fenestrated bronze stands. The cylindrical cult stands have a shallow bowl at the top, often worked separately. The stem can have some rectangular, square or triangular holes. This class has a long history in the Middle East and it is also present in the Aegean area, often made of stone (Crete: between the 16th and 14th centuries BC), decorated with loop handles and applied snakes (Late Minoan III).19 In the Levant this class is in use from the Chalcolithic Period with fenestrated specimens also realized in clay or stone. From the 2nd millennium BC, the upper Mazzoni 2012, 33; Di Michele 2014, 703–712. Cecchini 2000; Mazzoni 2012, 35. 13 Cecchini 1998: figs 40.1, 43.1; 2000, 203–204, figs 11–12; Wilkens 1998; Amadasi Guzzo 2001, 318–324. 14 De Vries 1987, 28–29. 15 De Miroschedij 2001, 44, 78. 16 Zevit 2001, 314–343. 17 Katz 2006; for a summary of the studies, see Kletter 2010, 25–45. 18 Du Mesnil du Buisson 1938; Margueron 1976, 193–232; Masuda 1983, 153–160; Margueron 1985, 165–175; Mousli 1988, 27–30; Bretschneider 1991; Muller 1995, 357– 380; 1997, 255–267; 2000, 1137-1164; 2002. 19 Betancourt et al. 1983, 32–37. 11

12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

248

P. D’Amore

bowl was worked separately and the stem was decorated with zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figurines, loops and painted decorations in simple red slip, red or red and black. During the Early and Middle Bronze ages, these stands were used only in worship contexts, while from the Iron Age, they were also found in domestic areas, secondary cult sites and workshop areas. Their function is not clear; the bowls show no signs of burning; probably they were used for offerings. A subtype is constituted by Cylindrical Fenestrated Cult Stands, widespread in Syria since the 3rd millennium BC, characterized by a flared stem. These types, produced with reddish clays and characterized by a medium–low firing, were brought to light in a considerable number in the storerooms of the Central Complex of the Royal Palace G of Ebla, dated to Early Bronze IVA. They differ from contemporary Mesopotamian artifacts for the constant presence of traces of burning.20 Some scholars refer to Iron Age Stands as cult-related items,21 others suggest a more secular function for this material, because it has been discovered in different contexts: temples, cultic deposits, domestic areas and burials.22 The “tower” types are square or rectangular, developed in height and often they present a constriction to the junction between the base and the bowl; they are decorated with triangular openings, engraved bands, circles and knobs.23 During the Late Bronze Age in the Euphrates region at Emar and Tell Fray, tower stands are developed with slightly flared foot, decorated with figurines while the openings are emphasized by strips; these stands present either bowls with rectangular corners, or shallow bowls, decorated with knobs. These stands are different in composition from those attested in Western Syria, particularly at Hama.24 After the fall of Samaria in the late 8th century BC, the Tower type is spread throughout the Levant where it can be considered a late development of cylindrical cult stands. De Miroschedji25 identified two subtypes for this class: round pedestal bowls, often fenestrated and sometimes decorated with figures, whose prototypes are known in the Chalcolithic Period,26 and open stands; they are open at the bottom and the top and crowned by a bowl, sometimes found with them. Open stands appear in the Early Bronze Age when they are characterized by a rectangular foot (‘Ai), while in the Iron Age, the foot became cylindrical. The Architectural Stands or supports are the most popular class. Some schol-

Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae (eds) 1995, 372, nos 198–199. Amiran 1969, 302–305; Epstein 1975, 193–201; Turner 1979, 14–174, Maeir / Shai 2006, 357–365; Gadot et al. 2014, 55–76. 22 Grutz 2007, 3–6; Mazar 1985; Nahshoni 2009, 88–92; Ben-Shlomo 2005, 243–264; Panitz-Cohen 2010, 110–145; Gitin 1993, 248–258; Edelstein / Aurant 1992, 23–41. 23 Werner 1998, 2. 24 Rouault / Masetti-Rouault (eds) 1993, 464, nos 333–334. 25 De Miroschedji 2001, 47–48. 26 De Miroschedji 2001, 47–48, fig. 2. 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

249

ars consider these stands like miniature and they represent towers, houses and shrines.27 Although not true architectural models, they show some elements in the composition derived from contemporary architecture. These stands were brought to light across the Near East and are documented since the archaic periods. B. Muller who has long studied them, calls these stands as “maquettes architecturales” and she divides the material on the basis of the volume in one level models, multi–level models and towers.28 The first type includes three subtypes: structures with inner division between different storeys; rectangular models without internal division; édicules, with a complex volumes and one large opening on one side.29 The second type, that Margueron called “chambre à haute,” has multiple levels composed of three cubes or parallelepipeds, one of which is superimposed to the other two.30 The third type includes the tower models, divided into three subtypes based on the presence of horns or crenellations or volumetric elements on the top.31 Tabernacles or “shrines” are square, rectangular or circular, characterized by a door on the main façade that could be opened.32 Some architectonic tabernacles, conceived as miniaturized shrines of a female divinity come from the Southern Levant. They are not true cult buildings models, but, rather, symbolic evocations of them.33 The tabernacles appear during the Early Bronze Age and they are frequent in the Iron Age II.34 None of them was found with an image inside or in a clear cultic context. Limestone stands are similar to small square altars, made of soft stone or limestone. They are characterized by a square basin, decorated with four horn–like projections on the top, placed in the corners.35 Small cuboid stands, attested in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, also made of clay with a small depression on top,36 can be considered as a degeneration of the limestone stands. They were used for burning incense and other aromata. The bronze tripods and the bronze fenestrated stands are less common. The two types are documented since Early Dynastic I–II in Mesopotamia: the tripod stands often had a ring-like base, connecting the three feet; a central shaft supported the bowl. The fenestrated stands had square openwork sides with a variety of scenes, such as a standing worshiper, offering a gift to a seated god or musi Bretschneider 1991, 14. Muller 2002, 83–87, 101. 29 Muller 2000, figs 1a, 2a, 4b, 5b,7d. 30 This type was discovered for the first time at Emar: Margueron 1976, 193–232. 31 Muller 2002, 95. 32 De Miroschedji 2001, 66–67. 33 De Miroschedji 2001, 44,78. 34 De Miroschedji 2001, 78, figs 1, 13, 21. 35 De Vries 1987, 4; the limestone stands without horns are documented at Arad (Aharoni, 1967, 233–49, pl. 47) and with horns at Megiddo (Loud 1948, pl. 254:1). 36 Invernizzi 1997, 245–248. 27 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

250

P. D’Amore

cians. Several examples come from Khafaje, Tell Agrab and Kish.37 During the Iron Age, the first type is documented at Megiddo and with minor differences, at Tell en–Nasbeh.38 Some examples are attested in Punic contexts, for example at Lilybeum.39 The bronze fenestrated stands, instead, are documented during the Iron Age II in Western Iran and are similar to ceramic stands brought to light at Hasanlu IV and in Iraq, perhaps a product of Persian workshops of the 9th century BC.40 In the West, more than forty bronze candelabra were excavated at Samos: they have the stem decorated with drooping leaves, documented also on Phoenician stamp seals and stele.41 Bronze candelabra have been found at Athens, Lindos, Sidon, Malta, Sardinia, Spain and Etruria.42 3. The Stands from Tell Afis A group of stands, unfortunately fragmentary, in bichrome polished ware, was brought to light at Tell Afis, during the 2005, 2006 and 2008 seasons, around the podium, placed in front of the entrance of Temple AI or scattered in Plaza F, on Terrace J and Area G. Sixteen stands have been retrieved thus far, of which part of the stem and / or the bowl are preserved. They can be divided into three types: a) stands with shallow bowl; b) stands in burnished and painted pottery with tall stem and carinated painted bowl; c) stands with fenestrated deep carinated bowl. Type a) is characterized by high stems, slightly flaring, with a ribbed decoration on the upper part, closest to the bowl. The shallow bowls present simple or inverted rims, painted with geometric motifs and decorated with plastic drooping leaves. The stem is painted with large red, cream and black strips. Among the fragments collected, nine examples belong to this type (TA.05.A.117/9; TA.05.A.117/9bis; TA.05.A.117/9ter; TA.06.A.718/4;43 TA.06.A.744/14a;44 TA.06.A.744/14c; TA.06.A.769/9;45 TA.06.A.772/1; TA. 08.A.118) (Figs 1–2 A–B). The more complete bowl belongs to TA.05.A.117/9, found near the thresh-

Frankfort 1939, pls 98–103; 1943, pl. 61b; Moorey 1982, 29; Muscarella 1988, 333– 336, n. 467. 38 May 1935, 19–20; Lamon / Shipton 1939, pl. 33:15,17; pl. 63:15,17 (similar but with a row of knobs below the rim); Wampler 1947, 43, S.1570. 39 Culican 1980, pl. IIIA. 40 Porada 1965, pl. 30. 41 Culican 1960–1961, 51; 1968, 61, fig. 3; Bisi 1967, pl. XXXVI. 42 Culican 1980, 88–90. 43 Also fragments TA.06.A.744/2 and TA.06.A.744/4 belong to this stand. 44 Also fragment TA.05.A.117/9quater belongs to this stand. 45 Also fragment TA.06.A.744/5 belongs to this stand. 37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

251

old that led into the vestibule of Temple AI. The bowl is decorated with parallel bands, painted in red, black and cream. In the lower part, near the stem, there is a series of conical and prominent leaves, also present, in a double row, near the rim, forming a sort of crenellation of double drooping leaves. The same decoration appears on TA. 08.A.118. TA.05.A.117/9bis belongs to a similar bowl decorated with red and black concentric triangles on a white background, while fragment TA.05.A.117/9ter documents a triangle decoration with a red dot inside. TA.06.A.718/4 and TA.06.A.744/14a belong to two different stands with stems decorated with overhanging rings; these rings are decorated respectively with a net pattern with a central dot and with a row of painted black filled rhombi. The stem of TA.06.A.744/14c documents more overhanging rings, decorated respectively with a grit and with red and black triangles. TA.06.A.769/9 consists of fragments of the bowl and of the stem with a triangular section. Lastly, TA.06.A.772/1 belongs to slightly flaring stem, decorated with red, black and cream bands. Stem TA06.A.772/1, with cylindrical slightly flaring walls, is preserved in the central part: a double ribbing is present on the top. The decoration is painted with red, black and cream horizontal bands of various sizes. Unlike other fragments, TA06.A.772/1 was found to the East of the podium, reused in a secondary context.46 Two censer stems, discovered in the Colline Centrale of Qatna in 1927, decorated with a zig-zag motive and two overhanging rings of drooping leaves, are interesting parallels for TA.06.A.718/4, TA.06.A.744/1a TA.06.A.744/1c.47 It is possible that the cult stands with plastic decoration were kept inside or at the entrance of the temple.48 We have interesting comparisons for this type from Al Mina (lev. 8),49 Tell Mastuma50 and Zincirli.51 The stands of Al Mina have the stem decorated with red and black painted bands and they show two ribbings; the bowl, very deep, is decorated with drooping leaves. The item from Tell Mastuma, with drooping leaves at the base of the bowl, is similar to TA.05.A.117/9; the same drooping leaves are documented in the items from Megiddo as well.52 Similar objects are represented on a Assyrian relief from Room XXXVI of the Southwest Palace of Nineveh, which represents the booty of Lachish: in this relief the Assyrian soldiers carry out from the city two high stands, characterized by a This stem has been used in a later structure consisting of a row of mud bricks with a north/south orientation, limited the pit US 7296 to the east; within the pit there were traces of walls belonging to previous structures of the Iron Age I, cut to open the Plaza F in front of the temple AI. 47 Du Mesnil du Buisson 1927, pl. LXXXIV:3–4. 48 Soldi 2009, 113-114. 49 Lehmann 1996, pl. 30:179/1-2. 50 Egami / Wahita / Gotoh 1984, 105–126, fig. 6:9; Lehmann 1996, pl. 30:179/3. 51 Andrae 1943, 56, Suppl. 64–65, pl. 23:d–e; Lehmann 1994, 114, nos 5–6. 52 May 1935, 21, fig. 6; 22 fig. 7, pls XIX:P 5803, 4787, XX:P. 6056. 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

252

P. D’Amore

large bowl and with the top of the stem decorated by a row of drooping leaves.53 Similar stands also appear among the objects of Sennacherib booty from Babylon as a large basin with flaring stem, decorated with drooping leaves, and in a relief of Sargon II, from Khorsabad, where there is a cauldron on stand of the same type.54 The drooping leaves motive is common in Syria and in the Southern Levant. The absence of traces of burning could indicate that these stands were primarily used to support offerings among which we may include aromata. Similar stands are generically called censers; we may recall the stands of the end of the 11th century from Tell es-Safi and those from Beth Shemesh and Tell es-Sarem/Tel Rehov,55 where the drooping leaves are placed on the body of the stem. On others items, the same decoration appears at the base of the bowl, as at Zinçirli56 or, as at Amal, where two rows of drooping leaves are shown on the stem.57 An accurate comparison presents the stand found in Stratum X of Tel Arad: the stand was found in Locus 389, a space near the altar. It consists of two parts: a high stem decorated with a crown of drooping leaves and a deep bowl, also decorated with drooping leaves around the rim and on its lower portion. Stem and bowl are red–slipped. Similar vessels were brought to light at Lakish (liv. V) and Tell en–Nasbeh.58 According to Mazar, Stern and Culican,59 these cult stands decorated with plastic drooping leaves developed from Phoenician influences, as previously indicated by Albright,60 while Beck believed that this element can reflect a local development, independent from Phoenician prototypes.61 The bowl and the stem can be modeled separately and the same model can be produced in metal, like an example of the like the 8th–7th century BC now in the Walters Gallery of Baltimora.62

The incense burners carried by the Assyrian soldiers have been interpreted by Aharoni (1975, 42) and Na’aman (1999, 404–5) as cultic vessels which derive from the city sanctuary; for Ussishkin it is difficult to accept this suggestion because the booty presumably came from the palace-fort. If the incense burners came from a sanctuary, “it would have been an important central shrine to judge by the size and design of the cult vessels and the exceptional role of the city” (Ussishkin 2003, 215, fig. 6). At Lachish in the Level III (the city level destroyed by Sennacherib in 701 BC), no shrine has been found. 54 Albenda 1986, 82, pl. 123. 55 Shai / Maeir 2003, 111, fig. 1.5; 2008, 427, fig. 2; Gitin 1993, 53, fig. 5b; Grutz 2007, 44; Grant, 1932, pl. XXXVI:30. 56 Lehmann 1994, 114, n. 5. 57 Levy / Edelstein 1972, 255–339; Culican 1980, 88, fig. 2D. 58 Wampler 1947, pl. 69:1570. 59 Mazar 1980, 100; Stern 1980, 96–98; Culican 1980, 85–86. 60 Albright 1942, 18–27; similar bronze objects are documented in Cyprus and in the Punic world: Palma di Cesnola 1887, 9; Karageorghis 1977, 39–41. 61 Beck 2000, 174. 62 Grutz 2007, 114. 53

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

253

The bowl with a double row of drooping leaves could be a development of chalices with everted rim, widespread in the Levant in pre-Iron Age strata at Pella, Beth Shemesh, Tell Dan, Deir Alla, Hazor, Tell Keisan, Lakish and Megiddo.63 According to Culican the similar bronze stands, brought to light in the West, are a Phoenician production, documented on stele and seals.64 Two sherds from Tell Afis belonging to type b) were brought to light in Square Court G. TA.96.G.236/2 comes from Locus 1344, liv. 8c: it is characterized by a high stem, decorated with red / beige painted bands and by a shallow carinated bowl, painted in a similar way. The second fragment TA.94.G.308/2 belongs to the stem and was brought to light in the liv. 3 (pit F.1008), decorated with red, black and white painted strips (Fig. 2 C). These two fragments can be considered a sub-type of class a. Nine stands, probably tripod–based perforated bowls with swollen rim belong to class c) (TA.06.A.769/7; TA.06.A.772/2; TA.06.A.772/8; TA.06.A.782/8; TA.06.A.767/19; TA.06.A.767/20; TA.06.A.16/1; TA.06.A.16/2+32/1 and TA.06. A786/6) (Fig. 3). TA.06.A.769/7 is a fenestrated bowl, decorated with vertical painted bands alternated with a black zigzag pattern. The top of the rim is painted with oblique black bands and with plastic elements (only three of which are preserved), similar to small heads of birds; the body of the bowl is decorated with a series of vertical holes, alternating with vertical ribbed elements. TA.06.A.772/2 is a part of a bowl, decorated with a net pattern, a ribbing, an animal, perhaps a caprid (only part of the muzzle is preserved), and part of a plant; on the contrary, the fragment of painted red bowl TA.06.A0772/8 presents a horizontal band with a vertical ribbing, three vertical elements and part of a fourth, painted tone–in tone with black top. The painted fragment of bowl TA.06.A.782/8 is decorated by vertical bands with rhombs, alternated with a net pattern. Rows of small holes are arranged horizontally on top, at the bottom and on one side of the sherd. On the rim, at regular intervals, small heads of birds are inserted. TA.06.A.767/19 is a simple rim bowl made of orange ware, decorated by dotted rhombs and with a handle with a globe on the top. TA.06.A.767/20 is decorated by two painted red vertical bands, linked to each other by horizontal segments and by a serpent motif. TA.06.A.16/1 still has part of the rim inflated bowl, decorated by ribbing with an animal head on the top. Along the ribbing, a series of holes are arranged vertically. TA.06.A.16 / 2 + 32 / 1 is a carinated bowl with simple rim and small globes. The bowl is decorated by metopes, adorned by a double red and black “X” with vertical segments, alternating with three black vertical strips decorated with waves. The top and the bottom are decorated with thick black and red bands. All rims have a red painted

Grutz 2007, 103–104, Type 111; Briend / Humbert 1980, pl. 51:6–7, liv. 7; a type of funnel with drooping leaves is documented at Megiddo: May 1935, 222, fig. 7. 64 Culican 1980, 85–86; Niemeyer 1969, 96–101; Culican 1960–61, 41–54. 63

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

254

P. D’Amore

decoration with segments or triangles or “X” motifs. The same decoration appears on TA.06.A.786/6. This class with fenestrated bowl, extensively attested at Tell Afis, seems a local production, probably derived from cult tripod–based bowls, without decoration and with holes, found at Hazor (Strata X B–V), Beit Shan (liv.V–IV), Samaria (Period III), Tell el–Farah (liv. III), Tell es–Saidiyeh (liv. IV–II)65 and Pella (from the Iron Age temple courtyard),66 used for incense offerings.67 The bird’s head decoration, crowning the rim, recalls a characteristic north Syrian production, attested in Middle Bronze Age II, decorating a series of small jars with short neck and simple rim, well known at Ebla but rarely present at Tell Afis.68 It is difficult to determine the area of origin of the Tell Afis stands: it could be a local luxury production as an import from other areas of the Levant (Palestine, Cyprus, and Phoenicia). Two painted stands with fenestrated bowl, dated to the 8th–7th century, come from the royal necropolis of Salamis in Cyprus, but they have caryatids on the cylindrical stem.69 The cult stands with fenestrated bowl, decorated with bird’s heads on the rim, could be a typical production of northern Syria and particularly of Tell Afis. The stratigraphic data place the cult stands with drooping leaves and with fenestrated bowl (classes a and c), in the Iron Age II–III (end of the 8th–7th century BC). They are placed coherently in the context of the sacred area, where the most important religious rituals of the city took place. The discovery of the stands in Square Court (G) is sporadic; the Square Court, after the collapse of the structures, became the place for a particular waste pit, but it is not impossible that even in this place, which had a probable ceremonial character, cultic objects were used. Also for these items the stratigraphic data and the ceramic horizon point to a date towards the end of the 8th–7th century BC. Bibliography Aharoni, Y., 1967: Excavations at Tel Arad: Preliminary Report on the Second Season 1963. IEJ 17: 233–249. — 1975: Investigations at Lakish: Sanctuary and the Residency (Lakish V / Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University no. 4). Tel Aviv. Albenda, P., 1986: The Palace of Sargon II of Assyria (Synthèse 22). Paris. Albright, W.F., 1942: Two cressets from Marissa and the pillars of Jachin and Boaz. BASOR 85: 18–27.

Nielsen 1986, 49. Bourke 2004, fig. 18:1, 3. The tripod cups perforated and unperforated are more common in Jordan: Daviau 2001, 203. 67 Nielsen 1986, 43. 68 Pinnock 2000, 121–128; 2012. 69 Karageorghis 1969, pls IX–X, from graves 49 and 23; Invernizzi 1997, 246, fig. 22. 65 66

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

255

Amadasi Guzzo, M.G., 2001: Une empreinte de sceau de Tell Afis. Orientalia 70: 318–324. Amiran, R., 1969: Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem. Andrae, W., 1943: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli V. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Berlin. Beck, P., 2000: The Art of Palestine during the Iron Age II: Local Traditions and External Influences (Xth–VIIIth centuries BCE). In Ch. Uehlinger (ed.): Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). Friburg. Pp. 165–183. Ben-Shlomo, D., 2005: Material Culture. In M. Dothan / D. Ben–Shlomo (eds): Ashdod VI. The Excavations of Areas H and K (1968–1969) (IAA Reports 24). Jerusalem. Pp. 246–263. Betancourt, P.B. et al. 1983: Ceramic Stands. A Group of Domestic and Ritual Objects from Crete and the Near East. Expedition 26/1: 32–37. Bisi, A.M., 1967: Le stele puniche. Roma. Bourke, S.J., 2004: Cult and Archaeology at Pella in Jordan: Excavating the Bronze and Iron Age Temple Precinct (1994–2001). Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 137: 1–31. Bretschneider, J., 1991: Architekturmodelle in Vorderasien und der östlichen Ägaïs vom Neolithikum bis in das I. Jahrtausend. Phänomene in der Kleinkunst an Beispielen aus Mesopotamien, dem Iran, Anatolien, Syrien, der Levante und dem ägaïschen Raum unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der bau- und der religiongeschichtlichen Aspekte (AOAT 229). Neukirchen–Vluyn. Briend, J. / Humbert, J., 1980: Tell Keisan (1971–1976). Une Cité Phenicienne en Galilee (OBO 1). Fribourg. Carenti, G., 2012: Tell Afis (Syria): Ritual Meals and Foundation Ceremonies, Findings from the 2009–2010 Excavations Campaign. In C. Lefèvre (ed.): Proceedings of the General Session of the 11th International Council for Archaeozoology Conference (Paris, 23–28 August 2010) (BAR–IS 2354). Oxford. Pp. 183–190. Cecchini, S.M. 1998: Area G. The Iron I–III levels. Architecture, Pottery and Finds. In S.M. Cecchini / S. Mazzoni (eds): Tell Afis (Syria). Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis. Pisa. Pp. 273–296. — 2000: Un bâtiment mistérieux sur l’acropole de Tell Afis. In P. Matthiae / A. Enea / L. Peyronel / F. Pinnock (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd, 1998. Rome. Pp. 199–204. Ciafardoni, P., 1992: Insediamenti aramaici e pre–aramaici nella regione di Idlib. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Tell Afis e l’Età del Ferro (Seminari di Orientalistica 2). Pisa. Pp. 37–65. Culican, W., 1960–61: Melqart Representations on Phoenician Seals. Abr–Nahrain 2: 41–54. — 1968: The Iconography of Some Phoenician Seals and Seals Impressions. Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology 1: 50–103. — 1980: Phoenician Incense Stands. In R.Y. Ebied / M.J.L. Young (eds): Oriental Studies presented to S.J. Isserlin by Friends and Colleagues on the Occasion of His Sixteenth Birthday 25 February 1976. Leiden. Pp. 85–101. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

256

P. D’Amore

D’Amore, P., 2002: Area A. EVO 25: 9–12. — 2005: Area A1: il settore centrale,” in S. Mazzoni (ed.), Tell Afis. Siria – 2002 2004 (EVO 28). Pisa. Pp. 17–21. Daviau, P.M.M., 2001: Family Religion: Archaeological Evidence for the Paraphernalia of the Domestic Cult. In M.M. Daviau et al. (eds): The World of the Aramaeans II: Studies in History and Archaeology in Honour of Paul-Eugène Dion (JSOT Supplement Series 325). Sheffield. Pp. 199–229. Di Michele, A., 2014. Iron Age II Terrace J at Tell Afis (Syria). In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw), Vol. 2. Excavation and Progress, Reports, Posters. Wiesbaden. Pp. 703–712. Dion, P–E., 1997: Les Araméens à l’âge du Fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales. Études Bibliques 34: 136–170. Dussaud R., 1922: La stèle araméenne de Zakir au Musée du Louvre. Syria 3: 175–176. Egami, N. / Wakita, S. / Gotoh, T., 1984: Tell Mastuma. A Preliminary Report of the Excavations in Idlib, Syria, 1980–1984. Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 6: 105–126. Edelstein, G. / Aurant, S., 1992: The ‘Philistine’ Tomb at Tell ʻEitun. ʻAtiqot 21: 23–41. Epstein C., 1975: Basalt Pillar Figures from the Golan. IEJ 25: 193–201. Frankfort, H., 1939: Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and Khafajah (OIP 44). Chicago. — 1943: More Sculpture from the Diyala Region (OIP 60). Chicago. Gadot, Y. et al. 2014: Tracking Down Cult: Production, Function and Content of Chalices in Iron Age Pilistia. Tel Aviv 41: 55–76. Gitin, S., 1993: Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron. In A. Biran / J. Aviram (eds): Biblical Archaeology Today: 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem June-July 1990. Jerusalem. Pp. 248–258. Grant, E., 1932: Ain Shems Excavations, 1928–1929–1930–1931, Part II. Haverford. Grutz, R., 2007: Late Bronze and Iron Age Chalices in Canaan and Ancient Israel (BAR–IS 1671). Oxford. Invernizzi, A., 1997: Near Eastern Incense Burners and Pyraeums (I Millennium B.C.–I millennium A.D.). Al-Rāfidān XVIII: 241–261. Karageorghis, V., 1969: Salamis in Cyprus. Homeric, Hellenistic and Roman. London. — 1977: Two Cypriote Sanctuaries of the Cypro-Archaic Period. Roma. Katz, H., 2006: Architectural Terracotta Models from Eretz Israel from the Fifth to the Middle of the First Millennium B.C.E. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Haifa University (in Hebrew). Kletter, R., 2010: Yavneh I: The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO 30). Göttingen. Lamon, R.S. / Shipton, G.M., 1939: Megiddo I. Seasons of 1925–1934. Strata I–V. Chicago. Lehmann, G., 1994: Zu den Zerstörungen in Zinçirli während des frühen 7. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

257

Jahrhunderts v. Chr.” MDOG 126: 105–122. — 1996: Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. (AVO 5). Münster. Levy, S. / Edelstein G., 1972: Fouilles de Tell ʻAmal (Nir David). RB 67: 255– 339. Lipinski, E., 2000: The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100). Leuven–Paris. Loud, G., 1948: Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–39 (OIP 62). Chicago 1948. Maeir A.M. / Shai, I., 2006: Iron Age IIA Chalices from Tell es–Safi/Gath. In E. Czerny et al. (eds): Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, Vol. II. Leuven. Pp. 357–365. Margueron, J., 1976: “Maquettes” architecturales de Meskéné–Emar. Syria 53: 193–232. — 1985: Une nouvelle “maquette architecturale” syrienne du Bronce Récent. In J.-L. Huot / M. Yon / Y. Calvet (eds): De L’Indus aux Balkans, recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes. Paris. Pp. 165– 175. Masuda, S., 1983: Terracotta house–model found at Rumellah. AAAS 32: 153–160. Matermawi, M., 2005: Area A3. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Tell Afis. Siria – 2002–2004 (EVO 28). Pisa. Pp. 30–31. Matthiae, P., 1979: Sondages à Tell Afis (Syrie), 1978. Akkadika 14: 2–5. Matthiae. P. / Pinnock, F. / Scandone Matthiae, G. (eds) 1995: Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. May, H.G., 1935: Material Remains of the Megiddo Cult (OIP 26). Chicago. Mazar, A., 1980: Excavation at Tell Qasile Part I. The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and cult Objects (Qedem 12). Jerusalem. — 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile II. The Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions Appendixes (Qedem 20). Jerusalem. Mazzoni, S., 2008: The Italian Excavations of Tell Afis (Syria): From chiefdom to an Aramaean State. Pisa. — 2012: Temples at Tell Afis in Iron Age I–III. In J. Kamlah (ed.): Temple building and Temple Cult. Architecture and cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2–1 mill. B.C.E.). Proceedings of a Conference on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Institute of Biblical Archaeology at the University of Tübingen (28–30 May 2010) (ADPV 41). Wiesbaden. Pp. 23–40. Du Mesnil du Buisson, R., 1927: L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’El-Mishrifé au N.-E. de Homs (Emèse): deuxième campagne de fouilles, 1927. Syria 8: 277–301. —1928: L’ancienne Qatna ou les ruines d’El-Mishrifié au N.-E. de Homs (Emèse): deuxième champagne de fouilles (1927). Syria 9: 6–24. —1938: Modèle de maison syrienne en terre cuite. Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires 1983 92–93. Minunno, G. 2005: Area A2. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Tell Afis. Siria – 2002–2004 (EVO 28). Pisa. Pp. 29–30. De Miroschedij, P., 2001: Les “maquettes architecturales” palestiniennes. In B. Muller (ed.): Maquettes architecturales de l’antiquité. Actes du colloque de Strasbourg 3–5 décember 1998. Paris. Pp. 43–85. Moorey, P.R.S., 1982: The Archaeological Evidence for Metallurgy and Related Technologies in Mesopotamia, c. 5500–2100 B.C. Iraq 44: 13–38. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

258

P. D’Amore

Mousli, M., 1988: Ein Räucherstander aus Terrakotta im Museum zu Homs. Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 20: 27–30. Muller, B., 1995: Deux nouvelles “maquettes architecturales” en terre cuite du Moyen–Euphrate syrien. Syria 62: 357–380. — 1997: Remarques sur les “maquettes architecturales” de Syrie. In C. Castel / M. Al-Maqdissi / F. Villeneuve (eds): Les maisons dans la Syrie antique du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Beyrouth. Pp. 255–267. — 2000: Images d’architecture en deux et trois dimensions au Proche-Orient ancient (Mésopotamie, Syrie, Palestine). In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome May 18th–23rd, 1998, Vol. II. Rome. Pp. 1137–1164. — 2002: Recherches sur les maquettes architecturales du Proche-Orient ancient (Mésopotamie, Syrie,Palestine du IIIe au début du Ie millénaire av. J.-C.) (BAH 160). Beyrouth. Muscarella, O.W., 1988: Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York. Na’aman, N., 1999: No Anthropomorphic Graven Image. Notes on the Assumed Anthropomorphic Cult Statues in the Temples of YHWH in the Pre-Exilic Period. UF 31: 391–415. Nahshoni, P., 2009: A Philistine Temple in the Northewestern Negev. Qadmoniot 138: 88–92. (Hebrew). Nielsen, K., 1986: Incense in the Ancient Israel (Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 38). Leiden. Niemeyer, H.G., 1969. Zum Thymiaterion vom Cerro del Peñon. MM 10: 96– 101. Palma di Cesnola, L., 1887: Salamina (Cipro). Torino. Panitz–Cohen, N., 2010: The Pottery Assemblage from the Yavneh Favissa. In R. Kletter / I. Ziffer / W. Zwickel (eds): Yavneh I: The Excavation of the ‘Temple Hill’ Repository Pit and the Cult Stands (OBO 30). Fribourg. Pp. 110–145. Pinnock, F., 2000: The Doves or the Goddess. Elements of the Cult of Ishtar at Ebla in the Middle Bronze Age. Levant 32: 121–128. — 2012: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla IX. Le giarette con decorazione applicata del bronzo medio II. Roma. Porada, E., 1965: Ancient Iran. London. Rouault, O. / Masetti-Rouault, M.G.: 1993. L’Eufrate e il tempo. Le civiltà del medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana. Milano. Shai, I. / Maeir, A.M., 2003: Pre-lmlk Jars: A New Class of Iron Age IIA Storage Jars. Tel Aviv 30: 108–123. — 2008: The Iron Age IIA Pottery Assemblage at Tell es–safi/Gath. In H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th international Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (29 march–3 april 2004, Freie Universität, Berlin), Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 419–428. Soldi, S., 2005: Area A1: il settore occidentale. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Tell Afis. Siria 2002–2004 (EVO 28). Pisa. Pp. 24–29. — 2009: Aramaeans and Assyrian in North–Western Syria. Material Evidence from Tell Afis. Syria 86: 97–118. Stern, E., 1980. Achaemenian Tombs from Shechem. Levant 12: 90–111. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

259

Turner, V.W. 1979: Process, Performance and Pilgrimage: A Study in Comparative Symbology. New Delhi. Ussishkin, D., 2003: Symbol of conquest in Sennacherib’s reliefs of Lachish. In T.F. Potts / M. Roaf / D. Stein (eds): Culture Through Objects: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of P.R.S. Moorey. Oxford. 207–217. De Vries, L.F., 1987. Cult Stands. A Bewildering Variety of Shapes and Sizes. Biblical Archaeology Review 13/4: 27–37. Wampler, J.C., 1947: Tell en-Nasbeh II. The Pottery. Berkeley and New Haven. Werner, P., 1998: Architekturmodelle. In R.M. Czichon / P. Werner (eds): Tall Munbaqa-Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde. Saarbrücken. Pp. 1–7. Wilkens, B., 1998: The Faunal Remains. In S.M. Cecchini / S. Mazzoni (eds): Tell Afis (Syria). Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis. Pisa. Pp. 433–444. Zevit, Z., 2001: The Religion of Ancient Israel. A Syntesis of Parallectic Approaches. London.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

260

P. D’Amore

Fig. 1. Cult stands with plastic drooping leaves (Type a): a) TA. 05.A 117/9 (bowl); b) TA.05.A.117/9 bis–quater (stem’s decorations); c) TA.06.A.744/14a–c (stem); d) TA.06.A.772/1 (bowl). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Paraphernalia from Tell Afis

261

Fig. 2. Cult stands of Types a (with plastic drooping leaves) and b: a) Type a, TA.08.A.118 (bowl); b) Type a, TA.06.A.718/4 (stem’s decorations) and TA.06.A.769/9; c) Type b, TA.96.G.236/2 and TA.94.G.308/2. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

262

P. D’Amore

Fig. 3. Type C: tripod-based perforated bowls: a) TA.06.A.16/2+32/1 and TA.06.A.16/1; b) TA.06.A.769/7 (top), TA.06.A.772/2 (right); c) TA.06.A.786/6.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla: A State-of-the-Art Overview in the Light of the 2004‒2008 Discoveries at Tell Mardikh Marta D’Andrea*

1. Introduction The Early Bronze–Middle Bronze Age (EB–MB) transition in Syria has been a widely studied topic during the last two decades. The debate involved the development of ceramic repertoires from one period to another in each regional area and theories on crisis or collapse of urban institutions in the later part of the Early Bronze Age (EB) and regeneration of complex societies at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age (MB).1 As is well known, an EB–MB transitional phase was identified for the Middle Euphrates River Valley based on pottery by Porter2 and Cooper,3 i.e., Phase 6 (= ARCANE Phase Early Middle Euphrates 6 [EME 6]4), representing the last phase in which EB cultural features are attested along with new cultural elements that are properly MB features.5 Based on the Phase 6 model, a comparable phase was recently identified also in the Syrian Jazirah and the Upper Khabur basin: the late post-Akkadian/Ur III period and the pre-Khabur period in the Khabur region and Phase Early Jazirah 5 (EJZ 5) in the Syrian Jazirah .6 *



1

4 2 3



5 6

Continuities and discontinuities between the EB and the MB at Ebla have been the subject of countless conversations with Frances Pinnock, with whom I am indebted for valuable advice and insights which have inspired a large part of my research on this topic. I also wish to thank warmly Dr. Marco Iamoni for giving helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Dr. Suzanne Richard for carefully reading several drafts of this work and making valuable remarks. Needless to say, any mistakes are my own responsibility. See Schwartz 2007a; 2007b, in particular pp. 49–52 on Northern Inland Syria; Morandi Bonacossi 2008a, 127. Porter 2007a, 12–13, pl. VII; Phase Six, dated 2150–2000 BC. Cooper 2006, 23–26, fig. 1.9; Phase 6, dated 2100–1900 BC. Finkbeiner et al. 2015, 437; Sconzo 2015, 109–111 and fn. 37, dated 2035–1929 BC (Finkbeiner / Novák 2015, 13, tab. 2). Cooper 2006, 23. Orsi 2010; 2011, 417–426; 2012a, 98–102; 2012b, 81, 83–86, fig. 2:5–23; Rova 2011, 64–65, tab. 7. Dated ca. 2100–2000 BC (Lebeau 2011, 379 tab. 1) or 2042–1953 BC © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

264

M. D’Andrea

During the mid-2000s, a debate on the possibility of identifying such a transitional phase also in North-Western Inland Syria started. At Tell Afis,7 in the Ebla region, and Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna,8 in the Homs region, the excavators recognized evidence for continuous EB IV–MB II occupation, with no major breaks in the sequences, such as abandonment or destruction, but, rather, with a substantial change in the spatial and functional reorganization of the settlements from one phase to the next.9 At both sites, the excavators singled out an EB–MB transitional horizon, comparable to that identified in the Middle Euphrates River Valley, with EB IVB types occurring alongside MB I shapes (§ 4). Frances Pinnock addressed the question of the EB–MB transition at Tell Mardikh/Ebla from the points of view of material culture correlates, history of art, and ideological aspects connected with the representation of kingship in the two periods10 (§ 3.1). These studies demonstrated the particular historical-archaeological trajectory of Ebla compared to other sites in North-Western Inland Syria, and to other regional areas. Thus, in a volume to honour Frances Pinnock, it seems appropriate to present some new insights on the topic of the EB–MB transition at Ebla based on the unpublished data from the latest excavations at the site, carried out by the Italian Archaeological Expedition to Ebla. This article presents a review of the archaeological evidence from Ebla in the light of the results of the 2004–2007 excavations in Area HH and 2008 excavations in Area D at Tell Mardikh. A long EB IVB stratigraphic sequence was excavated in the Lower Town south-east, providing, for the first time in the history of the archaeological exploration at the site, the basis of the periodization of Ebla’s EB IVB and a means for correlations with the neighbouring sites and regional areas. The possibility of identifying, within this sequence, some very late EB IVB ceramic assemblages from primary loci (Figs 5–9) allows us to reappraise the issue of the EB–MB transition at Ebla, building upon the insights put forward earlier by Pinnock,11 based on the limited EB IVB stratified assemblages from the site available until a few years ago. Thus, some of these materials are presented herein (§ 3.2.1) in order to discuss the topic of the EB–MB transition at the site. Architecture is also taken into account within the discussion (§ 3.2.2), and the question of some chronological issues in intra-regional synchronization is addressed (§§ 4–5). The aim of the article is to discuss, albeit summarily—due to space limitations and to the preliminary state of the author’s research on Ebla’s EB IVB ce-

(Sallaberger 2011, 332–33, tab. 3). Mazzoni / Felli 2007, 209–219. 8 Morandi Bonacossi 2008a; 2009, 64–65. 9 As for Tell Afis, see Felli / Merluzzi 2008; Mazzoni 2013; as for Qatna, see Morandi Bonacossi 2008a. 10 Pinnock 2004; 2009. 11 Pinnock 2009. 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

265

ramics—whether or not it is possible to identify an EB–MB transitional horizon at the site. The review of the dataset (§§ 3–4) will allow us to better define the nature of the last EB IV phase at Ebla through its archaeological correlates and to address the topic of crisis and change between the end of the EB and the beginning of the MB from the specific point of view of the site and its region (§§ 5–6). 2. Chronology and Terminology As for chronology, the article follows the traditional conventional absolute dates according to the Middle Chronology for the Northern Levant and for synchronisms with the neighbouring areas. Thus, EB IVA corresponds to ca. 2550–2300 BC, EB IVB to ca. 2300–2000 BC, and MB I to ca. 2000–1800 BC. The traditional archaeological terminology is used throughout the article. However, since we will elaborate later on how Ebla’s EB IVB dataset matches the ARCANE periodization for North-Western Inland Syria (§ 6), it will be useful to recall here that, for this region, EB IVA corresponds to Phases Early Northern Levant (ENL) 3 (ca. 2550–2440 BC) and ENL 4 (ca. 2450–2300 BC) and EB IVB to Phases ENL 5 (ca. 2300–2100 BC) and ENL 6 (ca. 2100–2000 BC).12 Table 1 provides synchronisms for North-Western Inland Syria and the other regional areas cited in the text, as well as equivalence between traditional terminologies and the ARCANE periodization for each of them. 3. The EB–MB Transition at Ebla 3.1 The State-of-the-Art Until 2004 With regard to Ebla, Pinnock identified some elements arguing either for EB– MB continuity or re-elaboration and reuse of EB IV features during the MB, although recognizing important differences and visible changes in the material culture between the two periods. The main aspects of EB–MB continuity singled out by Pinnock13 are briefly recalled below. 1) At Ebla there is evidence for continuous use of some cultic areas from EB IV to MB II; this is the case in Areas N, P, and D.14 As was revealed by the 2008

For the ARCANE Project, see the periodization table on the Project’s website: http:// www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/EA-EM-EL_phasing_v5–4–6.pdf. 13 Pinnock 2004; 2009, 72–75; see also Mazzoni / Felli 2007, 206–208. Considerations on EB IVB Ebla have been put forward also by R. Dolce (1999; 2002; 2007, 183–184; 2009). 14 EB IVB cult buildings have been partially uncovered under the MB temples in Areas N, in the Lower Town north (Pinnock 2004, 92, fig. 3), P (Marchetti / Nigro 1997, 3, fig. 2), and D (Floriani-Squarciapino 1967, 69–72, pl. XXVIII:4, plan 6; Matthiae 1970, 59–61, figs 9–10; 1976, 190, 192–193; 2009a, 762–777, figs 5–6, 12–23; 2010, 198, 395–396, fig. 214; Dolce 2002, 15–17, fig. 2). 12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

266

M. D’Andrea

Approx. Dates

Western Inland Syria

Middle Euphrates

Jazirah

Mesopotamia

2550

EB IVA1 = ENL 3 ↓ ↓ ↓

↑ (up to 2700–2750 BC) Phase 3 = EME 3 (2nd half) ↓ ↓

EB IVA2 = ENL4 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Phase 4 = EME 4 (beginning slightly later in the ARCANE periodization) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

↑ (up to ca. 2600 BC) Early Jazirah 3 = EJZ 3 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Early Dynastic IIIb ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

2450

2300

2200

2100

2000

1900

EB IVB = ENL 5 (= ca. 2300– 2200 BC) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ = ENL 6 (= 2100–2000 BC) ↓ ↓ ↓ EB-MB Transition/ MB I ↓ ↓ ↓

Phase 5 = EME 5 (beginning slightly later in the ARCANE periodization) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Phase 6 = EME 6 (beginning slightly later in the ARCANE periodization) ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Early Jazirah 4 = EJZ 4 ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Akkadian Period ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Post-Akkadian Period ↓ ↓ ↓

Early Jazirah 5 = EJZ 5 ↓ ↓ ↓

Ur III Period ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Old Jazirah I OJ I ↓ ↓ ↓

Isin Larsa Period ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

Table 1. Synchronisms for North-Western Inland Syria and the other regional areas cited in the text and equivalence between traditional archaeological terminologies and the ARCANE periodization; absolute BC dates for each phase are indicated according to the traditional Middle Chronology and are conventional. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

267

excavations, Area D was continuously used for temples from EB IVA to MB II (not just from EB IVB to MB II). As demonstrated by the 2004–2007 excavations, also Area HH can be added to this list, since it was continuously used from EB IVA to MB II.15 2) The articulation of the MB town recalls some elements of the layout of the EB IVA town. The MB rampart fortifications were built on the same circuit of the EB IVA mud-brick walls (possibly reused also during EB IVB), which were embedded into the rampart.16 Further evidence is provided by the presence of a Citadel on the Acropolis, composed of a royal palace and a dynastic temple, the reuse of the Archaic Palace from EB IVB to MB IB, and the continuous use of that same area in the Lower Town north for the successive Intermediate Palace.17 3) The title used for kings is mekim in EB IVA, megum in EB IVB (in Ur III texts; see § 5), and mekum in the MB (on the inscription on the statue of Ibbit-Lim and on a seal from Kültepe/Kaneš, kārum level II, belonging to Ib-Damu from Ebla).18 4) EB IVA–MB continuity in royal onomastics is apparent in some MB personal names of personages from Ebla, such as Ib-Damu, Ibbit-Lim, and Igrish-Kheb (the latter two also being certainly kings of Ebla), as they include the names of dynastic gods of the EB IVA period.19 5) Re-elaboration of EB IVA motifs used for the representation of kingship is visible in the MB figurative art. Pinnock recalls the motif of the fight with a lion, used both in EB IVA in wooden carved inlays from Palace G and in the MB Stele of Ishtar.20 Another case recalled is the “dual representation of kingship;” this is symbolized, in EB IVA, by the presence of a high rank lady beside the king, while in the MB high rank ladies are the protagonists of the scene and, according to Pinnock, “represent one focus of Old Syrian kingship.”21 Besides these elements arguing for re-elaboration and reuse of EB IVA featu-

Matthiae 2006a, 458–492; 2007. On the possible reuse of the EB IVA fortifications during EB IVB, see Dolce 2002, 19–20; Pinnock 2004, 94, fig. 4; Mazzoni / Felli 2007, 207. 17 Matthiae 2006b = Matthiae 2013a. 18 For the seal impressions of Ebla’s kings from Kültepe II, see Teissier 1994, 177, 233; for the term mekim/megum/mekum, see Tonietti 1997; Kühne 1998; see also Matthiae 2010, 212, with relevant bibliography at pp. 512–513. See also Dolce 2007. 19 Lim and Damu are gods’ names that recur in the names of Ebla’s EB IVA kings, while Kheb might be an abbreviation for Khepat, the great goddess of Aleppo, and the verbal form igrish was used in the name of the MB king Igrish-Kheb, as well as in the name of the EB IVA king Igrish-Khalab: Bonechi 1997; Matthiae 2010, 207–208, 214–215, 512–513, with relevant bibliography therein; see also Matthiae 2009b, 187 and fn. 70 = Matthiae 2013b, 75, fn. 70. 20 Pinnock 2004, 73. 21 Pinnock 2004, 74; see also Pinnock 2000; 2006a. 15 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

268

M. D’Andrea

res during the MB, Pinnock identified some elements of EB IVB–MB I continuity in the late EB IVB pottery repertoire, which are relevant for the following analysis. When her article appeared, the Area HH sequence (§ 3.2.1) had not yet been excavated; the Archaic Palace in Area P and the remains of domestic occupation in Area T, both in the Lower Town north, were essentially the only sectors where EB IVB sealed assemblages had been excavated at Ebla. These consist of late EB IVB materials22 (see Fig. 1:9–15), as it is now clear from parallels with the stratified assemblages of Area HH (see § 3.2.2 below). In fact, they include terminal EB IVB vessel types, such as unpainted goblets23 (Fig. 1:9–10), and some forerunners of the MB ceramic repertoire appear, such as carinated bowls24 (Fig. 1:12–13; compare also with materials from Area H, Fig. 1:1–8), and jars with double everted rims25 (Fig. 1:14), as well as some typically EB IVB cylindrical storage jars with very short necks and swollen rims26 (Fig. 1:15), which will develop also during the early MB I.27 3.2 The New Dataset 3.2.1 Stratigraphy and Pottery From 2004 to 2007 a long architectural and stratigraphic sequence spanning from EB IVA to MB IIB (ca. 2450–1600 BC) was excavated in Area HH, in the Lower Town south-east. The EB IVB segment of this sequence allowed for the establishment of the ceramic chronology of the site for this period. Five main stratigraphic phases were identified by P. Matthiae in Area HH. These are local phases IIa–e, grouped into four major EB IVB sub-phases in the site’s periodization, EB IVB1– 4, which could be correlated with the EB IVB evidence from other areas at the site.28 EB IVB1–2 (local phases IIa–c) correspond respectively to an early stage of crisis after the destruction that brought the EB IVA town to an end, and to the beginning of a process of recovery in a central EB IVB phase. EB IVB3 (local phase IId), corresponds to full recovery, as argued by the construction, possibly in the latest part of this phase, of Temples HH4 and HH5 in the Lower Town south-east (Figs 2, 3:1), of Temple D3 on the Acropolis (Fig. 3:4), and of the Archaic Palace

Pinnock 2009, figs 4–6. For the Archaic Palace, see Matthiae 2006b, 90–94, fig. 1–5 (plans and architectural remains: here see Fig. 4), 6 (pottery); 2013a, 247–252, pls 14– 16 (plans), 74 (pottery); for Area T, see Matthiae 1993, 634–637, figs 12–13; Pinnock 2009, figs 2–3 (plans), 4–6. Here see Fig. 1:9–15. 23 Matthiae 1993, fig. 12:8–11, 13–15, 13:6; Pinnock 2009, fig. 4:1–3. 24 Pinnock 2009, fig. 4:6,9. 25 Pinnock 2009, fig. 5:2. 26 Pinnock 2009, fig. 6:1,4. 27 Nigro 2002, 113, pl. XLVII:26. 28 Matthiae 2007, 493–512, figs 6, 11–20; forthcoming; D’Andrea 2016a, 201-203, tab. 1; 2018, 222-224, tab. 1. 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

269

in the Lower Town north (Fig. 4). This phase ended in a destruction,29 however, a final, very short, EB IVB phase after the destruction has been identified so far only in Area HH, i.e., EB IVB4 (local phase IIe). It corresponds to the establishment of “squatters” dwellings in Area HH, subsequently abandoned at the end of the period, before the construction of the “new” MB I settlement, the remains of which seal the EB IVB sequence at several spots in this area. Herein, I will focus on some EB IVB3 previously unpublished ceramic assemblages from Area HH, originating from primary EB IVB contexts: the cella and the vestibule of Temple HH4 (respectively: L.9483, pottery buckets TM.06.HH.558; and L.9474, pottery buckets TM.06.HH.561 and TM.06.HH.630; Figs 5–9) and the cella of Temple HH5 (L.9469, pottery bucket TM.06.HH.565; Fig. 10). In these assemblages, alongside “standard” EB IVB vessel types (Figs 5:2– 5,10–16, 6, 8:1–3,6–10,12–19, 9:3, 10:7–8,10–20) and shapes that are late in the EB IVB pottery sequence of the site, i.e., unpainted goblets, either plain (Figs 5:1, 8:1–2, 9:10–11) or band-combed (Figs 9:8–9, 10:9), and bowls with vertical grooved rim (Figs 5:8, 9:4), some innovations are noticeable. Vessel types that are likely late evolutions of the bowls with modelled rims, such as bowls with modelled but slightly ridged rims (Figs 9:2, 10:1–4), resulting in a slightly carinated profile, and bowls with vertical rims (Figs 9:5), appear now for the first time in the site’s repertoire. Moreover, some vessel types, clear forerunners of the MB types are attested in these late EB IVB (EB IVB3) assemblages: these are carinated bowls (Figs 8:6–7, 10:5–6), bowls with slightly incurving rims (Fig. 9:1), bowls with incurving walls and flaring rims (Fig. 8:4–5), and bowls with incurving slightly carinated walls and a sort of beaded rim (Fig. 5:16–17; see also Fig. 7). These vessel types are not isolated at Ebla, but have parallels at Tell Afis, Tell Mastuma, Tell Qarqur, and Hama.30 Also at the latter sites, like at Ebla,

Mazzoni (Mazzoni / Felli 2007, 209; Mazzoni 2013, 47, 50) maintains that there was no destruction at Ebla at the end of EB IVB. On the contrary, Matthiae (1995, 132; 2010, 205; 2013a, 249 fn. 14; 2013b, 72–73, fn. 61) believes that the thick ashy layers, rich in late EB IVB ceramic shards (see Fig. 1:1–8), accumulated in the MB rampart likely originated from the debris of the destroyed EB IVB town. Furthermore, according to Matthiae (2009b, 184–188 [= Matthiae 2013b, 72–76]), traces of the destruction of the EB IVB town have been identified in the houses built to the north of the remains of the Temple of the Rock. See also note 86 herein. 30 1) Bowls with vertical grooved rim: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Mazzoni 1998, figs 16:15, 18:7, 19:14; Felli / Merluzzi 2008, fig. 6:4); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, figs 24:1, 29:7–8; Peyronel 2006, fig. 23:6; 2008, fig. 21:2; Baffi / Peyronel 2013, figs 9.13: TT.78.A.26/24, TT.78.A.38/9, 9.14: TT.86.G.35/1); Tell Mastuma, North Trench, Stratum IX (Wakita 2009, fig. 3.8:8); Square G15 (Tsuneki 2009: fig. 3.19:3–4); Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, figs 5:24–26,28–32, 6:1–2); Hama, Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, fig. 103:3B847, 3C85, 3C89); 2) unpainted plain goblets: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Merluzzi 1995, fig. 9:7–9); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, fig. 41:1, 3; Peyronel 2008, fig. 21:7; Baffi / Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.16: TT.81.E.383/16, 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

270

M. D’Andrea

these shapes appear in ceramic assemblages blending standard EB IVB types, late evolutions of these types, and new innovative shapes.31 The new data from Area HH (Figs 5–10) are consistent also with the patterns of continuity and innovation identifiable in the late EB IVB ceramic assemblages from Area T (Fig. 1:9–15), where new shapes, such as carinated bowls (Fig. 1:12–13) and jars with double-everted rims (Fig. 1:14), appear along with lingering EB IVB types, such as Simple Painted Ware goblets and Simple Ware bowls with modelled rims.32 3.2.2 Architecture A trend towards gradual transformation between EB IVB and the MB comparable to that observed in the pottery assemblages of the late EB IVB phase (EB IVB3) at Ebla is noticeable also in public architecture.33 In fact, as already pointed out by Matthiae, architectural templates that will be common during the MB make their first appearance at Ebla during EB IVB3.34 The first template is the temple in antis with a longroom plan, represented by Temple HH4. In fact, Temple HH435 is the first temple in antis featuring a longroom cella, which will be a typical characteristic of the plans of the MB temples in North-Western Inland Syria (Fig. 3:2–3). However, as underlined by Matthiae, compared to the MB buildings (Fig. TT.81.E.383/17); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.21:12–13); Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, fig. 6:5–8); 3) unpainted goblets with combed decorations: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Mazzoni 1998, fig. 19:1); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Baffi / Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.15: TT.10.N.197/1); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.21:7–10), North Trench, Strata IX and XI (Wakita 2009, figs 3.8:1–2, 3.9:2). 31 1) Bowls with vertical rim: Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, fig. 29:10– 11; Baffi / Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.13: TT.78.A.26/21, TT.78.A.38); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, figs 3.19:6–7); Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, fig. 5:24); 2) bowls with incurving rim: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Mazzoni 1998, fig. 18:10); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, fig. 29:9; Baffi / Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.13: TT.78.A.17/1); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, figs 3.21: 29); Hama, Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, fig. 103:3B962). 32 1) Bowls with incurving slightly carinated walls: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Mazzoni / Cecchini 1995 [eds]: pl. IX: fig. 8:2; Felli / Merluzzi 2008, fig. 6:5,7,9 – no. 9 also with beaded rim); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan BII (Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.15: TT.10.N.197/9); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.19:13–14), North Trench, Stratum VIII (Wakita 2009, fig. 3.7:17); Hama, Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, figs 103:3C52, 3C54); 2) carinated bowls: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Felli / Merluzzi 2008, fig. 6:9); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, figs 24:3, 29:12; Ascalone 2011: fig. 43:22; Baffi / Peyronel 2013, figs 9.13: TT.78.A.34/4, 9.14:TT.86.G.35/5); Hama, Level J2 (Fugmann 1958, fig. 98:3B720), Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, figs 103:3B978, 3C101). 33 See D’Andrea 2014–2015, 146–149, figs 13, 15, 16. 34 Matthiae 2007, 499, 502; 2009a, 777; 2015, 80–84, 88–90 and, in particular, fn. 4; 2016, 44-45; see also D’Andrea 2016b, 183–185, figs 2–4, 14–16, 18–19. 35 Matthiae 2007, 493–494, 499–507, figs 13–18; 2010, 390–391, 707–711, fig. 212. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

271

3:2–3), it still has a “moderate” broadroom plan: the ratio between the length and the width of the perimeter walls is lower than that of the MB temples, resulting in a still rather square plan (Figs 2, 3:1).36 This is also the case of Temple HH537 (Fig. 2), which is not a temple in antis, but has a longroom cella as well. The second is the temple in antis with tripartite plan, epitomized by Temple D3 uncovered in 1966 and re-excavated and further exposed horizontally in 2008. According to Matthiae’s reconstruction of the plan,38 Temple D3 was the earliest in antis temple attested in Syria featuring a cella, an antecella, and a vestibule, before the well-known buildings of the Middle Bronze and Iron Ages.39 However, in contrast to later buildings, where the cella is a longroom (Fig. 3:5–7), Temple D3 still belongs to the broadroom tradition of the EB IV cult buildings (Fig. 3:4). Thus, it is clear that, in Temples HH4 and D3, the new elements are still intermingled with EB IV features, and they qualify EB IVB3 at Ebla as a phase of experimentation in architecture as well. A further evidence for the elaboration of the MB architectural templates during EB IVB3 might be found in the Archaic Palace, in the Lower Town north. The building had four phases of use, Phase I, dating from EB IVB, and Phases II–IV, dating from MB I (ca. 2000–1800 BC), the earliest MB phase reusing the EB IVB structures (Fig. 4). Only the northern wing of the Phase I building was preserved, due to the superimposition of the MB Intermediate and Northern Palaces above it. The remains of the EB IVB building consist of two large rectangular units (L.5892 and L.5893) and a smaller unit to the west (L.5711), and a large hall to the south (L.5715) with a bench and a dais along its northern side, interpreted as a possible throne room. As already underlined by Matthiae,40 one of the most interesting features is the possibility that the building had a trapezoidal plan, which is attested at Ebla in the Northern Palace during the MB and finds some parallels in contemporary sites in the southern Levant (e.g., Palaces 5019 and

Matthiae 2007, 499. See also D’Andrea 2014, 49–50; 2014-2015, 146-147, figs 13, 15; 2016b, 183-184, figs 3:a, 18. 37 Matthiae 2007, 502–505, figs 13–16, 19–20; 2010, 391, 712–713, fig. 212. On both temples HH4 and HH5, see also Matthiae 2013f, 192, 194, figs 79–80. 38 The remains of Temple D3 identified thus far include a narrow broadroom cella and part of the antecella (Matthiae 2009, 773–774, figs 21–22; 2010: 395–396, fig. 214). Based on this remains, according to Matthiae (2009, 774–776, fig. 23; here Fig. 5) the most reliable reconstruction of Temple D3’s plan is as tripartite (see also Matthiae 2010, 395–396, fig. 214; here see Fig. 3:4). See also Matthiae 2013c, 192, 194. 39 This architectural template is attested at Ebla in the MB in the Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis (Matthiae 2010, fig. 228; here see Fig. 3:7) and in Temples HH2 and HH3 in the Lower Town south-east (Matthiae 2007, 512–518, see in particular figs 28–29; 2010, 432–435, fig. 235; here see Fig. 3:5–6). It will be used in Syria until the Iron Age, e.g., at Tell Ta’iynat (Harrison 2012) and ‘Ayn Dara (Novák 2012). On the MB temples at Ebla and their EB IV ancestry, see also Matthiae 2015, 85–90. 40 Matthiae 2006b, 92 = 2013a, 248. 36

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

272

M. D’Andrea

5059 at Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo).41 Furthermore, according to Matthiae,42 the possible throne room L.5715 of the EB IVB Archaic Palace might have been the model, not yet canonical, for the MB reception suite attested at Ebla in the Northern and Western Palaces and other sites in Syria and Turkey (e.g., Tell Atchana/ Alalakh, Tell Mishrifeh, and Tilmen Hüyük). This suite, in the MB, is composed of a central sector, divided into two rooms by two columns, with two adjoining wings at each side.43 According to Matthiae,44 it derives from a template found in the Giparu at Ur, thus its transmission to Ebla and the incorporation into the local architectural tradition might have taken place during the Ur III period, when contacts between the two centres are attested by texts found at Drehem, in Southern Mesopotamia (see § 5). Thus, as for cult buildings, also secular architecture hints at Ebla’s EB IVB3 as a phase of cultural innovation and experimentation of new languages and solutions that will be kept and codified during the MB. 4. Ceramic Chronology: The “EB–MB Transitional Phase” at Sites in NorthWestern Inland Syria At Tell Afis, evidence for continuous EB IVA–MB II occupation (after a long gap following the late Chalcolithic use of this sector of the site) was identified in Area E3.45 Within this uninterrupted sequence, C. Felli and E. Merluzzi identified a late EB IVB phase, Afis IV, when this sector of the site was used as an open-air space for food processing.46 Furthermore, they singled out a later phase, Afis IV–V,47 that, according to their interpretation, features an EB–MB transitional pottery horizon comparable to that identified by Porter at Tell Banat.48 This is the first phase of continuous use of this sector of the site as an industrial area for pottery production until MB II.49 Felli and Merluzzi also report significant technological continuity from EB IVB to MB I–II in fabric types and firing, and increased use of mineral tempers, typical of the MB, already in the very late EB IVB phase.50

For the Northern Palace, see Matthiae 2010, 457–461, fig. 246; for the Southern Levant, see Nigro 1994, 333, 426–427, with relevant bibliography therein. 42 Matthiae 2002, 196–205, see in particular pp. 202–203 for the Archaic Palace = 2013d, 355–357, with relevant bibliography therein. 43 Matthiae 1990; 2002, 194 = 2013d, 350; 2013e, 337. 44 Matthiae 2002, 199–206 = 2013d, 353–355, 357; Pinnock 2009, 74–75. 45 Giannessi 1995; Mazzoni 1995; Merluzzi 1995. 46 Felli / Merluzzi 2008, 97–98, figs 2, 4–5. 47 Felli / Merluzzi 2008, figs 3, 6–9. See also Mazzoni / Felli 2007, 209–219; Mazzoni 2013, 48. 48 Felli / Merluzzi 2008, 102. 49 See also Mazzoni 2013, 50. 50 Felli / Merluzzi (2008, 103) report that, at Tell Afis, the “increased use of mineral tempering usually acknowledged as characteristic of MB I pottery […] is already accomplished in the very late EB IVB material” and that the degree of continuity in pastes and 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

273

At Qatna an uninterrupted EB III–MB III sequence has been excavated on the Acropolis. Within this sequence, an EB–MB transitional phase has been identified.51 D. Morandi Bonacossi reported the presence of MB I diagnostics in sealed, non-contaminated, EB IVB archaeological contexts and the existence of some wares combining EB IVB and MB I technological features in Phases 20–18, excavated in Operation J on the Acropolis. He proposed that these data might be interpreted as evidence for either lingering EB IVB traditions during the early MB I or for the existence of MB I elements already in the late EB IVB cultural horizon at the site.52 According to his opinion, within this sequence, Phases 20–18 represent the EB–MB transitional phase at Qatna, as apparently confirmed also by radiocarbon dates, with EB IVB vessel types and techno-stylistic aspects occurring alongside MB I shapes during the late 21st and the early 20th century BC. In addition, M. Iamoni recently identified evidence for EB IVB–MB I continuity in pottery technology, comparable to the trends singled out at Tell Afis by Felli and Merluzzi, with fabric types spreading during the 2nd millennium BC that appear first in the late EB IVB phase.53 5. Relative and Absolute Chronologies and Inter-regional Synchronization Absolute dates for EB IVB and the beginning of MB I at Ebla are still mostly conventional, due to the absence of radiocarbon determinations so far. Several proposals of inter-regional synchronization for these phases with other regional areas, such as the Middle Euphrates River Valley, the Syrian Jazirah and Upper Mesopotamia, and Southern Mesopotamia have been put forward. In many cases, the different proposals are not in agreement with each other, and, in our opinion, two ranges of factors account for this discrepancy. The first factor is that, usually, areas featuring internally homogenous and mutually diversified pottery horizons are compared, overlooking the diversity of regional trajectories, and the fact that changes in material culture are not identical in different areas, but, rather, take place at a different pace in different places. The second factor is that, when most of these

firing techniques between EB IVB and MB I was remarkable at the site. Morandi Bonacossi 2008b; 2009. 52 Morandi Bonacossi 2008a, 128–131. It is quite interesting that some carinated pots with vertical grooved rim have been found also at Tell Mastuma in Square 15Gc in layers g to c (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.19:15). This is a vessel type found earlier in the Middle Euphrates and the Syrian Jazirah and Northern Mesopotamia, in phases EME 5–6 (Cooper 2006, fig. 1.9:d, g; Sconzo 2015, 133, tab. 78, pls 23:5–10, 29:2–3: ARCANE EME Type 121) and EJZ 4c–5 respectively (Rova 2011, 65, tab. 78, pl. 19:6–8, ARCANE EJZ Type 107). At Tell Mastuma, such vessels were found alongside MB forerunners, as bowls with incurving slightly carinated walls (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.19:13–14), as well as with late EB IVB types, as bowls with vertical grooved rim (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.19:3–4) and unpainted goblets plain or with band-combing (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.21:7–10,12). 53 Iamoni 2014, 8, 10–12, 17. 51

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

274

M. D’Andrea

proposals were put forward, a fundamental segment of the Ebla EB IVB dataset, filling the gap between EB IVB and MB I, was not yet known. This is represented by the fresh data provided by the last excavation seasons at Tell Mardikh, i.e., the very late, pottery assemblages from primary EB IVB loci presented in this article. Matthiae proposed to synchronize Ebla’s EB IVB3 with the Ur III period in Southern Mesopotamia, i.e., roughly the last century of the 3rd millennium BC according to the Middle Chronology.54 This suggestion was based on the fact that messengers and merchants from Ebla bringing precious wooden furniture and textiles to the Ur III court are mentioned in cuneiform texts from Drehem dating from the reigns of Shulgi (2094–2047 BC), Amar-Suen (2046–2038 BC), and Shu-Suen (2037–2029 BC).55 According to Matthiae,56 the mention of Ebla in these texts, arguing for the site’s regaining of a role in inter-regional exchange at a an official level,57 might fit well the architectural evidence for the site’s recovery in a late EB IVB phase (EB IVB3). In fact, it was in this phase that temples were built in the Lower Town south-east (Temples HH4 and HH5; Fig. 2) and on the Acropolis (Temple D3; Fig. 3:4), and that a royal palace was erected in the Lower Town north (the Archaic Palace; Fig. 4). However, beside this proposal, a different synchronism between the Ur III period in Northern and Southern Mesopotamia and Ebla was also suggested. A. Porter first proposed to parallel Ebla’s Phase Mardikh IIIA1, i.e., the stratum attributed to the MB I by the excavators of Ebla, instead of Phase Mardikh IIB2, i.e., the stratum attributed to EB IVB by Matthiae, to the Ur III period in Mesopotamia. This proposal was based on ceramic parallels between Phase Mardikh IIIA1 assemblages and her Phase 6 in the Middle Euphrates that she identified based on the Tell Kabir/ Tell Banat sequence.58 According to Porter, Phase 6 was dated to ca. 2150–2000 BC, while Cooper proposed ca. 2100–1900 BC as absolute dates for it. Within the ARCANE Project, Phase EME 6, corresponding to Phase 6, is again paralleled to the Ur III Period in Mesopotamia, which is however dated to 2035–1929 BC,59 instead of 2112–2004 BC, based on Meber’s revision of the traditional Middle Chronology,60 and then paralleled to MB in North-Western Inland Syria and Northern Mesopotamia.61 Recently, also C. Schmidt correlated Ebla’s Phase Mardikh IIIA, i.e., the stratum attributed to the MB by the excavators, with the Ur III period, based on parallels between “Ur III carinated bowls” found at Ur and at Tell Mozan in Phase C7

Matthiae 2007, 487, fn. 8, 506; 2010, 206; 2013a, 249 and fn. 13. Owen 1992, 117–122. 56 See references at fn. 54. 57 On the relations between Ebla and Ur, see also Pinnock 2006b. 58 Porter 2007b, 78–92. 59 Novák in Finkbeiner / Novák 2015, 13, tab. 2. 60 Mebert 2010, 115. 61 See references at fn. 59. 54 55

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

275

and the carinated bowls found at Ebla in archaeological contexts dating from the MB and with MB types from the latter site, a proposal reprised also by Pfälzner.62 Tell Mozan Phase C7 is placed in Phase Early Jazirah 5 (EJZ 5) in the periodization scheme for the Syrian Jazirah proposed within the ARCANE Project. Two different sets of data have been proposed for this phase within the final publication of the works for this regional group: ca. 2100–2000 BC, on a conventional basis in the absence of radiocarbon determinations,63 and ca. 2042–1953 BC, based on a version of the Middle Chronology reduced by 50 years (rMC50) for the Ur III period in Mesopotamia based on the revision of textual data.64 Furthermore, Sallaberger and Schrakamp, again within the framework of the ARCANE Project, have proposed a version of the Middle Chronology reduced by 8 years (rMC8), where the Ur III period is dated 2102–1995 BC.65 Phases EME 6 and EJZ 5, with the proposed lower chronologies discussed above, are paralleled to MB I in North-Western Inland Syria and Northern Mesopotamia, based on suggested MB features in the Ur III pottery,66 such as comb-incised decorations, as discussed earlier by Pruß.67 However, for MB I (as well as for EB IVB) the traditional Middle Chronology and not the revised, lower versions, has been used, while we would expect that also Syrian MB I should have shifted 50 or 70 years later, to be consistent with the chronological lowering of the other phases in the neighbouring areas. In contrast, Syrian MB I is correlated with EME 6, EJZ 5, and the Ur III period in the other areas by means of ceramic styles only. In the absence of inscribed objects from sealed contexts to use as evidence for synchronisms, correlating distant areas featuring different cultural horizons based just on pottery types is somewhat risky. However, if we look at vessel types, Ebla’s EB IVB assemblages from Temples HH4 and HH5 show that local parallels for types dating from the Ur III period in Southern Mesopotamia and Phase 6/EME 6 in the Middle Euphrates River Valley can be found in late EB IVB pottery types at Ebla. The latter phase at the site, as we said, has been traditionally synchronized with the Ur III period in Mesopotamia before.68 As we said before, a few vessel types within late EB IVB assemblages anticipate some MB shapes, as well as some MB I vessel types—such as the cylindrical storage jars with swollen rims—continue the EB IVB tradition in the earliest MB I phase, although with typological developments

Pfälzner 2017, in particular pp. 172–177, figs 7.8–7.9. On this issue, see also the considerations in Schwartz 2017, 100, 114. Schmidt 2012, 170–173, figs 11–13; 2013, 111– 112; 2014, 413. 63 Lebeau 2011, 377 proposes 2110–2000 BC, but the chronological range in Lebeau 2011, 379, tab. 1 is 2100–2000 BC. 64 Sallaberger 2011, 332–333, tab. 3. 65 Sallaberger / Schrakamp 2015, tab. 39. 66 Finkbeiner / Novák 2015, 12. 67 Pruß 2007. 68 D’Andrea 2014–2015, 132–133, and fn. 8 at pp. 153–154; 2016a, 201, n. 5; 2018, 230–233. 62

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

276

M. D’Andrea

and with the use of different fabrics in the two phases. However, at Ebla, no mixed EB IV–MB I assemblages from sealed contexts have been uncovered; furthermore, EB IVB and MB I at Ebla are separated by a destruction in between. Thus, in our opinion, there are no doubts that Ebla’s Phase Mardikh IIIA1 corresponds to a fully MB I horizon, with definitely new vessel types.69 In sum, placing Phase Mardikh IIIA1 within MB I proper is not in contrast with the fact that parallels can be found between this phase and Middle Euphrates Phase 6 (= EME 6/Phase 6) and EJZ 5. In fact, also within the revised versions of the traditional Middle Chronology, Phases EME 6 and EJZ 5 are placed in correspondence of late EB IVB and early MB I of North-Western Inland Syria. With regard to this, it is worth noting that radiometric determinations for Phase 18 in Operation J at Qatna point to 2040–1930 BC as the possible interval for the EB-MB transition at the site.70 Thus, MB elements might have appeared earlier in the Middle Euphrates River Valley and the Syrian Jazirah and later in North-Western Inland Syria, but this does not affect the possibility that the two regional horizons partly overlapped, at a point in time to be placed within the later part of the Middle Euphrates Phase 6/EME 6 and Phase EJZ 5 in the Syrian Jazirah and Northern Mesopotamia. As for parallels with other sites in North-Western Inland Syria mentioned before (§ 3.2.2), the EB IVB3–4 pottery horizon identified at Ebla in the latest excavations, i.e., a very late EB IVB horizon where forerunners of the MB inventory appear for the first time, is consistent with the pottery assemblages of Phase Afis IV at Tell Afis, which is definitely a terminal EB IVB ceramic horizon. As we said before, this horizon can be identified also at other sites in this region, such as Tell Tuqan, Tell Mastuma, and Hama. On the contrary, it seems that late EB IVB types comparable to those found in the Ebla region are lacking in the late EB IVB ceramic assemblages excavated at Qatna, possibly arguing for sub-regional variations of the material culture patterning within the same relative chronological horizon. In addition, the late EB IVB ceramic horizon attested at Ebla is not consistent with the EB–MB transitional phases identified at Tell Afis (Afis IV/V) and Qatna (Phases 20–18 in Operation J), arguing for diversified historical trajectories at different sites, as is discussed below (§ 6). 6. Reconsidering the Passage from EB IV to MB I at Ebla within the Regional Context Dealing with Ebla’s late EB IVB phases (EB IVB3–4), there are two main intermingled questions. The first question concerns how these late phases differ, in terms of material culture—the ceramic repertoire in particular—from the pre-

For a preliminary overview of Ebla’s ceramic horizon during MB I, see Nigro 2002, 101–104, pls XLVI–XLVII; 2009, 296–319; a recent reassessment has been proposed by Pinnock 2014, 229–231, figs 1–7, 14. 70 Morandi Bonacossi 2014, 414. 69

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

277

vious EB IVB phases and from the following MB I. The second problem regards the definition of the spatial extension of the late EB IVB cultural horizon identified at Ebla within the regional framework of the entire North-Western Inland Syria. As we elaborate later on, the latter question involves the matter of whether, in terms of both historical development and transformations of material culture between EB IV and MB I, we can identify a homogeneous regional trajectory for the entire North-Western Inland Syria or multiple differentiated trajectories at different sub-regional areas and sites. Since, as we briefly examine below, differences are noticeable between sub-regions or even individual sites, our discussion is centred on whether they result from: 1) A chronological factor, i.e., differentiated timing for the EB–MB transition at different places (sub-regions and individual sites); 2) A cultural factor, i.e., regionalism in material culture, according to which the presence/absence of given vessel types or styles or techniques mark geographic-cultural areas; 3) A historical factor, i.e., different socio-cultural, socio-political, and socio-economic trajectories that might have influenced the material culture patterning at different places between the end of the 3rd and the dawn of the 2nd millennium BC. In our opinion, the first factor—chronological differences—is the most unlikely explanation for the dissimilarities in the ceramic assemblages of the late EB IVB phase at different sub-regions and sites, while the other two options—ceramic regionalism and diversified historical trajectories—seem both possible and coexisting rather than alternative, as we elaborate below. From the archaeological evidence available thus far, the identification of a late EB IVB phase based on pottery at Ebla—EB IVB3–4, i.e., respectively, the EB IVB phase before the destruction of the site and the phase following this event but preceding the end of the EB IVB cultural horizon at Ebla—is consistent with the ARCANE Project’s periodization of North-Western Inland Syria. There, as we saw before (§ 2), a late EB IVB phase, ENL 6, has been separated from the rest of EB IVB based on material culture (Table 1).71 Continuity with the EB IVB tradition characterizes this phase, although some new elements appear in the late EB IVB pottery assemblages of some key-sites, such as Ebla, Tell Qarqur, and Hama. As for Ebla, as we said before, the “new” EB IVB features that typify this phase occur alongside innovations also in architecture, the latter framed into the reorganization of the settlement layout in a phase of recovery. As we said before (§ 3.2.1), Ebla’s late EB IVB pottery horizon finds the closest parallels at sites in the Ebla region, such as Tell Mastuma, Tell Afis, Tell Tuqan, and Tell Qarqur, where the typical classes of late EB IVB goblets appear.72 However, other late ves-

See Welton / Cooper 2014, 325, 327. Unpainted plain goblets: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Merluzzi 1995, fig. 9:7–9); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Fiorentino 2006, fig. 41:1,3; Peyronel 2008, fig. 21:7; Baffi / Peyronel

71 72

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

278

M. D’Andrea

sel types, such as bowls with vertical rims (either grooved or not) and bowls with vertical walls, spread over the area located between Ebla to the north and Hama to the south, as arguable from the late EB IVB phases at Tell Qarqur (Stratum 12) and Hama (Levels J2–J1).73 It is interesting to notice that, in Hama J1 assemblages, also carinated bowls are present.74 Conversely, if we move further south, e.g., into the Homs region or the eastern steppe, we cannot identify a ceramic horizon comparable to this late facies. In some cases, this might be due to a chronological factor, as it might be the case of al-Rawda, in the eastern steppe, if the hypothesis that the site was abandoned during the latter part of EB IVB will prove correct in the future.75 In contrast, in other cases, such as Qatna, in the Homs region, the absence of a late EB IVB ceramic phase comparable to that of the Ebla region it might be due to sub-regional differences in pottery horizons, since, as we recalled before (§ 4), the excavators identified a later EB IVB phase at Qatna.76 Moreover, some aspects of ceramic technology that distinguish the late EB IVB pottery horizon from that of the previous EB IVB phases have been identified at Qatna,77 a phenomenon observed also at Tell Afis (§ 4).78 The spatial clustering of typological and stylistic differences and similarities among different sites above leads us to the matter of the identification of a possible late EB IVB phase for North-Western Inland Syria in the ARCANE periodization—i.e., Phase ENL 6 (ca. 2100–2000 BC). Given the typo-stylistic differences in the pottery repertoires of the late EB IVB phases noticeable among sites located, respectively, in the Ebla and Hama-Homs regions (§§ 4, 6), it seems that pottery types and styles are not sufficient to isolate a late EB IVB phase from the rest of the period and to describe it with markers valid for the entire region. If we use only pottery types and styles, we should say that it is not possible to identify a late EB IVB phase comparable to ENL 6 at sites south of Hama and the criteria

2013, fig. 9.16: TT.81.E.383/16, TT.81.E.383/17); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.21:12–13); Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, fig. 6:5–8); 3) unpainted goblets with combed decorations: Tell Afis, Phase Afis IV (Mazzoni 1998, fig. 19:1); Tell Tuqan, Phase Tuqan IIB (Baffi / Peyronel 2013, fig. 9.15: TT.10.N.197/1); Tell Mastuma, Square 15G (Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.21:7–10), North Trench, Strata IX and XI (Wakita 2009, figs 3.8:1–2, 3.9:2). 73 1) Bowls with vertical grooved rim: Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, figs 5:24–26, 28–32, 6:1–2; Hama, Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, figs 103:3B847, 3C85, 3C89); 2) bowls with vertical rim: Tell Qarqur, Stratum 12 (Dornemann 2008, fig. 5:24); 3) bowls with incurving rims: Hama, Level J1 (Fugmann 1958, fig. 106:4B817–20). 74 Level J2: Fugmann 1958, fig. 98:3B720; Level J1: Fugmann 1958, fig. 103:3B978, 3C101. 75 Castel 2007, 171–176. 76 Morandi Bonacossi 2008a, see in particular the chronological chart in fig. 10; Iamoni 2014, 10, 12 (Operation J, Phases 21–19). 77 See fn. 53. 78 See fn. 50. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

279

selected to separate phase ENL 6 from the rest of EB IVB (ENL 5) apply well only to the region between Ebla and Hama (§§ 5, 6). On the other hand, by considering technological changes in pottery manufacture in the late EB IVB phases compared to the rest of the period, which are noticeable at Qatna and Tell Afis during the latest EB IVB phases (§ 4), some markers for identifying such a phase on a ground different from types and styles might be identified. To conclude this brief analysis and discussion of the late EB IVB phase in North-Western Inland Syria, we propose some considerations to frame the late EB IVB phases identified at Ebla, Tell Afis and Qatna within a relative, ceramic, periodization. The EB–MB transitional phase identified at Qatna, Phases 20 to 18 in Operation J, is a long stage of continuous transformation of the pottery horizon, which lasts from the last levels dating to the 3rd millennium BC into the early 2nd millennium BC, with progressive additions and subtractions of elements until the EB IVB features drop out and a full MB repertoire is attested.79 At Tell Afis, the excavators singled out a late EB IVB phase, Phase Afis IV, characterized by late EB IVB types and some MB forerunners,80 consistent with that identified at Ebla (Matthiae’s EB IVB3–4)81, followed by a mixed horizon, Phase Afis IV–V,82 consistent with the transitional EB–MB horizon identified by Morandi Bonacossi at Qatna, in Phases 20–18 in Operation J. Thus, given the extant parallels, it is possible to frame these phases within a relative chronological scheme and see that a historical reason, rather than a chronological factor, may account for the dissimilarities observable at different sites. Sites where there was marked continuity between the end of the EB and the beginning of the MB, such as Afis and Qatna, witnessed a gradual, smooth and possibly quite long transformation of the material culture from one period to the other. On the other hand, at sites that experienced a break within the EB–MB sequence, as it is the case of Ebla, destroyed at the end of EB IVB, the change in the material culture was more abrupt, as we can isolate easily the peak of EB IVB from the peak of MB I with no transitional phases in between. 7. Concluding Remarks. Transition, Change and Societal Regeneration Scholarly consensus is growing that the whole Levant was “in transition” between the 22nd and the 19th century BC, with differentiated—though often partly intermingled—regional trajectories from the Jazirah, to Western Inland Syria, Le-

Morandi Bonacossi 2008a, see in particular pp. 147, 149. For Tell Afis, similar considerations have been put forward by Felli and Merluzzi (2008, 103). 80 Felli / Merluzzi 2008, 97–98, fig. 5. 81 Matthiae 2007, 512, fig. 27; forthcoming.; D’Andrea 2014–2015, 150–152; 2016b, figs 3:10–11, 8:8–10; 2018, 228–229. 82 Felli / Merluzzi 2008, 98–102, fig. 6. 79

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

280

M. D’Andrea

banon, and the Southern Levant.83 From this point of view, the whole timespan encompassing most of the last phase of the EB and the first phase of the MB was a long stage of continuous development and progressive transformations and changes that, in a long-term perspective, resulted into the shift from the EB to the MB socio-cultural complexes.84 It has been hypothesized that some sites, such as Tell Afis (Phase Afis IV–V) and Qatna (Phases 20–18 in Operation J), a transitional cultural facies existed when elements belonging to both cultural horizons coexisted, before we can distinguish the peak of MB I from that of EB IV. In contrast, it does not seem possible to identify a comparable cultural horizon at Ebla. It seems that, at Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3–4) was a time of experimentation and invention of new languages, styles, and solutions, both in pottery and architecture. Such changes were, in some cases, the result of long-term evolutions—as is exemplified by architectural templates for cult buildings, developing continuously from EB IVA to MB I—in others, the evidence for a gradual transformation of the material culture throughout the different EB IVB phases—as is in the evolution of pottery repertoires. However, there is no doubt that they took place within a cultural horizon that was definitely EB IVB in terms of material culture, although a late, developed one. A few last words should be spent on EB–MB continuity in aspects linked to visual communication of power, a theme that was thoroughly explored by Frances Pinnock as we have discussed before (§ 3). Although appealing hypotheses on the end of EB IVB settlement at Ebla have been put forward,85 we do not know the series of events that brought the EB IVB town to an end and the MB town to reconstruction. Matthiae86 hypothesized that, at the dawn of the 2nd millennium BC, a change in the socio-political balance between different constituents of the society—sedentists and pastoralists—living side by side and interacting since centuries, might have taken place. According to Matthiae,87 this phenomenon might have brought the cultural change visible in the reconstruction of the new MB town with the massive earthen ramparts, but it might be also lying behind the evidence for EB–MB continuity in ideology and “culture” (in broad terms), noticeable in some MB elements related to the expression and visual communication of political power. As pointed out by Pinnock and Matthiae,88 the re-elaboration See, e.g., Mazzoni 2013; Weiss 2014, and the different contributions in Parr (ed.) 2009. On the passage from the EB to the MB at Ebla, although with slightly different views compared to the present author, see also Alkhalid 2014–2015; 2018 and in this volume. 85 Based fragmentary Old Babylonian copy of an Ur III text (Kärki 1986, 130–131; Frayne 1997, 300–301; contra Sallaberger 2007, 430, fn 73, 433–441) mentioning a military campaign by Shu-Suen to Ebla, Tuttul, and Mari, Matthiae (2010, 206, 511, with relevant bibliography; 2013c, 283; forthcoming) has proposed that Shu-Suen might have destroyed EB IVB Ebla. 86 Matthiae 2009b, 187, fn. 70 = Matthiae 2013b, 75, fn. 70; 2010, 207–208, 214–215. 87 Matthiae 2010, 207–208. 88 Pinnock 2004, 116–117; 2009, 72–74, 78–79; Matthiae 2010, 205–208. 83 84

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

281

and reuse of EB iconographies and royal titles and the existence, during the MB, of a “Citadel” on the Acropolis comprising a royal palace and a dynastic temple refer to EB IVA rather than EB IVB. This fact suggests that the MB “newcomers” had profound knowledge and respect of the local institutional traditions dating back to the mid-3rd millennium BC, when the town witnessed its EB apogee.89 Thus, employing these features during the MB gained the essential role of making the legitimacy of the “newcomers” MB rulers of Ebla embedded into the glorious past of the EB IVA town by creating an ideological link with that period and using collective memory as a means for establishing an ancestry and legitimating their dynasty with the political ideology of the earlier EB IVA rulers. With respect to this, Ebla is not an isolated case, since evidence for such reuse of different EB IVA elements during the MB and for the role of memory in founding and legitimating political power are attested at other sites in Syria and Upper Mesopotamia, such as Tell Umm el-Marra, Tell Brak, and Tell Leylan.90 As for Ebla, Pinnock’s studies demonstrated clearly that the EB IVA elements present in the MB ideology and iconography at the site should not be related to the EB–MB transition in terms of material culture, but, rather, to socio-political and socio-cultural changes taking place at the passage from the EB to the MB. These changes have been connected with the emergence of the Amorites as the preeminent socio-political component and the formation of the Amorite polities in the Northern Levant during the MB. Despite the variety of fresh studies and recent proposals on Amoritization and the formation of a koinè material culture in the Levant (and the Near East) in the MB,91 the mechanisms through which changes and transformations took place still need to be understood. Textual sources inform us on these processes to some extent, but we are still unable to track the EB–MB pan-Levantine socio-cultural transition in the material culture until it was completed at the beginning of the MB. Bibliography Alkhalid, M. 2014–2015: The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, the Ebla Sequence and the Regional Periodization. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Studies on the Archeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries (Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes LVII–LVIII). Damas. Pp. 165–179. — 2018. One Hundred Years of Change at Ebla. The Pottery Assemblages be-

See Pinnock 2009, 74. For Tell Umm el-Marra, see Nichols / Weber 2006; Schwartz 2007c, 53–54; 2013; for Tell Brak, see Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 142; Orsi 2011, 123, 446–447; for Tell Leylan, see Ristvet 2012, 46. See also the remarks in Bonechi 1997. 91 See, for example, with different regional perspective, Nichols / Weber 2006; Porter 2007b, 105–109. Sallaberger 2007; Lönnqvist 2008, with relevant updated bibliography therein; 2009. For a definition of the Amorite koinè, see Burke 2014a; 2014b; 2017, 262–267. 89 90

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

282

M. D’Andrea

tween the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BC. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / M. D’Andrea (eds): Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Wiesbaden. Pp. 257–281. Ascalone, E., 2011: Area N. Pottery. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Excavations 2008–2010. Università di Lecce. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali (Collana del Dipartimento 18). Galatina. Pp. 15–19. Baffi, F. / Peyronel, L., 2013: Trends in Village Life: The Early Bronze Age Phases at Tell Tuqan. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and Its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 215–238. Bonechi, M. 1997: II Millennium Ebla Kings. RA 91: 33–38. Burke, A.A., 2014a: Introduction to the Levant during the Middle Bronze Age. In M.L. Steiner / A.E. Killebrew (eds): Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, Garden City, MI. Pp. 397–407. — 2014b: Entanglement, the Amorite koiné, and Amorite Cultures in the Levant. ARAM 26/1–2: 357–373. — 2017: Amorites, Climate Change and the Negotiation of Identity at the End of the Third Millennium B.C. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Chronology, C14, and Climate Change. Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar The Early/Middle Bronze Transition in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, held at Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 7–8 March 2014 (Oriental Institute Seminars 11). Chicago, Illinois. Pp. 261–307. Castel, C., 2007: L’abandon d’al-Rawda (Syrie) à la fin du troisième millénaire : premières tentatives d’explication. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 159–178. Cooper, L., 2006: Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates, New York / London. D’Andrea, M., 2014: Middle Bronze I Cult Places in Northern Palestine and Transjordan: Original Features and External Influences. In L. Romano / S. Pizzimenti (eds), Šime ummiānka. Ascoltate l’ammaestramento. Scritti in onore del 75° compleanno di Paolo Matthiae da parte dei suoi allievi più giovani (CMAO XVI), Rome. Pp. 39–72. — 2014–2015: Early Bronze IVB at Ebla. Stratigraphy, Chronology, and Material Culture of the Late Early Syrian Town and Their Meaning in the Regional Context. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla after 50 Years of Discoveries (AAAS LVII–LVIII). Damas. Pp. 131–164. — 2016a: New Data from Old Excavations: Preliminary Study of the EB IVB Pottery from Area H at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Syria. In O. Kaelin / H.-P. Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 8–14 June 2014 Basel, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 199–216. — 2016b: I luoghi di culto del Levante meridionale all’inizio del Bronzo Medio: caratteri locali, sviluppi autonomi e rapporti con il Levante settentrionale. In P. Matthiae (ed.): L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Ebla e la Siria dall’Età del Bronzo all’Età del Ferro (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304). Roma. Pp. 179–221. — 2018: The Early Bronze IVB Pottery of Ebla: Stratigraphy, Chronology, Ty© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

283

pology, and Style. Remarks from a Work-in-Progress. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / M. D’Andrea (eds): Ebla and Beyond. The Archaeology of the Ancient Near East after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Wiesbaden. Pp. 221–255. Dolce, R., 1999: The «Second Ebla»: A View on the EB IVB City. ISIMU II: 293–304. — 2002: Ebla after the ‘Fall’ – Some Preliminary Considerations on the EB IVB City. DaM 13 (FS Abu Assaf): 11–28. — 2007: Du Bronze Ancien au Bronze Moyen à Ebla. Limites et problèmes pour une définition chronologique relative pendant la période de la ville protosyrienne récente. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: the Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre,” N. 117). Roma. Pp. 171–194. — 2009: The Archaeology of a Long Lasting Power: The Ebla Paradigm. A Synthesis. SMEA 51: 251–278. Dornemann, R.H., 2008: Evidence from Two Transitional Periods, Early Bronze IV and Iron I, at Tell Qarqur. In H. Kühne / R. Czichon / J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March – 3 April, Freie Universität Berlin, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 81–96. Felli, C. / Merluzzi, E., 2008: EB–MB Afis: A Single Cultural Tradition Between Two Phases. In H. Kühne / R. Czichon / J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March – 3 April, Freie Universität Berlin, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 97–110. Finkbeiner U. / Novák, M. 2015: Introduction. In U. Finkbeiner et al. (eds): Middle Euphrates (ARCANE IV). Turnhout. Pp. 1–6. Finkbeiner, U., et al. 2015: Conclusion. In U. Finkbeiner et al. (eds): Middle Euphrates (ARCANE IV). Turnhout. Pp. 431–438. Fiorentino, R., 2006: La Ceramica. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche italiane nella regione del Maath (Siria). Università di Lecce. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali (Collana del Dipartimento 13). Galatina. Pp. 157–171. Floriani-Squarciapino, M., 1967: Il Settore D. In Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1966 (Tell Mardikh) (Serie Archeologica 13). Roma. Pp. 69–72. Frayne, D.R., 1997: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). Toronto. Fugmann, E., 1958: Hama: Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–38, II: L’architecture des périodes pré-hellénistiques (Nationalmuseets skrifter. Større beretninger 4). Copenhague. Giannessi, D., 1995: L’area Cp IV 19–18, Co-p IV 20: Bronzo Medio II, Bronzo Antico IVB e Tardo-Calcolitico. In S. Mazzoni / S.M. Cecchini (eds): Tell Afis (Siria) 1994 – Rapporto Preliminare (EVO XVIII). Pisa. Pp. 255–257. Harrison, T.P., 2012: West Syrian Megaron or Neo-Assyrian Langraum? The Shifting Form and Function of the Tell Ta‘yinat (Kunulua) Temples. In J. Kamlah (ed.): Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cult Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.) (ADPV 41). Wiesba© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

284

M. D’Andrea

den. Pp. 23–40. Iamoni, M., 2014: Transitions in ceramics, a critical account and suggested approach: case-study through comparison of the EBA–MBA and MBA–LB horizons at Qatna. Levant 46/1: 4–26. Kärki, I., 1986: Die Königsinschriften der dritten Dynastie von Ur (Studia Orientalia of the Finnish Oriental Society 58). Helsinki. Kühne, H., 1998. Meki, Megum, Mekim. In S. Izre’el / I. Singer / (eds): Past Links. Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN. Pp. 311–322. Lebeau, M., 2011: Conclusions. In M. Lebeau (ed.): Jezirah (ARCANE 1). Turnhout. Pp. 343–380. Lönnqvist, M.A., 2008: Were Nomadic Amorites on the Move? Migration, Invasion and Gradual Infiltration as Mechanisms for Cultural Transitions. In H. Kühne / R. Czichon / J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East: 29 March–3 April, Freie Universität Berlin, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 195–216. — 2009: Jebel Bishri in Syria and the Role of Nomadism in the End of the Early Bronze Age. In P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition, Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Pp. 49–55. Marchetti, N. / Nigro, L., 1997: Cultic Activities in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at Ebla During the Old Syrian Period: The Favissae F.5327 and F.5328. JCS 49: 1–44. Matthiae, P., 1970: Mission archéologique de l’Université de Rome à Tell Mardikh. Rapport sommaire sur la quatrième et la cinquième campagne, 1967 et 1968. AAAS 20: 55–71. — 1976: Ébla à l’époque d’Akkad: archéologie et histoire. CRAIBL 120/2: 190– 215. — 1990: The Reception Suites of the Old Syrian Palaces. In Ö. Tunca (ed.): De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant per Mari. Mélange offerts à M. J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire. Liège. Pp. 209–228. — 1993: L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ebla: résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992. CRAIBL 137/3: 613–662. — 1995: Ebla: Un impero ritrovato. Dai primi scavi alle ultime scoperte. Torino (3rd edition). — 2002: About the Formation of the Old Syrian Architectural Tradition. In L. Al-Ghailani Werr et al (eds): Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London. Pp. 191–209. — 2006a: Un grand temple de l’époque des Archives dans l’Ébla protosyrienne: fouilles à Tell Mardikh en 2004–2005. CRAIBL 150/1: 447–493. — 2006b: The Archaic Palace at Ebla: A Royal Building between Early Bronze Age IVB and Middle Bronze I. In S. Gitin / J.P. Dessel / J.E. Wright (eds): Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake, IN. Pp. 85–103. — 2007: Nouvelles fouilles à Ébla en 2006. Le Temple du Rocher et ses successeurs protosyriens et paléosyriens. CRAIBL 151/2: 481–525. — 2009a: Temples et reines de l’Ébla protosyrienne: résultats de fouilles à Tell © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

285

Mardikh en 2007 et 2008. CRAIBL 153/2: 747–791.

— 2009b: Crisis and Collapse: Similarity and Diversity in the Three Destructions of Ebla from EB IVA to MB II. ScAnt 15: 165–204.

— 2010: Ebla la città del trono. Archeologia e storia. Torino. — 2013a: The Archaic Palace at Ebla: A Royal Building between Early Bronze

Age IVB and Middle Bronze I. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden Pp. 243–258. — 2013b: Crisis and Collapse: Similarity and Diversity in the Three Destructions of Ebla from EB IVA to MB II. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden. Pp. 57–94 — 2013c: The IIIrd Millennium in North-Western Syria: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In W. Orthmann / M. Al-Maqdissi / P. Matthiae (eds): Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie. Volume I: La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer. Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 181–198. — 2013d: About the Formation of the Old Syrian Architectural Tradition. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden. Pp. 347–364. — 2013e: The Reception Suites of the Old Syrian Palaces. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden. Pp. 335–346. — 2013f: Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden. — 2015: Cult Architecture at Ebla between Early Bronze IVA and Middle Bronze I: Continuity and Innovation in the Formative Phase of a Great Tradition. An Evaluation. StEbl 1: 75–108. — 2016: Archeologia del culto a Ebla: residenze degli dèi e ideologia della regalità. In P. Matthiae (ed.): L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Ebla e la Siria dall’Età del Bronzo all’Età del Ferro (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304). Roma. Pp. 17–95. — forthcoming: The Problem of Ebla Destruction at the End of EB IVB: Stratigraphic Evidence, Radiocarbon Datings, Historical Events. In S. Richard (ed.): New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant. Winona Lake, IN, forthcoming. Mazzoni, S., 1995: Il Settore E. Cronologia e Fase Tardo-Calcolitica. In S. Mazzoni / S.M. Cecchini (eds): Tell Afis (Siria) 1994 – Rapporto Preliminare (EVO XVIII). Pisa. Pp. 246–252. — 1998: Materials and chronology. In S. Cecchini / S. Mazzoni (eds): Tell Afis (Syria). Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente I / Tell Afis I. Pisa. Pp. 9–100. — 2013: Tell Afis and the Early–Middle Bronze Age Transition. In S. Mazzoni / S. Soldi (eds): Syrian Archaeology in Perspective Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis. Proceedings of the International Meeting Percorsi di Archeologia Siriana. Giornate di studio Pisa 27–28, Novembre 2006, Gipsoteca di Arte Antica – S. Paolo all’Orto. Pisa. Pp. 31–80. Mazzoni, S. / Cecchini, S.M., (eds): Tell Afis (Siria) 1994 – Rapporto Preliminare (EVO XVIII). Pisa. Mazzoni, S. / Felli, C., 2007: Bridging the 3rd/2nd Millennium Divide: The Afis © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

286

M. D’Andrea

and Ebla Evidence. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 205–224. Mebert, J. 2010. Die Venustafeln des Ammī-ṣaduqa un ihre Bedeutung für die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonische Zeit (Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 31). Wien. Merluzzi, E., 1995: L’area CopV3+4, CqV6: Bronzo Antico IV B e Tardo Calcolitico. In S. Mazzoni / S.M. Cecchini (eds): Tell Afis (Siria) 1994 – Rapporto Preliminare (EVO XVIII). Pisa. Pp. 252–255. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2008a: The EB/MB Transition at Tell Mishrifeh: Stratigraphy, Ceramics and Absolute Chronology. A Preliminary Review. In M. Bietak / R. Czerny (eds): The Bronze Age in the Lebanon. Studies on the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt (CChEM XVII. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie Band L). Wien. Pp. 127–152. — 2008b: Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III – Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 1: Stratigraphy, Chronology and Architecture. Akkadica 129: 55–127. — 2009: Tell Mishrifeh and its Region during the EBA IV and the EBA–MBA Transition. A First Assessment. In P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition, Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Pp. 56–68. — 2014: The Northern Levant (Syria) in the Middle Bronze Age. In M.G. Steiner / A.E. Killebrew (eds): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford. Pp. 414–433. Nichols, J.J. / Weber, J.A., 2006: Amorites, Onagers and Social Reorganization in Middle Bronze Age Syria. In G.M. Schwartz / J.J. Nichols (eds): After Collapse. The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Tucson. Pp. 38–57. Nigro, L., 1994: Ricerche sull’architettura palaziale della Palestina nelle età del Bronzo e del Ferro (CMAO V). Roma. — 2002: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Tell Mardikh and Hama. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 97–128. — 2009: Materiali e studi archeologici di Ebla VIII. I corredi vascolari delle tombe reali di Ebla e la cronologia ceramica della Siria interna nel Bronzo Medio. Roma. Novák, M., 2012: The Temple of ‘Ain Dara in the Context of Imperial and Neo-Hittite Architecture and Art. In J. Kamlah (ed.): Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cult Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. B.C.E.) (ADPV 41). Wiesbaden. Pp. 55–78. Oates, D. / Oates, J. / McDonald, E., 1997: Excavations at Tell Brak. Volume I: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods. Cambridge. Orsi, V., 2010: The Passage from the Early Bronze to the Middle Bronze Age in Jezirah: a Parallel between Tell Mozan and Tell Barri Ceramic Sequences. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. May 5th–10th 2008, “Sapienza” – Università di Roma, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 863–881. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

287

— 2011: Crisi e rigenerazione nella valle dell’alto Khabur (Siria). La produzione ceramica nel passaggio dal Bronzo Antico al Bronzo Medio. Firenze.

— 2012a: Ricerche archeologiche nella valle dell’alto Khabur tra la fine del

Bronzo Antico e l’inizio del Bronzo Medio. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Studi di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente. Scritti degli allievi fiorentini per Paolo Emilio Pecorella (Studi e Saggi 104). Firenze. Pp. 77–126. — 2012b: Tell Barri before Kahat. In H. Weiss (ed.): Seven Generations After the Fall of Akkad (Studia Chaburensia 3). Wiesbaden. Pp. 89–108. Owen, D.E., 1992: Sumerian Sources from the Ur III Period. In M.W. Chavalas / J.L. Hayes (eds): New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria (BiMes 25). Malibu. Pp. 108–175. Parr, P.J. (ed.): 2009: The Levant in Transition, Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Peyronel, L., 2006: La Ceramica. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche italiane nella regione del Maath (Siria). Università di Lecce. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali (Collana del Dipartimento 13). Galatina. Pp. 196–221. — 2008: Area P. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Excavations 2006–2007. Università di Lecce. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali (Collana del Dipartimento 15). Galatina. Pp. 21–70. Pfälzner, P. 2017: Ḫabur Ware and Social Continuity: The Chronology of the Early to the Middle Bronze Age Tran-sition in the Syrian Jazireh. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Chronology, C14, and Climate Change. Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar The Early/ Middle Bronze Transition in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, held at Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 7–8 March 2014 (Oriental Institute Seminars 11). Chicago, Illinois. Pp. 163–203. Pinnock, F., 2000: The Doves of the Goddess. Elements of the Cult of Ishtar at Ebla in the Middle Bronze Age. Levant 32: 121–128. — 2004: Change and Continuity of Art in Syria Viewed from Ebla. In J.-W. Mayer / W. Sommerfeld (eds): 2000 v.Chr – Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende. 3. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 4–7 April 2000 in Frankfurt/ Main und Marburg/Lahn. Saarbrücken. Pp. 87–118. — 2006a: Paying Homage to the King. Protocol and Ritual in Old Syrian Art. In F. Baffi et al. (eds): ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma. Pp. 487–509. — 2006b: Ebla and Ur: Exchanges and Contacts between Two Great Capitals of the Ancient Near East. Iraq 68: 85–97. — 2009: EB IVB–MB I in Northern Syria: Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilisation. In P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition, Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Pp. 69–79. Pinnock, F. 2014: The Ceramic Horizon of Middle Bronze I–II in North Inner Syria. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Development in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period (Università del Salento. Dipartimento di Beni Culturali. Collana del Dipartimento 21). Galatina. Pp. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

288

M. D’Andrea

227–246. Porter, A., 2007a: The Ceramic Assemblages of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates Region. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, II (BAH 180). Beyrouth. Pp. 3–22. — 2007b: You Say Potato, I Say…Typology, Chronology and the Origins of the Amorites. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 69–115. Pruß, A., 2007: Comb-Incised Pottery in Syria and Mesopotamia and its Relevance for Chronology. In P. Matthiae et al (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: the Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre,” N. 117). Rome. Pp. 473–497. Ristvet, L., 2012: Resettling Apum: Tribalism and Tribal States in the Tell Leilan Region, Syria. In N. Laneri / P. Pfälzner / S. Valentini (eds): Looking North. The Socio-Economic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC (SUN, Serie D, Supplementa, Band 1). Wiesbaden. Pp. 37–50. Rova, E., 2011: Ceramic. In M. Lebeau (ed.): Jezirah (ARCANE 1). Turnhout. Pp. 49–79. Sallaberger, W., 2007: From Urban Culture to Nomadism: A History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium BC. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 417–456. — 2011: History and Philology. In M. Lebeau (ed.): Jezirah (ARCANE 1). Turnhout. Pp. 327–342. Sallaberger, W. / Schrakamp, I. 2015: Philological Data for a Historical Chronology of Mesopotamia in the 3rd Millennium BC. In W. Sallaberger / I. Schrakamp (eds): History and Philology (ARCANE 3). Turnhout. Pp. 1–136. Schmidt, C., 2012: The Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC Pottery Tradition in the Syrian Jazirah and Beyond. In N. Laneri / P. Pfälzner / S. Valentini (eds): Looking North. The Socio-Economic Dynamics of Northern Mesopotamian and Anatolian Regions during the Late Third and Early Second Millennium BC (SUN, Serie D, Supplementa, Band 1). Wiesbaden. Pp. 163–174. — 2013: Die Keramik der Früh-Ǧazīra V- bis Alt-Ǧazīra II-Zeit (SUN. Serie A, Ausgrabungen 1998–2001 in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš 4). Wiesbaden. — 2014: Late 3rd Millennium “Ur III” Carinated Bowls. In M. Lebeau (ed.): Ceramics (ARCANE IR-1). Turnhuot. Pp. 365–371. Schwartz, G.M., 2007a: The Early–Middle Bronze Transition. Evidence from Umm el-Marra and Western Syria. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: the Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre,” N. 117). Roma. Pp. 511–528. — 2007b: Taking the Long View on Collapse: A Syrian Perspective. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

289

fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica XIX). Paris. Pp. 45–67. — 2007c: Status, Ideology, and Memory in Third-millennium Syria: «Royal» Tombs at Umm el-Marra. In N. Laneri (ed.): Performing Death. Social Analyses of Funerary Traditions in Ancient Near East and Mediterranean (OIS 3). Chicago. Pp. 39–68. — 2013: Memory and Its Demolition: Ancestors, Animals and Sacrifice at Umm el-Marra. CAJ 23/3: 495–552. — 2017: Western Syria in the Third to Second Millennium B.C. Transition. In, F. Höflmayer (ed.), The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Chronology, C14, and Climate Change. Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar The Early/Middle Bronze Transition in the Ancient Near East: Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, held at Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 7–8 March 2014 (Oriental Institute Seminars 11). Chicago, Illinois. Pp. 87–128. Sconzo, P., 2015: Ceramics. In U. Finkbeiner et al. (eds): Middle Euphrates (ARCANE IV). Turnhout. Pp. 95–203. Teissier, B., 1994: Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe «kārum» level 2. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul LXX. Leiden. Tonietti, M.V., 1997: Le cas de Mékim: continuité ou innovation dans la tradition éblaïte entre IIIe et IIe millénaire ?. M.A.R.I. VIII: 225–242. Tsuneki, A., 2009: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Layers in Square 15Gc. In T. Iwasaki et al (eds): Tell Mastuma. An Iron Age Settlement in Northwest Syria (Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3). Tokyo. Pp. 69–88. Wakita, S., 2009: North Trench. In T. Iwasaki et al. (eds): Tell Mastuma: An Iron Age Settlement in the Northwest Syria (Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3). Tokyo. Pp. 62–68. Weiss, H., 2014: Intermediate Bronze Age: Altered Trajectories. In M.L. Steiner / A.E. Killebrew (eds): Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant. Garden City, MI. Pp. 367–387. Welton, L. / Cooper, L. 2014: Caliciform Ware. In M. Lebeau (ed.), ARCANE Interregional. 1. Ceramics. Turnhout. Pp. 325–353.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

290

M. D’Andrea

Fig. 1. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) carinated bowls from the ashy soils accumulated in the Western Ramparts in Area H (1–8) and late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from Area T (9–15), in the Lower Town north, including carinated bowls (12–13) and jars with double-everted rim (14) (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

291

Fig. 2. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, plan and view from north-east of Temples HH4 and HH5, EB IVB3 (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

292

M. D’Andrea

Fig. 3. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, schematic plans of EB IVB (1, 4) and MB (2–3, 5–7) temples in antis; no. 1: Temple HH4 in the Lower Town south-east; no. 2: Temple of Rashap (Temple B2); no. 3: Temple of Ishtar in the Lower Town north (Temple P3); no. 4: Temple D3 on the Acropolis; no. 5: Temple HH2 in the Lower Town south-east; no. 6: Temple HH3 in the Lower Town south-east; no. 7: Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis (Temple D); (©MAIS).

Fig. 4. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, plan of the Archaic Palace, in the Lower Town north, EB IVB– MB IA–B (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

293

Fig. 5. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from bucket TM.06.HH.558, from the cella (L.9483) of Temple HH4 (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

294

M. D’Andrea

Fig. 6. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from buckets TM.06.HH.558, from the cella L.9483 of Temple HH4 (©MAIS).

Fig. 7. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) vessels TM.06.HH.558/1–3, from the cella (L.9483) of Temple HH4 (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

295

Fig. 8. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from bucket TM.06.HH.561, from the vestibule of Temple HH4 (L.9474) (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

296

M. D’Andrea

Fig. 9. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from bucket TM.06.HH.630, from the vestibule of Temple HH4 (L.9474) (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The EB–MB Transition at Ebla

297

Fig. 10. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, late EB IVB (EB IVB3) pottery from bucket TM.06.HH.565, from the cella (L.9469) of Temple HH5 (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act? Silvana Di Paolo

This article is a tribute to Frances: we all acknowledge her dedication and her contribution to the Italian Archaeological Mission of Ebla (Syria), as well as her efforts to modify the traditional interpretation of cultural contacts between Syria and Mesopotamia in terms of asymmetry and dependence. 1. Ritualization and Bodily Violence Violence is considered an integral part of human life although, over the last few decades, interest in this issue has grown from dramatic contemporary situations (from the Balkan wars to the Syrian conflict) producing new areas of scientific interest. One of these is the archaeology of violence which has been approached from different points of view, but has almost always been intended as study of warfare and related topics.1 Thus, the term violence has became synonymous with warfare and viceversa: scholarly attention has been directed toward the study of warfare and violence through the analysis of visual representations, fortifications, material culture and osteological data. With regard to represented violence, Z. Bahrani stressed the close relationship between war, body and representation from a psychoanalytic perspective. Taking into account that war for Mesopotamians was a form of civilised behaviour, its representation in art was intended as a powerful strengthening of sense of identity, as well as the disruption and destruction of enemy’s identity.2 Thus, given the inextricable link between art and propaganda, it is obvious that representations of war also reflected the idea of the world. But the materiality of violence is to be investigated considering the multiplicity of meanings afforded to this term (violence is not always or directly linked to war

On different lines of enquiry concerning this topic in archaeology and anthropology, see the most recent comments made by Susan Ralph (2012, 1–13). 2 Bahrani 2008, 9–21. On the psychological background of military endeavours of Sennacherib including his campaign at Judah and his attack on Babylon, see also the recent article by E. Frahm who highlights how political and military actions of individual rulers with enormous power can be influenced by their family history (Frahm 2014, 163–222). 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

300

S. Di Paolo

episodes, for instance), and to develop understanding of its causes, consequences and impacts upon ancient societies. On the one hand, violence can be universally recognised as any action, from a simple assault to murder, that intends to damage someone, including attacks on personal safety and damage to the working environment; on the other hand, a single definition of violence is impractical, because the study of contexts and circumstances are of vital importance to reconstruct the scenarios in which violent acts are produced and, eventually, displayed. In this new area of debate, violent acts have been recognised in a number of contexts that could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Such acts include ritualised combats, hand-to-hand fighting, human sacrifice and any number of other violent behaviours that are, more generally, part of a conflict, or forms of oppression and abuse.3 They can also be explained outside the context of warfare and associated with single or community rituals and symbolism which are necessary, for instance, to maintain community cohesion in the face of change and uncertainty, and to protect the rest of the community from its members’ tendency toward violence. In this perspective, skeletal injuries can be interpreted as material aspects of social mechanisms acting to moderate conflict and, paradoxically, avoid violence. Violence and death are ritualised through the bodily dimension: whether there is an intrinsic value in the body’s indivisibility as an animate whole, there is equally value in his dismembering and dispersal. The aberrations to the integrity of the physical body are related to the disruption of a collective and/or individual identity through the theme of head removal (decapitation),4 for instance: when viewed in a wider context, episodes concerning the body’s corruption may be the results of mechanisms acting to negotiate social changes through violent acts. In general terms, the practice of taking body parts of enemies within a ‘war dynamic’ is well known: they, removed as trophies, are disseminated in ancient Near Eastern art from the beginning of civilisation to the Neo-Assyrian period.5 But timing, methods and displaying of this cruel practice is to be understood. Within the Assyrian imperial ideology, for instance, representations of the detached heads of the enemy progressively increase in late reliefs (7th century BC) when its For ‘sacrifice’ I mean any ritualised killing of humans even if without offering, in agreement with the most recent comments by G.M. Schwartz (2012, 6). One of these is the ‘retainer sacrifice’ which entails the killing of people after the death of a high-ranking person. The Royal Cemetery of Ur provides evidence that, at least in some cases, retainers died violent deaths (Baadsgaard / Monge / Zettler 2012, 125–158). 4 Hodder 2006; Glencross / Boz 2014, 69–108. 5 This topic has been frequently studied in the last years but with different approaches. The human trophy-taking with particular reference to the head removal in Mesopotamian milieu has been interpreted as one of the tactics of warfare (De Backer 2009, 13–50) or as a symbolic or performative action (Bonatz 2005, 93–101; Dolce 2005, 121–132; 2006, 33–46) or both of them (De Backer 2008, 393–412). On a presumed ‘censorship’ of this practice by Mesopotamian legal codes, see Glassner (2006, 47–55). 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

301

purpose become clearer: to register their number and display them. Therefore, circumstances and evolution of this macabre practice, as well as its display, can give rise to a number of different interpretations. Was it a stylistic choice reflecting the intention of influencing the attitudes of viewers?6 or did it indicate a profound change oin the approach to war ethics?7 The most recent archaeological discoveries at Tell el-Daba’a, ancient Avaris, highlight some important aspects concerning the removing of enemies’ body parts as trophies. In ancient Egypt, the taking of a hand as a war trophy is usually recorded in texts: two Middle Kingdom stelae mention the hanging, in front of the walls of Thebes, of the corpses of six foreigner princes slain by the Pharaoh himself, as well as the hanging of their hands, probably separately exposed on the outside of the walls. During the 2011 archaeological campaign at Tell el-Daba’a, investigations within the Hyksos palace attributed in its late phase to King Khayan (XVth Dynasty), led to the discovery of ritual depositions of right hands. In the latter phase of the palace, according to a practice already attested in older levels (two pits each containing a single right hand have been discovered outside the palace but facing the throne room), these human trophies were buried outside a building annex and after a ceremony which took place, probably, on a ‘cultic’ stone podium, built upon a sand-filled foundation pit.8 This practice did not necessarily extend to the Ancient Near East; but it raises some questions and doubts about ritual actions associated with warfare practices. The mutilation of the body of the enemy could have been characterised by a sequence of acts, not all planned during war time or simply justified within ‘war ethics:’ they could have included ritual and symbolic aspects, as particular forms of killing, reminiscent of animal sacrifices. ‘Ritual’ decapitations by cutting the throat with a special knife have been recognised on Neo-Assyrian reliefs.9 War was intended as a complex of actions, rites, strategies that took place before, during and after the conflict. One example is the involvement, in these procedures, of ritualised objects. On the one hand, there were the humanised artefacts of war (such as weapons, victory monuments, etc.): they were named and treated like human beings and gods. They, also in virtue of the materials they were made, were consecrated, vivified and able to terrorise the enemy before the wars; after the events, rituals were reinforcing the re-establishment of the world order through the inviolability of the maintenance rites for the future.10

Nadali 2001–2003, 51–70. Crouch 2009, 54–55. 8 Bietak 2012, 32–33. 9 De Backer 2009, 35. 10 On the exercised agency of material objects involved in war domain, Winter 2007, 42–69; Westenholz 2012, 89–122. On the configuration of weapons before the battles and some case-studies: Selz 1997, 167–209; Holloway 2001, 449–470; Porter 2009, 6 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

302

S. Di Paolo

In this convergence between cult and war, the role of the human war trophies remains problematic, although the hypothesis of ‘ritualised’ acts of mutilation through specific cultic actions is an intriguing aspect not yet investigated. Is it possible to hypothesise that in the Ancient Near East also human trophy-taking was, at least in some cases, celebrated and the trophies buried or preserved in specific places also as offerings to the gods? Although the role and significance of human remains found in sacrificial pits together with animal bones, rests doubtful, nevertheless the violence exercised against an another living being is a central component in the ritual.11 The performance of a libation on Te’umann’s head by Ashurbanipal in order to justify the corporal destruction of the enemy is an emblematic case.12 On the one hand, this episode is in conflict with the representation of human trophies left in the surrounding countryside, undermined or carried out by birds of prey. On the other hand, it shows that disfigurement acts, potentially engendering actions of divine and human revenge (above all those accomplished against another king) were carefully taken into account. Thus, the detachment of non-viable parts of body (ears, hands, feet etc.) undertakes a strong symbolic meaning as well: although these disfigurements of the body of the enemy are less serious punishment acts, they are tangible and eternal signs of an individual and/or collective defeat and handicaps that forever preclude a normal life. 2. Phenomenology of Bodily Violence on Early Old Babylonian Glyptics Ritualisation is a process by which certain parts of life and/or thought are selected and provided with a particular emphasis through the formality of their performance: thus, ritualised actions might be repeated many times, becoming “traditional.” They are centred on interaction with the sacred but also involve the communication between performers and audience. The bodily violence is ritualised inasmuch it is accommodated within a cosmological or ideological framework: in this way, ritualisation can act to legitimise violence.13 Ritual allows for a repetition of founding moments and the remembrance of a heroic or dramatic event: in this way, it reaffirms the collective identity and existing social links. The founding event is a sacred as well as an heroic moment, in any case a ‘extraordinary episode’ that falls out of regular time and it is often associated with violence. It appears, also, as a transgression of the social order: it is conceptualised as an exception to the norm becoming a constitutive experience.

153–194. On limestone as source of energy for an active and winning royalty, see Foster 2013, 51–56. 11 Schwarz 2012, 5. 12 Bonatz 2005, 93–101. 13 On the intimate connection between violence and ritual, see Caillois 2001; Girard 2005. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

303

Sovereign power, featuring divine violence from its foundation, performs an institutionalised violence. From this kind of events, violence has to be embedded in social processes, in the form of rituals: repetitive acts with strong symbolic properties which must to reconstitute a moral order. The ritual symbolically excludes the violator in order to reaffirm the group norms: it implies a clear distinction between a performer and a victim and a direction of violence flowing from the first to the second. The treatment of the victim as sub-human is considered an intrinsic fact at the same time as the violent act is produced.14 This kind of action involves material and corporeal aspects: in this sense, the violent act is embodiment, a ‘lived experience’ reproducing the drama of founding event,15 as well as a cosmological and socio-political order through the use of symbolic codes.16 A group of early Old Babylonian seals (both stone cylinders and impressions on tablets and envelopes) dating between the 19th and 17th centuries BC is characterised by a particular visual narrative supporting the legitimacy of the bodily violence and violation of the physical integrity. It is a two-figures group formed by a ruling figure, identifiable by tiara and dress, and a victim, generally a seated, kneeling or lying down figure that is threatened or about to be killed (Fig. 1).17 According to the visual conventions adopted, this iconic message could refers to a some founding heroic events, also reproduced as war rituals on cylinder seals with the aim of conveying and evoking, with much more force and immediacy, emotions and behaviours of the audience toward the punishment acts of the enemies.18 The violent act here examined is, probably, conceived in two different ways: a) as a founding and heroic event, a ‘liminal’ experience, and an extraordinary episode almost characterised by an ‘ecstatic’ consciousness of the ability of the one’s own’s body as well as the justified violation of the integrity of other bodies. This event definitively establishes a ‘moral’ difference between performer and victim; b) as a ‘power ritual,’ a repetitive event reproducing each time the founding moment, through the exhibition of the ‘moral’ distinction between performer and Garfinkel 1956, 420–424. On theoretical aspects concerning the concept of ‘culture grounded on human body,’ see Csordas (1994, 1–24); on the phenomenal body of dramatic figures that cannot be conceived or perceived without the actor’s bodily being-in-the-world, see Fischer-Lichte (2006, 112–114). 16 It is a phenomenological approach towards violence, as theorised by B. Giesen. He distinguished the raw violence strictly linked to founding and extraordinary (first-order) events by an institutionalised violence within which rituals are characterised by seriality (second-order events) and social performances intended as creative and cruel deviations (third-order events): Giesen 2006, 325–367. 17 This image is a computer-aided revision of the seal impression no. 15 made by myself. 18 On the persuasive power of rhetorical images and their capacity to influence beliefs, attitudes and actions of the audience, see Hill 2004, 25–40. 14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

304

S. Di Paolo

victim, the direction of the violent action, the involvement of corporeal aspects, the use of expressive and symbolic codes. The artefacts here presented have been arranged according to a chronological order, when it has been possible. Some chronological data, involving use and spreading out of this scene, are taken from seals impressed on cuneiform tablets and envelopes. Some seals here examined come from the Diyala region, precisely from Ishchali, Tell Harmal, Tell Halawa (nos 1–2, 11–12): they are dated approximately between the 20th and the middle of the 19th century BC. The provenance of another seal impression (no. 10) remains unknown, although the tablet on which it has been rolled out belong to an archive of the age of Sin-abushu, a king ruling in the Lower Diyala region. Another small group of artefacts is coming from Sippar (almost all from Tell Abu Habbah): they can be also attributed to the early Old Babylonian period. The seal impressions and the unique stone cylinder listed here (nos 3–9, 13–14) span a very short period of time between the reigns of Sumu-la-El and Sabium of Babylon (19th century). Among them, there is the hematite cylinder no. 9: it is probably the product of Sippar workshops active at the time of Sumu-la-El. Nos 3–6 are, more or less, contemporary, although it is hard to indicate a precise sequence. Old Babylonian cuneiform texts show the existence of synchronisms between the last two kings of Sippar (Immerum and Buntahtun-Ila) and Sumu-la-El of Babylon before he incorporated the city of Sippar into his kingdom.19 The major part of images appear on cylinder seals (nos 16–35), almost all in hematite except for a specimen in felsite belonging to the Pierpont Morgan Library Collection (no. 25). Almost all of them is uncertain in dating and very scanty informations concern their provenance. Only for the seal of Berlin (no. 16) it is possible to suggest a provenance from Sippar for the rendering of the divine kaunakes. 1. Hematite cylinder seal. Tell Halawa. Bagdad Museum (IM 86049). The archaeological context is not completely clear. This small cylinder (H = 24 mm) has been found in the domestic area of the settlement (Area A) as pertaining to the Level IV. According to the stratigraphic evidence it is dated to a transitional Ur III-Old Babylonian period,20 although material (hematite indicates an Old Babylonian date) and position (under Levels III attributed to the Early Isin-Larsa period) could circumscribe the dating of the seal to the beginning of the II millennium BC. Two-lines inscription: PN1+dumu PN2. It provides the seal’s owner: a certain Sidana.21 Trampling armed figure; half-supine enemy with raised right arm.22 Two men behind the main scene.

Charpin 2004, 91–94. Yaseen 1992, 59, no. 112; 1995, 15–16. 21 Yuhong 1998, 578. 22 No mention is made by W. Yuhong of the cuneiform sign under the enemy’s head. 19 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

305

2. Hematite cylinder seal. Ischali. Temple of Ishtar-Kititum (Is. 34:129). Baghdad Museum. It has been found on the floor of the Room 3-T.30, on the east side of the lower part of the complex.23 The object belongs to the building period II-A (third occupation of the original temple I-A), that, in the area above mentioned, is characterised by the raising of the original floor level. The terminus ante quem for this seal is the beginning of the reign of IbiqAdad II of Eshnunna (hypothetical dating of his reign is 1862–1818 BC):24 brick inscriptions of this king are, in fact, related to the successive building period II–B.25 An approximately date for this stone cylinder is the beginning of the 19th century BC. Trampling figure dominating on a kneeling man. Two lion-demons. Divine figure with mace and scimitar. 3. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. British Museum (BM 80140). Among the older images of a trampling ruler there is also that dating to the reign of the king of Sippar Immerum, contemporary of Sumu-la-El of Babylon (ca.1880–1845 BC), which appears on the envelope of a legal document:26 it is a non-epigraphic seal showing a ruler smiting his enemy that occurs together with a different scene characterised by another ranked figure offering a kid to the god Shamash in the presence of goddess Lamma.27 4. Seal impression on tablet. Sippar. British Museum (BM 80109). It is again dated to the Immerum’s reign. In this case, the space reserved to the smiting scene is limited: the offering of an animal sacrifice to the enthroned Shamash by a worshipping ruler is the main subject of this seal.28 5. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. British Museum (BM 82050). Reign of Buntahtun-Ila, the Immerum’s successor: the smiting action is represented alongside a context scene.29 6. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. British Museum. The cylinder seal is impressed on the envelope of a tablet containing a contract: reign of Buntahtun-Ila.30 Smiting ruler stopping one of the legs of his victim. A bowman holds the enemy’s head. Contest pairs: caprides wrestling lions, a kneeling hero holding two lions. 7. Seal impression on tablet. Sippar. British Museum (BM 82492). Non-epi-

Frankfort 1955, pl. 86:907. For absolute dates, I follow Charpin 2004, 385–391. 25 Whiting 1977, 67–74; Hill et al. 1990, 8, 29, 57. 26 Ungnad / Kohler 1909–23, no. 375 = Copy CT 8 47. Both tablet (BM 92649A) and his envelope (BM 80140) have been illustrated (Postgate 1992, 62, fig. 3:10), although the seal examined here is not visible. 27 Blocher 1992, 28, no. 36. 28 Blocher 1992, 20, no. 7. 29 Blocher 1992, 33, no. 61. 30 Figulla 1967, no. 1; al-Gailani Werr 1988, no. 182e, pl. 22:4. 23 24

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

306

S. Di Paolo

graphic cylinder seal dated to the reign of Sumu-la-El of Babylon.31 Two different scenes (juxtaposed and probably linked each other) are impressed on a tablet concerning the purchase of orchards where principals and witnesses are female.32 The violence act against a powerless male figure on the ground is associated to a ‘classical’ Old Babylonian presentation scene where the goddess Lamma is accompanying a male worshipper before the enthroned god. 8. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. Louvre (AO 1766). More trampling figures appear on a cylinder seal impressed on the envelope of a contract: reign of Sumu-la-El.33 The smiting ruler faces the goddess Ishtar. This scene is dominated by a man (probably the representation of another enemy defeated). The trampling gesture is replicated by a unclear god/goddess. A lion-demon, with bird’ talons, holds, in the right hand, a standard over the enemy’s head, with the left one is keeping, probably, an human puppet (cf. infra). 9. Hematite cylinder seal. Sippar (?). British Museum. The seal, probably incised in one of Sippar’s workshops, has been dated to the reign of Sumu-laEl of Babylon by L. al-Gailani Werr and D. Collon.34 The trampling ruler is grasping the right arm of his victim. Another enemy is stretching out on the ground under his legs. A bird of prey over their heads has been associated with the smiting figure: it has been identified with the god Zababa of Kish by D. Collon.35 In the main scene a ranked man is offering a kid to the god Shamash. A personage with the mace is standing upon a raised platform. 10. Seal impression on envelope. Diyala region.36 Bagdad Museum. The cylinder seal is impressed on the envelope of a tablet (IM 43827) belonging to the archive of Nur-Shamash. The exact provenance of this Old Babylonian archive is unknown, because it was found by illicit diggers: the vast majority of the

Blocher 1992, 40, no. 85. Leichty / Finkelstein / Walker 1988, 298. 33 Thureau-Dangin 1910, no. 56; Delaporte 1923, A 477, pl. 112:9b; al-Gailani Werr 1988, pl. 22:183; Green 1986, 174, no. 20. 34 Collon 1986, 169, no. 424 with previous bibliography. 35 This identification is unlikely, although Zababa was also particularly venerated in the Old Babylonian period: George 2003, 112, 123, 154. This deity is associated with the lion-headed mace, symbol held by other warrior deities (Ishtar, for instance) but never by the trampling figure we are talking about. On the association of god Zababa with an eagle but on kudurru reliefs, see Koch et al. 1987. 36 al-Gailani Werr 1988, no. 147, pl. 7:9. As regards the location of the workshops where seals, used to authenticating the tablets belonging to the archive of Nur-Šamaš, have been made, it is highly probable that they were in the Diyala area (according to their characteristic style), although partecipating to a ‘Babylonian artistic koinè’ as evidenced by motifs adopted. Instead, L. al-Gailani Werr suggested the existence of a ‘Regional Style’ indicating various centres of production in Babylonia proper (al-Gailani Werr 1988, 32–33, 53). 31 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

307

texts are loans issued by a certain Nur-Shamash under the reign of the king Sin-abushu and dated with his year’s names. The latter, ruling in the Lower Diyala region (from Shaduppum to Tutub), was contemporary of Sin-iqisham of Larsa and Ibal-pi-El I of Eshnunna. Absolute dating: ca.second quarter of the 19th century BC37. A standing god is approaching by a male worshipper; a trampling figure on an enemy on the ground. 11. Seal impression on envelope. Tell Harmal. Bagdad Museum. Cylinder seal impressed on the envelope of a tablet concerning a sale of field (HL 7–162; IM 63197). It is pertaining to the Level IV (Isin-Larsa period).38 Reign of Sinabushu (see. no. 10). Trampling scene; behind this, a presentation scene with worshipper and goddess Lamma. 12. Seal impression on envelope. Tell Harmal. Bagdad Museum. Cylinder seal impressed on the envelope of a cuneiform text concerning the purchase of a house (HL 5–29; IM 55353) and coming from the residential area of the Level III.39 Reign of Sin-abushu. Trampling ruler. A warrior is grasping the victim’s head. Two uncertain figures. Incomplete scene. 13. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. British Museum (BM 22704). Slightly later is a non-epigraphic cylinder seal impressed on the envelope of a cuneiform tablet (BM 22693) dated to the reign of Sabium of Babylon (1844–1831 BC).40 The seal belonged to Ili-bani, scribe in the service, perhaps, of an almost unknown shakkanakku of Der.41 The smiting ruler occurs together with a different scene showing a ranked man offering a kid to the god Shamash in the presence of goddess Lamma, while a nude priest is standing above a platform with pail and sprinkler. 14. Seal impression on envelope. Sippar. British Museum (BM 80108). It is again dated to the Sabium’s reign. Incomplete impression.42 It bears the image of a smiting ruler alongside another scene, in which a male god with scimitar is approaching by a (royal?) worshipper who performs a libation. This seal has been, probably, produced in the Diyala region. 15. Seal impression on tablet. Unknown provenance. New York. Columbia University Collection. Reign of Apil-Sin (c.1830–1813 BC).43 Here the trampling

Charpin 2004, 99–100. al-Gailani Werr 1988, no. 27, pl. 7:6. 39 al-Gailani Werr 1988, no. 20a, pl. 7:7. As regards his stratigraphical position, it can be considered an ‘heirloom,’ probably originally pertaining to the Level IV: al-Hashimi 1972, 4. On a reassessment of the Levels IV–III, see Hussein / Miglus 2001–2002, 114–122 with previous bibliography. 40 Blocher 1992, 57, no. 151. 41 According to a proposal made by Verkinderen 2005, 25. 42 Blocher 1992, 53, no. 136. 43 Mendelsohn 1943, no. 296; Porada 1950, 157–159, fig. 1. 37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

308

S. Di Paolo

scene is the unique subject: this act is performed before an armed Ishtar and other minor deities. 16. Hematite cylinder seal. Sippar (?). Berlin. Freie Universität. Seminar für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde. Oppenländer Collection (FUB 77).44 According to the style, it has been produced in the Sippar’s workshops. Trampling ruler on a kneeling man who is receiving an animal offering, as well as Shamash by another ranked figure. Contest pair: a bull-man wrestling a lion. 17. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Florence. National Archaeological Museum. Dazzi Collection (MAF 77365).45 Smiting king assaulting probably a ranked and half-kneeling man. Contest pair: bull-man and griffin. 18. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. London. British Museum (BM 129520). Two-lines inscription: PN1 + ìr PN2.46 Trampling god/ruler. Seated and naked enemy with raised right arm. Bull-man holding a standard (?). Male ranked figure. 19. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. London. British Museum (BM 89782).47 The main figure has been identified as a smiting god by the tall headgear. Subsidiary figure. Contest pair: lion-griffin wrestling a bull-man. 20. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. London. British Museum (BM 89809).48 Smiting scene: ruler grasps the left hand of his victim. Contest pairs with rampant caprids wrestling lions. 21. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. London. British Museum (BM 89612).49 Trampling figure and half-kneeling enemy in face of a re-incised (?) god. A ranked male faced to Shamash. 22. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown Provenance. Moore Collection.50 Adoration scene. Goddess Lamma and, probably, a priest with leaf and pail are approaching to an armed male figure (god/ruler?) assaulting a naked kneeling man. 23. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Moore Collection.51 This seal has been horizontally carved. Probably an older stone re-carved. Smiting king/god with conical hat. Kneeling victim. The use of the drill at a large extent, is, probably, the evidence of a dating between the second half of 18th and the 17th century BC. Moortgat-Correns 1968, 262, pl. 44:74. Delaporte 1927, 61, pl. 7:21. 46 Collon 1986, 169, no. 423. 47 Collon 1986, 167, no. 419. 48 Collon 1986, 167, no. 418. 49 Collon 1986, 168, no. 422. 50 Eisen 1940, 49, pl. 7:60. 51 Eisen 1940, 49, pl. 7:61. 44 45

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

309

24. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. New Haven. Yale University Collection.52 Smiting ruler holding the left hand of a half-kneeling victim. Priest on a platform performing a libation in honour of Shamash. 25. Felsite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. New York. Pierpont Morgan Library Collection.53 Trampling figure on half-kneeling victim. A man grasps the victim’s head. A ranked male is approaching to a warrior god. 26. Cylinder seal (unidentified stone). Unknown provenance. New York. Sotheby’s auction.54 Two juxtaposed scenes. The smiting ruler in the traditional pose. Half-kneeling adversary. A male ranked worshipper55 is standing before Shamash and is followed by goddess Lamma. Probably dated between the end of 19th and first half of 18th century BC. 27. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. Bibliothèque Nationale.56 Trampling armed figure between a priest with pail and sprinkler and a ranked figure performing a libation. 28. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. Bibliothèque Nationale.57 Trampling figure. Seated victim with the left arm raised. Contest pair with two bull-men. 29. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. Bibliothèque Nationale.58 Trampling figure engraved on the opposite direction (cf. infra). A ruler praying faced to him is followed by a goddess. Contest pair: a naked hero fighting a bull-man. Peripherical. 30. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. Bibliothèque Nationale.59 Trampling figure and half-kneeling victim in front of an enthroned god (probably Shamash). A praying ruler in the presence of Ishtar. 31. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. De Clercq Collection.60 Trampling figure dominating a seated victim. An offerer ruler, followed by goddess Lamma, is faced to Shamash. 32. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Paris. Musée Guimet.61 Trampling armed figure. Half-kneeling victim with right arm raised. Contest pairs:

Von der Osten 1934, pl. 14:155. Porada 1948, 47, pl. 55:382. 54 Sotheby 1995, no. 159. 55 The seal shows signs of recarving. The extending left arm of the worshipper is unusual. Originally he was, perhaps, an offerer holding a goat for the god Shamash. At a later time, the animal has been removed. 56 Delaporte 1910, 138–139, pl. 17:241. 57 Delaporte 1910, 139, pl. 17: 242. 58 Delaporte 1910, 139–140, pl. 17:243. 59 Delaporte 1910, 134–135, pl. 17:236. 60 De Clercq 1888, 106–107, pl. 18:167. 61 Delaporte 1909, 50–51, pl. 5:66. 52 53

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

310

S. Di Paolo

lions attacking ibexes. 33. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania  Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA 1090).62 Smiting figure menacing an half-kneeling and naked victim. Contest scene. 34. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania  Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (MAA 5012). Three-lines inscription.63 Armed trampling figure. Kneeling victim. Praying figure. 35. Hematite cylinder seal. Unknown provenance. Southesk Collection. Twoline inscription: PN1+ìr PN2.64 Main scene: trampling figure assaulting a half-kneeling victim held by the head. Subsidiary figures, among which a bull-man. 3. A Creation Ritual in Cosmological and Religious Contexts?: Some Remarks The act is represented as a direct and corporal assault (Fig. 1). It channels the violent potential of an institutional figure (representing a community) that re-establishes the world’s order against another figure, probably personifying a group who had subverted that order (‘outsiders’). The violence scene involves always only two figures, except some cases in which a third personage (an armed figure) is acting in order to block the enemy’s head and permit his detachment (nos 6, 12, 25, 35). On the left side there is always a ranked figure: he is often a king or ruler according to his dress and headgear, sometimes a recognisable god, as in no. 14, 18. On the right one a powerless man is threatened and about to be wounded or, more often, killed. They form a ‘visual unity’ characterised by well defined positions, gestures and acts. The performer of this action is a winner in all senses. He is erected and standing with legs slightly apart. His enemy is always ‘close to the ground:’ lying supine or prone, often half-kneeling. As sub-human being, he is naked and bald shaved. Only in some cases, he seems to have a dignity: then, he is standing or in a slightly bent position, he is dressed and bearded.65 The corporeality is an essential component. The action is almost exclusively carried out by the figure on the left side. His main weapon, an harpé held with the right hand, minimises the stress condition typical in hand-to-hand fighting, Legrain 1925, 268, pl. 24:441. Ward 1910, 167, no. 447. 64 Carnegie 1908, pl. 5:Qb 28. 65 These cases will be examined separately. They are a small group of cylinder seals and seal impressions dated between the reign of Sin-iqisham of Isin and Hammurabi of Babylon: they represent, probably, a sacred or heroic founding event associated with an act of violence. 62 63

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

311

because immediately stop the action with the killing of the adversary. The body is also used to step up his technical supremacy and slow down the movements of the victim, immobilise him with his left arm and right leg. Thus, the aggressor easily acts against an adversary who can only suffer the blows. Here, assault and killing are well studied: they focus on some specific body parts (eyes, hands, knees, calves, etc.). In any position (supine, prone, kneeling etc.), the victim looks toward his assailant. The eye contact between performer and victim belongs to a both physical and symbolical dimension: the victim is supplicating but the performer, technically favoured, is also exalted by the humiliation of the other. The physical contrast is exerted in order to decentralise, to ground, neutralise the victim, also from a psychological point of view. To reach this objective, the assailant is preventing the movement of the adversary using his left foot and exercising an obstacle action on vital points of the other body: he stops the victim in his chest (where his heart is), but also to his legs (often to one of his calves) to prevent the escape. The action is not only aimed at killing and destroying the enemy (detaching his head), but also to partially attempt to his physical integrity, removing non-viable parts of body such as the hands: more often the right one, more rarely the left one. This powerful visual message is not fluctuating in an avoid space; it is inserted in a religious and, perhaps, cosmological context acquiring each time different values and meanings. In some cases, in fact, it seems possible to distinguish a significant and heroic moment which also became emblematic: the trampling and killing action is associated with a contest scene. Although the significance of these scenes shift in meaning over time, they represent, in general terms, the opposition between civilisation and savage nature. The connection to a political authority here seems evident: the triumph of an active, militaristic kingship over the chaos and disorder represented by mythical and human adversaries. In other cases, this heroic event, also conceived as the triumph of an active and vigorous body on a passive corporeity exhausted by a body-to-body interaction, is clearly celebrated and venerated through the performing of religious acts: the victor, like other divine figures, is the recipient of an animal offering by a ruler (no. 16), of a libation carried out by a priest (no. 22), by other acts of worship again performing by a ranked figure (no. 25). The violence is regulated and legitimised by actions of the king-like figure: through them, the ‘violator’ is excluded and the pre-existing world order is reaffirmed, using bodily violence and corporeal submission. In Mesopotamian mythology warfare is intended as an act of creation because it defeats chaos. The royal aspect of the performer is, probably, linked to the original context in which the violent act was produced: originally an heroic event, almost subverting existing social rules, which became a constitutive experience. It could be an extraordinary military victory, a ‘liminal’ fact, maybe an unexpected event. The suppression as a way to re-create the original also applies to the slaying of a god

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

312

S. Di Paolo

in the mythical narratives introduced in the first half of the II millennium BC.66 Through the depiction of religious acts performed in honour of an heroic, divinised personage, the cylinder seals do intend, probably, to promote the construction of mental images and to give permanence to the event. On the other hand, some important variations within what looks like a canonical scheme (a kind of ‘liturgical’ presentation) could reveal more complex events characterised by religious, secular and magical actions, all together performed in order to neutralise the adversary. In these cases, the aggressive act could be interpreted as a ‘violence ritual’ or ‘power ritual’ performed during or after a war and always accompanied by religious ceremonies that take place inside the temples and in presence of the ruling king who is, together with a god, becomes the main personage of the scene. The organisation of the figurative pattern on Mesopotamian glyptics, following the conventions of the script, is based on the semantic use of the images: their size, order and placement is canonised as in the writing, creating complex visual narratives. The “figures in an image were treated according to the principles similar to those governing the signs of script.”67 The result is that figures are arranged in linear composition in the same way that signs are disposed on a cuneiform tablet. As is known, engraving was conceived of both in negative and in reverse. Thus, when the cylinder was rolled out on clay the image could be read in the positive and forward. Then the seal impression is characterised by a sequence of juxtaposed images arranged in a right and ordered fashion. The series of cylinder seals and impressions listed here is, obviously, organised in the same way. Each image finds its place within a narrative succession: the form of succession relies on ‘protocols’ of reading, generally moving left to right. Even if the images seem fused in overall composition that combines various events, these same events are distinguished and pictured in sequence. The most important scene is represented on the right side where generally a god (often identified with Shamash) is the recipient of religious public ceremonies proceeding towards the deity (from left to right) and performed by a human figure, often a king/ruler (identifiable as such by dress and gestures), sometimes accompanied by a nude priest with pail ad sprinkler and assisted by other deities, as goddess Lamma. The ruler is introduced before the deity (nos 7, 11), or he is praying in front of the god (nos 10, 21, 26, 30), more often is offering a kid (nos 3–4, 9, 13, 31) or is performing a libation (no. 24). In all these cases, the act of killing is separated from the main events: it is ‘confined’ to the left side of the composition. His location could be indicate that it, probably, follows or/and arises by the main events pictured on seals. Thus, it can be hypothesised that religious ceremonies performed inside the temples are implicated in a ‘power ritual’ or ‘war ritual’ destined to engender the violence

See the discussion of this aspect in Pongratz-Leisten 2007, 14–19. For the discussion of this important aspect, see Schmandt-Besserat 2007, 27–40.

66 67

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

313

and potentiate his effects with the aim to kill and symbolically destroy the enemy. Thus, the violent act can be interpreted as a ritual killing with a ‘distancing intention’ in order to eliminate evil and disorder and not as a human sacrifice, because there is no offering of the victim.68 The seal impression no. 8 coming from Sippar and dated to Sumu-la-El’s reign seems to reveal the ritual’s performative efficacy. Here the effects of the powerful trampling position on a kneeling enemy, assumed, at the same time, by a divine (Ishtar) and a human figure are amplified by the sympathetic magical action carried out by an ugallu69 who is grasping the rigid body of a small human victim70 (a puppet?) and a divine double lion-headed standard resting on the enemy’s head. The symbolic dimension of the trampling position that in this period is reserved either to gods, the lion-demon, and rulers is realised through an ideal overlapping of more figures and rules in order to incapacitate the enemy on a religious, military and magical level.71 Cylinder seals are a good vehicle for certain messages. Those listed here are not belonging to state officials because non-epigraphic objects. Many of them have been produced for the personnel of the Shamash temple in Sippar. It was, certainly, a particular audience, sensitive to the relationships between a secular and sanctioning violence (a necessary political tool to maintain order) and the sacred: the image of ‘a power ritual’ is aimed to potentiate and glorify the military actions of the kings with the divine support (a well known aspect in contemporary texts) and to prompt emotional reactions in the audience through a visual and ‘didactic’ rhetoric. 4. Conclusions In the Old Babylonian period, bodily violence is characterised by an articulation of gestures, actions, symbols denoting the fundamental religious and secular features of rituals, as hypothesised by C. Bell and R.A. Rappaport: “formalism,” “invariance” and “traditionalism.”72 The first two are obvious aspects of ritual-like events. The controversy between performer and victim is minimised, essential,

On the distinction between sacrifice and ritual killing, see Pongratz-Leisten 2007, 3–33, especially 10–12. 69 On the identity of the lion-demon with the mythological creature called ugallu in the cuneiform texts, see Green 1986, 152. 70 The beneficent role of the lion-demon, especially if his human victim should be interpreted as captives, in Old Babylonian art, has been highlighted by Green 1986, 160; 1988, 167–168. 71 This aspect has been specifically discussed by myself in a unpublished contribution entitled, The Amorraean Age: Visualizing War Theory and Practice in a Semiotic Perspective, in L’iconographie de la guerre dans le monde syro-mésopotamien (3ème–1er millénaire av. J.-C.), Table Ronde, Lyon, 4 décembre 2012 (organizer L. Battini) and in Di Paolo 2016. 72 Bell 1997, 139; Rappaport 1999, 25. 68

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

314

S. Di Paolo

with no particular connotation. The reasons for the dispute are contained and presented in a “ordered fashion.” The visual language is characterised by a restricted code, by a ‘liturgical presentation’ of the event. It is the repetitive, conforming act formulated by B. Giesen:73 it is reproduced with minimal or no variations at least for two centuries. On the other hand, the involvement of corporeal aspects introduces also the lived dimension of this event. Thus, this act is not just the fixed, rhetorical image of the authority dominating or the submission to a predetermined order: it is also a violent act probably embodying a past drama, a founding heroic act. The violent act against the enemy is a combination of tradition-based, action-based, and ritual-based symbols, and explains the reasons for which the identification of the performing figure is often problematic, as on Dadusha stele.74 The chronology of seals represents another theme of discussion that cannot be addressed in this occasion. Artefacts here presented are arranged within a restricted span of time (20th–18th centuries BC): this fact introduces new interpretation problems concerning the ‘foundational role’ of the violence act above discussed and his visual exhibition like a pan-Mesopotamian ‘power ritual’ probably originating in an area comprised between the Zagros, Assyria and Upper Mesopotamia. This aspect will be treated in a forthcoming contribution.75 Bibliography Baadsgaard, A. / Monge, J. / Zettler, R.L., 2012: Bludgeoned, Burned, and Beautified: Reevaluating Mortuary Practices in the Royal Cemetery of Ur. In A.M. Porter / G.M. Schwartz (eds): Sacred Killing. The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake. Pp. 125–158. Bahrani, Z., 2008: An Archaeology of Violence. In Z. Bahrani (ed.): Rituals of War. The Body and the Violence in Mesopotamia. New York. Pp. 9–21. Bell, C., 1997: Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford. Bietak, M., 2012: The Archaeology of the ‘Gold of Valour.’ Egyptian Archaeology 40: 32–33. Blocher, F., 1992: Siegelabrollungen auf frühaltbabylonischen Tontafeln im British Museum. Ein Katalog (Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 10). München / Wien. Bonatz, D., 2005: Ashurbanipal’s Headhunt: An Anthropological Perspective. In D. Collon / A. George (eds): Nineveh. Papers of the 49th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One (Iraq 66). London. Pp. 93–101. Caillois, R., 2001: Man and the Sacred. Urbana. Cf. p. 6 and note 15. For the identification, on the uppermost register, of the figure trampling on a foe with the god Tišpak, see Ismail / Cavigneaux 2003; Miglus 2003; with the king Daduša see MacGinnis 2013, 5. On this identification is based the identity of the approaching man: Daduša for Ismail / Cavigneaux 2003; Miglus 2003; Daduša’s son and successor, Ibalpi-El (II) for Uehlinger 2008; Šamši-Adad for MacGinnis 2013, 5. 75 Di Paolo 2016. 73 74

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

315

Carnegie, H. (ed.), 1908: Catalogue of the Collection of Antique Gems Formed by James Ninth Earl of Southesk K. T., Vols. 1–2. London. Charpin, D., 2004: Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorite (2002–1595). In D. Charpin / D.O. Edzard / M. Stol (eds): Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit (OBO 160/4). Göttingen / Fribourg. Pp. 25–480. Collon, D., 1986: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals III: Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods. London. Crouch, C.L., 2009: War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of Cosmology and History (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 407). Berlin. Csordas, T., 1994: Introduction: the Body as Representation and Being in the World. In T. Csordas (ed.): Embodiment and Experience. The Existential Ground of Culture and Self. Cambridge. Pp. 1–24. De Backer, F., 2008: Fragmentation of the Enemy in the Ancient Near East during the Neo-Assyrian Period. In A. Michaels (ed.): Ritual Dynamics, Usurpation, Ritual. Vol. III: State, Power and Violence. Wiesbaden. Pp. 393–412. –– 2009: Cruelty and Military Refinements. Res Antiquae 6: 13–50. De Clercq, L., 1888: Collection De Clercq. Catalogue méthodique et raisonné. Antiquités assyriennes. Cylindres orientaux, cachets, briques, bronzes, bas-reliefs. Paris. Delaporte, L., 1909: Catalogue du Musée Guimet. Cylindres orientaux (Annales du Musée Guimet 33). Paris. –– 1910: Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris. –– 1923: Musée du Louvre. Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental II: Acquisitions. Paris. –– 1927: Les cylindres-sceaux orientaux du Musée archéologique de Florence. Aréthuse 4: 53–66. Di Paolo, S., 2016: War Remembrance Narrative: Negotiation of Memory and Oblivion in the Ancient Near Eastern Art. In D. Nadali (ed.): Envisioning the Past Through Memories. How Memory Shaped Ancient Near Eastern Societies (Cultural Memory and History in Antiquity 3). London. Pp. 143–162. Dolce, R., 2005: The Heads of the Enemy in the Sculptures from the Palaces of Nineveh: An Example of “Cultural Migration?.” In D. Collon / A. George (eds): Nineveh. Papers of the 49th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One (Iraq 66). London. Pp. 121–131. –– 2006: Têtes en guerre. In S. D’Onofrio / A.C. Taylor (eds): La Guerre en Tête. Actes de la journée d’études La guerre en tête organisée par Collège de France-LAS-CNRS, Université de Paris X, Janvier 2003. Paris. Pp. 33–46. Eisen, G.A., 1940: Ancient Oriental Cylinder and Other Seals with a Description of the Collection of Mrs. William H. Moore (OIP 47). Chicago. Figulla, H.H., 1967: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Vol. XLVII: Old Babylonian Nadītu Records. London. Fischer-Lichte, E., 2006: Embodiment – From Page to Stage. The Dramatic Figure. In W. Nöth (ed.): Semiotic Bodies, Aesthetic Embodiments, and Cyberbodies. Kassel. Pp. 101–116. Foster, B.R., 2013: Diorite and Limestone: A Sumerian Perspective. In L. Sass© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

316

S. Di Paolo

mannhausen (ed.): He has Opened Nisaba’s House of Learning. Studies in Honor of A.W. Sjöberg on the Occasion of His 89th Birthday on August 1st 2013. Leiden. Pp. 51–56. Frahm, E., 2014: Family Matters: Psychohistorical Reflections on Sennacherib and His Times. In I. Kalimi / S. Richardson (eds): Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem: Story, History and Historiography (CHANE 71). Leiden / Boston. Pp. 163–222. Frankfort, H., 1955: Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region (OIP 72). Chicago. al-Gailani Werr, L., 1988: Studies in the Chronology and Regional Style of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals (BiMe 23). Malibu. Garfinkel, H., 1956: Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies. American Journal of Sociology 61/5: 420–424. George, A.R., 2003: The Babylonian Gilgamesh epic: Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford. Giesen, B., 2006: Performing the Sacred. A Dukheimian Perspective on the Performative Turn. In J.C. Alexander / B. Giesen / J.L. Mast (eds): Social Performance. Symbolic Action, Cultural Pragmatics, and Ritual. Cambridge. Pp. 325–367. Girard, R., 2005: Violence and the Sacred. London. Glassner, J.J., 2006: Couper des têtes en Méspotamie. In S. D’Onofrio / A.Ch. Taylor (eds): La Guerre en Tête. Actes de la journée d’études La guerre en tête organisée par Collége de France-LAS-CNRS, Université de Paris X, Janvier 2003. Paris. Pp. 47–55. Glencross, B. / Boz, B., 2014: Representing Violence in Anatolia and the Near East During the Transition to Agriculture: Reading from Contextualized Human Skeletal Remains. In Ch. Knüsel / M.J. Smith (eds): The Routledge Handbook of the Bioarchaeology of Human Conflict. Abingodn / New York. Pp. 90–108. Green, A., 1986: The Lion-Demon in the Art of Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions. Iraq 17: 141–154. –– 1988: A Note on the “Lion-Demon.” Iraq 50: 167–168. al-Hashimi, R., 1972: New Light on the Date of Harmal & Dhiba’i. Sumer 28: 29–33. Hill, Ch.A., 2004: The Psychology of Rhetorical Images. In Ch.A. Hill / M. Helmers (eds): Defining Visual Rhetoric. Mahway (NJ) / London. Pp. 25–40. Hill, H.D. et al., 1990: Old Babylonian Public Buildings in the Diyala Region (OIP 98). Chicago. Hodder, I., 2006: The Leopard’s Tale. Revealing the Mysteries of Turkey’s Ancient Town. London. Hussein, L.M. / Miglus, P.A., 2001–02: Excavation at Tell Harmal (Autumn of 1998). Sumer 51: 114–122. Holloway, S., 2001: The giškakki Aššur and Neo-Assyrian Loyalty Oaths. In T. Abusch et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 45th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Part 1. Historiography in the Cuneiform World. Bethesda 2001. Pp. 449–470. Ismail, B. K. / Cavigneaux, A., 2003: Dādušas Siegesstele IM 95200 aus Ešnunna. Die Inschrift. BaM 34: 129–156. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

317

Koch, U. et al., 1987: Eine neue Interpretation der Kudurru-Symbole. Archive for the History of Exact Sciences 41: 93–114. Legrain, L., 1925: The Culture of the Babylonians from Their Seals in the Collections of the Museum (Publication of the Babylonian Section 14), Philadelphia. Leichty, E. / Finkelstein, J.J. / Walker, C.B.F., 1988: Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Vol. VIII: Tablets from Sippar 3. London. MacGinnis, J., 2013: Qabra in the Cuneiform Sources. Subartu Journal 6–7: 3–10. Mendelsohn, I., 1943: Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the Libraries of Columbia University. A List of Cuneiform Documents from the Sumerian, Old Babylonian and Neo-Babylonian Periods with Photographic Reproductions of Selected Seals and Clay Objects. New York. Miglus, P.A., 2003: Die Siegesstele des Königs Dāduša von Ešnunna und ihre Stellung in der Kunst Mesopotamiens und der Nachbargebiete. In R. Dittmann / C. Eder / B. Jacobs (eds): Altertumswissenschaften im Dialog. Festschrift für Wolfram Nagel zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres (AOAT 306). Münster. Pp. 397–420. Moortgat-Correns, U., 1968: Die ehemalige Rollsiegel-Sammlung Erwin Oppenländer. BaM 4: 233–289. Nadali, D., 2001–03: Guerra e morte: L’annullamento del nemico nella condizione del vinto. Scienze dell’Antichità 11: 51–70. von der Osten, H.H., 1934: Ancient Oriental Seals in the Collection of Mr. Edward T. Newell (OIP 22). Chicago.  Pongratz-Leisten, B., 2007: Ritual Killing and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. In K. Finsterbusch / A. Lange / K.F. Diethard Römheld (eds): Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition. Leiden / Boston. Pp. 3–33. Porada, E., 1948: Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections: The Pierpont Morgan Library. New York. –– 1950: Review to the Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, Vol. 1. The Collection of Pierpont Morgan Library, New York 1948. JCS 4/2, 155–62. Porter Nevling, B., 2009: Blessing from a Crown, Offering to a Drum. Were There Non-Antrhopomorphic Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia? In B. Nevling Porter (ed.): What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Winona Lake. Pp. 153–194. Postgate, J.N., 1992: Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London. Ralph, S., 2012: An Interdisciplinary Approach to the Study of Violence. In S. Ralph (ed.): The Archaeology of Violence. Interdisciplinary Approaches. New York. Pp. 1–13. Rappaport, R.A., 1999: Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge. Schmandt-Besserat, D., 2007: When Writing Met Art: from Symbol to Story, Austin. Schwartz, G.M., 2012: Archaeology and Sacrifice. In A. Porter / G.M. Schwartz (eds): Sacred Killing: The Archaeology of Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake. Pp. 1–32. Selz, G., 1997: The Holy Drum, The Spear, and the Harp. Towards an Understanding of the Problems of Deification in Third Millennium Mesopotamia. In © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

318

S. Di Paolo

I. Finkel / M. Geller (eds): Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. Groningen. Pp. 167–209. Sotheby 1995 = Antiquities and Islamic Art. Sotheby’s New York, December 8. New York. Thureau-Dangin, F., 1910: Lettres et contrats, de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne. Paris. Uehlinger, C., 2008: Gott or König? Bild und Text auf der altbabylonischen Siegestele des Königs Dāduša von Ešnunna. In M. Bauks (ed.): Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8, 6). Aspekte einer theologischen Anthropologie. Neukirchen / Vluyn. Pp. 515–536. Ungnad, A. / Kohler, J., 1909–23: Hammurabi’s Gesetz, 6 vols. Leipzig. Verkinderen, P., 2005: Un šakkanakku de Der rédecouvert?. NABU 2005/2: 25–26. Ward, W.H., 1910: The Seal-Cylinders of Western Asia. Washington. Westenholz, J., 2012: Damnatio Memoriae: Destruction of Name and Destruction of Person in Third-Millennium Mesopotamia. In N.N. May (ed.): Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond (OIS 8). Chicago. Pp. 89–122. Whiting, R.M., 1977: Sealing Practices on House and Land Use Sale Documents at Eshnunna in the Isin-Larsa Period. In McG. Gibson / R.D. Gibbs (eds): Seals and Sealing in the Ancient Near East (BiMe 6). Malibu. Pp. 69–74. Winter, I.J., 2007: Agency Marked, Agency Ascribed: The Affective Object in Ancient Mesopotamia. In R. Osborne / J. Tanner (eds): Art’s Agency and Art History. Malden (MA). Pp. 42–69. Yaseen, G.T., 1992: Tell Halawa. In L. al-Gailani Werr (ed.): Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals from the Hamrin (Edubba 2). London, –– 1995: Old Babylonian Pottery from the Hamrin. Tell Halawa (Edubba 4). London. Yuhong, W., 1998: Review of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals from the Hamrin, London 1992. JAOS 118/4: 577–578.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Bodily Violence in Early Old Babylonian Glyptics: A Performative Act?

319

Fig. 1. Visual narrative supporting the legitimacy of the bodily violence on Old Babylonian seals here presented. Computer-aided revision of the seal impression no. 15 made by the author.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change: Parallels between the Development of Cremation and the Diffusion of Groovy Pottery in the Upper Tigris Valley during Iron Ages I and II Maria Forza

1. Introduction: Scientific Aims and Methodology The aim of the present study is to trace some evidence in order to analyze the socio-cultural changes which occurred in the Upper Tigris Valley between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I, and the repercussions these had on Iron Age II, in the light of some archeological data.1 Specifically, the diffusion of Groovy 1

The subdivision between Iron Age I and II has been made on the basis of some textual and archaeological criteria in the sociopolitical and historical context under consideration. The texts are, in my opinion, sufficiently appropriate to reveal the transformation between these two periods. It is reasonable to believe that the date of the beginning of Iron Age I coincides with the draft of the Giricano Tablets between 1069 and 1056 BC, which will be considered hereafter. According to the erection of the Kurkh Stele at Uçtepe, dated to 882 BC, whose inscription gives an account of the reconsolidation of Assyrian power in the region after the second campaign of Assurnasiprapl II, the beginning of the 9th century is considered the beginning of Iron Age II. From an archaeological point of view, it is worth pointing out that in the current research, all the archeological investigations in the Upper Tigris Valley are extremely problematic. Most of the excavations were conducted too quickly and often in a haphazard manner, also because they were begun as emergency excavations or surveys before the construction of the dams in the Upper Tigris. Stratigraphical sequences are highly unclear and publications are few and far between and sometimes unreliable. There are several incongruities, in particular when seeking to compare the situations on the various sites. To this picture it is important to add that throughout the Iron Age architecture is almost absent on many sites with the exception of Ziyaret Tepe, whose Neo-Assyrian palace can be considered as the only indisputable architectural evidence of Neo-Assyrian presence in the zone. With these premises, scholars are induced to refer to change in pottery repertory and to other archaeological evidence, as will be seen during this study. Looking at the pottery, many scholars such as D’Agostino (2012) and Szuchmann (2009) agree that with the withdrawal of Middle-Assyrian power in the region in the middle of the 9th century, throughout the region mass production of Middle-Assyrian pottery was substituted by handmade production of “Groovy Pottery.” With the Neo-Assyrian recapture of the Upper Tigris Valley at the beginning of what is considered to be Iron Age II, new assyrian mass pottery production was reintroduced. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

322

M. Forza

Pottery and the appearance of cremation will be taken into consideration. To this end five archeological contexts will be analyzed, all of which are situated along the Upper Tigris Valley, between the Ilisu Dam and Uçtepe, covering a total of 150 km in length. Proceeding from West to East, the sites under the present investigation are: Kavuşan Hüyükh,2 Giricano,3 Ziyaret Tepe,4 Gre Dimse,5 and Zeviya Tivilki.6 Kavuşan Höyük is a small site of about 1.3 ha, 175 m in an East-West direction and 75 m in a North-South direction. It stands 538 m above sea level. It is located at the confluence of the Tigris with its right tributary Şeyan, at 10 km South-East of the modern city of Bismil. As with many other sites in the Upper Tigris Valley, Kavuşan Höyük was recognized by the surveys of Algaze between the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the1990s. It was subsequently carefully excavated between 2001 and 2009. The site is currently threatened by the planned construction of the Karkemish and Ilisu dams. Professor Kozbe from Ege University (Izmir) was the field director and she worked in collaboration with Professor Köroğlu of Marmara University (Istanbul) and the support of the TAÇDAM, the center of research for cultural and environmental heritage. 3 Giricano is a small settlement of 2 ha on the left bank of the Tigris and it is 9 km SouthEast of modern Bismil. It was recognized after the surveys by Algaze, and excavations were conducted from 2000 to 2003 by A. Schachner, director of the Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäologie of the University of Munich in partnership with the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Diyarbakir Museum. The fieldwork was part of the research project “The Northern Frontiers of Mesopotamia,” which also included investigation of nearby Ziyaret Tepe. 4 Ziyaret Tepe is located on the right side of the Tigris river, in an upland of about 10 m on the surrounding plain. It is 10 km East of modern Bismil and 30 km South-West of Batman. The total extension of the site is 32 ha, whereas the upper city covers a surface of only 3 ha and it is located in the northern part of the settlement. Ziyaret was considered the main center of the northern assyrian provinces for the first time by Karlheinz Kessler in 1980, but the first archaeological excavation was carried out in 1989. In 1997 the American archaeologists, Timothy Matney (University of Akron-Ohio), Guillermo Algaze (UCLA) and Eric Rupley (University of Michigan), with the aid of Mustafa Kiliçal started new research. Many other scholars from numerous American, European and Asian institutes and universities also took part. The Universities of Akron (T. Matney), Cambridge (J. MacGinnis), Mainz (D. Wicke) and Marmara (K. Köroğlu) are currently working together on the excavation in partnership with the Diyarbakir Museum and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey. 5 Gre Dimše covers a surface of 4 ha and it is 30 m high on the surrounding plain. It is located in the triangle formed by the confluence of the Tigris and its right tributary Batman. The archaeological investigations at Gre Dimše were carried out between 1998 and 2000 by the Bilkent University of Ankara, under the supervision of Professor Norbert Karg. 6 Zeviya Tivilki is the smallest site under consideration, as it is only 2.565 m2. It is located at 50 km from the modern city of Midyat, in North-East direction and at 10 km East from Dargeçit. The excavations began in 2009 under the supervision of Professor Tuba Ökse of Kokaeli University, and it was carried out thanks to the collaboration between Kokaeli University, Mustafa Kemal University of Antakya-Hatay and the museum of Mardin. 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

323

We are certainly aware of the complex process underlying such changes as far as historical matters per se are considered, given their traceability through such polymorphic evidence as the diffusion of a type of pottery and the attestation of a “new funerary practice.” In fact, if in the first case we are faced with a widespread phenomenon affecting most of Eastern Anatolia for a lapse of time of more than 200 years, in the case of cremation traceable data are sporadic, enigmatic and still rather obscure. Nevertheless, we deem most significant its occurrence in such a circumscribed area as that of the Tigris region between Ilisu and Uçtepe. In the contexts under discussion the changes taking place in the Iron Age are evident both in consideration of the hierarchy of settlements and of material culture, architecture and, most likely, of funerary practices. The methodology applied for this study follows a diachronic approach: we shall proceed to an analysis of these sites from Iron Ages I and II, in the light of the modification of the pottery repertory and of the appearance of crematory ritual. 2. The Transition from Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age The Upper Tigris Valley fell under Middle-Assyrian rule for the first time after the raids of King Adad-Nirari I (1363–1328) and more steadily during the rule of Salmanassar I (1274–1245), who established in Tušu (Ziyaret Tepe) the capital of the province.7 The area was of utmost geographical relevance and was highly cherished by Middle-Assyrian sovereigns. This was due to its strategic position at the foot of the Outer Eastern Taurus mountains, which forms a natural barrier, but at the same time allowed easy access to the raw materials to be found in the mountain areas of Central and Eastern Anatolia. The valley, moreover, guaranteed the necessary supplies of agricultural goods. The tablets discovered in a jar at Giricano, dated 1069,8 do represent a pre-

Liverani 2011, 411–413. This subjection was possible after the final defeat of the Kingdom of Mitanni which was at the time of the Assyrian conquest already reduced to the triangle between the River Khabur and the Euphrates. The Assyrians exercised their power on that region by imposing royal officials and by deporting the local Hurrian population. Nevertheless, part of the Hurrian population of the old kingdom of Mitanni scattered in the near uplands devoted themselves to a nomadic way of life and to agro-pastoralism. 8 To the North of the Middle-Assyrian pit 01:53 at Giricano, there were 15 inscribed clay tablets (Schachner 2003, 153). To preserve them, they were fired in a local kiln together with the jar which contained them. Karen Radner studied the inscriptions (Radner 2004) and she determined that they were part of the private archive of Ahuni, a local Assyrian official. The texts document loan reports and exchange of metals and cattle as taking place in the areas around Tušu and Dunnu ša Uzibi. Uzibi was probably the name of the Assyrian official in charge of the management of the dunnu of Giricano. The Giricano Tablets have been dated to the reign of the Assyrian king Assurbelkale (1069–1056 BC): 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

324

M. Forza

cious document in this sense: not only did they allow the identification of Tušu with Ziyaret and of Dunnu ša Uzibi with Giricano, but they also provided essential information on Middle-Assyrian policy in the area. They clearly reveal the function of the Assyrian dunnu in the provinces, which constituted fortified settlements, or premises for the sovereign’s functionaries in charge of the supervision of agricultural and economic resources. The capital town of the province was Tušu, a veritable urban center and royal residence. We still have little information as regards the Middle-Assyrian provincial system in the region, but we can argue there was a main province around the capital Tušu, which was ruled by an Assyrian delegate, the šakin. The main urban centres were Uçtepe (Ta’idu), Ziyaret Tepe (Tušu) and Pornak (Šinabu).9 In the case of the sites under consideration we can thus proceed to the following reflections: Ziyaret, was the actual urban center, and onto it was concentrated the whole activity of Giricano’s dunnu, which in turn governed other, smaller rural centers such as Kavuşan Hüyükh and Gre Dimše. It is in such a context that pottery enables us to acknowledge the Assyrian presence in the area: the findings are indeed homogenous and perfectly in line with the Middle Assyrian mass-production of standardized wheel-shaped wares, which was wholly governed by the centralized royal control system. Already during the Late Bronze Age, some Hurrian political entities were gradually strengthened between the Eastern Taurus, the Lake Van Basin and the Upper Zab river. They were probably the result of the political splitting up and dispersion of the population following the collapse of the Reign of Mitanni.10 These people, probably organized in tribal groups, were able to form coalitions against the Assyrian power already during the reign of Salmanassar I. The Assyrian called these groups “Uruarti” or people of “Nairi” depending on who was the most powerful to assemble the force to fight the Assyrians.11 At the end of the 12th century in the Upper Tigris Valley, the nomadic Aramae-

indeed, on the tablets appears the name of Ili-Iddina, an Assyrian official in the province of Tušu, who is also mentioned in the broken obelisk of Assurbelkala (Curtis 2007; Grayson 1991, A.0. 89.7 iii 19b-20a). 9 Szuchmann 2009, 56, fn. 1. 10 Liverani 2011, 411–413. 11 Salvini 1967 passim. Between the reigns of Salmanassar I (1274–1245 BC) and of Assurbelkala (1073–1056 BC), the Assyrian annals mention both “Uruarti” and “Nairi” as anti-Assyrian coalitions of tribal groups living north of the Upper Tigris Valley, probably with a substantial Hurrian component. It is quite difficult to understand which people were included in these terms. It is reasonable to suggest they were connected to different coalitions of tribal groups who were able to gather military forces against the Assyrians sporadically. Adad-nirari II (911–891 BC) is the first who speaks of “Uruarti” and “Nairi” as two different components, maybe because neither of the two was able to assemble the Hurrian forces against the Assyrians. This weakening of the “Nairi” or “Uruarti” people could be connected to the emergence of the Aramaean component. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

325

an component of Bit Zamani12 became increasingly evident and powerful against the Assyrians who lost the domain of the Valley in the middle of the 11th century, during the reign of King Assurbelkala (1073–1056).13 No written information on the events taking place in this area between the mid-11th and early 12th century are available. Once again it is the Giricano tablets which tell us something about the Assyrian loss of control over the region. Some passages mention outstanding debts and that leads us to conclude that such non-fulfillment to carry out obligations to the central power must be an indication of the deterioration of the influence the Assyrians had so far maintained. The scientific community agrees in believing that, once the Assyrian power retreated within the traditional borders of the Māt Assur, the Upper Tigris Valley became the site for the migrations of nomadic or semi-nomadic peoples, who were mostly devoted to transhumant pastoralism. This nomadic component, structured as it was in various tribal groups, each ruled by a chief, constituted a rather complex reality in which heterogeneous ethnicities interacted, and among which there was certainly an Aramaean presence. What is highly likely is that at the end of the 11th century Bit Zamani was a real protostatal entity with its capital at Amedi, present day Diyarbakir.14 Indicatively, its territory consisted of the right bank of the Tigris between Diyarbakir and the confluence of the Batman river and, in the south it was limited by the Tur Abdin mountains and the Kara Dağ Volcano.15 Thus, what can certainly be determined beyond the territorial development of Bit Zamani is that the Upper Tigris Valley and, more in general, all Upper Mesopotamia north of the Tur Abdin mountains, was, during the Early Iron Age, the seat of the movement of nomadic or semi-nomadic groups who were probably Hurrian, Aramaean and maybe of other ethnic provenance. They were devoted to transhumant pastoralism as their main economic activity and they gradually integrated with other more stable communities distributed in villages. The phenomenon of emerging nomadic groups is of particular interest for this study, as it reveals systems of organization that are archaeologically difficult to identify, but are nevertheless of great significance. This strongly segmental type of society displaying a family-run economy proved to be more successful in adapting to a situation of precariousness caused by the collapse of central power, as in Iron The first reference to Bit Zamani is in a 13th century text from Tell Billa (Tell Billa 6), where this term is connected to a territorial identity of a tribal group with this name. More precisely, the text from Tell Billa refers to Aššur-Kāšid, son of Bēl-qarrād “governor of the province of Bēt-Zammani.” Finkelstein connects this province to the formation of the future Aramaean state of Bēt-Zammani (Finkelstein 1953, 116–117 and 119). 13 From the broken obelisk of Assurbelkala we can infer how the aramaean tribes played a great role in the withdrawal of the assyrians in the Upper Tigris Valley (Grayson 1991, A.0.89.7 iii 13b–17a). Most of the sites of battles between the assyrians and the aramaeans took place at sites most presumably located in the Upper Tigris Valley. 14 Lipinsky 2000, 153. 15 Lipinsky 2000, 153. 12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

326

M. Forza

Age I. The social fabric of these groups also proved to be immune from political upheaval, being made up of both heterarchical and hierarchical models. The group’s strength was further consolidated through long-distance migration, as this strengthened networks.16 In the case of the Upper Tigris Valley in Iron Age I, these nomadic tribes gradually came into contact with sedentary groups, forming what Rowtown terms as a “Dimorphic system”17 on the one hand the nomads came into contact with existing local village communities, while on the other there was also a continuous influx of nomads in rising Assyrian urban areas at the beginning of the 9th century. Some of the archeological evidence which is typical of these nomadic cultures, such as the settlement model and material culture, could be considered as “archaeological markers.” Szuchmann proposes to interpret the diffusion of Groovy Pottery as a planned rejection of the material culture and policy of the Assyrians.18 3. The Archaeological Markers of Iron Age I With the exception of Zeviya Tiviliki, which is a monophasic settlement dated to Iron Age II, all the other contexts under analysis present typical features of the so-called “Culture of Iron Age I” in the Upper Tigris Valley. Indeed, during the Early Iron Age they assume some specific aspects of temporary settlements used by nomadic or semi-nomadic people such as base camps during their movements. In this historical period, Ziyaret, which was the provincial capital in the Middle-Assyrian domain and which would have the same role in the Neo-Assyrian empire, was also reduced to the upper town of the old Middle-Assyrian city, covering a surface of about 3 ha.19 Gircano had an extension of 2 ha, whereas Gre Dimše and Kavuşan Hüyükh were slightly smaller. They are therefore very limited sites and no settlement hierarchy is recognizable.20 The architecture is generally very poor: it is made of ephemeral structures with coarse stone foundations and mudbrick walls.21 Also open spaces destined to artisan activities or used as pens and large storing pits are frequent.22 These pits Cribb 1991, 25. Rowtown 1974, 8. 18 Szuchmann 2009, passim. 19 Matney et al. 2002, 66. 20 Parker 2003, 53, tab. 1. 21 Kozbe 2008, 293. Kozbe suggests, with particular reference to Kavuşan Hüyükh, the existence of very light structures built in wood, wattle and stones, in accordance with what he defines the “Wattle and daub technique.” 22 On the basis of the archaeological findings of Salat Tepe, Görmüş suggests that these pits could have been used as dwellings and he refers to them with the term “pit-houses.” In fact, in two of the circular pits of Salat Tepe a stone structure was found and the archaeologist interpreted it as a base for a pot, a kind of hearth (Görmüş 2010, 366). 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

327

are often filled with storage pottery or handmade pottery.23 According to Tuba Ökse,24 these pits were excavated in the highest part of the site to avoid the risk of collapsing soil due to rainwater. On the bottom of the pits was arranged a layer of straw and sometimes there was a clay fill to protect crops from insect activities.25 Iron Age I levels of several sites of the Upper Tigris Valley are quite frequent and also other kind of installations, such as ovens, pottery kilns, and foundries. All this archaeological evidence suggests a kind of agropastoral economy of the inhabitants of these settlements. Here, some sites have been mentioned as temporary settlements related to nomads and to pastoralism, but considering the meaning of these installations and of storage pits, it is reasonable to suggest a contemporary prosper of small rural villages such as Kenan Tepe. Their development could be read as a gradual phase of the sedentarization of nomadic groups. 3.1. Grooved Pottery The presence of Grooved Pottery is certainly to be considered one of the most significant archeological markers of the early Iron Age. Dating back to the 11th century in the Upper Tigris Valley, this kind of pottery may be found at all of the sites in question here, but, as already mentioned, it was widespread in the whole of Eastern Anatolia.26 These pits are very frequent at all the sites under analysis. For example, two circular pits were excavated at Ziyaret Tepe: Pit 032 in area E (Matney et al. 2002, 64) and Pit L.831 in Area L (Matney et al. 2009, 78, fig. 15). Several pits were also found in the highest part of Gre Dimše, at Kavuşan Hüyükh (phase VI) and at Giricano (Trench 06).

23

24

Ökse / Görmüş 2009, 165.

Ökse, oral communication on occasion of the conference “At the Northern Frontier of Near Eastern Archaeology/An der Nordgrenze der vorderasiatischen Archäologie” organized by the University of Ca’ Foscari, Venice, 9–11 January 2013. 26 “Groovy Pottery” was produced throughout Eastern Anatolia, around Lake Urmia and Armenia in a period that varies according to the regions, but can be established as spanning the second half of the 12th to the end of the 7th centuries BC. Taking into account the wide area of distribution and the variations in production, it is particularly complicated to define the geographical limits. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that Grooved Pottery findings are rarer beyond the Karababa Dam (or Atatürk Dam) to the West and South of the Euphrates. However, surveys carried out along the northern slope of the Amano in the mid-1990s (Schwartz Dodd 2003) yielded sherds dating to the 10th century BC even in the region of Karamaraş. Moreover, at Tell Halaf, which is much further south compared to the Karababa Dam, some evidence of this type of pottery has come to light, but the context of the findings are not entirely reliable and so cannot be dated (Bartl 1995, 208). Groovy Pottery may also be detected to the east and South-East, in Mudjesir, in Iraqi Kurdistan, and also at the site of Zendan-i-Suleiman 100 km SouthEast. It is scattered throughout the area surrounding the lake and also along the Aras river and on a few armenian sites West of Lake Sevan. Numerous sites in the northern part have also yielded a wide range of pottery examples around the Lake Van Basin, 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

328

M. Forza

The repertory is characterized by open or closed shapes with horizontal grooves at the rim level. They might be simply decorated with geometric patterns, which are either painted or engraved on the surface. They are generally handmade, produced with the employment of a slow wheel, even though there are some rare examples clearly turned with fast wheels. The mixtures, which are generally sandy with calcareous inclusions, vary considerably according to the area where they were manufactured. Karin Bartl classifies them in four different types with reference to their colour, which ranges from yellowish, to light-brown and dark red hues.27 The surface is well-burnished and may present more or less diluted slip, generally of a similar tonality as that of the mixture. This kind of pottery was undoubtedly for household production, corresponding to daily needs – for cooking and/or for carrying food and drinks. Their features, mostly spouted, suggest they served for hot drinks or soups. Many scholars have so far debated on the origin of Groovy Pottery, leading to quite different conclusions based on the wide diffusion such pottery had on the territories in question. The oldest evidence comes from the Keban Plain and, according to C14, can be dated between the 12th and 9th centuries. In particular the sites of Norsuntepe (II) and Korucutepe (5) are those in which this pottery is present in great quantity and originates from uniform levels, immediately following the collapse of the Hittite Empire at the end of the Late Bronze Age.28 and there is also some evidence of this ware on the Erzurum Plain, although in smaller quantities. 27 Bartl 1994, 481. Although the widest range of grooved ware discovered to date comes from Norşuntepe, it is impossible to determine a subdivision of the types according to their stratigraphic position (Bartl 1994, 482; 2001, 386). 28 Norşuntepe, situated on the Altinova Plain near the Keban Dam, is considered the most important site as regards the study of so-called Iron Age I Groovy Pottery. Indeed, excavations of the southern terrace and the citadel have yielded the greatest number of potsherds (20,600) associated with this type of pottery (Bartl 1994, 481). This location was constantly occupied from the Late Bronze Age onwards, featuring agglutinative architecture primarily in the citadel from Iron Age II, when the site was taken over by the Urartians and a palace for an official was subsequently built on the southern terrace (Müller 2005, 109). The Iron Age I stages were initially missed due to the fact that the site’s stratigraphy is horizontal and not vertical, which further complicated excavation (Müller 2005, 108). In actual fact at least 3 Iron Age I stages were subsequently identified on the southern terrace of the site, ranging between 1150/1100 BC and 1000/950 BC (Bartl 2001, 391). Although the lapse of time between Late Bronze Age and Iron I occupation was extremely brief, nevertheless there was a radical change in the settlement’s organization, with the progressive absence of any urban planning in which the buildings, designed using inferior materials, were widely spaced apart. There was no longer any trace of Iron Age I distribution and it seems as though they were simply abandoned due to various environmental factors (Müller 2005, 109). As mentioned above, one of the specific features of Iron Age I Norşuntepe is in fact the presence of Groovy Pottery, which represents a radical change in pottery production, to which may be associated a change in eating habits. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

329

However, it is certain that pottery production was present in such a vast area according to a clearly marked regionalism, exhibiting different features, methods and times.29 This has provoked much debate on the degree of associa-

These differences have provoked lengthy debate on the degree of association between the various types of production and the areas in which they appear. In addition to Norşuntepe, there are other sites in the area of Altinova, such as Kurucutepe (level 5), Digirmentepe and Tepecik (levels 2 to 3), which have yielded a substantial array of Groovy Pottery. These sites have been considered sufficiently reliable to enable stratigraphic dating of the pottery to between 1150 and 1000 BC. Although there is some disagreement in the scientific community as to when Urartian production ceased in this region, it is reasonable to believe that Groovy Pottery appeared in Iron Age I in levels that also yielded Hittite finds (Bartl 1994, 503; Erdem 2012, 114; Güneri 2002, 72). Further south, on the sites excavated around the Karakaya Dam, such as Imi-Kuşaği, Habibuşaği and Köškerbaba, the rather less extensive repertory of Groovy Pottery compared to production in the North has been dated to Iron Age II (Bartl 1994, 504; 2001, 391). However, it is mixed with Late Bronze Age wheel-shaped pottery (Bartl 1994, 517). The context is rather more complex in the region of the Karababa Dam, where material attributable to Groovy Pottery originates from Tille Hüyük and Lidar Hüyük (Bartl 1994, 504). Tille Hüyük yielded sherds in levels 4 and 5, datable to the 10th and 9th centuries, together with Neo-Hittite ware. In the case of Lidar, Groovy Potery appeared almost a century earlier compared to Tille, broadly datable to between 1100 and 900 BC: the levels in which it was found (levels 6e2 and 6e1) obliterate the level in which the seal of Kuzi Teshub, Late Bronze Age King of Karchemish, was found (Müller 2003, 138, fig. 1, 140; Bartl 2001, 392). Both sites display evident occupational continuity from the Late Bronze Age through to Iron I and II (Müller 2005, 113–114), but Hittite features are far stronger than in the area of the Keban Dam. The Groovy Pottery originating from the Karababa region mixed with Hittite ware, of a later period than that found on the sites around the Keban Dam, may have been locally produced following an initial phase of importing wares from the northern sites, subsequently no longer tied to Late Bronze Central-Anatolian traditions and so culturally independent. Apart from the sites excavated around the Keban Dam, the only other ones where Groovy Pottery appears in about 1150–1110 BC are the sites dating to the pre-Urartian period around the Lake Van Basin and west of Lake Sevan in present day Armenia (Bartl 2001, 395). Above all in the latter, the pottery finds are extremely difficult to date due to the fact that the contexts are unclear and in this region Iron I spans a wide period going from 1300 to 800 BC (Bartl 2001, 396). The complexity of dating the pottery in question at Van Dilkaya, Çavuştepe and other sites in the region of the Lake Van Basin is attributable to the provenance of burial, which makes it hard to ascribe Iron I or II (Erdem 2012, 114). Archaeological surveys conducted in the late 1980s in the ancient region of Hayasa, between Erzican, Erzurum and Kars yielded sporadic finds of Groovy Pottery also at the sites of Sos Höyük, Pulur and Güzelova. Güneri has classified this with the letter “P” according to type (Güneri 2002), which features a dark, well-burnished surface whose shapes are reminiscent of some types recovered in Caucasia (Güneri 2002, 72–73). He strongly argues for late 12th century BC, but at the same time is reluctant to make a connection with Groovy Pottery from the Keban region, as the morphological features are quite different and the grooves themselves are rather technically primitive

29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

330

M. Forza

tion between the different types of production and the areas where they occurred. Furthermore, seeking to determine chronology and type in relation to likely local differences is a challenging task. The table below shows the periods in which the pottery appeared in the various regions of East Anatolia. Groovy Pottery is largely present on the sites in the Upper Tigris, from Diyarbakir to the Ilisu Dam, from the withdrawal of the Middle-Assyrians from the region after 1050 BC.30 It is complex to determine clearly how long this production lasted in the region, but it was certainly present in Iron Age II following Assyrian recapture of the area. Although it is likely that Iron Age I Grooved Pottery unearthed on the site of the Keban Dam was the result of the development of traditional local practices,31

and generalized in various periods and cultures. On this point he is at variance with those who support the theory of the interregional relations of Groovy Pottery, among whom Sevin (1991). Indeed, according to the scholar this production originated in Caucasia and subsequently spread throughout Eastern Anatolia thanks to migrating peoples, amongst whom the Mušku, who were recorded in the inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser I. Taking the opposite stand Güneri observes that only the Groovy Pottery from the sites between Erzican and Kars actually display any affinity with that of Caucasian provenance, remaining an isolated case in the repertory of identified Groovy Pottery. As mentioned above, this type of pottery is common on numerous sites, for example Hansalu and Geoy Tepe, around Lake Urmia in North-West Iran, but finds have also come to light in Zendan-i-Suleiman. The dating of 8th to 7th centuries BC in this region is based on the stratigraphy of Hansalu which has enabled archaeologists to accurately reconstruct the phases of the Iron Age (Bartl 2001, 395). Karin Bartl has sought to identify trends on the basis of continuous occupation in the various archaeological contexts (2001, 396), whereas Erdem has attempted to provide a reconstruction according to type and region on the basis of the quality of the clay and surface treatment (2012, 114). However, this has not provided any substantial chronological sequence as some of the assemblages have also been found in areas much farther away. 30 Roaf / Schachner 2005, 120. 31 The interpretation of Groovy Pottery as being the result of the development of a local tradition stemming from pre-Hittite shapes has been put forward by Müller (2005, 112) and also by D’Agostino (2012, 220). Indeed, the scholar detects numerous similarities with Early and Middle Bronze Age handmade production, both as regards type, manufacture and decoration. The collapse of the Hittite empire implied the end of centrally managed wheel-shaped pottery. In order to address the shortage of common vessels, the communities of Keban-Elaziğ recovered local pottery making traditions that dated back to the Early and Middle Bronze Age, and Groovy Pottery produced for domestic purposes was the result. However, this does not exclude possible influx of non-natives who could have integrated with the local population, gradually settling there (D’Agostino 2012, 222). The transhumant routes may have played a role in the dissemination of Grooved Pottery in the more eastern areas of the Lake Van Basin, Urmia and North-Western Iran. It should be remembered that the grooves are in fact quite simple and common, which could have been produced regardless of direct contact between the manufacturers. Thus, the reason © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

331

the same cannot be said of the findings in the Upper Tigris Valley. It is believed that the origin of the production of this type of pottery was the Upper Euphrates Valley, which was home to the earliest workshops.32 It is likely that the tribal ethnic groups that brought this type of production were gradually moving from one place to another. Moreover, added to this phenomenon was the fact that the rural village communities, nomadic and semi-nomadic groups progressively became significant political entities in this area, closer to a tribal than centralized state organization. As D’Agostino stresses, at some sites in the Upper Tigris, such as Ziyaret Tepe and Giricano, the levels of Groovy Pottery samples sealed the level below of Middle-Assyrian ware, which suggests that there was a change in terms of production after 1050 BC.33 In order to further debate, D’Agostino has put forward an interesting theory. He suggests that around the 13th to 12th centuries BC the Upper Tigris Valley witnessed the settlement of two different structures: on the one hand the Assyrians, who produced wheel-made pottery, aiming to control agricultural resources through a network of strongholds, the dunnu, and urban centres; on the other hand we have tribal heterarchical communities who produced handmade pottery. The latter were scattered and lived in small centres, dedicated to an agro-pastoral subsistence farming system, which was undoubtedly more compatible with the territory and thus immune to the Late Bronze Age political transition. The finds of Groovy Pottery in the levels immediately above the Middle-Assyrian levels at Ziyaret Tepe and at Giricano was the result of wider social and political change, as when the Middle-Assyrians withdrew these sites the communities entered a new production phase, adapting to the requirements of the new inhabitants who produced handmade pottery.

for such a widespread use of this type of ware during the Iron Age has remained central to scientific debate. Finally, to date studies and above all archaeological surveys have yet to identify a sequence or typology of forms as regards regional differences, as well as in terms of chronology (D’Agostino 2012, 227). In the future, should samples become sufficient enough to be analyzed more adequately, this will enable scholars to determine both chronological and geographical development phases. 32 From the excavations it has emerged that at the sites in the Upper Tigris, Groovy Pottery appeared after the withdrawal of the Middle-Assyrians, which can be dated to the mid-11th century BC, based on an examination of the Giricano Tablets. Hence, it spread rather later there than at Altinova-Elaziğ. Furthermore, there seems to be no continuity between Iron Age I Grooved Pottery in the Upper Tigris and other previous handmade pottery, such as Middle Bronze Age reddish-brown ware (D’Agostino 2012, 221). 33 However, precisely as a consequence of the upheavals between the Late Bronze Age and Iron I small rural communities flourished in this area who were unaffected by Assyrian culture. In this context Groovy Pottery could have appeared as early as the 13th to 12th centuries BC, at a time when the Middle-Assyrian tradition in this region was still dominant (D’Agostino 2012, 223–224). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

332

M. Forza

3.2. Cremation in Iron Age I In three of the sites under examination cremation burials were brought to light, attributable to Iron Age I. Thus, a jar complete with lid used to store cremation ashes (L-839) was retrieved from area L in the citadel of Ziyaret Tepe,34 two cremation pots lacking covers were brought to light in trench 03 at Giricano35 and at Gre Dimše a second cremation urn was found together with the inhumation grave of the “Warrior.” The cremation jars at Ziyaret and Gre Dimše were both covered with a Groovy Pottery bowl. All of these burial sites attest to phases that were closely linked to the use of these sites by nomadic or semi-nomadic groups. Except for one of the two pot burials at Giricano, containing 6 iron arm bracelets, all the others lacked burial goods and it was impossible to identify gender or age of the deceased. Not only does the dearth of cremation evidence not demonstrate that this was the normal burial practice at that time, it also makes it impossible to determine in what circumstances these were carried out or who the participants were. Co-existence with inhumation was revealed by the recovery of the cremation urn at Gre Dimše and the “Warrior” grave. Thus, the only documented evidence is the cremation practice itself in Iron I, which represents a wholly new aspect compared to the almost exclusive practice of inhumation that was largely practiced during the Late Bronze Age. It is quite possible that its appearance is the result of a gradual infiltration of new traditions in which the migrant nomads played an important role. However, it is impossible to trace the origins and developments of these cultural contributions. 4. Iron Age II: Historical Context At the beginning of the IX century, Assurnasirpal II succeeded in recapturing the Upper Tigris Valley. The stele he had erected for himself at Uçtepe reports the following inscription stating that he “brings back in Tušan, the Middle-Assyrian Tušu, those Assyrians who had fled to Subria, moved by famine and misery.”36 Assurnasirpal II reconsolidated the Assyrian dominion of the region building

Matney et al. 2009, 78, fig. 15. Oral communication by Andrea Schachner, Director of the archaeological mission at Giricano. 36 Radner / Schachner 2001, 756. These acconts are inscribed on the monolith of Kurkh, erected by Assurnasirpal II and discovered in Uçtepe by Taylor in 1861 (Grayson 1991, 256–262, A.0.101.19). The Assyrian king describes the reconstruction of Tušan also on the so-called “Monolith of Nimrud” or “Great Monolith” discovered at the Temple of Ninurta in Nimrud: it is a large-scale commemorative stele, over 3 m high which was discovered by Layard at the entrance of the Temple of Ninurta in Nimrud and is now housed at the British Museum in London (Grayson 1991, 242–243, A.0.101.17: ii5b–48a); Matney 2013, 230, fn. 5). 34 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

333

new edifices, fortifying the city with walls, and constructing his royal palace, probably the famous Bronze Palace. Dating from this moment the Upper Tigris Valley became part of the neoassyrian provincial system, which would reach its highest point under the reign of Tiglath-Pileser III.37 The Cizre Plain, the present day Turkish province of Širnak, was also incorporated into this system and nominated province of Meshennu in 729 BC.38 Apart from the provinces of Tušan and Meshennu, there is no evidence as regards the period and way in which the Aramaean province of Bit Zamani was created. Nevertheless, it is known that in the plain between the Tigris, Tur Abdin and the Kara Dağ Volcano existed a region in which Aramaean was spoken under Assyrian rule and that Assyrian texts mention a “Governor of Nairi, Amida and Sinabu” between 838 BC and the end of the 7th century BC. The policy was to monopolize aspects of the local economy, agricultural colonization which aimed to gain supplies and convey them from the periphery to the center. This was made possible by efficient administration and a radically territorial re-distribution having the city of Tušan/Ziyaret at its core. The 21 texts brought to light from the archives at the palace of Ziyaret Tepe contribute greatly to an understanding of the general context, particularly concerning territorial control strategies.39 4.1. The Archaeological Markers of Iron Age II The sites along the valley increased in number by 50%, but they still displayed rigorous hierarchical distribution. Many local villages were abandoned, leaving space for new settlements. Nevertheless, some centers did maintain a continuity of activities, thus maintaining strong local character. The limited archaeological evidence makes it extremely difficult to establish in which way the various sites in the Upper Tigris Valley interacted with Assyrian rule and how they were absorbed into the provincial system. Although little can be said about Giricano and Gre Dimše, where the only evidence is ceramic ware, more can be said as regards the findings at Kavuşan Hüyükh, Zeviya Tivilki and without a doubt, at Ziyaret Tepe. Considering the conspicuous amount of Neo-Assyrian pottery and the numerous structures to store grain and also to produce wine, it can be suggested that Kavuşan Hüyükh was an agricultural site with As Parker 2003, 527. Parker 2003, 527. 39 MacGinnis / Matney 2009. One of the most complete texts regarding the organization of Assyrian territory in the province is the Harran Census dated to the reign of Sennacherib and published by Johns (Johns 1901) and subsequently by Fales (1973) and Galil (2007). It is a list with the details of each agricultural unit, whether a farm or piece of land, specifying movable assets and uses for each portion of land. The text also reveals a great deal about the type of administrative power the Assyrians exercised in the provinces and undoubtedly could also be applied to the agricultural plains around Tušan. 37

38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

334

M. Forza

syrian impact.40 Similarly, Zeviya Tivilki, where a spacious, monophasic building was discovered datable to Iron II surrounded by numerous structures dedicated to artisanal activities, can be assumed to be a small agricultural village inhabited by a small, stable, local community.41 However, the most significant archaeological evidence of Assyrian re-conquest is the Bronze Palace built in the citadel of Ziyaret Tepe.42 Its layout and position as regards the settlement suggests that it was a building of notable importance and was probably the palace mentioned by Assurnasirpal II in his inscriptions43. Moreover, its extension, covering just over 32 ha, means that Ziyaret expanded to become an important administrative centre. Once again it is through pottery that we can estimate the interaction between local indigenous components and the Assyrian conquerors. Mass produced pottery, typical of centralized Neo-Assyrian production, was re-introduced. Even so, Groovy Pottery did not disappear, but it persisted at uncontaminated sites, in rural centres such as Zeviya Tivilky and Kavuşan Hüyükh, and within the domestic quarters of the main centres, like Ziyaret44. To which one should add that local imitations of Assyrian pottery are not insignificant in the context of integration of this syncretic milieu. The reason for the persistence of hand-made Groovy Pottery despite the spread of a new mass produced type of pottery having the same function has been a key issue of lengthy debate. D’Agostino suggests that a phenomenon occurred, similar to what happened between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age but in the opposite direction, when Groovy Pottery substituted wheel-made Middle-Assyrian production. The fact that Groovy Pottery continued to persist, despite the fact that Neo-Assyrian manufacture and distribution was undoubtedly swifter,

Kozbe / Ögütle / Işler 2008, 203, 206; Kozbe / Köroğlu 2003, 283; Kozbe 2006, 574; Kozbe / Erdalikiran / Ona 2007, 392. 41 http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/okse323/ 42 The excavation of the palace revealed three construction phases, the oldest one dating back to the 9th century BC and the more recent ones dating to the 8th and 7th centuries BC. The intermediate phase is the best preserved. 43 From the point of view of layout there are two official rooms: one, more private in character, is located to the North of Courtyard 5 and is represented by reception rooms 4/8 and one is West of the courtyard represented by room 7. The latter, which was probably more official, is typical of the Assyrian layout of official rooms in Assyrian palaces, so that the throne room, in this case room 7, is flanked by an external and internal court yard that correspond to Courtyards 10 and 5 respectively. As Room 7 contains the presence of tram lines for a moveable hearth and is decorated with precious frescoes, it is highly likely that this was the throne room where the Governor of Tušan received diplomatic missions. The rooms to the North-West made up of rooms 15, 13, 11, 17, 3 and 2 may have been more private in function, being used for accommodation (Greenfield / Wicke / Matney 2013, passim). 44 Matney et al. 2009, 54. 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

335

still continues to puzzle scholars. The only reasonable explanation is that it remained functional for a specific sector of society that maintained its domination over some of the local production systems. While the Assyrians kept their hold on specific economic aspects such as mass production of pottery, other sectors that were not a threat to their power remained in local hands, which is why Groovy Pottery continued to be manufactured. The local community maintained its ties to its own customs in the production, storage, preparation and consumption of food, so that the pottery making techniques remained the same. The co-existence of two ceramic categories, dictated by the functional reasons of two different social groups, is closely connected to the cultural and political contexts of its users. Both categories of vessels formalize the symbolic, social and ideological ways of thinking of their users and their coexistence suggests some implications on the degree of relations between the Assyrian and local communities.45 That being said, there is no wish to equate ethnic newcomers to specific types of pottery production, but only to point out how pottery repertory can reflect various social and economic processes and their interactions. 4.2. Cremation in Iron Age II At Ziyaret Tepe five primary cremations, datable to the intermediate phase of the building, have been found aligned within Courtyard 5 of the ‘Bronze Palace’: proceeding from North these are: A-242, A-252, A-805, A212 and A070. They lie without any urn in elongated pits lined with baked bricks with dips along the short sides.46 Within these pits, apart from the remains of burnt and charred bones, there have also been recovered a number of elite items,47 including metal containers, ivory plates,48 stone objects and jewelry, all displaying close proximity to fire.49 The style of several of these funerary items recall

D’Agostino 2012, 227. As regards the function of these installations it is worth bearing in mind that the pits contained charred or semi-charred human bone remains and luxury artefacts together with other perfectly intact remains. It is important to interpret these pits as cremation burials, almost identical to the ones at Tell Sheikh Hamad, where, according to Kreppner, a ritual similar to the Roman bustum was performed. Both sites share similar deposit material and also the type of pits which would have been left visible voluntarily. The same pits were the site of the funeral pyre as well as of the deposition of the deceased’s bones. Here, as at Tell Sheikh Hamad, the objects that were not burnt would have been placed in the pit after cremation, according to a precise funeral rite. 47 Matney et al. 2009, 42. 48 Haller 1954, 173, pl. 41 a–c. 49 From a stratigraphic point of view, this hoard of artefacts was covered by a thin layer of lighter soil on which were placed ceramic and metal vessels that were totally intact. An analysis of the various materials reveals that the temperature of the fire had reached between 1100 and 1200 °C. 45 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

336

M. Forza

traditional Assyrian craftwork, when compared to grave goods recovered from Assur and Nimrud. Area Q of Ziyaret Tepe yielded three inhumation burials, also datable to Assyrian rule. The co-existence of both rituals, cremation and inhumation, is thus undisputed evidence.50 Located outside the small settlement of Zeviya Tivilki were 21 graves consisting of cremated bones51 in urns manufactured in the Neo-Assyrian style.52 Their position outside the living quarters and absence of connection with architectural structures is curious, as this is not typical of Assyrian funerary tradition which usually used ruined buildings to bury the deceased. In my opinion their peripheral and external location suggests, as regards type, the concept of a necropolis, meaning a “space for the deposition of burials far from living quarters.” The grave goods included iron tools and daggers, bracelets, fibulae, beads, arrowheads and spearheads datable to the 8th century BC, and five miniature pots from the local Early Iron Age. There were also two cylinder seals manufactured in the neoassyrian style.53 Cremation practices have been attested at Kavuşan Hüyükh:54 in trench F-G13, 22 secondary cremations were found. Except for one case of a double cremation, all the other cremations were individual in urns. The urn was a jar with no lid, apart from two cremations in which the jars were covered with pottery bowls. The deceased comprised 5 children, 2 young adults and another 8 adults. In seven of the cases it was impossible to determine the age of the deceased.55 The data suggests that cremation was performed mainly on women and children, but there seems to be no difference in rituals for individuals of different ages.56 Only four urns had grave goods and only one of these contained objects of any particular prestige.57

Matney et al. 2011, 92. Osteological analysis was carried out in the “Laboratory of Anthropology” at the University of Mustafa Kemal ad Hatay (Turkey). 52 Ökse / Eroğlu 2013, 163, fig. 2. 53 Ökse / Eroğlu 2013, 162, tab. 1. 54 Kozbe 2010, 350. 55 Kozbe 2010, 351. 56 Osteological analysis carried out by Professor Yolmaz S. Erdal of the Anthropology Department at the University of Hacettepe revealed that the bones were exposed to a temperature of between 900 and 1200 °C for a long time and thus were of a white-bluish colour (Kozbe 2006, fn. 2 at p. 577). 57 Amongst these were a gold earring, a bronze arm bracelet decorated in gold, a bronze bracelet and a bronze seal on which was inscribed the owner’s name, Hat(a)-nu, in Hittite hieroglyphics. It probably dates to the late Hittite reign, between the 14th and 13th centuries BC and it is assumed that it was used as a charm to accompany the deceased child in the afterlife. 50 51

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

337

In the same area as the excavation of cremations there were also sixteen simple inhumations and five inhumations in jars58 deposited in large containers of typical Assyrian manufacture.59 As regards the aim of this study, it is evident that cremation appears more markedly in Iron II, although co-existing with simple inhumation which was the preferred Assyrian ritual. It was performed in contexts in which Assyrian influence was present. For example, at Ziyaret cremations were inside prestigious Assyrian buildings, whereas in the case of Kavuşan Hüyükh and Zeviya Tivilki the contexts were rural, but still more or less absorbed into the imperial provincial system. Nevertheless, a number of distinctions must be made. The primary pit cremations at Ziyaret found inside an Assyrian place containing a hoard of luxury grave goods of Assyrian manufacture represent for the moment the exception and not the norm for funerary rites, performed only in a few specific cases and almost certainly in exclusively Assyrian contexts. On the other hand, the urns at Kavuşan Hüyükh and Zeviya Tivilki, which are poor and located in spaces allocated for the deceased, seem to indicate a new funerary tradition restricted to the common people regardless of social class, age or gender. Although this is just to engender further debate, it is not unlikely that the prelude to this new tradition is to be found precisely in the sporadic cremation already present in Iron I at Giricano, Gre Dimše and in the area L of Ziyaret Tepe. Likewise, it should be asked whether and how the movement of nomads who crossed the Upper Tigris valley during Iron I played a role in the establishment of this new funerary custom. 5. Conclusions In the light of what has been said we may conclude by stating that the introduction of Groovy Pottery and new funerary customs with regards to the Assyrian tradition may be understood as archeological markers of a much broader evolution. The scope of this study has been that of underlining the substantial implications, rather than providing an ethnically oriented survey. Indeed, what is of utmost concern is not so much the “who” provided changes in technological procedures or in established practices, but to analyze their socio-cultural impact and their persistency in Iron Age II. Through an examination of archeological evidence we 58 59

Kozbe / Öğütle / Işler 2008, 205. Kozbe 2010, 351. Inhumations in the ground and in jars were rituals that were also common in Assyrian practices. Moreover, in this case the funeral goods are a good indication, being more abundant than the cremations, thus enabling archaeologists to identify Assyrian elements that point to Assyrian Iron Age II. It is not known why these three rituals coexist in the central part of the site, although it is possible to observe how inhumation in jars was mainly performed on children under two years old, whereas inhumation in the ground is almost all of adults. As regards this, hardly anything can be said of the cremations, considering their poor state of preservation. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

338

M. Forza

took into consideration some “symptoms” of the interaction between two social models: the Assyrian imperial, centralized model and the tribal-nomadic model as they manifested themselves during Iron Age I. Considering the diffusion of Groovy Pottery, we may advance the consistency of interaction diachronically proposed as “Nomadic Empire-Component.” Local peoples, be they nomadic or semi-nomadic, autonomously addressed the lack of centrally manufactured pottery with a new product satisfying the same needs. We may define such change as ‘induced’ because of its being moved by daily need. During Iron Age II the interaction of the two models was synchronic, in so far as the re-introduction of mass pottery, as produced by the Neo-Assyrian workshops, did not imply the disappearance of the local one, so closely cherished by the locals. At this point of convergence Groovy Pottery maintained its significance because of its usefulness, even though another type of pottery with similar functions was being produced. As for funerary contexts, seeking to paint a complete picture is still a challenge, due to still meager archeological data at hand. At present research on burials dated to the Late Bronze Age is, in fact, circumscribed to the few burials which have been discovered and dug in the region, and nothing is yet known about the funerary rituals of all the nomadic groups who were living in the region between the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age II. Nevertheless, it seems likely that cremation was already present after Middle-Assyrian withdrawal and that it significantly increased in Iron Age II, above all in peripheral sites. The co-presence of such practice with Assyrian inhumation is particularly evident in the case of Kavuşan. The changes introduced by this ritual, which was disdained by the Assyrians who considered it sacrilegious, may be seen as a “spontaneous” outcome of so far unknown traditions in the area. These new additions in funerary customs may have provided for the preparation of places for the deceased, as can be seen at Kavuşan Hüyükh and Zeviya Tivilki, for instance. However, the pit cremations at Ziyaret still represent an unsolved question: together with those of the Assyrian buildings in the Lower city of Tell Sheikh Hamad, they constitute the only examples of primary cremations within an Assyrian context. It would certainly be going too far to assert that they respected alien funerary traditions, given the fact that they were inserted in imperial governmental buildings and that the grave goods are perfectly consistent with luxurious Assyrian artifacts. Bibliography Bartl, K., 1994: Die Frühe Eisenzeit in Ostanatolien und ihre Verbindungen zu den benachbarten Regionen. BaM 25: 473–518. –– 1995: Some Remarks on Early Iron Age in Eastern Anatolia. Anatolica 21: 205–213. –– 2001: Eastern Anatolia in the Early Iron Age. In R. Eichmann / H. Parzinger © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

339

(eds): Migration und Kulturtransfer. Der Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums Berlin 23 bis 26 November 1999, Eurasien- und Orient-Abteilung des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Bonn. Pp. 383–410. Cribb, R., 1991: Nomads in Archaeology. Cambridge / New-York / Port Chester, / Melbourne / Sydney. Curtis, J., 2007: The Broken Obelisk. Iraq 69: 53–58. D’Agostino, A., 2012: Tra le montagne anatoliche e le steppe siriane: Problemi di archeologia nell’Alta Valle del fiume Tigri tra Bronzo Antico e età del Ferro. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Studi di archeologia del vicino oriente, scritti degli allievi fiorentini per Paolo Emilio Pecorella. Firenze. Pp. 185–240. Erdem, A.Ü., 2012: Regional Variations in Iron Age Grooved Pottery in Eastern Anatolia. In A. Çilingiroğlu / A. Sagona (eds): Anatolian Iron Ages 7. The Proceedings of the Seventh Anatolian Iron Ages, Colloquium Held at Edirne 1924 April 2010 (ANES Suppl. 39). Leuven / Paris / Walpone, MA. Pp. 113–130. Fales, M.F., 1973: Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira. Roma. Finkelstein, J.J., 1953: Cuneiform texts from Tell Billa. JCS 7: 116–119. Galil, G., 2007: The Lower Stratum Families in the Neo-Assyrian Period (CHANE 27). Leiden / Boston. Görmüş, A., 2010: New Approaches for Interpretation of Eastern Anatolian Early Iron Age Pits. Semi-subterranean Cooking Facilities from Salat Tepe. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May – 10 May 2008, “Sapienza” Università di Roma. Weisbaden. Pp. 365–375. Grayson, A.K., 1991: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114– 859) (RIMA 2). Toronto / Buffalo / London. Greenfield, T. / Wicke, D. / Matney, T., 2013: Integration and Interpretation of Architectural and Faunal Evidence from Assyrian Tušhan, Turkey. BioNE 7: 47–75. Güneri, S., 2002: Cultural Connections Between Anatolia and Caucasus-Central Asia During the Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age, in the Light of 1987 Sos Höyük Excavations and North-Eastern Turkey Surveys, Carried Out Between 1985–1997. AnatAn X: 11–77. Haller, A., 1954: Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur (WVDOG 65). Berlin. Johns, C.H.W., 1901: An Assyrian Doomsday Book, or, Liber Censualis of the District Round Harran in the Seventh Century B.C. Leipzig. Karg, N., 2000: First Soundings at Grê Dimsê 1999. In N. Tuna / J. Öztürk / J. Velibeyoğlu (eds): Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoir Activities in 1999. Ankara. Pp. 662–693. Kozbe, G., 2006: Kavušan Höyük 2005 Yili Kazisi. KST 28/1: 573–588. –– 2008: The Transition From Late Bronze Age To Early Iron Age in The Upper Tigris Region, Southeastern Anatolia: Identifying Changes in Pottery. In K.S. Rubinson / A. Sagona (eds): Ceramics in Transitions, Chalcolithic Trough Iron Age in the Highlands of the Southern Caucasus and Anatolia (ANES Supplement 27). Leuven / Paris / Dudley (MA). Pp. 291–322. –– 2010: The Neo-Assyrian Burials Recovered at Kavuşan Höyük in the Upper Tigris Region. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

340

M. Forza

Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near Eas, 5 May – 10 May 2008, “Sapienza” Università di Roma. Weisbaden. Pp. 349–356. Kozbe, G. / Erdalikiran, M. / Ona, S., 2007: Diyarbakir/Bisil Kavušan Höyük 2006 Yili Kazi Raporu. KST 29/1: 385–404. Kozbe, G., / Köroğlu, K., 2003: Kavušan Höyük 2002 Yili Kazisi. KST 25/2: 279–288. Kozbe, G. / Ögütle, I. / Işler, S., 2008: Kavušan Höyük 2007 Yili Kazisi. KST 30/1: 199–216. Lipínski, E., 2000: The Arameans, Their History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100). Leuven / Paris / Sterling. Liverani, M., 2011: Antico Oriente, Storia, Società Economia (4th edition). Roma / Bari. MacGinnis, J. / Matney, T., 2009: Archaeology at the Frontiers: Excavating a Provincial Capital of the Assyrian Empire. JAAS 23, 1: 3–21. –– 2013: The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Transition: A Perspective from The Upper Tigris River. In A. Yener (ed.): Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31 - June 1, 2010 (ANES Supplement 42). Leuven / Paris / Walpole (MA). Pp. 329–349. Matney, T., 2013: The Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age Transition: A Perspective from The Upper Tigris River. In A. Yener (ed.): Across the Border: Late Bronze-Iron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31 - June 1, 2010 (ANES Supplement 42). Leuven / Paris / Walpole (MA). Pp. 329–349. Matney, T. et al., 2002: Archaeological Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, Diyarbakir Province, 2000. In N. Tuna, / J. Öztürk / J. Velibeyoğlu (eds): Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2000, Ankara, Middle East Technical University-METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM). Ankara. Pp. 535–547. –– 2009: Excavations at Zyiaret Tepe 2007-2008. Anatolica XXXV: 37–84. –– 2011: Excavations at Zyiaret Tepe, Diyarbakir Province, Turkey, 2009–2010. Anatolica XXXVII: 67–114. Müller, U., 2003: Norşun Tepe and Lidar Höyük. Two examples for cultural change during the Early Iron Age. In A. Çilingiroğlu / Darbyshire G. (eds): 2005 Anatolian Iron Ages 5. Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6–10 August 2001 (BIAA Monograph 31). London. Pp. 107–115. –– 2005: A Change to Continuity: Bronze Age Traditions in Early Iron Age. In B. Fischer et al. (eds): Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002. Istanbul. Pp.137–149. Ökse, T. / Eroğlu, S., 2013: The Tradition of Burning the Corpse in the Iron Age: A Case Study on Zeviya Tivilki in the Upper Tigris Region. Akkadica 134/2: 159–187. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

341

Ökse, T. / Görmüş, A., 2009: Nomadic Way of Life in the Early Iron Age: A Study on the Evidence from Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region. In H. Oniz (ed.): SOMA 2008, Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5–8 March 2008 (BAR IS 1909). Oxford. Pp. 165–173. Parker, B.J., 2003: Archaeological Manifestations of Empire: Assyria’s Imprint on Southeastern Anatolia. AJA 107: 525–557. Radner, K., 2004: Das Mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von Giricano/DunQXSa-Uzibi, Ausgrabungen in Giricano 1 Subartu XIV). Turnhout. Radner, K. / Schachner, A., 2001: From Tušhan to Amēdi: Topographical Questions concerning the Upper Tigris Region in the Assyrian Period. In N. Tuna et al. (eds): Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoir Activities in 1999, Ankara, Middle East Technical University-METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM). Ankara. Pp. 729–776. Roaf, M. / Schachner, A., 2005: The Bronze Age to Iron Age Transition in the Upper Tigris Region: New Informations from Ziyaret and Giricano. In A. Çilingiroğlu / G. Darbyshire (eds): Anatolian Iron Ages 5. Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at Van, 6–10 August 2001 (BIAA Monograph 31). London. Pp. 15–125. Rowtown, M.B., 1974: Enclosed Nomadism. JESHO 17: 1–30. Salvini, M., 1967: Nairi e Uruatri, contribuiti alla storia della formazione del regno di Urartu. Roma. Schachner, A., 2003: From the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: Identifying Changes in the Upper Tigris Region. The case of Giricano. In B. Fischer et al. (eds): Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002. Istanbul. Pp. 151–167. Sevin, V., 1991: The Early Iron Age in the Elaziğ Region and the Problem of the Mushkians. AnatStud 41: 87–97. Swartz Dodd, L., 2003: Chronology and Continuity in the Early Iron Age: The Northeastern Side of Amanus. In B. Fischer et al. (eds): Identifying Changes: The Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop Istanbul, November 8–9, 2002. Istanbul. Pp. 127–137. Szuchmann, J., 2009: Bit Zamani and Assyria. Syria 86: 55–65.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 1. Distribution of the Groovy Pottery. Modified from Roaf / Schachner 2005, 120. fig. 4, and from Bartl 1994, 475, figs 2–3.

342 M. Forza

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

Fig. 2. Groovy Pottery: bowls.

Fig. 3. Groovy Pottery: vases.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

343

344

M. Forza

Fig. 4. Urn L-839 from Ziyaret Tepe. Modified from Matney et al. 2009, 78, fig. 16.

Fig. 5. Pits A-252 and A-242. Modified from Matney et al. 2002, 79, fig. 8.

Fig. 6. The Warrior tomb with the urn of Gre Dimše. Modified from Karg 2000, 664, fig. 3a. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

345

Fig. 7. The Warrior tomb with the urn of Gre Dimše. Modified from Karg 2000, 664, fig. 3a.

Fig. 8. Urn from Kavušan Hüyük. Modified from Kozbe / Erdalkiran / Ona 2007, 404, fig. 4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

346

M. Forza

Fig. 9. Urn from Kavušan Hüyük. Modified from Kozbe / Erdalkiran / Ona 2007, 405, fig. 6.

Fig. 10. Grave goods from an urn from Kavušan Hüyük. Modified from Kozbe / Erdalkiran / Ona 2007, 403, fig. 5. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Generated Change and Spontaneous Change

347

Fig. 11. Urns at Zeviya Tivilki. Modified from Ökse / Eroğlu 2013, 163, fig. 3.

Fig. 12. Urn from Zeviya Tivilki. Modified from Ökse / Eroğlu 2013, 164, fig. 5.

Fig. 13. Grave goods from an urn from Zeviya Tivilki. Modified from Ökse / Eroğlu 2013, 165, fig. 6.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology in the Ancient Near East* Agnès Garcia-Ventura

In 1984, Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector published their article entitled Archaeology and the study of gender. In that study, the authors explained some of the terminology of gender studies (e.g., gender roles, or gender identity) and presented some examples of androcentrism in anthropology and archaeology, and reflected on possible ways in which this androcentrism might be avoided. In this long paper of almost 40 pages, they discussed the main issues of gender archaeology; over time, it became the discipline’s foundational text. About a decade after the publication of that paper, the archaeologist Ian Hodder stated the following in a volume devoted to the study of gender and childhood in archaeology, published in 1997:1 “the notion that this article played a seminal and originary role in the growth of an archaeology of gender seems to have become part of the canonical history of gender archaeology.”2 The same point was made by the anthropologist Rita P. Wright in the introduction to the volume she edited in 1996 under the title Gender and Archaeology, adding that “within that short period gender research has profoundly changed the way we think about people in the past, and there now is a sizable and growing literature on the topic.”3 Now, with the perspective of 30 years since the publication of Conkey and Spector’s classic paper, rereading these quotations allows us to reflect on a number of interesting issues. First, within only ten years of its publication, this pioneering paper was already perceived as a canonical text4 for gender archaeology. This paper was prepared during a Postdoctoral scholarship awarded by the Beatriu de Pinós programme (modality A), with the support of the Secretariat for Universities and Research of the Ministry of Economy and Knowledge of the Government of Catalonia. I wish to thank Saana Svärd for her valuable comments on the first version of this paper. Obviously all remaining errors and omissions are my own responsibility. 1 Moore / Scott 1997. 2 Hodder 1997, 75. 3 Wright 1996, 1. 4 Although I agree with Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck’s criticism (“it is rarely possible—or even helpful—to identify the “first” example of a particular approach,” Pollock / Bernbeck 2005, 7–8), it is clear, as they also show in their work, that from *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

350

A. Garcia-Ventura

Second, its influence in the study of the past in a broad sense was widely acknowledged. In other words, gender archaeology flourished during the 1990s and, in the English-speaking context at least, became part of the mainstream.5 But what was happening at that time in ancient Near Eastern archaeology? Was Conkey and Spector’s paper also considered as part of the canon in this particular discipline? Did gender archaeology and gender studies influence the way the ancient Near Eastern past was studied and described? In what follows I will try to answer these questions, by presenting some reflections on the relationship between gender studies, women’s studies, and the study of the ancient Near East. As these are some of the topics I had the pleasure to discuss with Frances Pinnock during my stay in Rome as post-doc, I am delighted to offer her this piece as mark of gratitude. First, I will present a brief state of the art of the waves of gender studies and of gender archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s. Second, I will concentrate on ancient Near Eastern studies during that period to reflect on the influence of gender archaeology in our discipline. I will close with some thoughts on the current relationship between gender archaeology and ancient Near Eastern archaeology. As all these topics are extremely broad (especially the last one), the aim of this paper is not to provide a compilation of all the data, books published, scholars, and hypotheses, but to present a selection of some of them in order to contribute to the engendering of ancient Near Eastern studies.6 1. Gender Archaeology during the 1980s and the 1990s When talking about feminism or gender studies, the diverse trends are usually presented as waves.7 There is no complete agreement on the dates and duration of these waves and, in addition, the beginning of a new wave does not mean the end of the previous one, since, as we will see, all of them are still in full swing. As far as gender studies are concerned, the “first wave” is usually dated to the 1960s

the historiographical point of view it is interesting to see how the canon was created, and why. For this reason, as my starting point in this paper I take several publications considered as canonical for gender archaeology. 5 For reflections on gender archaeology and the mainstream, see Montón Subías / Lozano Rubio 2012. 6 I will concentrate mainly on archaeology, i.e., gender archaeology and ancient Near Eastern archaeology. Nevertheless, in some sections, I will refer to certain issues concerning ancient Near Eastern studies in a broader sense, including those dealing with art history and philology – the traditional domain of Assyriology. Indeed, I defend it is useful to discuss some issues within a general overview of ancient Near Eastern studies, despite the customary divide between these diverse subfields. 7 Here I briefly outline the three waves and I choose just one publication to represent the trends ascribed to each wave in the study of the past (ancient history or archaeology). For a more detailed description of these waves, the main scholars, and their publications, see Bahrani 2001, 14–25. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

351

and the 1970s, the second to the late 1970s and the 1980s, and the third to the late 1980s and 1990s until the present day. The main aim of the first wave was to find women and write them into history—as Ruth Tringham termed it, to “add women and stir.”8 The encyclopaedic work edited by Pierre Grimal, Histoire mondiale de la femme (1965), which ran into several volumes, is perhaps the best example of research on history done during this first wave.9 One of the main aims of the second wave was to track down the “origins of patriarchy.” Gerda Lerner’s monograph The Creation of Patriarchy (1986) is the flagship study inside this trend. Finally, the third wave arose in close connection with postmodernism and includes trends such as queer studies and those labelled as postfeminist. One of the aims was to raise awareness of the presence of androcentrism and to try to avoid androcentric biases in research. The volume by Joan Gero and Margaret Conkey, Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, published in 1991, is a good example of the application of this trend to research into the past. We see, then, that the paper by Conkey and Spector, considered as the foundational text for gender archaeology, was published in 1984, on the cusp between the second and the third wave. Gero and Conkey’s 1991 monograph is another seminal text for the discipline, representative of third wave concerns. Both papers contend that gender archaeology aspires to introduce changes in epistemology, not merely to add “new data” or “case studies.”10 These aims were also addressed in another very influential paper, now also considered canonical: Joan Scott’s Gender:A Useful Category of Historical Analysis, published in 1999. During the 1990s and the early 2000s several handbooks and readers on gender archaeology appeared. Examples are the compilation edited by Rita P. Wright (1996, quoted above), the handbooks published by Roberta Gilchrist (1999) and Marie Louise Stig Sørensen (2000), and the reader edited by Kelley Hays-Gilpin and David S. Whitley (1998). Around this time, some important workshops and meetings were also organised, among them the Nordic Symposiums of Women’s Lives in Antiquity, which has been held every three years in Scandinavia and

Tringham 1991, 95. Also quoted and discussed in Pyburn 2008, 115. Although most general works dealing with women in Antiquity forget the ancient Near East, this book included a section by Jean Bottéro (1965) titled La femme dans la Mésopotamie ancienne. 10 “It became clear very quickly and very early that gender biases are not rectified simply: the structuring biases do not change merely by the addition of “new data” and of “case studies” about women. Rather, the profound critique of traditional research practices that emerged—and continues to emerge—has led not only to feminist critiques of methodologies and of the category “woman” and “women’s experience,” but also to the development of conceptual categories useful, if not absolutely necessary, to understanding the significance of gender groups, gender relations and gender meanings” (Gero / Conkey 1991, 5). 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

352

A. Garcia-Ventura

Finland since 1997.11 These meetings culminated several years of women’s and gender studies in these countries. All these meetings and publications correspond to a time span of only five years. In my view, this could be interpreted as an indication of the good health of gender archaeology during the 1990s, within only a few years of the launch of the first proposals. All these initiatives defended the need to consider gender as a category of analysis—moving forward, then, from women’s studies to gender studies, something also present in the move from the first to the second and third waves. The aim of gender archaeology was not to focus on particular issues, but to broaden the scope of research topics and research questions by considering gender as new category of analysis.12 2. Gender, Women and Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology during the 1980s and 1990s While all the above was happening in gender archaeology, what was the situation of ancient Near Eastern studies? Were they influenced by the literature and the trends described here? In what follows I will try to answer these questions with a brief presentation of the situation in ancient Near Eastern studies, with a special focus on ancient Near Eastern archaeology in the late 1980s and the 1990s. 2.1 Gaining Visibility: Women in Archaeology and the Archaeology of Women During the 1980s and 1990s the visibility both of women in archaeology and of the archaeology of women increased notably. As regards the first point, women were present in large numbers in many archaeological digs. This does not mean that women had not been present in archaeology before that time,13 but the situation mirrors the trend in academia in general. In the ancient Near Eastern archaeology of that era, the case of archaeology in Syria is particularly illustra-

See Larsson Lovén / Strömberg (1998, 9–10) on the presentation of the project in the preface of the proceedings of the first meeting held in 1998 in Göteborg, Sweden. For a survey of gender archaeology in several contexts, including the non English-speaking as well, see Díaz-Andreu (2014) and Montón Subías / Meyers (2014). 12 For some thoughts on this issue, from diverse disciplines, see Haraway (1991, from the perspective of cyber-feminism); Bahrani (2001, 26, from that of ancient Near Eastern studies & art history); Matthews (2003, 25–26, from that of ancient Near Eastern studies & archaeology). 13 On pioneer women archaeologists, with a special focus on those dealing with the ancient Near East, see Cohen / Joukowsky 2004. The authors also launched an on-line project to create a data-base on women in archaeology that is easy to update and maintain: http://www.brown.edu/Research/Breaking_Ground/results.php?d=1&first=Mary%20 Inda&last=Hussey (February 2014). For women in European archaeology, as the title shows, see Díaz-Andreu / Sørensen 1998. 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

353

tive. Largely motivated by salvage operations, archaeology in the area grew at several points in time, corresponding to the successive calls by the Syrian government through UNESCO.14 The presence of women in the international teams responding to these calls was significant: the Ebla team, for instance, comprised similar numbers of men and women.15 Indeed, the archaeologist honoured in this volume, Frances Pinnock, has been part of the team since 1971 and has been vice-director of the Italian Archaeological Expedition to Ebla since 2010. However, even though many women were working in these teams, few of them were the directors of the missions. Some of the few digs led by women were Ras Shamra, directed by Marguerite Yon, Tell Bi’a, directed by Eva Strommenger, and Tell Afis, led by Stefania Mazzoni and Serena Maria Cecchini.16 Thus, even though women were clearly present in archaeological teams, the proportion of those in charge of the archaeological digs was considerably lower.17 Recent studies do not suggest that this trend is changing. Despite the growing number of women in academia, few hold positions of responsibility or direct archaeological digs. Focusing specifically on the ancient Near East, the results of the studies and initiatives led by Diane Bolger and by Beth Alpert Nakhai are illuminating. Bolger, of the University of Edinburgh,18 presents several interesting statistics in her paper Gendered Fields in Near Eastern Archaeology published in 2008 in the compendium Gender through time in the Ancient Near East:19 for instance, the numbers of men and women publishing

For a detailed list of settlements and a state of the art (with previous references) see Akkermans / Schwartz 2003, 7–13. 15 For a list of members of the team, as well as students and collaborators, see the reports presented and published by Paolo Matthiae in several issues of the Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. For the teams of the campaigns from 1990 until 1997, for example, see Matthiae 1993, 1995 and 1998a. For a summary of the discoveries of the campaigns of the 1990s, see Matthiae 1998b, 288–303. 16 More frequent was the participation of women as co-directors, which was relatively common when they were working together with their husbands: for example, Giorgio Buccellati and Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati (Urkeš/Tell Mozan), Anton Moortgat and Ursula Moortgat-Correns (Tell Chuera) or David and Joan Oates (Tell Brak). 17 For a list of settlements in Syria and directors of each one during the 1980s and the 1990s, see Bounni 1995. For a survey of archaeology in Syria, see also Kelly-Buccellati 1997. For a broad chronological overview and also a state of the art (until 2010) of archaeological research in Syria, concentrating also on specific settlements, see Festuccia 2011, 37–82. 18 I do not provide affiliations of all scholars quoted in this paper—only those for whom this information is relevant for some of the arguments developed in § 2.2. 19 There are interesting reflections concerning gender archaeology and feminism in two reviews of this book. For some methodological comments, see Cifarelli 2011, especially p. 351. For criticism from a feminist standpoint, see Pollock 2009. 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

354

A. Garcia-Ventura

in specialised journals in the field, which kind of topics men and women tend to deal with, and whether there has been any change in the percentages over the years. The statistics show that some imbalances persist, that women are still in the minority in some specialities, and that they trail behind men in terms of activities or publications by invitation. Bolger explains this imbalance as follows: “men continue to be more successful at networking than women and that existing power structures in academia, which have traditionally been male dominated, continue to more vigorously promote the careers of male graduates.”20 Moving now to the US, in 2000 Alpert Nakhai (University of Arizona)21 launched a session especially devoted to women and gender issues at the ASOR22 annual meeting held in Cambridge, Massachusetts under the title World of Women: Gender and Archaeology. Since then, this meeting has included this session each year,23 in an attempt to make women and gender issues more visible.24 More recently (2011), Alpert Nakhai also led the ASOR Initiative on the Status of Women at the request of Tim Harrison, the ASOR president from 2008 to 2014. In addition, within the framework of these two initiatives, several forums of debate and tools to maximise networking among women scholars have been created.25 Thinking of Bolger’s words quoted above about the need to promote networking in order to improve the opportunities of women in academia, launching these initiatives may well help to achieve the goals. The proposals and studies of both Bolger and Alpert Nakhai put the spotlight firmly on the imbalance between men and women, especially in leadership positions. Both scholars stress the importance of achieving a more equitable situation which might change the way we do research. At this point, some questions arise. Despite the imbalance, the participation of women in academia and in archaeological digs has increased; does this mean that the situation is improving? Does the number of women present in or responsible for research or archaeological digs have any effect on the results? These questions are particularly difficult to answer, and a fruitful debate on the matter has ensued.

Bolger 2008b, 338. I thank Beth Alpert Nakhai for her willingness to answer all my questions about the initiatives she promoted and spearheaded inside the framework of the ASOR. 22 American Schools of Oriental Research. 23 In 2013 and 2014 Alpert Nakhai co-chaired the session with Stephanie M. LanginHooper (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA). Langin-Hooper chairs this session at ASOR meeting since 2015. 24 The session changed its name to Archaeology of Gender in 2010 and to Gender in the Ancient Near East in 2013. 25 The results of the surveys carried out by Alpert Nakhai on the status of women in the ASOR organisation and also in ancient Near Eastern archaeology can be found following these links: http://asorblog.org/the-status-of-women-in-asor/; http://asorblog. org/breaking-in-womens-representation-in-archaeology/ (by Valerie Schlegel); http:// asorblog.org/women-on-asors-board-of-trustees/ (February 2014). 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

355

The assessments of the role of women in archaeology have highlighted certain common ideas.26 The first is that increasing the visibility of women researchers and women archaeologists is likely to increase the visibility of women in the past. The second is that precisely because fewer women hold leadership positions they tend to be quicker to question assumptions and research issues than men.27 On the other hand, there is a danger of considering women in archaeology as a compact group, distinct to that of men in the same discipline. In the introduction to their book on women in archaeology, Margarita Díaz-Andreu and Marie-Louise Stig Sørensen summarise this situation as follows: “Feminist studies often assume that the first women in academia had a sense of solidarity, and that they self-consciously saw themselves as pioneering women’s acceptance in new fields. It is, however, important to come to terms with the fact that the reality is far from this idealized picture—only then can a critical social historiography emerge. Women in the archaeological profession never constituted a unified political group. We can roughly divide these early women into two groups: those who clearly perceived themselves as unique women, and those who were actively involved with contemporary women’s movements.”28

In this respect, the case of the pioneer archaeologist Gertrude Bell (1868‒1926) is particularly interesting. Bell is usually considered as a role model for women wanting to work as archaeologists in the mid-20th century. However, not only did she publicly oppose feminist proposals, but she was also a founding member of the Anti-Suffrage League.29 Nevertheless, most of the studies on women in archaeology and in academia also recognise that, over history, certain archaeologists have been dismissed or underestimated merely because they were women. Some scholars quoted so far in this paper mention this as one of the main reasons for their decision to carry out projects and books concentrating only on women archaeologists.

See Root 2004 (especially pp. 28–29, section entitled “Is There a Female Archaeology?”) for some reflections and previous references. “Many readers here in the first decade on the twenty-first century will cringe from this rhetorical question as a «politically incorrect» postulate that serves only to revive and reinforce stereotypes of the male hegemonic discourse. Yet some feminist thinkers have recently been reassessing this question. In contemporary ethnographic practice, for instance, some attention is being focused on the important potentials of the reflexive female voice as a critical filter of experience encountered in the field. It is now being recognised, furthermore, that early Western women travellers in the Orient (who were the direct ancestors of our women archaeological pioneers) probed in their writing nuances of Middle Eastern cultures that their male counterparts were not (could not be?) receptive to” (Root 2004, 28). 27 Seidman 2008, 201–203. 28 Díaz-Andreu / Sørensen 1998, 6. 29 Root 2004, 19. 26

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

356

A. Garcia-Ventura

Consequently, if we agree that, to a certain extent, being a woman or being regarded by others principally as a woman rather than as a scholar influences research, it is probably true that the increase in women in archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s has also led to an increase in the archaeology of women. In this regard it is worth mentioning the proceedings of the meeting held in Providence in November 1987, edited by Barbara S. Lesko in 1989, under the title Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. For Mesopotamia, several renowned scholars contributed papers that broke new ground in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies at that time. Marc Van de Mieroop30 explored the role of women in the economy of the 3rd millennium BC, JeanJacques Glassner31 wrote on the presence of women in legal, literary and administrative texts, Rivkah Harris32 on women’s legal status, Amélie Kuhrt33 on women in 1st millennium BC Mesopotamia, and Martha T. Roth34 on marriage also in 1st millennium BC Mesopotamia, drawing on a number of legal texts. At around the same time, the 33rd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (RAI) held in Paris in 1986 was devoted to women, under the title La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique. In the opening lecture Paul Garelli explained the choice of this topic as follows: “Mes amis Jean-Marie Durand et Dominique Charpin me proposèrent «la femme», en me faisant remarquer qu’il n’y avait pas de sujet plus parisien.”35 Most of the papers presented were devoted to representations of women in art, women’s role in cultic contexts, or in royal or family contexts; none focused, for example, on female workers, despite the rich sources that attest to the role of women in production in ancient Mesopotamia. I do not think this presence or absence of certain topics is a matter of chance; rather it mirrors certain preconceptions about the spheres that could (or should) have been analysed to portray women in Antiquity during the 1980s. Some years later, another Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale was devoted to an apparently similar (but more comprehensive) topic. The 47th meeting, held in Helsinki in 2001, was entitled Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. The main goal, as outlined in the introduction to the proceedings by one of the editors, Simo Parpola, was to deal with sexuality in the ancient Near East; the idea of gender was a secondary addition.36 Probably as a consequence, or probably just because “sex” was the opening word of the title, most of the communications were devoted to issues linked to sexuality—for example, abstinence, prostitution, castration or the so-called sacred marriage—and very few

Van de Mieroop 1989, 53–66 in Lesko 1989. Glassner 1989, 71–94 in Lesko 1989. 32 Harris 1989, 145–165 in Lesko 1989. 33 Kuhrt 1989, 215–243 in Lesko 1989. 34 Roth 1989, 245–260 in Lesko 1989. 35 Durand 1987, 11. 36 Parpola 2002, xiii–xiv. 30 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

357

papers considered gender as a category of analysis. If we look specifically at archaeology, it is interesting to note that during the 1990s a new meeting was launched: the International Congress on Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (ICAANE). The first meeting was held in Rome in 1998, and despite the growing interest in ancient women reflected in the projects mentioned earlier, hardly any papers at this new meeting devoted special attention to women in Antiquity. One exception was the paper by Pinnock, which focused specifically on women in the iconography of north Syria and Cappadocia on the cusp of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BC.37 2.2 Engendering Ancient Near Eastern Studies Despite some objections, then, we can affirm that during the 1980s and 1990s both women in archaeology and the archaeology of women in ancient Near Eastern studies gained visibility. This might be ascribed to the aims (and in this case the achievements) of the first wave of gender studies, i.e., writing women into history. However, as mentioned above, gender archaeology was born on the cusp between the second and the third waves, and both waves call for the consideration of gender as a category of analysis―moving forward, then, from women’s studies to gender studies, expanding research topics and rethinking research questions. Of the initiatives mentioned in the previous section, the 2001 Rencontre was the only one that aimed, in its title at least, to promote this step forward; even so, its success was extremely limited. To gauge the influence of second and third wave concerns on ancient Near Eastern studies, it is worth starting with Marc Van de Mieroop’s Cuneiform and the Writing of History, published in 1999. Van de Mieroop devoted chapter 5 of his book to “Gender and Mesopotamian History.”38 In this chapter, he discussed some authors and publications that could be considered as canonical for gender archaeology and gender perspectives applied to the study of the past. Examples are Sarah B. Pomeroy’s Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, published in 1975, and some of the papers in Gero and Conkey’s 1991 volume (specifically, the papers by Ruth Tringham and Susan Pollock). Van de Mieroop’s chapter opened with the following paragraph: “No historical discipline can take itself seriously today without paying attention to the issue of gender. Ancient Mesopotamian history is no exception, and even though it has not taken a lead in any theoretical considerations in this research, it has to a certain extent, and with some delay, followed the general trends in gender scholarship. This scholarship has moved from a primary concern with the place of women in history to a study of the construction of gender, so I will use this broader term here, although much of Mesopotamian Pinnock 2000, 1397–1415. Van de Mieroop 1999, 137–158.

37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

358

A. Garcia-Ventura

scholarship has been concerned with the identification of women in record.”39

Considering together the references quoted by Van de Mieroop and this first paragraph of his chapter 5, one gets the impression that at the end of the 1990s the application of gender perspectives to the study of the ancient Near East was flourishing. Unfortunately, when we look at publications of the last 30 years, we realise that this description is probably over-optimistic; in my view, the scholarship has not made sufficient steps forward from women’s history to the construction of gender, as Van de Mieroop would have wished.40 This is not to say that there were no publications or initiatives influenced by second and third wave concerns that aimed to promote an epistemological change, but they were few and far between and in general had only a very limited influence in the field. During the 1990s, few scholars in our field of study alluded to the canonical works on gender cited by Van de Mieroop. Among those who did were Joan Goodnick Westenholz41 and Julia Asher-Greve,42 who presented diagnoses and proposals for engendering ancient Near Eastern studies, echoing the initiatives of gender archaeology. Both scholars published papers devoted to methodological issues which propose a list of improvements and present some open questions which, in my view, are still awaiting attention.43 Van de Mieroop 1999, 137. Van de Mieroop (2013, 90) more recently published a paper with a less optimistic tone regarding the situation of gender studies: “[...] the diminished attention to issues of gender. In the 1990s books and articles devoted to women’s history were frequent, a trend perhaps given official recognition when in 2001 the International Association of Assyriologists made it the subject of its annual meeting (Parpola / Whiting [eds] 2002). These mostly reflected first wave feminism and aimed at finding women in the Near Eastern past, with only a few exceptions approaching gender as a social and representational concept (Bahrani 2001; Nissinen 1998). After 2001 the number of publications radically decreased. The periodical Nin: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity that focused on the ancient Near East had a short lifespan with only four issues from 2000 to 2004.” 41 In 1990 Westenholz published an article-review of the proceedings of the 1986 Rencontre held in Paris. In that paper, entitled Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in Mesopotamian Society, she discusses methodological issues like the applicability of feminist theory to the writing of Mesopotamian history and the role played in this process by scholars’ preconceptions, such as the use of certain terms such as “harem” or “femme fatale.” 42 Asher-Greve, in Feminist Research and Ancient Mesopotamia: Problems and Prospects (1997), shows that research in Assyriology has only rarely applied gender studies perspectives. Nevertheless, Mesopotamian primary sources are used by scholars in other fields to support their arguments. As the sources are complex, these scholars often misunderstand the data; for this reason, she urges experts in our field to carry out the task of interpretation. 43 Of course, Asher-Greve and Westenholz were not the only scholars dealing with gender and ancient Near Eastern studies during the 1980s and the 1990s, but I highlight them 39 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

359

If we concentrate specifically on ancient Near Eastern archaeology, scholars like Zainab Bahrani, Megan Cifarelli and Susan Pollock made significant contributions to the engendering of ancient Near Eastern archaeology and art history, especially at the end of the 1990s and the 2000s.44 All of them earned their PhD degrees during the 1980s and the 1990s, on the cusp of the second and the third waves, when gender archaeology was booming. Here I want to take the case of Susan Pollock as an example. A paper of hers appears in Gero and Conkey’s reference book Engendering Archaeology;45 its inclusion there is striking, as the ancient Near East is all too often missing from compilations devoted to the study of Antiquity. The publication in which Pollock developed and applied in depth the epistemological concerns here alluded, was her monograph published in 1999 under the title Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was.46 Her theoretical framework included political economy and feminist anthropology. Combining the two, Pollock’s main concern in this handbook was household archaeology.47 In her conclusions, the author summarised succinctly what it means to apply a feminist approach to research: “A feminist approach considers gender and other socioculturally constructed categories of difference―including class, race, and ethnicity―to be central elements in social life. It poses questions about how gender relations, roles, and ideologies, in concert with other forms of difference, shape and are shaped by social, political and economic change. [...] Both feminism and political economy lead to an appreciation of the complexity of history and historical change.”48

From this paragraph it is clear that neither a feminist approach, nor the study of gender relations, roles, and ideologies consists merely in writing women into history.49 The point at issue is complexity, not just women. The aim, then, is to use here for their theoretical and methodological contributions. Other scholars such as Tivka Frymer-Kensky and Brigitte Groneberg devoted their research to the application of gender perspectives to specific materials or case studies. Irene Winter also deserves mention, even though she has not been one of the scholars identified with gender studies. Winter, a contemporary of these other scholars, always defended the explicit use of theoretical proposals to approach ancient Near Eastern materials. Her papers on Enheduanna (Winter 1987) and Naram-Sin (Winter 1996) remain reference works for gender perspectives applied to the study of ancient Near Eastern art. 44 As examples of their publications during the 1990s see Bahrani 1996, Cifarelli 1998 and Pollock 1991. 45 Pollock 1991, 366–387. 46 For some comments about this monograph and its relevance for gender and ancient Near Eastern studies, see Bolger 2008a, 4. 47 Pollock 1999, 24–25. 48 Pollock 1999, 218–219. 49 “The second area in which research is grossly inadequate is gender. Gender structures © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

360

A. Garcia-Ventura

feminism and gender theory as means to completely transform research questions and research results, moving forward from the “add women and stir” of the first wave. Until the end of the 1990s, however, studies proposing these aims in the field of ancient Near Eastern archaeology were conspicuous by their absence. Moreover, Pollock’s reference book is the only one, as far as I know, that applies feminism to a synthesis of the history of ancient Mesopotamia. So if few scholars in our field were quoting or following the proposals in Gero and Conkey’s volume―the foundational tenets of gender archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s―we are entitled to wonder why. First, the theoretical concern with introducing gender archaeology into the field of archaeology was present almost exclusively in English-speaking contexts. This must have been particularly relevant since gender archaeology emerges as a precursor (or as a consequence, depending on one’s point of view) of post-processualism, even though the relationship between the two has never been straightforward.50 Indeed, if we look at the affiliation of several of the authors mentioned, we see that most of them earned their PhD degrees (or were employed) at US universities at the time, and of course this is unlikely to be a coincidence. Bahrani, for example, got her PhD degree in Ancient Near Eastern and Greek art and archaeology at the Institute of Fine Arts of New York University; Cifarelli obtained hers at the Department of Art History and Archaeology of Columbia University, and Pollock hers in anthropology at the University of Michigan.51 As for the pioneers of gender archaeology, Conkey was working at the Department of Anthropology of the State University of New York; Spector was affiliated to the Departments of Anthropology and Women’s Studies of the University of Minnesota, and Gero was at the Department of Anthropology of the American University, Washington DC. This brings us to the second common feature shared by these scholars – namely, the fact that most of them were working in anthropology departments. In the US, anthropology and archaeology are studied together; this does not happen in mainland Europe, where archaeology is linked to history. This also economic, political, and social relations in fundamental ways. Ideologies legitimate gender relations and inequalities and are at the same time expressed in gendered terms. Studies that incorporate questions about gender are as yet only in their infancy in archaeology, and as a result even framing appropriate questions usually means moving into uncharted territory. But without explicit and critical attention to gender we condemn ourselves to the writing of histories that are inaccurate or at best unpeopled” (Pollock 1999, 223). 50 On this controversial relationship, see Wright 1996, 3. 51 This is true also of other authors mentioned in this paper, who obtained their PhD degrees at US universities and made contributions to ancient Near Eastern women’s studies and gender studies (Alpert Nakhai at the University of Arizona and Bolger at the University of Cincinnati). As we saw in the previous section, both scholars also pursued their careers at universities in the English-speaking world. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

361

influences a certain tradition of research with a special inclination towards theory, or at least towards certain theoretical approaches, like those proposed by archaeologists working in English-speaking universities and research centres from the 1970s onwards, who were in close connection with anthropologists.52 In this respect it is worth noting that the influence of anthropology also made itself felt in the theoretical concerns of ancient Near Eastern studies in the US during the 1960s and the 1970s53 where Leo Oppenheim54 and Ignace Gelb55 (both affiliated to the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago) were the main reference points. Although these scholars and most of their disciples did not directly defend feminism or gender studies, their proposals probably helped these approaches to gain a foothold. Third, despite the efforts of scholars like Gelb and Oppenheim, there remains widespread resistance to theory in ancient Near Eastern studies.56 As Bahrani states, there is an opposition between the “traditional approach” and the “theoretical approach” in this discipline, in which all approaches other than positivism are considered as “theoretical.”57 Indeed, in the 1990s, outside a very small group of centres in the US which were more receptive to these proposals for the reasons outlined above, it would have been difficult to introduce gender perspectives in ancient Near Eastern studies, especially in those dealing with archaeology. This unpromising scenario is the backdrop to the attempts made by the scholars summarised in this section.

Matthews 2003, 19. See also Pinnock 2006, 7, in connection with the emergence of women’s studies. Cf. Pollock / Bernbeck 2005, 7–8, where they note that “Anthropological approaches to the study of the ancient Near East were relatively late in coming, and they remain to this day in the minority.” 53 See Buccellati, as early as 1973, in the introduction to a Festschrift for Ignace Gelb. Buccellati called for the application of theoretical approaches and stressed the need to differentiate between the “humanistic approach” and the “anthropological approach,” defending the advantages of the latter (Buccellati 1973, 12 and 17). 54 Oppenheim 1964, 7–30. 55 Gelb 1967. See also papers in the volume edited by Buccellati 1973, for several proposals showing Gelb’s influence and intellectual heritage. 56 As an example of a defence of this position, see Battini 2010 (with previous references). Alluding to the “théories nouvelles,” the author states that “Ces théories n’aboutissent pas à transformer la recherche archéologique en discipline scientifique, et par surcroît, elles embrouillent souvent les pistes” (Battini 2010, 4). 57 “When we speak of a «traditional approach» as opposed to a «theoretical approach», we are in fact usually speaking of an opposition between positivism, with its reliance on early modern epistemologies, and, on the other hand, postmodern scholarship, with its questioning of earlier forms of knowledge. Even processual archaeology, which is not a postmodern approach but a methodology grounded in structuralism, a late modernist theory, is still viewed with suspicion by «traditionalists»” (Bahrani 2001, 12). 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

362

A. Garcia-Ventura

3. Gender Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology: Is the Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full? After this brief review of the relationship between ancient Near Eastern studies, women’s studies, and gender archaeology in the 1980s and the 1990s, a natural question would be to ask where are we now. I would say that the answer depends on whether you see the glass half-empty or half-full. Good examples of these two visions are recent publications by Alpert Nakhai and by Stephanie Budin. Alpert Nakhai, editor of the volume The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East, published in 2008, states that the research carried out so far is insufficient, using her provocative and ironic comparison of the situation of pigs and women as research topics in ASOR meetings.58 For her part, Budin lists recent works on gender and women in the ancient Near East in her review of Alpert Nakhai’s volume published in 2009. She states that “Nakhai’s introduction creates an overly negative impression of the state of gender studies in ANE scholarship, which is not a good way to start a book on women in the ANE.”59 Hans J. Nissen also expresses this half-full view in his introduction to the second edition of a reference work devoted to ancient Near Eastern history published in 2012. He states that the only area in which he had decided to make major changes or additions in the second edition was gender studies, given the scope they have attained in recent years.60 He asked Helga Vogel to write a new section on this issue.61 I agree partially with both stances: I see the glass half-full with regard to women’s studies, but half-empty with regard to gender studies. Indeed, the number of publications devoted to women and/or to gender in the ancient Near East in recent decades has risen. That’s good news. However, most contributions focus solely on women and fail to apply gender studies perspectives. Moreover, most research done from this perspective is still considered by mainstream scholarship as partial, of interest only to those dealing with specific issues. In other words, except by its supporters, the gender studies perspective is not seen as a potentially transformative epistemological change that might usher in major improvements in ancient Near Eastern studies.

“Perhaps a decade ago, curious about the extent to which papers on women in the ancient Near East had been presented at the annual meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, I looked into the program books dating from the early 1970s to the late 1990s. What I discovered astounded me: many more papers had been devoted to pigs than to women.” (Alpert Nakhai 2008, ix). 59 Budin 2009. 60 “Der Forschungsteil wurde zwar gegenüber der ersten Auflage erweitert, aber die Themen und die Ausrichtung sind im Wesentlichen ähnlich geblieben―mit einer Ausnahme: die «Gender Studies» haben im letzten Jahrzehnt einen ungeahnten Umfang angenommen” (Nissen 2012, xi). 61 Vogel 2012a. 58

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

363

Consequently, I think we need to reflect on our current situation. We need historiographical studies in order to trace the path we have followed until now both to acknowledge the achievements made and to identify areas in need of improvement. In this direction, recent papers by Pollock62 and Vogel63 reflect on what can be done to engender ancient Near Eastern studies and, more particularly, on why this has not been done extensively and intensively enough during recent decades. In other words, although women have been “added” to most studies, feminism and gender archaeology proposals have had a minimal influence on ancient Near Eastern archaeology; both papers provide several reasons to explain this situation. Fortunately, the number of scholars of ancient Near Eastern studies with an interest in gender is growing. In addition, as noted above, the number of women scholars is also growing, a fact that may influence research topics and research questions in some cases at least, and in spite of the criticisms put forward above. Victoria Camps entitled a monograph on women’s studies El siglo de las mujeres, referring to the improvements achieved by women and by women’s studies during the 20th century. I genuinely hope that at the end of the 21st century someone will be able to write a monograph entitled The century of gender and feminism, or something similar, to celebrate the achievements of research performed in this area in the coming decades. Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M. / Schwartz, G.M., 2003: The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000‒300 BC). Cambridge. Alpert Nakhai, B., 2008: The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Asher-Greve, J.M., 1997: Feminist Research and Ancient Mesopotamia: Problems and Prospects. In A. Brenner / C. Fontaine (eds): A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible. Sheffield. Pp. 218–237. Bahrani, Z., 1996: The Hellenization of Ishtar: Nudity, Fetishism, and the Production of Cultural Differentiation in Ancient Art. Oxford Art Journal 19/2: 3–16. –– 2001: Women of Babylon. Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London. Battini, L., 2010: Des théories archéologiques: le cas du Proche-Orient Ancient. Syria 87: 3–19. Bolger, D., 2008a: Introduction. In D. Bolger (ed.): Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East. Lanham / New York / Toronto / Plymouth. Pp. 1–20. –– 2008b: Gendered Fields in Near Eastern Archaeology. In D. Bolger (ed.): Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East. Lanham / New York / Toronto / Plymouth. Pp. 335–359. Bounni, A., 1995: Gli scavi archeologici di salvataggio in Siria negli ultimi vent’anni. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / G. Scandone Matthiae (eds): Ebla. Alle Pollock 2008. Vogel 2012b.

62 63

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

364

A. Garcia-Ventura

origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’ani di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza.” Milano. Pp. 32–41. Buccellati, G., 1973: Methodological Concerns and the Progress of Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Orientalia 42: 9–20. Budin, S., 2009: Review of “The World of Women in the Ancient and Classical Near East,” edited by Beth Alpert Nakhai. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 10: 60. Camps, V., 1998: El siglo de las mujeres. Madrid / Valencia. Cifarelli, M., 1998: Gesture and Alterity in the Art of Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria. The Art Bulletin 80/2: 210–228. –– 2011: Review of “Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East,” edited by Diane Bolger. JNES 70/2: 348–351. Cohen, G.M. / Joukowsky, M.S., 2004: Breaking Ground. Pioneering Women Archaeologists. Ann Arbor. Conkey, M.W. / Spector, J.D., 1984: Archaeology and the study of gender. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.): Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7. New York. Pp. 1-38. Díaz-Andreu, M., 2014: Historia Del Estudio Del Género En Arqueología. In A. Vizcaínoet al. (eds), Desmuntant Lara Croft. Dones, Arqueologia i Universitat. Valencia. Pp. 25–32. Díaz-Andreu, M. / Sørensen, M.L.S., 1998: Excavating Women: A History of Women in European Archaeology. London. Durand, J.M., 1987: La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique. Paris. Festuccia, S., 2011: La ricerca archaeologica nel Vicino Orienta. Siria, Anatolia e Iran. Roma. Gelb, I.J., 1967: Approaches to the Study of Ancient Society. JAOS 87: 1–7. Gero, J.M. / Conkey, M.W., 1991: Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory. Oxford. Gilchrist, R., 1999: Gender and Archaeology. Contesting the Past. London / New York. Glassner, J.J. 1989: Women, Hospitality and the Honor of the Family. In B. Lesko (ed.): Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Atlanta. Pp. 71–94. Grimal, P., 1965: Histoire mondiale de la femme. Préhistoire et antiquité. Paris. Haraway, D., 1991: A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In D. Haraway (ed.): Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. London / New York. Pp. 149–181. Harris, R.J., 1989: Independent Women in Ancient Mesopotamia. In B. Lesko (ed.): Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Atlanta. Pp. 145–165. Hays-Gilpin, K. / Whitley, D.S., 1998: Reader in Gender Archaeology. London / New York. Hodder, I., 1997: Commentary: The Gender Screen. In J. Moore / E. Scott (eds): Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London / New York. Pp. 75–78. Kelly-Buccellati, M., 1997: History of the Field: Archaeology in Syria. In E.M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East 3. New York / Oxford. Pp. 42–47. Kuhrt, A., 1989: Non-Royal Women in the Late Babylonian Period: A Survey. In © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Archaeology of Women and Women in Archaeology

365

B. Lesko (ed.): Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Atlanta. Pp. 215–143. Lovén, L. / Strömberg, A., 1998: Aspects of Women in Antiquity. Jonsered. Lerner, G., 1986: The Creation of Patriarchy. New York. Lesko, B., 1989: Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Georgia. Matthews, R., 2003: The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Approaches. London / New York. Matthiae, P., 1993: L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ébla: résultats des fouilles de 1990– 1992. CRAIBL: 613–662. –– 1995: Fouilles à Ébla en 1993–1994: les palais de la ville basse nord. CRAIBL: 651–681. –– 1998a: Les fortifications de l’Ébla Paléo-Syrienne: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh, 1995–1997. CRAIBL: 557–590. –– 1998b Ebla. In L. Drago Troccoli (ed.): Scavi e ricerche archeologiche dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza.” Roma. Pp. 288–303. Montón Subías, S. / Lozano Rubio, S., 2012: La arqueología feminista en la normatividad académica. Complutum 23/2: 163–176. Montón Subías, S. / Meyer, W., 2014: Engendered Archaeologies. In C. Smith (ed.): Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York. Pp. 2372–2381. Moore, J. / Scott, E., 1997: Invisible People and Processes. Writing Gender and Childhood into European Archaeology. London / New York. Nissen, H.J., 2012: Geschichte Alt-Vorderasiens. Münster. Oppenheim, A.L., 1964: Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago / London. Parpola, S. / Whiting, R.M. (eds), 2002: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki. Pinnock, F., 2000: Some Thoughts About the Transmission of Iconographies between North Syria and Cappadocia, End of the Third- Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome May 18th–23rd 1998. Roma. Pp. 1397–1415. –– 2006: Semiramide e le sue sorelle. Immagini di donne nell’antica Mesopotamia. Milano. Pollock, S., 1991: Women in a Men’s World: Images of Sumerian Women. In J.M. Gero / M.W. Conkey (eds): Engendering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory. Oxford. Pp. 366–387. –– 1999: Ancient Mesopotamia. The Eden that Never Was. Cambridge. –– 2008: Wer hat Angst vorm bösen Wolf? Gender und Feminismus in der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie In R. Brunner / J.P. Laut / M. Reinkowski (eds): XXX. Deutscher Orientalistentag. Orientalistik im 21. Jahrhundert. Welche Vergangenheit, Welche Zukunft. Freiburg. Pp. 1–16. –– 2009: Review of “Gender through Time in the Ancient Near East,” edited by Diane Bolger. AJA 113: 2. Pollock, S. / Bernbeck, R., 2005: Introduction. In S. Pollock / R. Bernbeck (eds): Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Oxford. Pp. 1–10. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

366

A. Garcia-Ventura

Pyburn, K.A., 2008: Shaken, not Stirred: the Revolution in Archaeology. In C. Robin / E. Brumfiel (eds): Gender, Households, and Society: Unraveling the Threads of the Past and the Present (Special Issue of the Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 18, 1). Arlington. Pp. 115–124. Roth, M.T., 1989: Marriage and Matrimonial Prestations in First Millennium B.C. Babylonia. In B. Lesko (ed.): Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Atlanta. Pp. 245–260. Root, M.C., 2004: Introduction. Women of the Field, Defining the Gendered Experience. In G.M. Cohen / M.S. Joukowsky (eds): Breaking Ground. Pioneering Women Archaeologists. Ann Arbor. Pp. 1–33. Scott, J.W., 1999: Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis. In J.W. Scott (ed.): Gender and the Politics of History. New York. Pp. 28–50. Seidman, S., 2008: Contested Knowledge. Social Theory Today. Oxford. Sørensen, M.L.S., 2000: Gender Archaeology. Cambridge. Tringham, R., 1991: Households with Faces:The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In J.M. Gero / M.W. Conkey (eds): Engendering Archaeology. Oxford. Pp. 93–131. Van de Mieroop, M., 1989: Women in the Economy of Sumer. In B. Lesko (ed.): Women’s Earliest Records. From Ancient Egypt and Western Asia. Atlanta. Pp. 53–70. –– 1999: Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History. London / New York. –– 2013: Recent Trends in the Study of Ancient near Eastern History: Some Reflections. Journal of Ancient History 1/1: 83–98. Vogel, H., 2012a: Frauen- und Genderforschung in der Altorientalistik und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. In H.J. Nissen (ed.): Geschichte Alt-Vorderasiens. Münster. Pp. 208–211, 242–245. –– 2012b: Das Konzept “Gender” in der Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. In M. Günther-Saeed / E. Hornung (eds): Zwischenbestimmungen. Identität und Geschlecht jenseits der Fixierbarkeit?. Würzburg. Pp. 121–137. Westenholz, J.G., 1990: Towards a New Conceptualization of the Female Role in Mesopotamian Society. JAOS 110: 510–521. Winter, I., 1987: Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of En-Priestess, and the Weight of the Visual Evidence. In J. M. Durand (ed.): La femme dans le Proche-Orient antique. Paris. Pp. 189–201. –– 1996: Sex, Rethoric, and the Public Monument: The Alluring Body of NaramSîn of Agade. In N. Boymel Kampen (ed.): Sexuality in Ancient Art. Cambridge. Pp. 11–26. Wright, R.P., 1996: Gender and Archaeology. Philadelphia.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers? Imported Greek Pottery in Levantine Social Practice May Haider

The contextual study of Greek pottery is quite important in understanding the religious life of the inhabitants of the Levantine coast or specifically “central Phoenicia,”1 particularly through the use of Attic pottery in ritual ceremonies and as offerings in tombs. The study of the exchanges between Greece and the Phoenician coast, during the Achaemenid Empire, does not only implicate the study of the circulation of the objects, but also the study of the reception, the intercultural phenomenon and the definitions of the cultural contexts. With that in mind we have to focus on the receptors, or the inhabitant of the Levantine coasts, this can only be achieved by following a contextual approach while dealing with the Greek pottery or any other type of cultural material.2 The objects are looked at in their precise archeological context. Even if we do not have a lot of coherent data, taking into consideration the urban aspect of the Phoenician cities can be of great use in clarifying the exchanges contexts. The archaeological excavations in the Levant indicate an urban development during the Persian Period resulting in the improvement of the living conditions and the enrichment of part of the population.3 The archaeological evidence, from Iron Age cities, illustrates emerging urban societies and what could be considered as a wealthy elite that managed to flourish in a period characterized by intense Mediterranean commerce in a rather stable political atmosphere. During this same period, we notice that Greek and East Greek pottery were imported in mass quantities all over the Levantine coast. While studying this extensive material we noticed that only specific typologies4 and iconographies made their way to this part of the Mediterranean. This phenomenon cannot be arbitral but rather an indicator of sophisticated and urbanized societies that borrowed specific forms and stories from foreign cultures and adapted them into their own so 3 4 1 2

Elayi 1990a, 10. Elayi 1990b, 315. Briant 1996, 399–434. De Vries 1977, 544–548. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

368

M. Haider

cial, cultural and religious parameters. When artifacts moved beyond the borders of the producing society and get integrated in the materiel culture of other social groups, they acquire a new significance and start playing a new role.5 Yet “the adoption of an object in a culture does not mean adopting the culture transmitted by the object, but the reception of an object implies a reinterpretation by the receiving society.”6 The previously underestimated success of Greek pottery on the Phoenician market probably lies in the fact that Greek production included a variety of forms suitable to Phoenician use. An example of the specific choice in imported vessels to the Levantine coast is in the selectivity and restriction of the drinking vessels. Drinking vessels, serving vessels and plates were all imported to the Levant, yet drinking vessels are by far the most imported class, within this class only certain types show up with regularity; such as skyphoi Attic Type A, bowls and cups. The kantharos and the kylix, which are the most famous drinking vessels in the Greek world, are not very common shapes in the Attic Pottery repertoire found in the Phoenician cities, only few sites in the Levant such as Akka and Sidon yielded a small number of kantharoi and kylix. In Greece and the western part of the Mediterranean both kylikes and kantharoi were drinking vessels used also as an offering in tombs or for ritual occasions as well. So the locals did not fancy to change their habit of using the bowls or skyphoi; already since the 9th century BC skyphoi and bowls were mostly imported. We know that the oriental way of drinking means to hold the bowl in the palm of the hand or grab it by two hands rather than to hold it by the handles (which was the Greek way) or by the raised foot. Bowls and saltcellars were the most popular type of black glazed vessels imported to the Levant, in fact holding the cup by both hands is a habit widely spread in the Near East as attested by the various iconography. This is why we think that we ought to look to Phoenician religion in a wider prospect that connected it to the other religions of the Near East, which can provide examples that help us to better understand the Phoenician religious and funerary contexts. We should also consider the cultic contexts from Cyprus that demonstrated a large Phoenician presence reflected in the abundant Phoenician material culture and the large number of inscriptions in Phoenician language starting the 9th century BC.7 We do not know a lot about the Phoenician culture in general, and we know even less about Phoenician religious beliefs and cults in particularly. Yet a key element to understanding some aspects of the religious Phoenician life during the Achaemenid-Persian period is through the analyzing of the role and reinterpretation of the imported pottery used in a new range of specific social situations in Phoenicia. Most of this Greek material was found in the so called “Persian pits”

Arafat / Morgan 1994, 108–134. Hodder 1987, 75. 7 For the importance of Cyprus in studying the Phoenician culture, see Chirpanlieva 2010. 5 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers?

369

associated with religious contexts, or precisely temple structures in some cases such as in Beirut, Byblos, Sidon and Kition and free standing such as in Akka and Dor. Yet even when this material was found in pits without any temple structure in the nearby, it was found alongside specific cultic material culture and a great number of east Greek pottery, resembling almost exactly the material found in temple’s favissae.8 At the College site in Sidon9 the material coming from the pits included a vast number of local wine amphorae and local oil bottles alongside the imported Greek pottery. Noteworthy is the resemblance of the cultic material and the Attic imported pottery found in Sidon, Beirut, and Byblos with the material coming from the Astarte temples in the Punic sanctuary of Tag Silg in Malta and in the sacred area of the Kothon, in Mozia, Sicily. So the Greek pottery could have had different functions in Phoenicians sanctuaries, it could have had in the same time a functional role during a ritual or simply was used itself as an offering. Like for example the fragment of a cup dating from 475–450 BC coming from Byblos, the temple area, and bearing a Greek graffiti of the name: -phro that was interpreted by A. Johnson and I. Chirpalnieva as probably eu-phro or the abbreviation A-phro (Aphrodite).10 It is always possible that the pottery was used in a private context before it found its way to the temple as an offering. But when we examine the quantity of the imported pottery found in pits we could clearly see entire tableware sets similar to the Athenian table sets. Which allow us to conclude that probably those sets were purchased together for a precise use in the sanctuaries; they had a cultic function serving as drinking and eating vases during the cultic banquets and ceremonies or for libations. This integration of the vessels in the cultic life and then their discharge in pits (or bothros) probably associated with temple, along with local tableware vessels and wine amphorae, is clearly observed in Sidon, Dor, Beirut and Byblos. The Greek imported vessels and the local vessels completed each other in the drinking service set used in the rituals banquets. This tradition of mixing both local and Greek imported vases in cultic pottery sets was also widely observed in Etruria. Martin 2007, 183. The joint excavations by the Lebanese Department of Antiquities and British Museum at the College site in Sidon, southern Lebanon, collected more than 3500 sherds of Greek pottery during its 16 seasons of excavations (1998–2012). Coming from what seems to be a habitation site, rather than from tombs, the pieces are extremely fragmentary and hard to identify and date, mainly the figured ones. Nevertheless, identifying and cataloguing the material was done to help us having a clearer idea about its significance in Sidon, togheter with its role in the relations between the Phoenician coast and the Greek world during the Persian period (the Achaemenid Empire, ca. 539–330 BC). 10 Johnson and Chirpanlieva will publish the fragment in the near future in the Archeology and History of the Lebanon series. 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

370

M. Haider

A large number of the unpublished Attic pottery found at College site,11 Sidon, came from contexts associated with a large “monumental building” constructed with massive slabs identified by the archaeologists as a temple or a building with religious context. Hundreds of jars were discovered outside the building. In this temple a tannur was identified also along with a dozen of cultic figurines. The important presence of both Attic and local fine tableware and the large number, in the local pottery repertoire, of both uguentaria and amphorae (wine containers according to the analyses) can prompt us to conclude that also in Sidon we are maybe facing a sacred pit of a banquet and/or a ritualistic deposit for the banquet or ritualistic ceremony that included consumption of wine, libation, etc. the crater, various types of pouring jugs, smaller jugs and plates-bowls indicate that anointment, drinking and eating were somehow part of the ceremony. In more than one context the Attic Pottery was found associated with local cultic material culture including animal bones, glass sherds, shells along with large quantities of grotesque figurines of the Egyptian god Bes. The god Bes statues are quite common in Persian Period favissae, mainly dating to the 4th century BC. Although an imitation of Egyptian prototype, it has a Phoenician origin with an apotropaic role associated with healing, fertility, etc., rituals. We know from the excavations in Down Town Beirut of a monumental building (loci U16) identified as a sanctuary (probably dedicated to the goddess Astarte) and including, a roofless central room with an in situ betyl, a so-called bothros and a “feasting room.”12 A large number of grotesque masks (Bes?) were found in the bothros along with Red Figured Attic pottery related to Dionysian and Eleusinian mysteries themes, which are ceremonies, related to agrarian cult. Noteworthy also is the fact that this pottery and mainly the craters with Red Figure decoration bares also ancient restoration holes that shows that these vessels were kind of valuable for the locals who wanted to use and reuse them as much as they could. The fact that most of the Greek vessels are found in bothros or later in Persian period pits suggests as we mentioned before, that the imported vessels were integrated in the tableware set along with local pottery. The pottery repertoire found in the temples is different from the one found in the tombs. While we find real tableware sets in context associated with temples, we usually find in tombs a couple of drinking vessels and mainly perfume bottles. So we can observe a more personal choice and more sophistication in quality in funerary context such as the rhyton found in Cheikh Zned. We can only drew some generals ideas when it comes to Iron Age funerary context in the Levant as we simply still do not know a lot about the topic due to

I had the privilege of studying the unpublished corpus of Attic Pottery from College site excavations for my PhD thesis that will be published by next year. 12 Elayi / Shefton / Sayegh 2000, 264. 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers?

371

the scarce quantity of excavations, and thus information, in Lebanon is quite inferior ralatively to the rest of the Levantine coast, so the absence of Attic pottery in funurary contexts in Lebanon, can only reflects our scarce knowledge of the Persian period necropolis. The few examples of Attic pottery from tombs that we have are either perfume bottles or belong to the tableware set, and does not ressemble the wine service sets found in Etrurian and Iberian tombs. So the imported pottery easily intergrated with the local funerary assemblages, coming only to replace local pottery types that usually was placed as offerings in tombs. In fact the perfum bottles are a commun funerary offering in Phoenicia and laregly attested in Iron Age tombs, local and imported wares had symbolic importance. The imported wares were integrated in the local funerary custom. The crater, which is the symbol of the Greek symposium seems to be absent in Phoenician and Punic tombs, while other cultures in contacts with the Greek world ended up adopting it as a symbol of prestige and distinction. So, anthropologically speaking, funerals are a passage ritual, the passage from the living state to the acenstral state; thus the importance of the rituals assure the passage to the afterlife. The vessels are placed in the tombs as symbolic offerings to accompany the deceased in his trip to the world of the dead. In the Phoenician world the Greek pottery was probably considered a prestige object and markers of the elevated status of the deceased. It was integrated in the traditional local pottery offerings, wine vessels and perfum bottles. To the choice in typology we notice also the specific choice in the iconography of the imported vessels. Phoenicians seem to have had an active part in the choice of figured theme. The figured scenes on the Greek vases could have lost their initial meaning, when they were in the Phoenician context of use.13 Of course due to the lack of any writing source, the interpretation of the figures based on the repertoire of Phoenician representations in other cultural material remains hypothetical, but we do believe that it can be of a great help in better understanding our cultic contexts. The few Phoenician inscriptions and the Ugaritic religion of the Late Bronze Age can help in clarifying certain interpretations. In fact the Late Bronze Age religion of Ugarit is far better documented then the Phoenician religion of the Iron Age and, as suggested by Lipìnski,14 it can be a very rich source for the study of Phoenician religious believes. Certainly we do not believe that Phoenician believes derived from the Ugaritic religion but it is rather a continuation of the major themes with certain variations. The religion, the mythological part and the Ugaritic legends, prefigure in several aspects the Phoenician mythology of the Iron Age, as for example the theme of the dying deity reflected in the history of Melqart and Adonis and the cult of the royal ancestors, the Rephaim, attested in Phoenician inscriptions from the Iron Age and in the Ugaritic texts.15 Not to forget

Chirpanlieva 2010, 222. Lipìnski 1995. 15 Chirpanlieva 2013, 351. 13 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

372

M. Haider

the continuity in the artistic traditions, precisely in the religious iconography. So the Ugaritic sources can be of great help in clarifying certain problematic points in the religious iconography. So, the images represented on Greek vases are also subject to adaptation to the Phoenician symbolic system. When studying the imported figured Greek vases, we notice how the imagery corpus is reduced, the locals selected and imported only some specific themes from the vast repertoire offered by the Greek ateliers.16 So, it seems that very specific mythological and cultic scenes were not popular in the Levant, instead vases with general procession scenes seem to be quite popular also along with Dionysian scenes and only other few selected deities found their way to the Levant such as (Eros), Heracles and Hermes. Furthermore, we do not have to forget that these vessels were found in sites that did not yield any epigraphic record of a foreign cult, and more specifically a Greek cult, so we have to acknowledge the local/ Phoenician nature of the deity that was worshipped in these religious contexts. These gods can be easily identified with any of the local gods such as Melqart17 or Adonis18 or Eshmoun or Baal, all of them associated with a death and resurrection cycle celebrated through some kind of festive ritual. Death and resurrection were important divine themes being metaphors of the agricultural cycle. So honouring the gods seemed to be a must, each city was governed by a divine couple of supreme male and female deities. Even if the name of the chief male deity changed in each city, it remains associated with the concept of death and rebirth related to the agriculture cycle which itself is related to funerary rites, through the dining ritual symposium know as the marzeah. The marzeah is a ritualistic mourning feast that in a way resembles the classical symposium but also in another way is quite different.19 In several sites on the Levantine coast, we notice that the largest number of figured pottery, mainly craters, depicts Dionysius or Dionysian themes. Dionysius, being the god associated with agriculture cycle and vegetation, fertility, death and rebirth ritual, seems to be easily associated with the local dying/resurrecting deity. The absence of any inscription or other material culture that suggest a proper cult of the god Dionysius in the Phoenician city can only emphasize the idea that he can be identified with a local god. The representations of Dionysius on the Attic pottery are quite similar to the god “Bes” iconography, mainly for the bearded aspect.20 Scenes with chariots and warriors were also frequent and can be identified as a representation of the ancestral warriors, the Rephaim in the Phoenician traditions.

Chirpanlieva 2010, 186. For the image of the Cypriot Melqart see Yon 1986, 137. 18 For the Adonis image see Haider 2011–2012. 19 De Vries 1977, 545. 20 Chirpanlieva 2013, 349. 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers?

373

Ugaritic texts attesting the cult of the ancestors represented the kings of Ugarit and the members of a group of dead elite warriors as heroic divine figures. The banquets scenes are largely attested in the Phoenician world: Al Mina, Cheikh Zned, Byblos, Beirut, Sidon, Akka, Dor. They can be interpreted in the Phoenician cultic context as representations of banquets occurring during the celebrations in the temples or also as elite banquets (the tradition of banquets linked to the lifestyle of the aristocratic class is widely attested in the oriental traditions). The typology of the Greek pottery itself that was found in the religious context and that belongs to the drinking sets category, is another proof of its use in banquets. We can conclude that Phoenicians did not find it difficult to illustrate their believes through the use of foreign imagery. The phenomenon of Greek pottery and mainly Attic vessels in the Persian period, is related to a wider phenomenon in the Levant, which is that of the emerging urban societies and rich elite class.21 The imported fine pottery was an indicator of the transformation in the social classes; imported vessels acquired value through their integrations in the local social practices. In Phoenicia, we do not just have a continuity of importation of Greek pottery from the 10th century BC to at least the 4th century BC, but also continuity in the selection of imported typologies and iconographies. As we already observed the Attic vessels were adopted and integrated in the local Phoenician cultic celebrations, either during funerals or in the cultic banquets or in rituals celebrated in the sanctuaries related mainly to a local god with a death and rebirth cycle of which our knowledge is unfortunately very scarce. This celebration can be identified with the marzeah that is well attested in the Ugaritic texts, in the Old Testament and in the Phoenician epigraphy. The participants are members of the elite society that come together to celebrate a certain deity through heavy wine consumption in cups specifically selected for the ceremony. Attic pottery was adopted to serve the local cult in both a physical aspect by including them in the crockery used during the ceremony, and in a symbolic aspect. Hopefully, further studies and more publications of Attic material from Levantine sites may help in shedding new light on the religious parameters in which these vessels were used. Bibliography Arafat, K. / Morgan, C., 1994: Athens, Etruria and the Heueneburg: Mutual Misconceptions in the Study of Greek-Barbarian Relations. In I. Morris (ed.): Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies. Cambridge. Pp. 108–134. Briant, P., 1996: Histoire de l’Empire perse. De Cyrus à Alexandre. Paris. Chirpanlieva, I., 2010: Interpretatio phoenicia. Réinterprétation phénicienne des images représentées sur les vases attiques importés a Kition. Rivista di Studi Fenici 3: 217–235. Martin 2007, 274.

21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

374

M. Haider

–– 2013: Grecs et Phéniciens en Méditerranée orientale. Les céramiques grecques, témoins des échanges entre la Grèce, Chypre et la cote Levantine (X–IV s. av. J.-C.). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Aix-Marseille. Elayi, J., 1990a: Sidon, cité autonome de l’Empire perse. Paris. –– 1990b: Economie des cités phéniciennes sous l’Empire perse (AION Suppl. 50). Naples. Elayi, J. / Shefton, B. / Sayegh, H., 2000: Un quartier du port phénicien de Beyrouth au Fer III/Perse. Archéologie et Histoire (Transeuphratène Supplément 7). Paris. Hodder, I., 1987: The Meaning of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London. Haider, M., 2011–2012: Fragment of an Attic Vase with a Procession Scene from the College Site. Archaeology and History of Lebanon 34–35: 389–398. Lipìnski, E., 1995: Studia Phoenicia XIV: Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique (OLA 64). Leuven. Martin, R. S., 2007: “Hellenization” and Southern Phoenicia. Reconsidering the Impact of Greece before Alexander. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley. de Vries, K., 1977: Attic Pottery in the Achaemenid Empire. AJA 81: 544–548. Yon, M., 1986: Cultes phéniciens à Chypre. L’interprétation chypriote. Studia Phoenicia 4: 127–152.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers?

375

Fig 1. Map of modern day Lebanon with selection of sites with important Greek pottery presence.

Fig 2. Pie chart of different vessels type.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

376

M. Haider

Fig 3. Black Figure Cup, Haimon Painter, college site Sidon, early 5th century BC.

Fig 4. Early 5th century skyphos Attic Type A from College site Sidon.

Fig 5. Rhyton depicting head of a pig, Sheikh Zenad, 5th century B.C container from which fluids were intended to be drunk or to be poured in some ceremony such as libation, Beirut National Museum. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Empty Vessels or Laden Signifiers?

377

Fig 6. Lekythos with Black Figure decoration of riders/warriors. Early 5th century BC. College site.

Fig 7. Fragments from a bell crater with Red Figure decoration of a Symposium scene from Byblos, 4th century BC. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas: On 1st Millennium BC Funerary Stelae from Taymāʾ Arnulf Hausleiter

1. Relief Fragment from Taymāʾ, now in the Louvre1 It was in 1991, when a fragmentary relief representation from the oasis of Taymāʾ, Northwest Arabia, was discussed by Dan Potts, who studied it long after its discovery by Julius Euting2 and Charles Huber on 16 February 1884 at Taymāʾ (Fig. 1). In those days both travelling scholars had been conducting investigations in the Northwest of the Arabian Peninsula. The object had been accessioned by the Musée du Louvre, Paris, as late as 1986 as AO 29143. In his analysis, Potts stressed that the object has “affinities to Neo-Assyrian art,”3 and identified the representation as “Assyrianising,” very hypothetically mentioning that it possibly may have been carved by a non-Assyrian specialist during the Neo-Assyrian period, i.e. during the 8th / 7th century BC, at Taymāʾ or elsewhere in the Hejaz.4 The object appears as if it is the right part of an ‘orthostat’ (or a stele) whose central/ left and upper parts are broken away. Delimited by a flat strip at least to the right (slightly elevated in respect to the background of the relief) is a carved scene that combines several objects and an individual standing on a palm trunk; to the right the scene is framed by a row of bunches of grapes. Still recognisable are decorated furniture apparently standing on each other and two amphorae next to the palm trunk, the left one resting in a pot stand, the other, slightly different from the left one apparently not;5 furthermore, there is a conical object (beneath a I would like to thank my colleagues Marta D’Andrea, Maria Gabriella Micale, Davide Nadali, Sara Pizzimenti and Agnese Vacca for inviting me to this Festschrift in honor of Frances Pinnock. This article was written during my stay as Visiting Research Scholar at the Institute for the Studies of the Ancient World (ISAW), New York University. I am grateful to Emily Schalk who read over the text. 2 Euting 1914, fig. on p. 155; see Eichmann 2011, 57, fig. 5a. 3 Potts 1991, 10. 4 Potts 1991, 18. 5 See Potts 1991, 14. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

380

A. Hausleiter

stool) which may possibly represent an incense burner, and the above mentioned trunk of a date palm (with well recognisable bunches of dates) with a figure standing on it wearing a short pleated skirt. On the uppermost stool, there is an object with incisions, probably a cushion, and above it an elongated object with a horizontal rod. What exactly is represented above is too fragmentary as to be recognised. Whether or not some of the irregularities on the surface beneath the carved are remains of an inscription (see the discussion further below), cannot be stated with certainty.6 Contrary to earlier explanations considering also a Syro-Phoenician production,7 it was the parallels with iconographic elements on reliefs from the royal Assyrian palaces as well as written (exclusively non-Arabian) sources reporting the relations between Assyria and Arabia, upon which Potts based his arguments. Consequently, a Neo-Assyrian date was taken in consideration though only indirectly formulated, although the author was conscious of the lack of evidence at Taymāʾ dating to this particular period.8 In view of the circumstances of its discovery, the meaning or function of the object was not discussed. When briefly reviewing Assyrian-Arabian relations, it becomes clear that they are known only through Assyrian royal inscriptions.9 After the participation of people designated aribi in the battle of Qarqar between Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858–824 BC) and a coalition of Syrian towns, a number of contacts between Arabia and Assyria, amongst others aimed at exchange, are attested from the 8th century BC onwards, this at a time when the long distance trade between South Arabia and the Eastern Mediterranean had been operating for at least for a century.10 It was a cuneiform text discovered at the site of Sur Jur’eh on the Middle Euphrates in Iraq, more than 35 years ago11 which, for the first time, shed light on the caravan trade between Assyria and Arabia, using domesticated dromedaries as pack animals.12 In the context of an attack by local the governor Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur of the land Suhu and Mari (around the end of the 1st half to mid-8th century BC) on one of these caravans, which may have tried to escape tax duties imposed by the governor for the transit through the area

One could think of possible remains of carved letters if looking at the photograph published by the Musée du Louvre (see fn. 8), especially in the area between the leg of the lowest stool and the amphora. Potts (1991) does not report any observation regarding an inscription; the present author saw the object in the year 2005 in the exhibition of the Louvre Museum in Paris and did not identify any such remains. 7 Cf. Potts 1991, 12–13 with references. 8 The Musée du Louvre’s website at http://cartelfr.louvre.fr/cartelfr/visite?srv=car_not_ frame&idNotice=13362 (accessed on 2nd October 2015) gives a 7th to 6th century BC date. Potts 1991: 17–19. 9 Eph’al 1984; Macdonald 1995; 1997; Hausleiter 2012a; Bagg forthcoming. 10 De Maigret 1998. 11 Cavigneaux / Khalil Ismail 1990; Frame 1995, 294–300. 12 As for the circumstances of the caravan trade, possible attacks by desert tribes etc., cf. Maraqten 1996a. 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

381

controlled by him, details on the composition of such a caravan were provided for the first time—the number of men (at least 100), of camels (200) as well as the traded commodities (textiles, precious stones, iron, etc.). Only shortly afterwards, towards the end of the 8th century BC, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III, in the context of the conquest of Damascus and Gaza, collected tribute from the Arabian queen Samsi, who was arrested by him and possibly even depicted on one of his reliefs in the Central Palace at the Assyrian capital Nimrud/Kalḫu.13 He installed an Arab middleman who was supposed to control the trade between Assyria and Egypt.14 Several tribes of the region paid tribute, probably also because they did not want to lose their participation in trade. The high importance of the camel as pack-animal for the long-distance trade may explain the large number of animals that Tiglath-pileser III and some of his successors caught.15 However, reliefs of Tiglathpileser III in Nimrud16 as well as of 7th century BC King Assurbanipal in Nineveh17 illustrate the use of these animals in war;18 already under Esarhaddon, they were very useful for crossing the Sinai.19 The further Assyrian-Arabian history is characterised by conflicts at the southern margins of the Assyrian empire. However, only kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon conducted military campaigns against tribes and their strongholds on the territory of the Arabian Peninsula, such as against the land of Bazu located near the Gulf as well as the “fortress of the desert,” Adummatu, most probably modern Dumat al-Jandal/al-Jawf.20 Already earlier, under kings Sargon and, again, Sennacherib, contacts are known between South Arabia, i.e., Saba and Assyria, resulting in tribute of the two mukarribs Ita’amra of Saba and Karib-il Watar of Saba to the Assyrian kings, which more likely may have been presents or gifts,21 possibly in the frame of commercial relations.22 At the beginning of the 7th century BC, a delegation from Saba is reported to have visited the royal court at the capital Nineveh,23 whereas the mention of lú Te-e-me in the designation of the “Desert Gate” of Sennacherib’s Nineveh in the year 694 BC, at least according to Eph’al,24 may rather refer to a desert area in

Cf. Barnett / Falkner 1962, pl. XXVI; Eph’al 1984, 85, n. 261; see also Bagg forthcoming. Macdonald 1995, 1365. 15 Bagg forthcoming. 16 Barnett and Falkner 1962, pl. XIV. 17 Barnett 1976, pl. LXIV–LXV. 18 Cf. Macdonald 2009, stressing that camels were not suitable for being used in the battle. 19 Eph’al 1984, 137–141. 20 Macdonald 1995; Hausleiter 2012a; Charloux / Loreto 2014. 21 Eph’al 1984, 108–111; 228–229; Potts 2003; Nebes 2007; 2016, 70-72. Cf. Bagg forthcoming, pointing to the representation of dromedaries on reliefs in Hall X of King Sargon’s II palace at Khorsabad. 22 Cf. Nebes 2016, 88–89. 23 Bagg forthcoming, with references. 24 Eph’al 1984, 125. 13 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

382

A. Hausleiter

western Babylonia.25 In Babylonia the presence of Arabs is attested by textual evidence from the 8th century BC onwards,26 and in the Assyrian-Babylonian wars of the 7th century BC, Arabians as parts of Babylonian troops fought against Assyria and his king Ashurbanipal.27 It is, instead, doubtful, whether the mention of ta-i-ma-ni (URBS) in the inscription of Yariris of Carchemish refers to northwest-arabian Taymāʾ. This 8th century BC ruler boasts with his knowledge of four languages and 12 scripts, and the term is probably better to be contextualised with Upper Mesopotamian “teman” from the Assyrian royal inscriptions.28 It is these limited testimonies which have been used for defining the frame of 1st millennium BC relations between Mesopotamia and Assyria,29 and these relations may have been even more constant and intense than previously assumed,30 if taking in account the already existing networks of contact during Late Bronze Age Northwest Arabia, Egypt and the Levant.31 To these can be added now the most recent results from Taymāʾ, pointing towards contacts between the same areas already during the Middle Bronze Age.32 These exchange networks and contacts go even farther back and form the matrix of the relations of this region with adjacent areas during the Iron Age, including Egypt and the Gulf.33

For a sealing with ancient north Arabian inscription on a tablet from Tell Sheikh Hamad, Syria, cf. Sass 2015. 26 Cf. Eph’al 1984, 115–117. On the Arab-Babylonian relations as seen through the camel figurines from Uruk, see Jantzen 2013. 27 Eph’al 1984, 154–156; cf. Nadali 2004. 28 Hawkins 2000, 131–133. 29 For further correlates of relations between Arabia and the Near East in the 1st millennium BC, such as ostraca with Sabaean letters in various sites, cf. Bagg forthcoming. 30 As Byrne 2003, 12 put it “Thus, before the reign of Sargon II, the most probable place to meet an Arab was on campaign in the central Levant (Eph’al 1984, 81).” 31 Sperveslage 2013; Hausleiter 2014; Liu et al. 2015; Renzi et al. 2016. 32 Archaeological correlates are a number of bronze weapons found in the context of a graveyard (al-Nasim) located south of the walled settlement of Taymāʾ (the area constitutes basically the northern fringe of what is known as Rujum Sa’saˈ (al-Taimā’i 2005). The objects in question are fenestrated axes and spearheads made of bronze (al-Hajiri 2011; al-Hajiri / al-Hamad 2015; cf. Hausleiter / al-Hajiri / al-Najem 2014; Hausleiter 2015; Hausleiter / Zur 2016; for the typology and distribution see Gernez 2008 with references). In an illuminating lecture on 9th July 2015 in Berlin, it was Frances who presented a fenestrate axe from Ebla which, based on decorative elements, showed clear similarities to Elamite specimens. Such “ceremonial weapons” made of metal, thus, were exchanged over large parts of the Near East, indicating that allegedly peripheral regions may have been much more integrated into Middle Bronze Age exchange networks than previously thought; cf. on the fundamental importance of metals for the MBA trade relations in the Near East, Larsen 2008. 33 Cf. Magee 2014. 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

383

2. Nephesh (Funerary Stele) TA 10277 from Taymāʾ Returning to the relief fragment mentioned above, a stele recently discovered at the oasis of Taymāʾ offers the chance to resume the discussion about cultural contacts and transfer of images that started more than 25 years ago. In 2011, a fragmentary stele made of sandstone (object number TA 10277) was found in an accumulation of debris east of what was a major temple building in the centre of the settlement during the Nabataean and Roman periods.34 This debris may have accumulated in the context of the large-scale modifications inside and outside of Building E-b1, which can be dated to the time after the 2nd century AD, leading apparently to a functional change of the building. A clue to the absolute dating of the object can be obtained from a Nabataean inscription mentioning the year 15 AD (see further below). Since that date is not related to the last use of the object (it had been re-used afterwards), the general dating of the context, which is in any case secondary in respect to the last use of the object, seems to be valid. The preserved part of the stele is 1.52 m high, 0.52 m wide and up to 0.12 m thick (Fig. 2). Contrary to the fragment stored in the Louvre, not only is there a much better preserved part of a carved scene quite similar to that of the latter, but also three inscriptions in three different scripts have been identified (see Fig. 3): a first one (TA 10277.1) in Imperial Aramaic; a second one in the “Aramaic of Taymāʾ” (TA 10277.2), and a third Nabataean inscription (TA 10277.3). They had been carved beneath the relief, and only the first of these inscriptions was carved together with the relief. All three inscriptions define the object as funerary stele (Aramaic: nephesh). Most interestingly, the names of the deceased are all female,35 and accordingly, this remarkable object was not only used three times as nephesh, but in all cases for deceased women—a yet unique case.36 TA 10277.1 is the original inscription and its individual letters are sculpted in the lower of two superimposed rectangular panels beneath the relief. Of the incised inscription TA 10277.2 the first two letters are Imperial Aramaic, too, be-

Lora 2017. The object was excavated by Jasmin Wilhelm, Bamberg, a member of the Saudi-German archaeological expedition working at Taymāʾ. Saudi-German excavations at Taymāʾ started in 2004 and conducted ever since by the German Archaeological Institute (DAI), Orient Department, Berlin, and the Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage (SCTH), Riyadh. Funding of the German component has been provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG), Bonn. 35 Read by Michael C.A. Macdonald: Inscription TA 10277.1 (Imperial Aramaic) “The funerary monument of {Gzyʾh} daughter of Rgʾl;” Inscription TA 10277 (Aramaic of Taymāʾ): “This is the funerary monument of {Gzylh} daughter of Wʾlh;” Inscription TA 10277.3 (Nabataean); 1. The funerary monument of Pṣyʾl daughter of ʿbydw in the month of 2. Elūl year 24 of Aretas ---- 3. who loves his people (cf. Macdonald forthcoming). 36 The recorded inscribed funerary stelae show at Taymāʾ 41% male, 39% female individuals; approx. 20% are uncertain (Macdonald forthcoming). 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

384

A. Hausleiter

fore then switching into the “Aramaic of Taymāʾ.”37 TA 10277.3 again incised and below the former is fully written in Nabataean. Whether there was a painted inscription or representation in the panel above TA 10277.1, cannot be reconstructed any more. Traces of an erased inscription, as in other cases at Taymāʾ (see below) cannot be recognised. As to the dating of the Imperial Aramaic inscription of the first use, palaeographic considerations suggest that it should be dated to the 5th/4th centuries BC together with the second one, whereas the (third) Nabataean text mentioning regnal year 24 of King Aretas (IV) allows for defining the year 15 AD as absolute date, implying a last use of this stele considerably later than the other two times. After 15 AD, the stele most probably changed in function, since the former reverse was carved with an elaborate decoration to be conceived “horizontally,” i.e., by turning the formerly upstanding stele for 90° and laying it on its former obverse. This representation shows a number of rectangular squares with rosettes and a bird in a heraldic rendering in an upper register and as of yet poorly legible, apparently figural scenes partly with animal representations in small rectangular fields in a lower one (Fig. 4). The upper frame displays stylised bunches of grapes apparently inspired by those on the obverse, but more schematic showing an oval pointed shape. The vertical parts of the frame show cross-shaped double-lines. The worn surface of this side in the central part may point to the use as threshold. In the 1st millennium BC funerary stelae are attested in south-eastern Anatolia and Egypt, in the latter with a long lasting tradition. On the Arabian Peninsula, funerary stelae occur in two areas, Northwest and South Arabia, from the mid-1st millennium BC onwards.38 In the western part of Asia Minor, the Greek tradition of funerary monuments starts around 500 BC. Funerary stelae belong to the realm of the culture of remembrance, preserving images of the deceased for the surviving part of the family.39 Therefore, they are communicating objects with a clearly social dimension, such as, e.g., in the context of care for the dead or ancestor cults. These functions they fulfill either at the burial place as funerary monument or, at other locations as memorial. An inscription guarantees the unequivocal identification of the deceased, whereas the representations follow certain iconographic types.40 As to the contexts of the funerary stelae discussed in the present contribution, they originate almost without exception from secondary contexts, i.e. none of them were discovered in the context of pertaining burials. Therefore any conclu-

Macdonald forthcoming. For the latter cf., e.g., Arbach et al. 2008. 39 Bonatz 2000, 151. 40 Among the inscriptions of Syro-Hittite funerary monuments, Bonatz (2000, 72–75 with tab. I) identifies a number of codes (onomastic; historical; topographic; biographic; chronological; analogical; sympathetic). According to this scheme, the objects from Taymāʾ discussed in this article usually show an onomastic code, and in one case (TA 10277.2) a chronological and historical code. 37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

385

sion regarding, e.g., the visibility of imagery and/or inscription and the general setting on ancient cemeteries must remain hypothetical, as based on analogies.41 Turning to the imagery of TA 10277 (Fig. 3), one can recognise much more than on the Louvre-fragment (Fig. 1): Similar to the latter but much better preserved, single vertical and double horizontal rows of bunches of grapes constitute the framework of the scene.42 Within it, are two standing figures opposite one another framing the central scene. As on the Louvre fragment they were dressed with a short skirt (this is at least valid for the left figure; the preserved parts of the legs of the right figure seem identical to those of the left one). Only the upper part of the left figure is preserved, and its hairdo (or headdress?) is characterised by a thick flaring following the shape of the head and shoulders; at the transition between neck and shoulder this item is characterised by a sharp step. If the figure wears any kind of shirt, it would not be recognisable; probably it is an intentional representation of the naked upper part of the body. The left figure holds an object in its raised left hand, probably presenting it. In its shape it clearly resembles the possible incense burner on AO 29143 (beneath the furniture; see above). The right hand does not appear to bear an object. It is possible that the right figure does the same as the left one; although not much more than on AO 29143 is preserved. Both figures stand on trunks of date palms displaying bunches of their sweet fruits. A central table with a smaller one beneath serves as platform for a further stool or table on the left, which may relate to either the preserved left figure or to what was represented to the right of this table. This area is heavily destroyed. The same is valid for the small table below the bigger one. Nevertheless, in the central part of the big table, left of the most destroyed parts, it seems as if something overlaps the surface of the table. Contrary to AO 29143 there are no amphorae depicted; furthermore, the upper frame is preserved at the very top to the left of the representation (above the rows of bunches of grapes) in the shape of a narrow ridge. 3. A Further Stele from Taymāʾ Even better preserved than TA 10277 is a further stele from Taymāʾ, its representation showing again similarities as well as differences to those of AO 29143 and TA 10277. Accordingly, the object (preserved size 0.53 x 0.43 x It is too early to use this situation in favor of an interpretation of these monuments as memorials, detached from the burial place; at the Iron Age cemetery of Tal’a, a so-called eye-stele (TA 514 without inscription; cf. Beuger in: Eichmann et al. 2010) was found in connection with burial architecture (i.e., five built square stone chambers); see the discussion further below. 42 A further object from Taymāʾ with a row with bunches of grapes is stele TA 9355, where a bird of prey has been framed by it. I have argued in another contribution that this object may be a funerary stele as well (Hausleiter forthcoming); if correct, one would have to add the representation of birds to the iconographic repertoire of funerary stelae at Taymāʾ. 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

386

A. Hausleiter

0.18 m) was found in Taymāʾ some time ago, and had remained in private possession until it was handed over to the National Museum of Riyadh43 (Museum no. T11; Fig. 5).44 It seems as if this stone underwent some heavy modifications on all of its edges, probably due to repeated re-use; and also the surface seems fairly worn. As to the relief, nothing is visible (or left) of the horizontal frieze of bunches of grapes, as attested on the two previous fragments, or of the strip framing the representation. Remains of a two-line Imperial Aramaic inscription are preserved; the remains of the letter š (most probably of the word nephesh) can be seen on the right side. The inscription, as on TA 10277, is carved and not incised. It is possible that the inscription follows the example of TA 10277, i.e., identifying the monument as that of a specific individual (mentioned by its name with filiation). Most interestingly, however, the central part of the scene is completely preserved (though admittedly heavily worn). The main element of the composition is a seated figure on a stool looking to the left, holding a staff in horizontal position with the left and as of yet unidentifiable object in the raised right hand. The figure wears a short plain skirt covering the seated part of the body. Based on this scene, it is now clear that also AO 29143 shows the rear part (i.e. the left upper leg and hip) of such a seated central figure (originally described as elongated object). In front of the seated figure is an object with handle. This object seems to be significant in view of its prominent position. The individual flanking this scene to the left, probably holding a staff with a rectangular appendix, seems to be approaching the object, but the surface is too poorly preserved for recognising more details. These objects are probably a bow and a quiver, possibly both related to the central figure. Together with the staff of the seated central figure and that standing to the left, these would then be elements belonging to the sphere of arms in the widest sense, not necessarily purely military in nature, but in any case linked to the expression of power and rank.45 The two individuals on/behind palm trunks correspond to those on the stelae previously discussed; they wear short skirts and may show a naked chest (though very poorly preserved); their arms are in the same position as those of the (left) figure(s) on TA 10277; interestingly, the characteristic hairdo which has been ob- served on TA 10277 for the two accompanying figures, is absent, and also none of the other figures shows this type of hairdress. As to the other remaining objects, it seems that two amphorae of identical shape are flanking the left palm trunk, whereas the area around the right palm trunk shows a horizontal ridge, and it does not seem that there were further two amphorae on this

Cf. Eichmann 2011, 57, fig. 6. Information kindly provided by M.H. al-Najem, Director of SCTH’s Antiquities Office at Taymāʾ. 45 As for the representation of a staff on Syro-Hittite funerary monuments as “sign of dignity” (Würdezeichen), see Bonatz 2000, 76–78. 43 44

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

387

side, as well if they are not completely worn.46 What is, however, different, at least with regard to TA 10277 (as to AO 29143 it cannot be said due to its state of preservation), is a second(ary?) scene/representation to the top left, where a seated figure looking to the right is depicted behind the left figure flanking the central scene. It is obvious that the two seated figures are depicted in different size, the bigger one with two accompanying figures, and the smaller one without. Social rank or role and significance would thus be supposedly different. The meaning of the objects beneath the second seated figure have not yet been deciphered. Next to it, i.e., left of the amphora, is a vertical rod with a forked upper end. Two vertical (standing?) items can be recognised to the left of it. The right rectangular object shows vertical and horizontal lines, the latter only recognisable in the upper part, which may have divided the object into nine small squares and three elongated “fields” (if the lower horizontal lines have not disappeared, which, however, does not seem probable). Left of it, as a base for the left part of the stool of the seated figure and of the incense burner (?) beneath it, there is an object showing six vertically oriented units (or five incised lines). Based on these two stelae from Taymāʾ, i.e., TA10277 from the excavations and T11, now in Riyadh, the fragment in the Louvre can now be identified as part of a funerary stele; its inscription, most probably, was located further down on the broken part, as in case of the other better preserved examples. As to the composition, AO 29143 is closer to the second fragment from Taymāʾ (T11, now Riyadh) than to TA 10277, although generally they belong to the same type of representation. 4. Discussion Though the three objects from Taymāʾ have now been identified as funerary stelae, the general observation of Dan Potts remains valid, i.e., the carvings showing parallels or affinities to representation on Neo-Assyrian royal orthostat reliefs— even though each of the stelae displays a slightly different arrangement of iconographic elements. Generally, a seated figure accompanied by standing figures is even an ancient Mesopotamian motif appearing as early as in late 3rd millennium BC glyptics; on Syro-Hittite funerary monuments the seated figure represents the deceased.47 As already observed by Potts in 1991, the stylistic patterns and a number of elements, however, differ considerably from those on the Neo-Assyrian reliefs. This becomes most visible when comparing the scenes with that of the “garden scene”

Bonatz 2000, 108–109. The presence of an amphora on the right side of the palm trunk would prevent the representation of the vine with bunches of grapes, which, on the opposite side, reaches farther downwards. 47 “Auf den Bildtypen, in denen stehende und sitzende Figuren gemeinsam auftreten, legt es der symbolische Ausdruckswert des Sitzens nahe, die betreffende Person in den Rang des vermeintlich Verstorbenen zu erheben” (italics by the present author). 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

388

A. Hausleiter

of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, which was displayed in the Northern Palace of this king in the empire’s capital Nineveh. Here, the king is represented together with his wife Šammu-ramat banqueting after the glorious victory over Elamite king Te’umman.48 In contrast to the “naturalistic” representation on the Assyrian relief, the wine tendrils on the stelae from Taymāʾ appear purely ornamental. This same can be said of the vine with bunches of grapes, which are just hatched ovals on the imagery from Taymāʾ. Furthermore, all elements on the stelae from Taymāʾ are displayed in paratactic order avoiding any overlap (except for the arms of the seated figures and the accompanying ones). Finally, the plasticity of the Taymāʾ reliefs is not as elaborated as on Assyrian reliefs.49 The representation of grapevine is surely attested in Assyria from the early 7th century BC onwards, under King Sennacherib.50 In no case has schematic or ornamental representation as in Taymāʾ been reported. This goes also for the representation of vine on reliefs of Ashurbanipal (see above). As for the remaining objects, the following items find parallels on Neo-Assyrian reliefs: bunches of dates, in Assyria, are represented from the time of Tiglath-pilesar III furniture, such as tables or stools are represented with or without struts, with feet in the shape of lion paws, supporting figures and elaborate decoration51—exclusively in official contexts. Bows and quivers are depicted in military or ritual scenes; vessels occur in different contexts.52 Whereas palm trees are depicted on Assyrian reliefs, reduced palm trunks with dates as support for figures are unknown; a rod or staff occurs in royal representations, but held by the king and not lying on the knees of a seated figure. The representation of (possible) incense burners is not attested; the rectangular standing items beneath the secondary scene on the Taymāʾ fragment in Riyadh cannot be found either. In sum, the comparison of the stelae from Taymāʾ with iconographic elements from reliefs of the Neo-Assyrian period shows significant similarities to the latter, although there are some elements which are not attested in Assyria. Clear differences can be identified with respect to composition, the lack of ground lines53 and the paratactic arrangement of the individual units, i.e., the style, which thus is considerably different from that of the Assyrian reliefs.54 Most essential, however, for the question of transfer of ideas rather than only Barnett 1976, pl. LXIV-LXV; for the important role of the city of Arbil in this context, cf. MacGinnis 2013, 30. 49 “That the rendering is inferior to an actual Assyrian product is obvious” (Potts 1991, 18). 50 Bleibtreu 1980; cf. Potts 1991, 15–16. 51 Cf. Curtis 1996, 171–175, 176–178. 52 Cf., for illustrations, Hrouda 1965, and Madhloom 1970. 53 The horizontal staff of the seated figure had been interpreted by Potts 1991, 14 as a ground line. 54 Cf. Potts 1991, 17–18 recognising “a clear degree of Assyrian influence, on an iconographic level.” 48

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

389

of iconographic elements, is the observation that no Assyrian funerary stele exists, which may have served as a “blueprint,” also in respect to the actual meaning of the representations on the stelae discovered at Taymāʾ. Therefore, we shall now turn to such a group of objects, the Syro-Hittite funerary stelae. Numerous of them have been found mostly in south-eastern Anatolia. As pointed out by Dominik Bonatz, who presented the corpus in a monographic study, the emergence of objects which can be described as funerary monuments or memorials is rooted in Syria—not in Hittite Anatolia or Mesopotamia,55 taking up inspirations from adjacent regions, such as, e.g, Egypt.56 It does not appear surprising that in view of contacts, which have not yet been clearly defined for this area, but may well have been of commercial character, a transfer of ideas from Syria to the northern part of Arabia would have to be postulated.57 Thus, the participation of Arabs in the troop contingents of allied Syrian cities against the 9th century BC Assyrian King Shalmaneser III may have to be considered also under these auspices (not to speak of the “Aramaean pantheon of Taymāʾ,”58 i.e., contacts impacting the sphere of religion and belief).59 Recently, the role of Syria as early Arabian-Assyrian contact zone was convincingly highlighted by Byrne 2003.60 Of significance, for the purpose of this contribution are funerary monuments with carved imagery, especially those with standing or seated figures, often associated with a table scene.61 This group of objects is common from the 10th to 8th centuries BC and mainly characterised by a number of monuments from Maraș or said to originate from there. The majority shows carved scenes of funerary meals, i.e., a motif mainly composed of more than one individual, usually interpreted as the de- ceased and the surviving relatives (there are, however, numerous representations of individual figures, too).62 Generally, the seated figures on the monuments from Taymāʾ resemble those on the Syro-Hittite monuments, and if the pertaining concept63 can be transferred,

Bonatz 2000, 142. Based on the comparative analysis of types of representation (typengeschichtlicher Vergleich) he concludes, that “in bezug auf die Thematisierung des Toten- und Ahnenkults im Rahmen einer intendierten Sepulkralkunst [läßt] einen entstehungsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang allein für den syrischen Raum erahnen” 57 This should, by no means, exclude the existence of a potentially local development of representations in the context of the funerary sphere in Northwest Arabia or other parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Currently, the material basis for such a hypothesis is not sufficient. 58 Maraqten 1996b. 59 The iconography of divine symbols at Taymāʾ on objects of the Achaemenid period has been identified as Babylonian by Niehr 2006 (with references); cf. Hausleiter 2012b. 60 Cf. Masetti-Rouault / Rouault 2016 for the Middle Euphrates area. 61 Cf. the summary by Bonatz 2000, 140–142; on the history of this motif cf. ibid., 54–58. 62 Bonatz 2000, pls VIII–XI. 63 Bonatz 2000, 108–109. 55 56

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

390

A. Hausleiter

the seated figures on the Taymāʾ stelae would represent the deceased individuals (at the same time mentioned in the inscription). For the standing figures on the Taymāʾ monuments—depicted in smaller size than the seated, apparently of less rank (possibly to be labelled “attendants”), a number of corresponding individuals have been found on the Syro-Hittite monuments, holding an object in their raised arm.64 One 8th century BC stele from Maraş shows a scene similar yet not identical to that of TA 10277: a woman depicted en face seated on a kline is flanked by two smaller ones shown in profile, each holding a whisk. The entire setting—the scene is embedded in an architectonic framework—is completely different from TA 10277.65 Very frequently food is displayed on tables in front of these seated figures, meant to be consumed by these individuals.66 Often they hold objects with highly meaningful and symbolic character in their raised hands, such as drinking bowls, mirrors, spikes, spindles, bunch of grapes etc;67 rarely objects or symbols are depicted next to or above the figures. Those depicted on the Taymāʾ stelae are too badly preserved as to be directly compared. Bows (no quivers are depicted) are considered as sign of rank and esteem of the deceased.68 As discussed earlier, the stele from Taymāʾ (now Riyadh, T11) shows a quiver and bow, the latter apparently held by one of the figures of lower rank, thus different to the scheme known from the Syro-Hittite monuments (see also the representation on TA 1029 discussed further below). Bronze weapons of this type (bow and quiver) of clearly ceremonial character have recently been found at the site of Adam (Oman), in what is believed to be a religious (and not a funerary) context of Iron Age date.69 As to the furniture, stools and tables, their presence (and use) is conditioned by the frequent depiction of a table scene. Stools have mainly a back (except for some),70 thus corresponding to what in Assyria is a “throne,”71 and tables are depicted mostly with folded legs, whereas slightly less examples show tables of a more massive character with (cross) bars; on the Taymāʾ monuments, the small table shows a simple horizontal bar, whereas Syro-Hittite tables have vertical ones as well. Thus it can be hypothesised that the iconographic resemblance of the stelae from Taymāʾ with Syro-Hittite funerary monuments or memorials characterised by Bonatz 2000, pls XV–XIX. Bonatz 2000, 22 (C59); 41–42 (Stelenbildtyp 3c); pl. XX. 66 Bonatz 2000, 92–96. 67 Bonatz 2000, 76–107 lists the following items: staff and belt with tassel; bow on the shoulder; rock and spindle; mirror; pomegranate; spike; grapes; bowl; table and food; writing tools; scale; pleated rag; bird and stringed instrument; equids; lotus and flower; winged sun; carrier of a flywhisk; double lion base. 68 Bonatz 2000, 78–79. 69 Gernez 2016. 70 Bonatz 2000, pls X (C14; C15); XI (C16). 71 Curtis 1996, 168–171. 64 65

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

391

the presence of a big seated central figure added by smaller ones of different rank, both holding objects in one of their hands, and the presence of furniture, refers equally at least to the meaning. Whether the function (monument or memorial) was the same cannot be decided basing on the current evidence.72 This clearly differs from the merely iconographic similarity between the Taymāʾ stelae and Assyrian reliefs. 5. “Silent Visages” or “Eye-Stelae” from Taymāʾ Quantitatively, the funerary stelae from Taymāʾ discussed so far are clearly a rare exception compared to the large number of stelae with a comparatively schematic rendering of a human face. Around 50 of these objects have been discovered, many of them not published, and the entire corpus still needs thorough archaeological study.73 In the meantime the number these funerary stelae originating from scientific and controlled excavations has increased. Their general dating to the 5th/4th centuries BC, which was based on palaeographic observations, is now supported by—indirect—stratigraphic dating, i.e. by stratified contexts which, however, are not primary in character as far as the stelae are concerned. Some of these monuments have been found in a cemetery (excavated in Area O), whose main phase of occupation has been dated to the 4th/3rd centuries BC, based on a series of 14C-dates from these graves.74 Seven of such stelae, in altogether six graves, were used as capstones for the grave pit which had been cut into the bedrock. In Grave O-g23 a fragment of a stele was used, apparently after having been adapted by removal of some parts to fit into the upper pit (which, by nature, had to be larger than the grave pit). Grave O–g41, a single burial, counts two inscribed stelae among the capstones; one of them, TA 12006 (Fig. 6), bears two inscriptions: one fragmentary in Taymaʾnitic, the other—complete one—in Imperial Aramaic (type: “grave of PN1 son of PN2”).75 In addition to these inscribed stelae, there are numerous small examples, usually displaying a very coarse rendering of the face or parts of it, i.e., mainly eyes, sometimes the nose and mouth, too. Yet only one stele of this type has been found in excavations. From the cemetery of Tal’a, part of the large cemetery area south of the oasis, a 17.8 x 24.3 x 5.4 cm large stele (TA 514; Fig. 7) was recovered from a multiple burial in one of several rectangular stone chambers attached to

As of yet only TA 10277 has been found in archaeological excavations—re-used and far away from any ancient cemetery. 73 The inscribed funerary stelae from the Saudi-German excavations as well as those from the Taymāʾ Museum have been studied by M.C.A. Macdonald (forthcoming; Macdonald / al-Najem forthcoming); a number of previous stelae with Imperial Aramaic inscriptions have been published by Livingstone et al. 1983. 74 Petiti / Intilia / Hausleiter 2014. 75 Reading by M.C.A. Macdonald in 2012. 72

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

392

A. Hausleiter

each other.76 The dating of the cemetery’s occupation (9th to 5th century BC) has been established by means of a number of 14C-dates from fireplaces in front of the chambers,77 but none of these dates could be directly connected with the findspot of the stele. There is one stele from Taymāʾ,78 which—distributed over two superimposed panels—combines both the representation of a schematic human face such as on the Eye Stelae in the upper part with that of one of the smaller figures of the elaborate funerary stelae in the lower part, published in 2007 (here Fig. 8).79 Interestingly, the figure shows a hairdo identical to the figures on TA 10277, excavated in 2011. In the right hand it holds an object which is interpreted as mirror on Syro-Hittite monuments.80 Whether it is represented on one of the elaborate stelae from Taymāʾ is difficult to say due to their state of preservation. On the very simply rendered table are two items of rectangular and triangular shape. There is no inscription that would unequivocally allow for identifying the represented figure according to their sex. 6. Funerary Stele TA 1029 We conclude the discussion of stelae from Taymāʾ with an object which was used as spoilia in the supposedly Nabataean inner wall of the settlement,81 after the size of Taymāʾ’s urban area had been considerably reduced. A substantial block of 1.2 m (preserved) height, 0.47 m width and 0.26 m depth (TA 1029; Fig. 9a‒d) was recovered lying on its right side,82 when looking at the well preserved representation of a male in a tunic with fringes, characterised by its impressive hairdo, and bearing a quiver with arrows and a dagger. A bow stands on the right (i.e. on the left side of the figure). Apparently, this carving (Fig. 9a) is the last representation on this block, whereas other carvings on the remaining three sides, including an Imperial Aramaic inscription have all been coarsely, but completely erased (Fig. 9b‒d). Before coming back to the representation of this male “warrior,” we turn to those erased scene(s) to be considered as preceding this image. Not much is really preserved, but what can be reconstructed as the main scene is a seated figure within a frame consisting of two vertical parallel lines and a convex upper line (Fig. 9b). A standing figure of considerably smaller dimension stands on the lap of the first figure. In front of and behind of the large seated person are renderings which may either represent arms holding an object, or in connec Beuger in: Eichmann et al. 2010, 133–137. Eichmann 2009, 62, n. 14. 78 According to the director of the Antiquities Office at Taymāʾ, Mohammed al-Najem (personal communication 2011). 79 Al-Najem (ed.) 2007. 80 Bonatz 2000, pls XI (C19); XII (C21); XIII (C26; C29); XIV (C33); XVI (C40?); XXI (C60). 81 Schneider 2010. 82 Intilia in Eichmann et al. 2010. 76 77

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

393

tion with the area above the items related to the hairdress or headwear of the figure. It is unclear whether the figure is represented en face or in profile.83 The latter appears, however, more probable, since the position of what could be considered the foot of the main figure points to the left. Be that as it may, the erased representation on TA 1029 seems to be different from those on the other funerary stelae from Taymāʾ, i.e. TA 10277, AO 29143, and that in Riyadh (T11). There remain, however, the figures on the lateral sides. Altogether three figures are preserved. On the right side is a standing figure, probably en face, with no feet preserved (Fig. 9c), and on the left two figures stand above each other (Fig. 9d); although the upper one’s feet point to the left (the face not allowing for a reconstruction of a head in profile), both figures show the same outline as that of the right side. The upper figure on the left side has a short dress, whereas the lower one’s dress reached the ground. The figure on the right side does not allow a proper reconstruction of the dress, since its lower part is broken away, but it appears to wear a long dress as well. Only if these figures had the same accompanying function as on the elaborate funerary scenes, a similarity to the funerary stelae from Taymāʾ would be conceivable, but this is uncertain. Not only their location precludes an unequivocal integration into the main scene, yet when also do not show the raised arms holding an object in the hand, but if represented, the arms or hands were attached to the body or held in front of it. Thus, they may have been part of the ensemble, but probably with a different function than on our stelae.84 The main scene of TA 1029 in itself, as far as it can be stated in view of the poor state of preservation, appears “complete.” Remaining with the main scene—in spite of some general similarities to the other stelae TA 10277, AO 29143 and Riyadh, such as the representation of a seated figure on a stool, the presence of a small figure on the lap (so different to those standing of the palm trunks)—, it evokes a number of scenes on Syro-Hittite funerary monuments, where smaller figures are depicted on the lap,85 on a stool86 or in front of the seated figure in elevated position.87 Such scenes, compared to the majority of Syro-Hittite table scenes, are, however, comparatively rare. Finally, as with the other funerary stelae from Taymāʾ, an—erased—Imperial Aramaic inscription, sculpted in positive and distributed over two superimposed panels, allows for reconstructing it as the label of a funerary stele.88

The two holes, as a third one to the left seem to refer to holes aimed at keeping applications, possibly of metal or other materials, and do not seem to represent eyes. 84 Formally they are similar to the depiction of the Assyrian heirs apparent on the stele of King Esarhaddon from Zincirli. In view of the contextual differences, more than a general similarity cannot be recognised. 85 Bonatz 2000, 22; pl. XXII (C65; Maraş (?); late 9th –8th century BC). 86 Bonatz 2000, 22; pl. XXI (C62; Maraş; last three quarters of the 9th century BC). 87 Bonatz 2000, 21; pl. XIX (C53; Maraş; last three quarters of the 9th century BC). 88 Stein forthcoming reads 1. ŠMTRPQN, son of 2. [.]MṢNY(?), in Egypt. 83

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

394

A. Hausleiter

Coming back now to the—supposedly subsequent—representation of an armed figure (“warrior”) on the—rear—side of TA 1029 (Fig. 9a), it should be added that some of the associated objects, especially a bow and a quiver, occur also on the funerary stele T11, now in Riyadh (a dagger, however, is not depicted). The scene itself, finds certain similarities to representations of standing male figures on Syro-Hittite stelae, especially one from Arslan Taş,89 though the latter shows a figure in profile (towards the left). The type of hairdo and dress as well as equipment (spear, bow, short sword) generally resemble that on TA1029, but are stylistically different. The bow on TA 1029 is not carried on the shoulder but stands beside of the figure. Thus, it appears at least possible that TA 1029 may represent a funerary monument as well, reusing a previous funerary stele. If this is true, it would constitute a parallel to TA 10277, which has also been re-used—for several times—however, without adding a new image.90 All in all, the two scenes on TA 1029 clearly differ from those on TA 10277, AO 29143 and T11, but show similarities to Syro-Hittite funerary monuments. Iconographic resemblances to Neo-Assyrian reliefs are not visible. 7. Summary for Taymāʾ This brief investigation of the iconography of funerary stelae from Taymāʾ showed that there are four distinctive groups of monuments; if more than one is preserved, a degree of variability has to be noted within these groups or sub- groups, respectively. – Group 1: Stele with carved representations focussing on a centrally seated figure framed by attendants (all in profile) standing on date palm trunks; the scene is framed with bunches of grapevine and displays a number of objects; identification of the deceased by Imperial Aramaic inscription. Differentiation of sex through the rendering of the hairdress / headgear. – Group 2: Stele focusing on a centrally seated figure (probably in profile) with a small standing figure on the lap; figures with unclear relation to the main scene are depicted on the lateral sides of the stele; an Imperial Aramaic inscription allows for an identification of the deceased; – Group 3: Stele with schematic representation of human faces; – Sub-group 3a: Stele with elaborate but schematic representation of a human face, accompanied by an Imperial Aramaic inscription identifying the deceased (with filiation); – Sub-group 3b: Stele with simple schematic representation of a human face without Aramaic Inscription;

Bonatz 2000, 16, C3, pl. VIII; 10th to 9th century BC. As to the ceremonial bronze bow and quiver from the site of Adam (Oman), see further above.

89 90

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

395

– Sub-group 3c: Stele following type 3, with representation of a figure in a lower panel; – Group 4: Stele with a standing figure en face with objects characterising its social role; no inscription. It goes without saying that there might be other types of representation which have not been encountered, and the surviving representation of TA 1029 is such an example (tentatively subsumed under the fourth group).91 As seen before, there is a high degree of differentiation within the corpus of funerary stelae at Taymāʾ, suggesting that they had been used as means for expressing social differences within the population of 5th/4th century BC Taymāʾ. This becomes clear when considering the dimension of the objects, type and extent of the representations/images, as well as the presence or absence of inscribed references, the latter allowing for (or in case of absence, preventing) a personalised identification. The very limited number of preserved monuments, however, calls for caution regarding generalising conclusions. Therefore, the main groups identified in course of the present contribution are only a first step of analysis, which, however, clearly indicates visible trends. In spite of the results obtained so far on the iconographic level, it has to be remembered that the context of all objects under discussion remains highly problematic. None of the stelae, except for the small funerary stele TA 514 (Subgroup 3b) excavated at the cemetery of Tal’a, was found at or in the near vicinity of its original location, i.e. in connection with a funerary context.92 The (very small) number of stelae reused as capstones of rock-cut graves in Area O (Subgroup 3a) suggests a topographic vicinity of the pertaining graves to the cemetery where they were finally found. Whether or the extent to which an “appropriation” of the deceased mentioned on these stelae was intended by their relatives, is doubtful, since even fragmentary stelae were used as capstones. As mentioned earlier, TA 10277 was re-used twice as a funerary stele. As to the possible funerary practices, it must remain unanswered, whether the stele remained at its original location, together with the grave and the physical remains of the first mentioned woman; equally unknown is whether the graves of the other deceased women were added nearby. The fact that the inscriptions were simply added to the existing monument may possibly point towards this direction. The reuse of TA 10277 may also indicate that the presence of representations carved on the occasion of an individual case did not prevent from it being subsequently used together with its image, which would thus have been detached from its original contexts as well. The inscription, instead, apparently

Cf. poorly preserved stele TA 9355 with the representation of a bird of prey framed by bunches of grapevine (Hausleiter forthcoming). 92 This statement remains valid even if considering the stelae as memorials rather than funerary monuments located at the place of the burial. The designation “tomb stone” by Macdonald (forthcoming), however, implies the latter scenario. 91

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

396

A. Hausleiter

had the function of an individual label, whereas the representation was “impersonal” or “supra-personal”/of general value. The same division is apparent in the “Eye-stelae,” where a schematic representation of the face is accompanied by an inscription unequivocally referring to an individual (with filiation). In case of TA 1029, if the interpretation is correct, the image and inscription of the first use were completely erased from the stone block, before a new image was carved for a subsequent use as funerary monument. If re-used as building material, as with funerary stelae in the Area O-cemetery, the images and inscriptions apparently remained, once the stele were removed from their original context, but they apparently lost their meaning or were not considered meaningful any more. We have only started to discuss the question of “representation” on the stelae with elaborate carved scenes. The size and habit of these figures as well as symbolic and socially meaningful objects are only present on groups 1, 2 and 4 stelae. It seems that the figures are part of a narrative context, although in some cases obscured by the style. As to the identification of individual figures on the reliefs, it would be tempting to identify the lost central figure represented on TA 10277 with the woman mentioned in the inscription; according to iconographic details, such as dress and hairdo, the accompanying figures would have to be seen as female, too; this would have to be adopted also for the figure carrying a mirror on the composite stele from Taymāʾ. Notably, none of the figures on the stele now in Riyadh shows remains of such a hairdo. However, since the inscription is so poorly preserved, the hypothesis on the hairdo indicating the sex of the depicted, though probable, cannot be finally validated. If so, however, the weapons on the stele T11 in Riyadh would have to represent “male” items. Although the seated figures on TA 10277, on the stele in Riyadh and on TA 1029 seem to be central and of higher rank, it is interesting to note that on the composite stele from Taymāʾ the—female—figure is identical to the accompanying figures on TA 10277. Common to all inscribed funerary stelae is the individual and social identification through the mentioning of name and filiation as marker of the deceased’s identity. If the imagery on the complex stelae refers directly to the deceased individual (without certainly portraying them), they stay in a contrast to those with just the schematic representation of a human face (Subgroup 3b). In addition to our attempts to interpret the central seated figure as representation of the deceased, one should at least touch upon the idea as to whether they may or may not represent deities, a possibility which may be deduced from the observation that the motif is a very ancient one, common all over the Near East. However, gods or goddesses are not mentioned in any of the inscriptions; the more over, there is no knowledge about gods in Taymāʾ in the context of the funerary sphere. The motif of seated gods is attested on a completely different monument, on the South Arabian stele of as-Sawda, dated to the 8th –7th century BC, thus much earlier than the groups of monuments discussed in this contribution. In several © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

397

superimposed registers, also framed by vine with bunches of grapes, there are pairs of gods seated opposite one another at a table with food. The motif, as studied by Benjamin Sass,93 is a clear reminiscence of the Syro-Hittite motif of the table scene. Would it then be possible to think of South Arabian rather than Mesopotamian or Syro-Hittite influence on the funerary stelae from Taymāʾ? Even though the answer seems clear, a transfer of motifs on one of the major trading routes should not be excluded from the beginning. 8. Transfer of Images and Ideas The questions discussed above require a discussion of how images which were established in specific locations may have travelled with their ideas—or been transferred to locations in distant places. To start with the chronological framework, it seems now clear, especially in view of the epigraphic evidence, that the funerary stelae from Taymāʾ have to be dated to the 5th/4th century BC, even though this dating in itself is preliminary in absence of absolute dates.94 Complicating the matter, there is a chronological distance of 200−300 years between the funerary stelae of Taymāʾ and their potential models. Unfortunately, still little is known about the site of Taymāʾ at the time of the Assyrian empire.95 However, as observed with the takeover of Assyrian themes and representations in the centres of the Achaemenid Empire, such as Persepolis or Pasargadae, there was an adaptation of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Syro-Levantine themes and types of representation on important religious monuments.96 A similar lack of knowledge concerns the political organisation of Taymāʾ and other Arabian oases at the time of the stelae, although one of the most important monuments, the Taymāʾ stone, has been dated to this period, to be more precise, to the beginning of the 5th/4th century BC.97 This monument is an important document for the religious and political history of the site, whatever type of control the Achaemenid empire exercised at Taymāʾ, if at all.98 Nevertheless, the representation of the royal figure on the left side of the Taymāʾ stone takes up Assyrian as well as Babylonian iconographic elements, the dress as well as the position of the figure with staff—some 50 or more years after the political existence constituting the base of the iconographic reference systems had come to an end.99

Sass 2007. Stein forthcoming. 95 Cf. already Potts 1991, 17. 96 Hausleiter 2012b. 97 Stein forthcoming. 98 Stein (forthcoming) identifies the transition from Achaemenid political influence to that of the dynasty of Liḥyān at Taymāʾ in the textual records. 99 Eichmann / Schaudig / Hausleiter 2006. 93 94

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

398

A. Hausleiter

The question on whether and how images and ideas were transferred to other locations is of equal complexity. Who saw these images in their original location and who commissioned their carvings at places such as Taymāʾ? Generally, the imagery in Northwest-Arabia on monuments in sites or on countless rock carvings is characterised by a limited occurrence of narrative scenes100 —in this context it is interesting to note that a similar observation can be made for the Syro-Hittite funerary monuments, which may have been “suitable” models because they were produced in a similar iconographic language. However, it is the type of carrier of these images, i.e., stone blocks/stelae of rectangular shape and limited surface, which played an essential role for the spatial organisation of the scenes. This is an additional argument for the absence of extended narrative scenes of cultic events, historical scenes or wars, as well as of gardens and landscapes as on Assyrian orthostat reliefs (and to much lesser extent on Achaemenid sculpture). In any case, such representations do not to belong to the repertoire of images in this region.101 As to contacts between Arabia, Syria and northern Mesopotamia, textual evidence by Assyrian rulers indicate that during the 9th century BC in the context of the expansion of the Assyrian empire under king Tukulti-Ninurta II (891–884 BC) and his successor Ashurnasirpal II (883–858 BC), goods of South Arabian origin were received. Bagg,102 noting the absence of exotic goods in the texts of Tiglath-pileser I (1115–1076 BC), suggests that trade relations may have developed already during the 10th century BC. The Arabs as members of the troops fighting against King Shalmaneser (858–824 BC) in the battle of Qarqar have been mentioned further above as well as Syria as the “first” region of Arabian presence in the North.103 People from Arabia may have arrived as traders in Syro-Mesopotamia as early as in the 10th century BC and, of course, in the following centuries. The extent to which sedentary people or mobile groups living in the areas around the oasis shaped the imagery of the oasis must remain speculative. This is a topic to be developed further and includes, amongst other, a thorough analysis of rock art in the entire region. Cf., for the site of ancient Dadan, al-Said 2010; 2011. This lack of narrative scenes can be observed also in the South Arabian counterparts of the “Eye-stelae” from Taymāʾ (Arbach et al. 2008). It is, though, too early to subsume them to the common western Arabian cultural background, postulated by J. Schiettecatte (2010) for the time of the Bronze Age onwards, but the difference to the narrative representations of Assyrian reliefs is valid also for this part of Arabia. This lack of narrative scenes can be observed also in the South Arabian counterparts of the “Eye-stelae” from Taymāʾ (Arbach et al. 2008). It is, though, too early to subsume them to the common western Arabian cultural background, postulated by J. Schiettecatte (2010) for the time of the Bronze Age onwards, but the difference to the narrative repre- sentations of Assyrian reliefs is valid also for this part ofArabia. 102 Bagg forthcoming. 103 Byrne 2003, 12. 100 101

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

399

Nevertheless, it seems clear that both Syro-Hittite and Assyrian iconographic elements were adapted for the funerary stelae of Group 1 at Taymāʾ, whereas the representation on the examples of groups 2 and 4 were apparently exclusively adapted from Syro-Hittite models. However, the scenes on the stelae of Group 1 from Taymāʾ differ in their compositions insofar fundamentally from the Syro-Hittite ones as the table scene—key element of the “sepulchral art” (Sepulkralkunst) has not been depicted. So it appears that we are clearly dealing with a local selective choice, which was generally oriented at the Syro-Hittite model images. Benjamin Sass (2007) in discussing the adoption of Syro-Hittite iconographic elements by South Arabian locals thought of traders (who—on their way to the South—may have crossed the oasis of Taymāʾ) as transmitters of these iconographic elements. We may have to include also members of the Arabian political elites to these transmitters of ideas, who, probably with large staff, travelled to far flung distances in the North. Yet, the delegation from Saba to the Assyrian court of King Sennacherib at Nineveh is the only attested one in the long lasting Assyrian—Arabian relations—in addition to the forced presence of members of Arabian elites in Assyria as a result of conflicts. Since, however, the monuments under discussion are dated to a much later period than the 8th or 7th century BC, we should take a closer look at the 5th/4th century BC. As stated already by Dan Potts, about the period of contacts with Assyria, little can be traced in the contemporary material culture; the temporary occupation of the oasis by the last Babylonian ruler King Nabonidus is represented by a yet limited number of written and iconographic evidence of clearly monumental character,104 probably even including a royal statue of Nabonidus.105 As with the funerary stelae, the adaption and re-interpretation of selected iconographic elements from the Near East occurred also in the religious sphere, such as on a number of paraphernalia found during the 1979 excavations in the shrine of Qasr al-Hamra at Taymāʾ, in particular the so-called al-Hamra Cube and al-Hamra stele.106 Yet, the sudden appearance of representations with allochthonous iconographic elements107 can only be explained with a stimulation of autochthonous cultural expressions. It seems that such a development was apparently possible under the socio-economic, political and cultural conditions which characterised Northwest Arabia after the time of King Nabonidus. As to the survival of images and ideas, one would have to take in account a strong iconographic “memory,” since the model images in southeastern Anatolia were most probably not visible or accessible any more in the 5th or 4th centuries BC; this may have been different with the ruins of the Assyrian palaces.

Hausleiter / Schaudig 2010a; b. Schaudig forthcoming. 106 Hausleiter / Intilia 2010a; b with references; Hausleiter 2012b. 107 Stein forthcoming. 104 105

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

400

A. Hausleiter

To which extent the increase of imagery is also connected to the rise of the northwest Arabian dynasty of Liḥyān at Dadan,108 and known for the production of impressive larger-than-life size statues remains to be studied. However, it seems justified to reflect on whether we are dealing with the first outlines of a marked artistic or iconographic influence, which developed on a local level in an important trade center at the margins of ancient Near Eastern empires. Addendum The 2015 season at Taymāʾ provided further fragments of the stele TA 10277. After the publication in ATLAL – The Journal of Saudi Arabian Archaeology, there will be a full publication of this object. Bibliography Arbach, M. / Schiettecatte, J. / al-Hâdî, I., 2008: San’â’ National Museum. Part III. Collection of Funerary Stelae from the Jawf Valley. Sanaa. Bagg, A.M., forthcoming: Untersuchungen zu den ‘arabischen’ Toponymen und zur Rezeption der ‘Araber’ in den historischen Quellen der Assyrer. In A. Hausleiter / R. Eichmann / M.H. al-Najem (eds): Taymāʾ I ‒ Reports 1: Archaeological Exploration Strategies, Palaeoenvironment, Cultural Contacts. Berlin / Oxford. Barnett, R.D., 1976: Sculptures from the North-Palace of Ashurbanipal (668–627 B.C.) at Nineveh. London. Barnett, R.D. / Falkner, M., 1962: The Sculptures of Assur-nasir-apli II (883–859 B.C.), Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 B.C.), Esarhaddon (681–669 B.C.) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud. London. Bleibtreu, E., 1980: Die Flora der neuassyrischen Reliefs. Wien. Bonatz, D., 2000: Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Mainz. Byrne, R., 2003: Early Assyrian Contacts with Arabs and the Impact on Levantine Vassal Tribute. BASOR 331: 11–25. Cavigneaux, A. / Khalil Ismail, B., 1990: Die Inschriften der Statthalter von Suhu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr. BaM 21: 321–456. Charloux, G., Loreto, R. (eds), 2014: Duma I ‒ 2010 Report on the Saudi-Italian-French Archaeological Project at Dumat al-Jandal. Riyadh. Curtis, J., 1996: Assyrian Furniture: The Archaeological Evidence. In G. Herrmann (ed.): The Furniture of Western Asia – Ancient and Traditional. Mainz. Pp. 167–180. De Maigret, A., 1998: The Arab Nomadic People and the Cultural Interface Between the ‘Fertile Crescent’ and ‘Arabia Felix.’ Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10: 220–224. Eichmann, R., 2009: Archaeological Evidence of the Pre-Islamic Period (4th–6th cent. AD) at Taymā’. In: J. Schiettecatte / C.J. Robin (eds): L’Arabie a la veille

Cf. Rohmer / Charloux 2015.

108

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

401

de l’Islam. Bilan clinique. Actes de la table ronde. Paris. Pp. 59–66. –– 2011: Archaeological Exploration of the Arabian Peninsula. European Contributions to International Research, in Particular in Central and Northwest Arabia. In U. Franke / J. Gierlichs (eds): Roads of Arabia. The Archaeological Treasures of Saudi Arabia. Berlin / Tübingen. Pp. 48–57. Eichmann, R. / Schaudig, H. / Hausleiter, A., 2006: Archaeology and Epigraphy at Taymāʾ, Saudi Arabia. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17: 163–176. Eichmann, R. et al., 2010: Tayma – Autumn 2004 and Spring 2005, 2nd Report on the Joint Saudi Arabian-German Archaeological Project. ATLAL 20: 101–147 Eph’al, I., 1984: The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Border of the Fertile Crescent, 9th to 5th centuries BC. Jerusalem / Leiden. Euting, J., 1914: Tagebuch einer Reise in Inner-Arabien, Zweiter Theil. Leiden. Frame, G., 1995: Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of the Assyrian Domination (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods Vol. 2). Toronto / Buffalo / London. Gernez, G., 2008: Metal Weapons and Cultural Transformations. In H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient the Near East, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 125–146. –– 2016, First Non-Utilitarian Weapons Found in the Arabian Peninsula (http:// www2.cnrs.fr/en/2725.htm, accessed on March, 16th, 2016). al-Hajri, M., 2011: Syro-Levantine Bronze Weapons from Taymāʾ. In U. Franke / J. Gierlichs (eds): Roads of Arabia. The Archaeological Treasures of Saudi Arabia. Berlin / Tübingen. Pp. 112. al-Hajri, M. / al-Hammad, A., 2015: Al-tanqib al-athariyya bi-mawqa al-nasim al-malki Taymāʾ’ / Tabuk (Unpublished Excavation Report). Hausleiter, A., 2012a: North Arabian Kingdoms. In D.T. Potts (ed.): A Companion to the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Oxford. Pp. 816–832. –– 2012b: Divine representationa at Taymā’. In I. Sachet in collaboration with Ch. Robin (ed.): Dieux et déesses d’Arabie - Images et representations. Actes de la table ronde tenue au Collège de France (Paris) les 1er et 2 octobre 2007 (Orient et Méditerranée 7). Paris. Pp. 299–338. –– 2014: Pottery Groups of the Late 2nd / Early 1st Millennia BC in Northwest Arabia and New Evidence from the Excavations at Taymāʾ. In M. Luciani / A. Hausleiter (eds): Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syro-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Berlin, 2‒5 November 2006 (Orient-Archäologie 32). Rahden. Pp. 399–434 –– 2015: Taymāʾ, Saudi-Arabien: Rettungsgrabungen im Gräberfeld von al-Nasim. Die Arbeiten des Jahres 2014. In Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Zentrale (ed.): e-Forschungsberichte 2015, Faszikel 2. Berlin. Pp. 74–76. –– forthcoming: A Carved Bird Representation from Taymāʾ, Northwest Arabia. Syro-Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Local Iconographic Traditions. In G.J. Selz et al. (eds): Kunstgeschichte(n), Festschrift für Erika Bleibtreu (Wiener Offene Orientalistik). Hausleiter, A. / Intilia, A., 2010a: Piédestal/autel décoré de scènes rituelles (“cube d’al-Hamra”). In: A. Al-Ghabban et al. (eds): Routes d’Arabie. Archéologie et © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

402

A. Hausleiter

Histoire du Royaume d’Arabie Saoudite. Paris. Pp. 254. –– 2010b: Stèle d’al-Hamra. In: A. Al-Ghabban et al. (eds): Routes d’Arabie. Archéologie et Histoire du Royaume d’Arabie Saoudite. Paris. Pp. 255. Hausleiter, A. / Schaudig, H., 2010a: Stèle cintrée de Nabonide, roi de Babylone. In A. al-Ghabban et al. (eds): Routes d’Arabie. Archéologie et histoire du Royaume Arabie Saoudite. Paris. Pp. 252–253. –– 2010b: Objet en forme de disque portent une inscription du roi Nabonide. In A. al-Ghabban et al. (eds): Routes d’Arabie. Archéologie et histoire du Royaume Arabie Saoudite. Paris. Pp. 253. Hausleiter, A. / M. al-Hajiri / M. al-Najem, 2014: Salvage excavations at the site of al-Nasim, 20th August – 22nd September 2014 (Unpublished Excavation Report). Hausleiter, A. / Zur, A., 2016: Taymāʾ during the Bronze Age (c. 2000 BC). In M. Luciani (ed.): The Archaeology of North Arabia - Oases and Landscapes, Papers of the International Congress Held at the University of Vienna, 5‒8 December 2013 (Oriental and European Archaeology 4). Wien. Pp. 135‒173. Hausleiter, A. et al., forthcoming: Taymāʾ 2011 – 8th Report on the Joint Saudi Arabian-German archaeological project. ATLAL. Hawkins, J.D., 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I - Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Part 1: Text. Berlin / New York. Hrouda, B., 1965: Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbilds, Saarbrücken. Jantzen, H., 2013: Tierterrakotten und Modellgegenstände – Lebenswelt und Alltag in Uruk. In N. Crüsemann et al. (eds): Uruk – 5000 Jahre Megacity. Petersberg. Pp. 282–284. Larsen, M.T., 2008: The Middle Bronze Age. In J. Aruz et al. (eds): Beyond Babylon. Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the 2nd millennium BC. New York / New Haven / London. Pp. 13–17. Liu, S. et al., 2015: Copper Processing in the Oases of Northwest Arabia: Technology, Alloys and Provenance. Journal of Archaeological Science 53: 492–503. Livingstone, A. et al., 1983: Taima: Recent Soundings and New Inscribed Material. ATLAL 7: 102–114. Lora, S. 2017: A Religious Building Complex in the Ancient Settlement of Taymāʾ (Northwest Arabia) During the Nabataean Period: Changes and Transformations, Syria 94: 17−39. Macdonald M.C.A., 1995: North Arabia in the First millennium BCE. In: J.M. Sasson (ed.): Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. II. New York. Pp. 1351–1369. –– 1997: Trade Routes and Trade Goods at the Northern End of the ‘Incense Road’ in the First Millennium BC. In A. Avanzini (ed.): Profumi d’Arabia. Atti del convegno. Roma. Pp. 333–349. –– 2015: Was there a “Bedouinization of Arabia”?, Der Islam 92(1): 42–84. –– forthcoming: Taymāʾ II ‒ Catalogue of the Inscriptions Discovered in the Saudi-German Excavations at Taymāʾ. Berlin / Oxford. Macdonald, M.C.A. / al-Najem, M.H., forthcoming: Taymāʾ III ‒ Catalogue of the Inscriptions in the Taymāʾ Museum. Berlin / Oxford. MacGinnis, J., 2013: A City from the Dawn of History. Erbil in the Cuneiform Sources. Oxford / Philadelphia. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

403

Madhloom, T., 1970: The Chronology of Neo-Assyrian Art. London. Magee, P., 2014: The Archaeology of Prehistoric Arabia. Adaptation and Social Formation from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. Cambridge. Maraqten, M., 1996a: Dangerous Trade Routes: On the Plundering of Caravans in the Pre-Islamic Near East. Aram 8: 213–236. –– 1996b: The Aramaic Pantheon of Taymāʾ. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 7: 13–28. Masetti-Rouault, M. / Rouault, O., 2016: A View from the Bridge: Notes About the Assyrian Empire Economic System, as Seen from Tell Masaikh (Lower Syrian Middle Euphrates Valley). In I. Finkelstein / C. Robin / Th. Römer (eds): Alphabets, Texts and Artefacts in the Ancient Near East. Studies Presented to Benjamin Sass. Paris. Pp. 395–419. al-Najem, M., (ed.) 2007: Mashru’ al-ba’tha al-athariyya al-sa’udiyya al-almaniyya al-mushtaraka li-l-tanqib ‘an athar Taymāʾ. Riyadh. Nadali, D., 2004: La campagna di Assurbanipal contro gli Arabi: proposta di lettura delle dinamiche di una battaglia in campo aperto. SMEA 46: 59–78. Nebes, N., 2007: Ita‘amar der Sabäer: Zur Datierung der Monumentalinschrift des Yiṯa’amar Watar aus Ṣirwāḥ. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 18: 25–33. Nebes, N. 2016: Der Tatenbericht des Yiṯa‘’amar Watar bin Yakrubmalik aus Ṣirwāḥ (Jemen), Epigrafische Forschungen auf der Arabischen Halbinsel. Tübingen. Niehr, H., 2006: Ashima. In C. Uehlinger et al. (eds): Iconography of Deities and Demons: Electronic Pre-Publication (Last Revision: 14 November 2006), http://www.religionswissenschaft.unizh.ch/idd/prepublications/e_idd_ashima.pdf (accessed on 30 September 2015). Petiti, E. / Intilia, A. / Hausleiter, A., 2014: Bioarchaeological Investigations at a 4th–3rd Century BC Cemetery at Taymāʾ, North-West Arabia. In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 371–384. Potts, D.T., 1991: Taymāʾ and the Assyrian Empire. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 2: 10–23. –– 2003: The mukarrib and His Beads. Karib’il Watar’s Assyrian Diplomacy in the Early 7th Century BC. Isimu 6: 197–206. Renzi, M. et al., 2016: Early Iron Age Metal Circulation in the Arabian Peninsula: the Oasis of Taymāʾ as Part of a Dynamic Network. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 46: 237–246. Rohmer, J., Charloux, G., 2015: From Liḥyān to the Nabataeans: Dating the End of the Iron Age in Northwest Arabia. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 45: 297–320. al-Said, S.F., 2010: Dédân / al-’Ula. In: A. al-Ghabban et al. (eds): Routes d’Arabie. Archéologie et histoire du Royaume Arabie saoudite. Paris. Pp. 262–269. –– 2011: Dedan: Treasures of a Spectacular Culture. In U. Franke / J. Gierlichs (eds): Roads of Arabia. The Archaeological Treasures of Saudi Arabia. Berlin / Tübingen. Pp. 124–135. Sass, B.J., 2007: From Maraš and Zincirli to es-Sawdāʼ: The Syro-Hittite roots of the South Arabian table scene. In: S. Bickel et al. (eds): Images as Sources, Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Artefacts and the Bible Inspired by the Work © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

404

A. Hausleiter

of Othmar Keel (OBO Sonderband). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 293–320. Sass, B., 2015: A Seal Impression with Arabian Legend on a Tell Sheikh Hamad tablet. NABU 2015/3, no. 80: 132–134. Schneider, P.I., 2010: Die Mauern von Tayma. In: Lorentzen, J. et al. (eds): Aktuelle Forschungen zur Konstruktion, Funktion und Semantik antiker Stadtbefestigungen (BYZAS 10). Istanbul. Pp. 1–26. Schiettecatte, J., 2010: The Arabian Iron Age Funerary Stelae and the Issue of Cross-Cultural Contacts. In: L. Weeks (ed.): Death and Burial in Arabia and Beyond: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford. Pp. 191–203. Sperveslage, G., 2013: Ägyptische Einflüsse auf der Arabischen Halbinsel in vorislamischer Zeit am Beispiel der Oase Taymāʾ. ZOrA 6: 234–252. Stein, P., forthcoming: Die reichsaramäischen Inschriften aus Taymāʾ, 2005– 2009. In M.C.A. Macdonald (ed.): Taymāʾ II – Catalogue of the Inscriptions Discovered in the Saudi-German Excavations at Taymāʾ. Berlin / Oxford. al-Taimā’i, M.H., 2005: Mintiqa rujum-sa’sa’ bi-tayma. Riyadh.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

405

Fig. 1. Fragmentary stele from Taymāʾ (now Musée du Louvre, Paris; Drawing by J. Euting 1914, 155).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

406

A. Hausleiter

Fig. 2. Funerary stele TA 10277 from the excavations at Taymāʾ (obverse) (DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Kramer).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

407

Fig. 3. TA 10277 with relief and three inscriptions (Aramaic, Aramaic of Taymāʾ and Nabataean) (DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Kramer).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

408

A. Hausleiter

Fig. 4. Re-used funerary stele TA 10277 (reverse) (DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Kramer).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

409

Fig. 5. Funerary stele from Taymāʾ (National Museum, Riyadh) (DAI Orient-Abteilung, I. Wagner) Courtesy Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

410

A. Hausleiter

Fig. 6. Funerary stele TA 12006 from the excavations at Taymāʾ (Area O) with Taymanitic and Aramaic inscriptions (DAI Orient-Abteilung, J. Kramer).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Cultural Contacts, Transfer of Images and Ideas

411

Fig. 7. Funerary stele TA 514 from the excavations at Taymāʾ (Area S / Tal’a) (DAI OrientAbteilung, M. Cusin).

Fig. 8. Funerary stele from Taymāʾ (Al-Najem [ed.] 2007; withouth scale). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

412

A. Hausleiter

a)

b)

c)

d)

Fig. 9. Funerary stele TA 1029 from the excavations at Taymāʾ (DAI Orient-Abteilung, M. Cusin).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati*

1. Introduction Urkesh glyptics is distinctive because of its high degree of realism at the time of king Tupkish, shortly before Naram-Sin. There is an elite iconography that functions as part of their identity creation, but next to it there is also a rich iconography that celebrates lower level types of work they held in respect and esteem, especially crafts and services, that contributed to their lives and to the palace community. As early as the beginning of the Akkadian period in Urkesh, iconographic themes emphasized work and daily life. The double-sided round top stele found in the early years of the excavations of the Temple BA had carved on one side a herd of moving animals and on the other a farmer in the act of plowing his field (Figs. 1, 2).1 The amount of realistic detail on both sides and the emphasis on movement in both scenes characterizes this stele. The animal herd in movement is not unique in Urkesh as we have from the palace area a seal impression of another animal herd in movement (Fig. 3). Work outdoors in the fields is not a common motif in the iconography of Urkesh but this may be due to the contexts excavated. This stele came from very near the temple northern exterior wall. It may have been set up inside the building as we know from stele found in southern Mesopotamia in temples. On the other hand it has no motifs connected with the temple or its deities. Furthermore it is unfinished and thus may be from a workshop placed near the temple. In this case however it is difficult to know where the stele would have been placed ultimately. While there are a vast number of seals with the iconography of animals in various contexts from other sites, the most significant for our purposes here is the seal of the scribe Mu-ri-ish excavated in Tell Brak with two deities “fee-

It is a pleasure to dedicate this article to Frances who has been a very good friend throughout the years of the excavations of Ebla and Mozan. 1 Kelly-Buccellati 1990. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

414

M. Kelly-Buccellati

ding” two rampant animals.2 This motif is in harmony with the Urkesh seal impressions of Ishar-beli as well as the earlier stele from the area of Temple BA.3 The context of the royal palace of Tupkish is the most important source for the iconography of work in Urkesh. Since many of the seal impressions found there were owned by the Urkesh elite, the emphasis in the iconography is on what may be called their work in the sense that they are shown in positions of authority which easily identifies them.4 This is also emphasized in the seal inscriptions which identify the various seal owners, for instance the wet nurse Zamena (Fig. 4).5 However these scenes of the rulers of Urkesh and elite members of the court are also vehicles for the display of work of more common people.6 Non-elite palace workers are found in the elite seals depicted both under the seal inscriptions as well as alongside but also extending partly under the seal inscriptions. Additionally many non-inscribed seals illustrate the performance of daily tasks as well. It is these non-elite workers and their work that are the focus of this study. Scenes showing non-elite workers can be divided into two categories: services (cooks, butchers, a singer, lyre player) and those involved in craft production (production of ceramics, baskets, and cloth).7 These activities are carried out by both men and women connected with the palace but for the most part they appear to be women connected with queen Uqnitum’s part of the palace administration. The fact that they are present on elite seals demonstrates an attention to the individuals and the work that they perform not found in other Syro-Mesopotamian cities in this time period or later. While we do have so-called scenes from daily life in southern Mesopotamia they mostly center on fishing and hunting, activities carried out by men and away from the urban centers.8 2. Craft Production The most important craft exhibited in the Urkesh seal iconography is the production of ceramics (Fig. 5). Remarkably, one of the Urkesh seals contains a detailed scene of a potter in her workshop. This potter is actively constructing a Matthews 1997, pl. XXVIII:346. Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 2002. 4 The “professions” of the Urkesh royalty and their household has been the focus of a number of articles, see especially Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 1996; 1998; 2002; Kelly-Buccellati 2009; 2015. 5 Kelly-Buccellaty 2015. For the mother and child motif so prominent in the “family scene” and those of Zamena see Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 1998, 199; Pinnock 2008, 21–23; Budin 2011, 186–188; Nadali 2014. 6 For the importance of this display aspect of the seal impressions see Kelly-Buccellati 2009, 192. 7 These latter two activities are inferred from the iconographic evidence. 8 Amiet 1961, pl. 86: 1129–1135; Boehmer 1965, pl. LXI:718–724. 2

3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

415

large necked jar placed on a stand. Above, is a shelf with two necked jars, one larger and about the size of the jar being produced below, and the other a smaller necked jar. Both these jars are also sitting on a stand. Since this scene is positioned behind a seated figure it occupies the space of secondary scenes usually found below the inscription; in this case the scene takes up the whole height of the seal, emphasizing it as an active part of the total iconography. Representation of ceramics plays a major role in Urkesh glyptics in general, both from the palace and elsewhere. Ceramic vessels not only play a role in scenes related to food preparation, see below, but can be carried on the head of a servant (Fig. 6), placed on tables containing food, in this case especially conical cups (Fig. 7) which are also held as status symbols by both Tupkish and Uqnitum and in uninscribed seals such as this example. The vessel shapes are varied, so for instance a bag shaped vessel shown in some of Uqnitum’s seals (Fig. 8), as well as in some uninscribed seals (Fig. 9). Ceramics also can be shown in ritual scenes, as in the Akkadian seal of animal sacrifice where the content of a tall cylindrical jar is being stirred and in the same scene a necked jar is placed on top of a palm shaped column (Fig. 10).9 In the Urkesh seals we have examples of baskets being used, in the earlier seal of Tuli discussed below (Fig. 11) and in the seal of Uqnitum with bending figures supporting her inscription (Fig. 12). In this case the two figures, probably women, are both working but at different activities; one with what appears to be long straight tools and the other with something placed in a tall basket. The importance of their work is emphasized by the fact that these two bending figures carry on their backs the seal inscription of Uqnitum, placed horizontally rather than vertically; no other seal impression of the queen has her inscription so prominently displayed personally by her servants. The presence of baskets as part of the work being done in the seals of these two important Urkesh women is another indication of the realism displayed in all these activity scenes. While we do not have explicit scenes of weaving, one of the seals of Tupkish has a servant carrying a large biconical shaped object which we have identified with a ball of thread (Fig. 13).10 In what may be a scene exemplifying both weaving and basketry two figures are separated by a palm tree; on one side is a figure with a raised hand next to a rectangle which has a decorated upper and lower border (Fig. 14). I would suggest that this may be identified as a woven cloth. On the opposite side of the palm tree is a figure with both hands extended toward a large conical shape with a pattern similar to the baskets in other seal impressions from Urkesh. In other fourth and 3rd millennium seals more than one craft can be depicted, for example weaving and ceramic production.11 One seal impression shows very clearly a seated figure on a high stool with a

Kelly-Buccellati 2005, 36–40; Recht 2015. Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 1996. 11 Amiet 1961, pl. 16:265 and probably also from Brak Matthews 1997, pl. IX:41. 9

10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

416

M. Kelly-Buccellati

hooked tool working on something being held in the other hand (Fig. 15). While it is not clear what activity the figure is working on, or the entire iconographic context of this work, again we have here an image of working which could be identified by contemporaries because of the realistic details in the imagery. 3. Services 3.1 Cooks Tuli was the chief cook of queen Uqnitum and as such she was the main administrator of the queen’s kitchen. In this role she more than likely had the administration of the acquisition and storage of food, based on the fact that she is the only palace administrator whose seal was badly worn, so much so that her name became unreadable through continuous use of the seal (Fig. 11). Interestingly, because of this she had another seal cut with a similar scene, but not an exact replica. Importantly she had her seal inscription identifying her as the cook of Uqnitum placed on the back of the female servant and on the spine of the animal to be slaughtered, similarly to the seal inscription of Uqnitum carried by two servants (Fig. 12). In the earliest seal of Tuli a servant, probably female, is pounding with a long handled tool something in two jars. More than likely she is making butter. The two jars are placed in a low basket. In her later seal Tuli again shows a butcher, but now the woman on the other side of the inscription holds in one hand a small rounded lump and in the other an unclear tool (Fig. 16). More than likely she is about to make bread in a tannur-type bread oven: if so, the tool could be interpreted as a type of hook used to remove the cooked flat bread from the side of the oven. What is important here is the detail of the rendering of the activities of the kitchen in food preparation. An uninscribed seal with again a detailed scene of food preparation shows two figures preparing something in a tall vat while a figure stirs a bowl placed on the lap (Fig. 17).12 Other instances of food preparation occur but in a limited iconographic context (Fig. 18). In this example a figure seated on a low stool appears to be preparing something, possibly food, in a wide bowl that has been placed on an oval shaped support. The importance of the scene is emphasized by the presence of a star and the bird-legged table that characterizes scenes of Uqnitum but also appears in uninscribed seals.13 3.2 Butchers A butcher is shown clearly on the seals of the chief cook of Uqnitum, Tuli (Fig. 11). He is distinctly identified as male with a long prominent beard. He is also

Buccellati / Kelly-Buccellati 1997, 82. Kelly-Buccellati 2009, 197; 2015, 123.

12 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

417

shown with his butcher knife, the same shape of knife as shown in the sacrifice seal where the head of a small bull has just been severed with the knife (Fig. 10).14 A small necked jar is positioned atop a low stand, probably to be used in catching the blood of the slaughtered animal. This figure is repeated in the second seal carved for Tuli (Fig. 16). To be noted here is that even in this new image where the food preparation scene has changed, the image of the butcher has not. This to my mind indicates that the status of the butcher and the importance of this activity had not changed, but was rather emphasized by its repetition. 3.3 Musicians In four of the seals belonging to queen Uqnitum (q4,6,7,8) she has placed under the seal inscription a scene of two musicians seated on low stools.15 One of these is playing a lyre and the other is singing (Fig. 19). Musicians are a status symbol in Mesopotamian courts and as such these musicians play a role in the establishment of the influence of Uqnitum within the Urkesh court as well as themselves having a significant place in the palace social order. 4. Conclusions While we do not have a clear indication as to who the seal owners might have been for the uninscribed seals, it seems plausible that they should have been somehow connected with the administration, since most of them come from the royal palace of Tupkish. In this case, the themes may have been linked to specific tasks associated with the general area of competence of a particular administrator (as we know to have been the case for the cook and the nurse of the queen). Be that as it may, it remains a significant fact that these motifs are not just symbols, but very realistic renderings of actual situations, of work being carried out in a very concrete daily practice. This attention to realism, which is so characteristic of the Urkesh artistic tradition,16 corroborates the view17 that glyptics was used, in Urkesh, to communicate specific messages, easily understood by even the lower level echelons of the administration, thanks precisely to their transparent representation of true to life situations. Thus we can see an interesting overlap of two trends concurring in defining this special glyptic style. On the one hand, there was a delight, on the part of the artists, to achieve new representational canons, at all levels of society.

It is obvious that this scene is quite different from the ritual bull killings, e.g. Boehmer 1965, pl. XXX:356–361. 15 Kelly-Buccellati 2015. 16 For the strong coherence that characterizes the Urkesh craft tradition over the span of generations, see Kelly-Buccellati 2012. 17 Kelly-Buccellati 1998. 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

418

M. Kelly-Buccellati

On the other, there was the desire, on the part of the users, to capitalize on the transparency of the medium and thus convey a very specific message, tied to the concreteness of situations and events. Thus the representation of even the simplest of crafts and services, as we have seen, emerges as an important tessera in the complex mosaic of social institutions and artistic experimentation in this earliest of Hurrian cities. Bibliography Amiet, P., 1961: Glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. Paris. Boehmer, R.M., 1965: Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit. Berlin. Buccellati, G. / Kelly-Buccellati, M., 1996: The Seals of the King of Urkesh: Evidence from the Western Wing of the Royal Storehouse AK. Wiener Zeitschrift fuer Die Kunde Des Morgenlandes 86: 65–100. –– 1997: Urkesh the First Hurrian Capital. Biblical Archaeologist 60/2: 77–96. –– 1998: The Courtiers of the Queen of Urkesh, Glyptic Evidence from the Western Wing of the Royal Storehouse AK. Subartu 4/2: 195–216. –– 2002: Tar’am-Agade, Daughter of Naram-Sin, at Urkesh. In L. Al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds): Of Pots and Plans, Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to David Oates in Honour of His 75th Birthday. London. Pp. 11–31. Budin, S.L., 2011: Images of Woman and Child from the Bronze Age: Reconsidering Fertility, Maternity, and Gender in the Ancient World. Cambridge. Kelly-Buccellati, M., 1990: A New Third Millennium Sculpture from Mozan. In A. Leonard / B.B. Williams (eds): Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor (SAOC 47). Chicago. Pp. 149–155. –– 1998: The Workshops of Urkesh. In G. Buccellati / M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds): Urkesh and the Hurrians (Urkesh/Mozan Studies 3). Malibu. Pp. 35–50. –– 2005: Urkesh and the North, Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 15: 29–40. –– 2009: Uqnitum and Tar’am-Agade Patronage and Portrature at Urkesh. In J.C. Finke (ed.): Festschrift für Gernot Wilhelm anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 28. Januar 2010. Dresden. Pp. 185–202. –– 2012: Apprenticeship and Learning from the Ancestors: The Case of Ancient Urkesh. In W. Wendrich (ed.): Archaeology and Apprenticeship Body Knowledge, Identity, and Communities of Practice. Tucson. Pp. 203–223. –– 2015: Power and Identity Construction in Ancient Urkesh. In P. Ciafardoni / D. Giannessi (eds): The Treasures of Syria. Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stefania Mazzoni. Pisa. Pp. 111–130. Matthews, D.M., 1997: The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria (OBO 15). Fribourg. Nadali, D., 2014: Family Portraits. Some Considerations on the Iconographical Motif of the ‘Woman with Child’ in the Art of the Third Millennium B.C.E. In L. Marti (ed.): La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris 6–9 July 2009. Winona Lake. Pp. 227–239. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

419

Pinnock, F., 2008: Artistic Genres in Early Syrian Syria. Image and Ideology of Power in a Great Pre-Classical Urban Civilisation in Its Formative Phases. In J.Ma Córdoba et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Madrid. Pp. 17–30. Recht, L., 2015: Identifying Sacrifice in Bronze Age Near Eastern Iconography. In N. Laneri (ed.): Defining the Sacred Approaches to the Archaeology of Religion in the Near East. Oxford. Pp. 24–37.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

420

M. Kelly-Buccellati

Fig. 1. Stela, plowing side (B1.19).

Fig. 2. Stela, animal herd side (B1.19). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

Fig. 3. Animal herd in motion (A7.321).

Fig. 4. Seal of Zamena (h1+h2).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

421

422

M. Kelly-Buccellati

Fig. 5. Pottery workshop (A1.364).

Fig. 6. Pottery workshop (A1.364). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

Fig. 7. Procession with a table (A1.241).

Fig. 8. Uqnitum seal with servant carrying a bag-shaped vessel (q4).

Fig. 9. Bag shaped vessel, uninscribed seal (A10q0249.1). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

423

424

M. Kelly-Buccellati

Fig. 10. Akkadian period sacrifice seal (A15.270).

Fig. 11. Earlier seal of Tuli (h3).

Fig. 12. Bending figures (q1). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

Fig. 13. Ball of thread (detail of k1).

Fig. 14. Weaving and basketry work (A8.37). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

425

426

M. Kelly-Buccellati

Fig. 15. Work with a hooked tool (A7.390).

Fig. 16. Later seal of Tuli (h5).

Fig. 17. Food preparation (A6.88). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Images of Work in Urkesh

Fig. 18. Seated Figure Preparing Food (A1.310).

Fig. 19. Musicians (detail q4).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

427

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria: The View from Tell Nebi Mend Melissa A. Kennedy

1. Introduction The EB IV of western inland Syria (Early Northern Levant 4–6; ca. 2500– 2000/1950 BC) was an era of great social and political innovation. Marked by the first major flowering of urban life-ways, it saw the development large fortified centres, hierarchical and competing political institutions, extensive inter-regional trade networks,1 and for the first time, the utilisation of writing. Significant transformation of the ceramic landscape also occurred during this period, with numerous developments in terms of both form and technology apparent. These included widespread homogeneity and greater standardisation, as well as the utilisation of the central-fusion fast wheel. The ceramic horizon of the EB IV has generally been divided into three distinct cultures or provinces: “Coastal;” “North-Central” and “North-Eastern.”2 The “Coastal” province is believed to have extended north from Tell Simiriyan to the ‘Amuq, and was characterised by the continued production of Red-Black Burnished Ware (henceforth RBBW), as well as Pattern-Incised, Simple, Painted Simple and Smeared-Wash wares.3 The “North-Central” province has generally been positioned between Homs and the east bank of the Euphrates, and was distinguished principally by Simple, Painted Simple and Smeared-Wash wares.4 This province could be further divided into two sub-provinces “Northern” and “Central.” The “Northern” sub-province extended from Ebla to Gabbul on the Euphrates, whilst the “Central” family was focused around Homs, Hama and Ebla.5 The third assemblage group, termed “North-Eastern,” extended from the east bank of the Euphrates through the Jezireh, and was characterised by the presence of Metallic and Smeared-Wash wares.6 3 4 5 6 1 2

Pinnock 1988. Mazzoni 1985, 10; 2002. Welton 2014. Mazzoni 1985, 10. Mazzoni 1985, 10. Jamieson 1993. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

430

M.A. Kennedy

Recent analysis of the Tell Nebi Mend sequence as well as more recent excavations in southern Syria have revealed the existence of a further two cultural provinces, termed here “South-Central” and “Southern.” The former appears to encompass the upper Orontes valley and potentially the northern Biqa’.7 Whilst the latter, the “Southern” province, incorporates sites in the lower Damascene basin, the Lejja and the Black Desert/Hauran/Jebel Druze.8 Both these cultural provinces display strong typological links with the southern Levant and incorporate ceramic elements common to both this region and the heartland of the central Syria. However, for the purposes of this paper only the “South-Central” group and its type-site of Tell Nebi Mend will be discussed in detail. 2. Tell Nebi Mend Tell Nebi Mend (ancient Qadesh) is a ca. 10 ha site located in the upper Orontes valley, approximately 30 km south-west of Homs (Fig. 1). The site consists of two tells and is positioned at the junction, of the Orontes (Nahr al-‘Asi) and its major tributary, the Mukadiyah (‘Ain et Tannur). The upper tell measures 450 × 200 m at its base and rises 30 m above the alluvial plain, whilst the lower tell lies to the south of the main mound and rises only 7 m above the valley-floor.9 The settlement itself is surrounded by an alluvial flood plain 1.5 km wide, providing the site with large quantities of arable land.10 Initially, excavations undertaken between 1921–1922 by Maurice Pézard for the Louvre, and then subsequently by Peter J. Parr for the Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Parr’s excavations have revealed an archaeological sequence spanning from the Neolithic through to the Late Byzantine, with extensive EB IV strata identified in Trench I.11 2.1 Trench I Trench I is a 15 x 15 m exposure located on the eastern extremity of the site, within the remains of Pézard’s Tranche A. The trench was designed to extrapolate the archaeological history of the Middle Bronze Age fortification originally uncovered by Pézard.12 The pre-MBA city-wall sequence has revealed eight structural phases, Phases K to R, dating from the MB I through to the EB II–III transition.

Al-Maqdissi 1987; Genz 2010, figs 2–4; Kennedy 2015. Al-Maqdissi 1987 and 1993; Braemer / Échallier / Taraqji 2004. 9 Kennedy 2015, 38. 10 Parr 1983, 101. 11 Kennedy 2015, 40–41. 12 Pézard 1931, 3–11. 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

431

2.1.1 Stratigraphy of the EB IV–MB I Periods Phases L–O are most relevant to the present discussion. Phase L corresponds to the terminal EB IV (EB IVC) and the EB–MB transition and can be divided into four sub-phases (Li–Liv) of domestic occupation. Sub-phases Li–Liii contained a mixture of EB IV and MB I ceramic materials, whilst the earliest sub-phase (Liv) contained a homogenous deposit of late EB IV ceramic types.13 The evidence from Phase L suggests robust occupational and ceramic continuity between the EBA and MBA at Tell Nebi Mend. Moreover, no evidence for a terminal EBA destruction event could be discerned. This is in stark contrast to a number of other sites in the region, such as Hama,14 Ebla,15 and Tell Arqa,16 where destruction heralds the end of the EBA. Phase M corresponds to the EB IVB, and represents the latest “complete” phase of EB IV occupation at the site. This horizon can be divided into three sub-phases. The most significant feature associated with this stratum was a large “U” shaped structure, the eastern extent of which has been lost due to erosion. The best parallels for this feature in regards to size (3.00 × 3.00 m), shape (square and hollow, with no observable door-way), and orientation (running north-south), are the square towers or bastions of Selenkahiye,17 Halawa (Tell A),18 and Byblos,19 suggesting a defensive purpose for the Tell Nebi Mend structure. Phase N can be correlated to the early EB IV (EB IVA), and was disturbed significantly by the Phase M constructions. Despite this, four sub-phases of domestic occupation were identifiable.20 The final phase, Phase O can be dated to the EB III–IV transition, and is best described as a period of “squatter” or non-architectural occupation, with numerous, large deep pits, ephemeral surfaces and burning observable. This phase marks a distinct break in the sequence and layout of the site, although the origin and extent of this “disruption” remains as yet unknown.21 3. The Ceramic Corpus The ceramic corpus of Tell Nebi Mend and the “South-Central” family differs significantly from the aforementioned cultural provinces, with a number of notable forms and types absent, including Red-Black Burnished Ware; Painted Simple; Smeared Wash Ware; Reserved Slip and the “Syrian Bottle.” Yet despite these

Kennedy 2015, 63. Fugmann 1958, 77. 15 Pinnock 2009, 77–78. 16 Thalmann 2006, 29–30. 17 Meijer 2001, 3.50–3.53; fig. 3.32. 18 Orthmann 1981, 10; 1989: 12–16. 19 Dunand 1954, pl. 212; Lauffray 2008, 289–300. 20 Kennedy 2015, 64. 21 Kennedy 2015, 66. 13 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

432

M.A. Kennedy

differences, the “South-Central” group was distinguished by a rise in the volume of ceramic production, as well as an increasing standardisation of both form and decorative assemblage. Significant technological improvements are also evident, such as the development of carefully controlled kiln conditions, in which ceramics were fired in both oxidised and reduced atmospheres, and the use of the fastwheel. A strong degree of continuity is also discernable between the EB IV and the earlier phases of the EBA, suggesting a smooth ceramic development at the site and possibly within the wider region of the upper Orontes valley. 3.1 Cooking Pots More than any other class the Tell Nebi Mend cooking pot corpus was distinguished by a strong degree of continuity with the earlier horizons of the EBA. In terms of exterior paste, examples were generally distinguished by a reddish-brown colour, with a grey or black core, due to excessive exposure to fire during the cooking process.22 The temper of these vessels was characterised by a heavy vegetal component (reminiscent of earlier phases), with little variation seen, although a denser calcite variant appears between Phases M and K (most probably designed to combat thermal shock). This later variant was also harder and less friable than those fashioned during the earlier part of the EB IV (Phases O and N). A number of these vessels also have parallels in the Medium to Large Jar class, indicating that common domestic containers were not characterised by the same degree of form specialisation as other more “exotic” vessels, such as goblets and juglets. Simple, short-necked forms generally distinguished the assemblage, with tall narrow-necked examples comparatively rare (Fig. 2:1–6). This may reflect function, as vessels with a restricted neck may not have been conducive to the cooking process. During the EB IV, a number of new features begin to appear in this corpus, specifically gutter, rounded or rolled and tooled-rims. Gutter-rims first appear in Phase O, with the floruit of this type between Phases M and K. Rounded or rolled-rimmed vessels appear relatively late in the sequence, although variant antecedents are identifiable in the transitional EB III–IV horizon of Phase O (Fig. 2:1–2). Moreover, examples become increasingly rounder or more rolled towards the latter part of the sequence, a feature largely confirmed by regional parallels.23 Holemouth jars are notably absent from the assemblage. This form has traditionally been viewed as a hallmark of the EB IV in the northern Levant.24 Thus its absence at Tell Nebi Mend is unusual, especially as its popularity was maintained in both the southern Levant as well as in the Lebanon at sites such as Tyre,25

Kennedy 2015, 78. Al-Maqdissi 1989, fig. 13:71; Braemer / Échallier / Taraqji 2004, fig. 553:C.910. 24 Mazzoni 2002, 76. 25 Bikai 1978, pls LVI–LVII. 22 23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

433

Sidon,26 and Tell Arqa.27 In terms of surface treatment, examples were generally self-slipped, although a number were irregularly burnished and incised. Burnish can be used as a relative chronological indicator of the EB IV and early MB I at Tell Nebi Mend, where it is limited to examples from Phases O through K. Conversely, incised decoration is present throughout the entire EBA sequence. 3.2 Medium to Large Jars The Tell Nebi Mend Medium to Large Jar corpus was defined primarily on the basis of rim diameter and fabric density. Examples were generally fashioned from fine to coarse, well to poorly-levigated fabrics. Temper ranged from fine to dense, with a vegetal and grit matrix often predominating. Paste colour also varied, with buff, orangey-buff, orange, grey, pink and red frequently represented. A variety of decorative modes have also been found in association with this class, including slips and self-slips, painted designs and incised or combed decoration. Slips, self-slips and painted designs were concentrated between Phases R and M, with examples decreasing in frequency between the EB–MB transition (Phases L) and the MB I (Phase K), with these slowly replaced by incised horizontal/radial or wavy-band combed decoration, a feature typical of the early MBA in both the northern and southern Levant.28 The transition to the EB IV also witnessed the introduction of a number of new forms as well as the continuation of older ones. One of the principal features of the EB IV Medium to Large Jar corpus is that rim-forms become both “sharper” and more tooled, as well as more up-right and elongated as the period continued (Fig. 2:7–10). Collared-rims also appear mid-way through the EB IV sequence, and continue to be produced throughout the MBA. The early MBA (MB I) can be considered the zenith of this ceramic class, with examples increasing dramatically in frequency. Indeed, a number of forms that appear during this horizon are marked by a very short chronological distribution, with examples limited to a single phase. Perhaps most intriguingly, a modest amount of Levantine Combed Ware has been identified in EB IV contexts. The consistent presence of low frequencies of this ceramic type would seem to indicate the continued production of this transport amphora form, at least in the northern Levant, in areas away from the coastal zone.29 However, examples appear to be limited to the EB IVA (Phases O and N), with instances disappearing by Phase M.

Doumet-Serhal 2006, pls 125–133. Thalmann 2006, pls 53:10–17. 28 Kenyon / Holland 1982, fig. 158; Pruss 2007, figs 2–3. 29 Greenberg / Porat 1996; Greenberg 2002, 51; Sowada 2009, 157–158; Thalmann / Sowada 2014, 356. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

434

M.A. Kennedy

3.3 Small Jars Small Jar classification was based primarily upon rim size, with examples characterised by diameters of 16 cm or less. Fabrics ranged from fine to medium, with a number of instances rendered in a hard Grey Ware fabric, typical of the Caliciform tradition. There was significant variation in surface treatment, with a variety of decorative modes including slipped, self-slipped, burnished, wetsmoothed, incised, tooled, corrugated and/or painted with horizontal bands or geometric designs (Fig. 3:1–7). Significant evolution is also discernable within the decorative schema, with painted and burnished vessels commonly identified within the EB IV strata (Phases O–M), and incised or rilled vessels in the terminal EB IV/early MB I horizon of Phases L–K. In contrast to the Medium to Large Jar class, the greatest concentration of the Small Jars type can be seen within the EB IV (36% of the corpus), specifically Phase M (EB IVB). A variety of rim forms characterise the corpus, with a number of these potentially used as relative chronological markers for the EB IV period, such as the gutter-rim (Fig. 3:2–3). Likewise, several types were initially characterised by a rounded or swollen rim-form, which appears to have evolved towards the end of the sequence into a “sharper” more square or triangular shape (Fig. 3:4–5). Despite this, a number of forms have antecedents in earlier phases of the EBA, indicating a continuity of form throughout the Early Bronze Age at Tell Nebi Mend. 3.4 Basins/“Flower-Pots” Basins or “flower-pots” also appear for this first time during the EB IV. These vessels have been defined as “basins” rather than bowls on the basis of rim diameter, with most examples ranging between 14 and 56 cm in diameter. In terms of form, examples were distinguished by an open, curved profile with a rolled or collared rim (Fig. 3:8–9), which appears to have evolved from earlier bowl forms. All but two examples were rendered in a hard, well to moderately-well levigated, metallic-like grey or pink fabric which was fired in either an oxidised or reduced atmosphere. Instances were generally self-slipped (occasionally rilled or corrugated) or un-decorated, and were limited to Phases M, L and K. Consequently, this type could potentially be used as a relative chronological marker or indicator of the EB IVA–B transition at Tell Nebi Mend. Moreover, this form appears exclusively within EB IVB horizons at a number of other sites in the region, specifically Hama J6–J1,30 and at Qatna.31 It should be noted that the introduction of this form was coupled with the sharp decline in platter bowls

Fugmann 1958, figs 64–103. Besana / Da Ros / Iamoni 2008, fig. 2:8.

30 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

435

(Fig. 4:7–8), possibly reflecting a change in dining or serving practices.32 3.5 Fine, Medium and Deep Bowls Fine, Medium and Deep Bowl types are present throughout the Trench I sequence, with Phase M marking the floruit of this class, with instances declining steadily after this phase. Examples were rendered in a variety of hard, well-fired and well-levigated fabric types (fine, medium and coarse). Paste colour varied with orangey-buff, buff, pink and grey examples predominating. Surface treatment consisted predominantly of slip and burnish, which continued to be utilised until mid-way through the EB IV sequence (Phase M). After Phase M, vessels were predominantly undecorated or self-slipped. In terms of manufacture, examples were both wheel-made and wheel-finished. Most examples had a relatively restricted chronological span, with a number of forms limited to EB IV contexts, suggesting a high degree of ceramic innovation during this period. Early EB IV types were distinguished by a prominent pinched rim-form, which became almost vestigial towards the end of the sequence (Fig 3:10). Other forms were marked by a simple, up-right, pinched-round rimform or an up-right rounded or rolled-rim form (Fig. 4:1–8), which appears to be the antecedent of the Basin/“Flower Pot” class (Fig. 4:5–6). 3.6 Goblets and Teapots The goblet and teapot assemblages of the “South-Central” family differ significantly from the region’s northern corpora, with distinct differences in terms of size, form and decorative mode discernable. Despite this, elements of standardisation are present, with the bulk of the goblet corpus distinguished by a relatively standard rim diameter, ranging between 7 and 12 cm in size, although vessels with a diameter of 10 cm predominate, a feature which accords well with other regional goblet assemblages (Fig. 5:1–5; 7–8).33 Examples of this class were rendered in a variety of fabric types, although Simple and Grey Ware variants had the widest distribution. Fabrics were frequently hard and well to extremely-well levigated, with temper ranging from fine to medium, with tiny mineral inclusions. A variety of exterior and core pastes were identifiable, although grey and pink predominated. These examples were well fired in high temperatures that were carefully controlled using both oxidised and reduced atmospheres. This firing practice appears to have negated the need for a slip, and was most probably utilised to facilitate mass production. It may

Bunimovitz / Greenberg 2004; 2006 for more information of changing dining practices in the EBA. 33 Braemer 2002, pl. VI; Boudier 2007, pl. I; Welton / Cooper 2014, pls 1–3; Kennedy 2015, 160. 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

436

M.A. Kennedy

also have been used to imitate tarnished silver (grey) or copper (pink). In terms of manufacture, examples were coil-made and wheel-finished as well as fashioned on the central fusion fast-wheel. Decoration generally consisted of between one to 20 white or very occasionally, orange painted radial bands. Other variants were distinguished by external corrugation, which was frequently painted. This decorative mode appeared during the early EB IV (Phase O) and continued to be utilised into the early MB I (Phase L). Interestingly, a number of decorative modes common to the region are notably absent from the Tell Nebi Mend goblet and teapot corpus, specifically Painted Simple vessels, burnished decoration, Reserved-slip decoration and wavy-band decorative modes (Fig. 5:1–5). The absence of these decorative traditions indicates a strong degree of regionalism within the Orontes watershed, with perhaps Homs marking the boundary between the more classic Caliciform culture of the north and its southern variant or expression.34 The absence of Painted Simple goblets in particular is intriguing, as examples of this type have been identified in close proximity to Tell Nebi Mend at sites such as Qatna,35 and Hama,36 as well as in sites further to the north such as Ebla,37 and in the ‘Amuq.38 The predominance of Grey Ware vessels at Tell Nebi Mend, may suggest a further link with the Black Wheel-made Ware of southern Levant and southern Lebanon. Black Wheel-made Ware has been interpreted as the southern imitation of the Caliciform culture,39 and it may well be that these forms and styles have their actual antecedents in the upper Orontes and the northern Biqa‘ of the “South-Central” family, rather than the cultural provinces of the central and lower Orontes. Form-wise, the Tell Nebi Mend examples were distinguished by a smaller, more squat shape, particularly when compared to the elongated examples from sites such as Ebla,40 Hama,41 Tell ‘Acharneh,42 Al-Rawda,43 and Qatna.44 Moreover, although analogous rim-forms and base types have been identified throughout the region, a number of forms appear to be limited to Tell Nebi Mend, further indicating that the site can be placed within in its own distinct cultural province (Fig. 5:1–5). Stratigraphically, examples were recovered between Phases Q (EB III) and K (MB I), with Phase M (EB IVB) marking the floruit of this type, with 57% of the Moussli 1984, fig. 1. Morandi Bonacossi 2008, figs 9; 12 and 14. 36 Fugmann 1958, figs 93 and 98. 37 Sala 2012, figs 7 and 15–16. 38 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, figs 342 and 344; Welton 2014: fig. 5. 39 Bunimovitz / Greenberg 2004; 2006. 40 Sala 2012, fig. 11. 41 Fugmann 1958, fig. 96. 42 Cooper 2006, figs 18:1–10 and 22:1–17. 43 Boudier 2007: pl. I:6–18. 44 Besana / Da Ros / Iamoni 2008, fig. 3:6–14. 34 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

437

corpus recovered from this horizon. Instances declined significantly during the early MB I, with 12% of corpus recovered from Phase L, and 4% from Phase K. In terms of the early examples (Phases Q to P), only 6 were identified in pre-EB IV contexts, with these being potentially intrusive, due to the highly disturbed nature of Phase O. Conversely, their appearance in the terminal EB III may suggest an earlier origin for this class at Tell Nebi Mend. Indeed, examples of this class have been identified in a number of EB III horizons (ENL 3), suggesting an earlier appearance for this class than previously supposed.45 Notably absent from the Tell Nebi Mend corpus is the teapot, with only a single example identified.46 However, it should be noted that this example was characterised by a rim form identical to a small jar type, and that this absence may perhaps be more apparent than real, as identification is primarily determined by the identification of a spout. Despite this, the relative dearth of teapots at Tell Nebi Mend appears to be replicated throughout central and southern Syria,47 in contrast to the Southern Levant, where this form was abundant.48 Therefore the possibility remains that this type was always more profuse in the southern Levant than in the North. 3.7 Jugs and Juglets Compared to other sequences in the region, relatively few jugs and juglets have been identified at Tell Nebi Mend. These vessels were defined primarily on the basis of rim diameter and the presence of a handle. Jug diameters ranged from 10 to 20 cm, with the juglet corpus characterised by a more restricted or closed form, with rim diameters generally between 3 cm and 9 cm. Fabrics varied from fine to medium, with most examples well-levigated and well-fired. Little variation in form is discernable, with most examples characterised by a simple, out-flaring, pinched rim-form, with later variants tooled (Fig. 5:6). Necks ranged from short to long and were frequently externally smoothed. Surface treatment generally consisted of a red or grey slip/self-slip with or without vertical and/or horizontal burnish. Examples of this class appear between Phases P and K, with the bulk of the corpus retrieved from Phases L and K, suggesting a late EB IV to early MB I date for most of the corpus. Parallels have been identified at Hama,49 Byblos,50 and

Welton / Cooper 2014, 328. Mathias 2000, fig. 23.5:86. 47 Welton / Cooper 2014, pl. 5. 48 Dever 1970, fig. 2; Gitin 1975, figs 5: 15–21; Schaub / Rast 1989, fig. 275; Richard / Peterman 2010, fig. 12.1. 49 Fugmann 1958, figs 58:3H878; 64:3G915. 50 Saghieh 1983, pl. XXXV:18786. 45 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

438

M.A. Kennedy

Sidon,51 suggesting a relatively restricted geographical influence for the Tell Nebi Mend corpus. Absent from Tell Nebi Mend is the “Syrian Bottle.” This ceramic type has traditionally been viewed as one of the most ubiquitous types of the late Third Millennium BC, with examples found throughout the region, and as far east as Mesopotamia.52 Its absence at Tell Nebi Mend may therefore potentially denote the extent of its southern distribution. 4. The “South-Central” Family and the Origins of the Kingdom of Qadesh Analysis of the “South-Central” family and its type-site of Tell Nebi Mend has identified a new and hitherto unknown cultural province in western inland Syria during the final centuries of the 3rd Millennium BC. On the basis of this preliminary study, it can be argued that this province extended from Lake Qatine in the north, to the Damascene basin in the south and the upper Biqa‘ Valley in the south-east.53 Furthermore, as this region has only been cursorily examined, the full extent of this cultural horizon remains unknown. Conversely, the “Southern” family appears to have extended from the southern Damascene basin, into the Lejja and the Black Desert/Hauran/Jebel Druze.54 The distinctive nature of this province may be ascribed to a number of factors, such as the geography and environment of the Orontes valley and the rise of the region’s first geo-political units. In terms of geography and environment, throughout antiquity Lake Qatine appears to have functioned as a crucial socio-political watershed and/or boundary, marking both the southern and northern extent of numerous geo-political territories.55 This supposition is supported in part by the materials excavated from Tell Homs.56 Despite the two sites relative proximity (30 km), the Homs corpus differs significantly from that of Tell Nebi Mend, with Painted Simple goblets, and other forms and decorative modes analogous to the “North” and “North-Central” cultural horizons, specifically the sites such as Ebla, Qatna and Hama, identified.57 Geographical distance may also account for the differing developmental trajectories in western inland Syria, with such distinctions becoming more apparent the further south one travels from the central Orontes valley and the site of Ebla, the cultural heartland of the Syrian EB IV. A further aspect to be considered is the rise of the region’s large and powerful geo-political entities, specifically the Kingdom of Ebla and potentially the King-

Doumet-Serhal 2006, pls 58:6 and 110:20. Mazzoni 1985, 10–11; Sconzo 2014, 222–224. 53 Moussli 1984, fig. 1; Philip et al. 2002; Genz 2010. 54 Al-Maqdissi 1989; 1993; Braemer / Échallier / Taraqji 2004 55 Philip 2007, 238–240; Ziegler 2007, 314. 56 Moussli 1984, fig. 1. 57 Pinnock 2009, fig. 4; Besana / Da Ros / Iamoni 2008, fig. 2–3; Fugmann 1958. 51 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

439

doms of Hama and Qatna. An argument could be made that the differing cultural horizons of Syria represent the socio-political and cultural reach or influence of these entities. Consequently, the unique cultural horizon of Tell Nebi Mend and the upper Orontes valley may indicate that this region lay outside of, or on the periphery of such influence. We may therefore be seeing in the ceramic corpus the cultural and perhaps even political allegiances of Tell Nebi Mend during the late 3rd Millennium BC. Indeed, the site’s distinctive cultural horizon may have been used as a means of deliberately differentiating themselves culturally from the inhabitants of the North and the Syrian (Eblaite) heartland. It may also indicate the potential foot-print of the Eblaite state, with the distinctions between these two sites and their assemblages marking the geographical extent of Ebla’s regional hegemony. This may be tentatively supported by the apparent fortification of Tell Nebi Mend during Phase M, which suggests a degree of political independence for the site. Furthermore, in comparison to sites in the north, such as Ebla, the “South-Central” family appears to have been more insular in its outlook, with its cultural nuances focused on the south and west rather than to the north. What we may therefore be seeing (albeit on a small scale) is the birth of the Kingdom of Qadesh. This may not have been a kingdom in the traditional sense, but a separate socio-political entity, which was defined by its own unique cultural characteristics. It may well be that the cultural and political schism of the Orontes and greater western Syria, which saw its greatest expression during the Middle to Late Bronze Ages, had its origins earlier in the final centuries of the Early Bronze Age. In summary, although the ceramic horizon of the “South-Central” family and Tell Nebi Mend maintained links with north, the heartland of the Syrian EB IV, it was distinguished by its own distinctive cultural assemblage. This appears to have been influenced by not only the geography of western inland Syria and the Orontes valley but also the development of an increasingly fragmented regional, social and political landscape as well as the rise of the region’s major geo-political players, namely the Kingdom of Ebla. Bibliography Al-Maqdissi, M., 1987: Poteries du Bronze Ancien IV de la Vallée de l’Oronte. Syria LXIV: 1–4. –– 1989: Essai Préliminaire de la Céramique de la Poterie de Moumassakhin (Campagnes de 1987 et 1988). Notes de Céramologie Syrienne 5. –– 1993: Les Tombes de Tell el-Ash‘ari. Syria LXX: 470–473. Bikai, P., 1978: The Pottery of Tyre. Warminster. Besana, R. / Da Ros, M. / Iamoni, M., 2008: Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J: A New Early Bronze Age III – Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 2: The Pottery. Akkadica 129: 129–180. Boudier, T., 2007: La Poterie d’al-Rawda (Syrie Intérieure) dans son Contexte Régional à la fin du Bronze Ancien. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’âge du Bronze en Syrie, II: L’Euphrate et al Région de Jézireh (BAH 180). Beyrouth. Pp. 23–42. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

440

M.A. Kennedy

Braemer, F., 2002: La Céramique du Bronze Ancien en Syrie du Sud. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et le Vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 9–22. Braemer, F. / Échallier, J-C. / Taraqji, A., 2004: Khirbet al-‘Umbashi: Villages et Campements de Pasteurs dans le “Désert Noir” (Syrie) à l’âge du Bronze (BAH 171). Beyrouth. Braidwood, R.J. / Braidwood, L.S., 1960: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The EarlyAssemblages Phases A–J (OIP LXI). Chicago. Bunimovitz, S. / Greenberg, R., 2004: Revealed in Their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan. BASOR 334: 19–31. –– 2006: Of Pots and Paradigms: Interpreting the Intermediate Bronze Age in Israel/Palestine. In S. Gitin / J.E. Wright / J.P. Dessel (eds): Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honour of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 23–31. Cooper, E., 2006: The Pottery from Tell ‘Acharneh, Part I: Typological Considerations and DatingAccordingly to Excavated Areas in the Upper and Lower Towns, 1908–2002. In M. Fortin (ed.): Tell ‘Acharneh 1998–2004: Rapports préliminaires sur les campagnes de fouilles et season d’études. Brussels. Pp. 140–191. Dever, W.G., 1970: Vestigal Features in MB I: An Illustration of Some Principles of Ceramic Typology. BASOR 200: 19–30. Doumet-Serhal, C. 2006: The Early Bronze Age in Sidon: “College Site” Excavations (1998–2000–2001) (BAH 178). Beyrouth. Dunand, M., 1954: Les Fouilles de Byblos II: 1933–1938. Paris. Fugmann, E., 1958: L’Architecture des Périodes Pré–Hellénistiques. Hama: Fouilles et Recherches, 1931–1938, Vol. 2, Part 1. Copenhagen. Genz, H., 2010: Reflections on the Early Bronze Age IV in Lebanon. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East May, 5th–10th 2008, “Sapienza” - Università di Roma. Vol. 2: Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent Field Archaeology in the Near East. Wiesbaden. Pp. 205–217. Gitin, S., 1975: Middle Bronze I Domestic Pottery at Jebel Qa‘aqir - A Ceramic Inventory of Cave G 23. EI 12: 46–62. Greenberg, R., 2002: Early Urbanisation in the Southern Levant: A Regional Narrative. London. Greenberg, R. / Porat, N., 1996: A Third Millennium Levantine Pottery Production Centre: Typology, Petrography, and Provenance of the Metallic Ware of Northern Israel and Adjacent Regions. BASOR 301: 5–24. Jamieson, A. S., 1993: The Euphrates Valley and Early Bronze Age Ceramic Traditions. Abr-Nahrain 31: 36–92. Lauffray, J., 2008: Fouilles de Byblos: L’urbanisme et l’architecture. Tome VI (BAH 182). Beyrouth. Kennedy, M.A., 2015: The Late Third Millennium BCE in the Upper Orontes Valley, Syria: Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural Connections (ANES Supplementary Series, 46). Leuven. Kenyon, K.M. / Holland, T. A., 1982: Excavations at Jericho. IV. London. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

441

Mathias, V.T., 2000. The Early Bronze Age Pottery of Tell Nebi Mend in its Regional Setting. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Sheffield. Pp. 411–427. Mazzoni, S., 1985: Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla and Comparison with Syro-Palestine EB IV. BASOR 257: 1–19. –– 2002: The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in North-western Central Syria. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et le Vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 69–96. Meijer, D.J.W., 2001: Architecture and Stratigraphy. In M. van Loon (ed.): Selenkahiye: Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967–1975. Leiden / Istanbul. Pp. 25–119. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2008: The EB–MB Transition at Tell Mishrifeh: Stratigraphy, Ceramics and Absolute Chronology: A Preliminary Review. In M. Bietak / E. Czerny (eds): The Bronze Age in Lebanon: Studies in the Archaeology and Chronology of Lebanon, Syria and Egypt. Vienna. Pp. 127–152. Moussil, V.M. 1984: Tell Homs (Qal‘at Homs). ZDPV 100: 9–11. Orthmann, W. 1981: Halawa 1977–1979. Bonn. –– 1989: Halawa 1980–1986. Bonn. Parr, P.J., 1983: The Tell Nebi Mend Project. AAAS 33.2: 18–45. Pézard, M., 1931: Qadesh: Mission Archéologique A Tell Nebi Mend (1921– 1922). Paris. Philip, G. 2007: Natural and Cultural Aspects of the Development of the Marl Landscape East of Lake Qatina during the Bronze and Iron Ages. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.): Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 233–242. Philip, G. et al., 2002: Settlement and Landscape Development in the Homs Region, Syria: Research Questions, Preliminary Results 1999–2000 and Future Potential. Levant 34: 1–23. Pinnock, F. 1988: Observations on the Trade of Lapis Lazuli in the IIIrd Millennium B.C. In H. Waetzoldt / H. Hauptmann (eds): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla (HSAO 2). Heidelberg. Pp. 107–110. –– 2009: EB IVB–MB I in Northern Syria: Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilization. In P. J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition: Proceeding of a Conference held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEF Annual IX). Leeds Pp. 69–79. Pruss, A., 2007: Comb-Incised Pottery in Syria and Mesoptamia and its Relevance for Chronology. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine, Proceedings of he International Colloquium, Rome, 29th November – 1st December 2001 (Contributi del Centro Linceo Interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre.” No. 117). Rome. Pp. 473–491. Richard, S. / Peterman, G., 2010: Chapter 12: Ceramic Assemblage of the Early Bronze IV Cemeteries. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Khirbet Iskander: Final Report on the Early Bronze Age C Gateways and Cemeteries (ASOR Archaeo© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

442

M.A. Kennedy

logical Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 223–249. Saghieh, M., 1983: Byblos in the Third Millennium: A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Warminster. Sala, M., 2012: An Early Bronze IVB Pottery Repertoire from Favissae P.9717 and P.9719 in the Temple of the Rock at Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla. Levant 44: 51–81. Schaub, R.T. / Rast, W.E., 1989: Bâb edh-Dhrâ’: Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67). Indiana. Sconzo, P., 2014: Syrian Bottles. In M. Lebeau (ed.): ARCANE Inter-regional Volume I: Ceramics. Turnhout. Pp. 215–236. Sowada, K., 2009: Egypt in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Old Kingdom: An Archaeological Perspective (OBO 237). Fribourg. Thalmann, J-P., 2006: Tell Arqa I: Les Niveaux de l’âge du Bronze (BAH 177). Beyrouth. Thalmann, J-P. / Sowada, K., 2014: Levantine Combed Ware. In M. Lebeau (ed.): ARCANE Inter-regional Volume I: Ceramics. Turnhout. Pp. 355–379. Welton, L., 2014: Revisiting the Amuq Sequence: A Preliminary Investigation of the EBIVB Ceramic Assemblage from Tell Tayinat. Levant 46: 339–370. Welton, L., / Cooper, L. 2014: Caliciform Ware. In M. Lebeau (ed.): ARCANE Inter-regional Volume I: Ceramics. Turnhout. Pp. 325–345. Ziegler, N., 2007: Les Données des Archives Royales de Mari sur le Milieu Naturel et l’Occupation HUmaine en Syrie Centrale. In D. Morandi Bonacossi (ed.): Urban and Natural Landscapes of an Ancient Syrian Capital: Settlement and Environment at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and in Central-Western Syria (SAQ 1). Udine. Pp. 311–318.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

Fig. 1. Map of Syria.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

443

444

M.A. Kennedy

Fig. 2. Cooking Pots and Medium to Large Jars. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

Fig. 3. Small Jars, Basins and Bowls. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

445

446

M.A. Kennedy

Fig. 4. Bowls. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A New EB IV Cultural Province in Central and Southern Syria

Fig. 5. Goblets and Juglets. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

447

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

Hartmut Kühne*

1. Stamp Seals in Mesopotamia and Assyria Having been common in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of the Near East stamp seals are said to have gone out of use in Mesopotamia completely after the introduction of cuneiform writing and the cylinder seal in the late 4th millennium to reappear only in the 1st millennium BC when alphabetic writing became prevalent.1 The archaeological record so far has confirmed this assumption by the absence of stamp seals in occupation levels of the 3rd and 2nd millennia. Most scholars have agreed that the renaissance of the stamp seal started in the second half of the 8th century BC.2 However, the first use of the royal Assyrian (stamp) seal and the introduction of the Neo-Assyrian so called bureau (stamp) seals are documented in the 9th century during the reign of king Shalmaneser III (858‒824 BC).3 As recently demonstrated by A. Fügert, stratified Neo-Assyrian late 9th/ early 8th century glyptic deposits of Tell Sheikh Hamad / Dur-Katlimmu consist to a considerable portion of the impressions of stamp seals,4 thus confirming their use already in the 9th century BC. It seems therefore that the lack of stamp seals and impressions in the 9th and 10th centuries BC should be considered due to a gap of evidence of well stratified excavated material. In 1997 the present author published impressions of signet-rings of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233–1197 BC) on royal letters from Tell Sheikh Hamad/Dur-Katlimmu.5 An impression of a signet-ring with cuneiform signs is known from the Middle Assyrian dunnu of Tell Sabi Abyad.6 In 2004 C. Fischer published an impression of a signet-ring of the Middle Assyrian officer Marduki-

*

3 4 5 6 1 2

It is with appreciation of her fine expertise in Mesopotamian Archaeology and her long termed friendship that I dedicated these lines to Frances. Collon 1987, 5–7; Boehmer 1975, 343–344. Herbordt 1992, 9; Boehmer 1975, 343–344. Radner 2008; Herbordt 1992. Fügert 2015, 134. Kühne 1997; 2013, fig. 250. Akkermans 1998. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

450

H. Kühne

ya on two texts from the city of Kulishkhinash.7 The motive of the depiction on the rings consists mostly of a single animal corresponding to the syntax of some cylinder seals. Signet-rings are also known from Kassite Babylonia,8 Syria, and the Levant, a completely preserved one of silver originates from Ugarit depicting also a single animal.9 Obviously, signet-rings were a requisite of kings and high ranking officials10 during the 13th century BC throughout the Near East which was dominated politically by the ‘Club of the Great Powers’,11 the Mittani and later Middle Assyrian State, the Kassite Babylonian, the Hittite and the Egyptian States. While signet-rings must be considered to have functioned like stamp seals ordinary Middle Assyrian stamp seals or impressions of them have not been recorded so far. As far as I am aware no stamp seals or impressions have been claimed to originate from the Mittani Period either12 except for Tell Brak (see below). Yet another line of stamp seals is the Anatolian tradition leading to the Hittite “signe royal” and to the king’s seals of the Hittite Empire which is contemporary with the Middle Assyrian signet-rings of Tukulti-Ninurta I but differs completely in concept and style.13 1.1 Mittani Evidence of Tell Brak Introducing chapter 3 of the first Tell Brak volume14 two stamp seals, Brak nos 23 and 24, (Figs 1‒2) and one impression of a stamp seal are published, Brak no. 25, (Fig. 3).

Brak Publ. No.

Find location

Dimensions

Motive

Fig.

23

HH surface

5.8 × 2.1-3.8 cm

concentric circles

1

24

HH locus 241

6.1 × 3.9 cm

Cross and dots

2

25

HH surface

4.3 × 3.3 cm

Singe royal (?)

3

Without, marble

HH Mit. Temple

1.5 × 1.2 cm

Cross

without

Tab. 1. Tell Brak stamp seals.

Fischer 2004. Kühne 1997; in Kassite Babylonia also so called sheet rings were used, cf. Seidl 2009– 2011, 475–476. 9 Kühne 1997; Kohlmeyer / Strommenger (eds) 1982, no. 113. 10 Fischer 1999. 11 Van de Mieroop 2004. 12 For example, no mention of stamp seals in Collon 1987 or Salje 1990. 13 Kühne 1997; Seidl 2009–11. 14 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 47, 161, fig. 180. 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

451

Stamp Brak no. 23 (Fig. 1) is “very well made” of “highly fired terracotta”15 but was discovered on the surface of Area HH, as was the terracotta impression no. 2516 (Fig. 3). Clay stamp no. 24 (Fig. 2) “came from one of the two small rooms behind the cella” of the Mittani temple.17 In addition, “an oval white marble stamp seal, …, with the design of a cross and pierced laterally (reg. no. 2269, 1.5 x 1.2 cm). … was found next to the dais in the Mitanni Temple (Fig. 4:9).”18 It is hemispherical in section19 but unfortunately not catalogued and pictured. So clay stamp no. 24 (Fig. 2) with the design of a cross and a dot in each compartment and the unpublished marble stamp seal, also with the design of a cross but without dots came from the floor of the Mittani Temple.20 In spite of their stratified context these two objects are not considered belonging to the inventory of the Mittani Temple while this is taken for granted for the other ones. They are considered to be “re-used” and “possibly prehistoric” in origin, while no. 23 is “to be dated to the third or even the second millennium,” and representing “generally similar types … found in Bronze Age Anatolia (…);”21 consequently this stamp seal is dated to “2300 BC” by Fortin.22 1.2 Middle Assyrian Evidence from Tell Sheikh Hamad In the course of the preparation of the publication of the corpus of Middle Assyrian seal impressions from Tell Sheikh Hamad / Dur-Katlimmu23 five stamp impressions have caught special attention.24 Three of them are treated here (Figs 4–6). They belong to the corpus of 668 registered Middle Assyrian text fragments and hundreds of clay sealings found in a stratified context in room A of Building P on the western slope of the mound.25 By eponyms this deposit is dated to the years 1260–1200 BC, e.g. to the reign of the kings Shalmaneser I (1263–1234 BC) and Tukulti-Ninurta I (1233–1197 BC).26

Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 47; for a color image cf. Fortin (ed.) 1999, no. 225; this object has the Deir ez-Zor Museum Inv. No. 10287. 16 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 147, fig. 65, 160 fig. 180. 17 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 47, fig. 49:10. 18 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 47; the authors assume that the Assyrians destroyed the Mittani Temple and Palace around 1300 BC. 19 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 30. 20 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, fig. 49, no. 10 and fig. 46, no. 9. 21 Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 30, 47. 22 Fortin (ed.) 1999, no. 225. 23 Kühne forthcoming. 24 I gratefully acknowledge that Anja Fügert first to drew my attention to this phenomenon. 25 Kühne (ed.) forthcoming; 2016; Dohmann-Pfälzner forthcoming. 26 Kühne 2016; the absolute dates are quoted according to Boese / Wilhelm 1979. 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

452

H. Kühne Inv. No.

Find location

Dimensions

Motive

Fig.

SH 80/1527/0155

Building P, room A

diameter 15 mm

star

4

SH 82/1527/0254

Building P, room A

diameter 13 mm

concentric circles

5

SH 82/1527/0023

Building P, room A

17 by 12 mm

Cross and dots

6

Table 2. Tell Sheikh Hamad stamp seal impressions.

The “star” stamp (Fig. 4) was impressed on a remarkable number of 73 clay sealings. Its design consists of a simple crossing of four bars rendering a star like motive. Fourteen of the clay sealings were applied on leather sacks; 32 of them were applied on sacks of undefined material; seven clay sealings belonged to vessels, some of them covered by a leather cloth and then sealed; 20 clay sealings remained undefined.27 The concentric circles stamp (Fig. 5) is impressed on a single clay sealing. The impression of Fig. 6 is preserved on a single clay sealing. It remains unclear whether the stamp was shaped oval since the impression could be distorted; but if so it could also be the impression of a signet-ring. The design consists of a cross and dots in each compartment. Obviously this large number of stamp impressed clay sealings in context with a much larger amount of Middle Assyrian cylinder seal impressed clay sealings in room A of Building P of Dur-Katlimmu is not accidental. However, while in Dur-Katlimmu impressions are recorded stamps were found in Brak. This means that Brak represented an agency while Dur-Katlimmu was a receiver. Different types of sealed containers were delivered to Building P of Dur-Katlimmu, opened, and their contents distributed to various recipients. Thus it is very likely that the stamp seal impressions represent an outdoor agency in closer proximity to Dur-Katlimmu, probably the low ranked rural administration of the district of Dur-Katlimmu, while the higher ranked administration of the city-center used cylinder seals, and the far distance trade is represented by scarab impressed clay sealings.28 1.3 Comparison The most appropriate comparison arises between Brak Fig. 1 and Sheikh Hamad Fig. 5. Brak no. 23 (Fig. 1) has a stamp plate at both ends featuring the same design of concentric circles29. Comparing it with the Dur-Katlimmu impression it could be the stamp of this impression but it is not unfortunately! The diameter of Dohmann-Pfälzner forthcoming. Seidlmayer forthcoming. 29 For a hemispherical stamp seal with concentric circles from the Amuq cf. Meyer 2008, 138, 408 Nr. 55. 27 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

453

the Brak stamp plate is larger on both ends, the smaller stamp plate differing by 5 mm. Nevertheless, Dur-Katlimmu Fig. 5 proves that the surface find Brak no. 23 (Fig. 1) should be associated to the excavated Middle Assyrian and Mittanian context of area HH. The design of a cross and the dots in each compartment of the stratified Brak stamp no. 24 (Fig. 2) from the Mittani Temple is almost identical to Dur-Katlimmu Fig. 6 but the Brak stamp plate is much larger again. No comment can be made to the unillustrated hemispherical marble stamp seal of Brak (reg. no. 2269) also depicting a “design of a cross.” The star impression of Dur-Katlimmu Fig. 4 does not compare well with Brak no. 25 (Fig. 3); the bars of Brak no. 25 are bent furnishing dots in every angle. This design is representing rather the Anatolian/Hittite “signe royal” than a star. This leaves the most common Dur-Katlimmu star stamp impression Fig. 4 without direct counterpart in Brak. Nevertheless, the astonishing congruence of Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 as well as Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 cannot be considered accidental but must have some cultural significance. 2. Analysis The Brak stamps, Fig. 2 and the unpublished marble stamp, are taken for what their find location suggests, i.e. for Mittani stamp seals, having been in use in the temple; this function is also assumed for Brak no. 23 (Fig. 1) on account of its similarity with the impression of Dur-Katlimmu (Fig. 5). The archaeological context of the Tell Sheikh Hamad impressions leaves no doubt that the corresponding stamp seals were applied by the administration of Middle Assyrian Dur-Katlimmu in the second half of the 13th century BC. As a greater portion of the 668 registered cuneiform Middle Assyrian items bears impressions of Mittani cylinder seals30 it can be postulated that : 1. the application of stamp seals in the Middle Assyrian period originates from a Mittani stamp seal tradition, and that 2. the forerunner of the Middle Assyrian center of Dur-Katlimmu was a Mittani town possibly functioning also as an administrative center.31 One may even go a step further and assume that some of the Mittani officers were serving the Middle Assyrian administration in their former functions operating their seals they had applied before. Concerning Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad K. Duistermaat kindly informed me that two impressions of stamp seals are recorded, one of the type here discussed and another one depicting a scorpion.32

Kühne 1997. No Mittani levels have been excavated in Tell Sheikh Hamad. 32 Personal communication; K. Duistermaat is preparing a publication on the Middle Assyrian Seals and Sealings from Tell Sabi Abyad. 30 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

454

H. Kühne

Obviously it needs to be investigated whether other Mittani sites have produced stamp seals that may not have been recognized or denominated properly. This cannot be done systematically within the scope of this article. However, attention should be drawn to the case of Nuzi which is known to have produced hundreds of cylinder seal impressions on clay sealings and on written documents of several private archives.33 The Nuzi publication furnishes an interesting terracotta stamp whose plate is decorated with a cross design34 (Fig. 7); both, shape and design, are similar to Brak no. 24 (Fig. 2). Discovered in a mixed context in Pit L 4, in which also a common style Mittani cylinder seal was found35 (sic!) this object was considered a clay plummet.36 Originating from the same context37 are two stamp seal impressions which display a rosette38 and a modified star design39 (Fig. 8) the latter resembling the Sheikh Hamad star stamp (Fig. 1). No further evidence can be drawn from the early Late Bronze Age levels of Alalakh / Tell Atchana that produced a large number of Mittani cylinder seals and impressions but apparently no stamp seals and/or impressions.40 But turning to Palestine which is largely affected by the affiliation to the Egyptian scarab tradition a stamp seal from Tell es-Safi (Fig. 9) near Ashkalon arises attention; it is unstratified but associated to the Iron Age I period which is dated to 1200–900 BC.41 Its shape resembles Brak no. 23 (Fig. 1); the stamp plate is decorated by a cross with dotting in each compartment.42 This design makes it very similar to the seal Brak no. 24 (Fig. 2). 3. Synthesis The archaeological record of Tell Brak makes it very likely that stamp seals were utilized by the Mittani administration. The Middle Assyrian evidence from Tell Sheikh Hamad / Dur-Katlimmu confirms the continuous application of stamp seals indicating perhaps an adoption of Mittani low level administration structures. Therefore, it should be accepted that next to sophisticated signet-rings ordinary stamp seals were in use since the middle of the 2nd millennium BC in the Mittani and the Middle Assyrian State administration gaining increasing significance from the Neo-Assyrian period, i.e. the 10th/9th century, onwards. The stamp seal Porada 1947; Stein 1993. Starr 1939, pl. 55:D–E. 35 Starr 1939, 21. 36 Starr 1939, 21. 37 Starr 1939, 381. 38 Cf. Fügert 2015, 137–138, nos 343–346. 39 Starr 1939, pl. 55:O and N. 40 Woolley 1955; Collon 2010. 41 Keel 1990, 382 no. 16, fig. 83 (instead of 84); Keel 2013, 94–95 no. 3. 42 Cf. also a stamp seal from Tell Beit Mirsim from the Early Iron Age with dotting only, Keel 1990, 391 no. 102. 33 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

455

with the star motif was more extensively used during the Neo-Assyrian period as impressions on a clay sealing from Nineveh43 (Fig. 10), on tablets from Nineveh and Mardin,44 as well as on tablets and Aramaean dockets from Dur-Katlimmu45 demonstrate and yet originates from the mid-2nd millennium BC. Bibliography Akkermans, P.M.M.G., 1998: Seals and Seal Impressions from Middle Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. In M. Lebeau (ed.): About Subartu - Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia (Subartu IV/2). Turnhout. Pp. 243–258. Boese, J. / Wilhelm, G., 1979: Aššurdan I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die mittelassyrische Chronologie. WZKM 71: 19–38. Boehmer, R.M., 1975: Glyptik von der alt- bis zur spätbabylonischen Zeit. In W. Orthmann et al. (eds): Der Alte Orient (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14). Berlin. Pp. 336–363. Collon, D., 1987: First Impressions, Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London. –– 2010: Report on the Seals and Sealings found at Tell Atchana during the 2003 Season of Excavation. In K.A. Yener (ed.): Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, Vol. I. The 2003-2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul. Pp. 89–97. Dohmann-Pfälzner, H., forthcoming: Die Tonsicherungen aus dem Gebäude P. In H. Kühne (ed.) forthcoming. Fischer, C., 1999: Elite Zugehörigkeit und Harmonieverständnis. Zu den mittelassyrischen Siegelabrollungen aus Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta. MDOG 131: 115–154. –– 2004: Der Siegelring des Verwaltungsbeamten Mardukija. In H. Waetzold (ed.): Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück: Festschrift - Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern (HSAO 9). Heidelberg. Pp. 141–143. Fortin, M., (ed.) 1999: Syria, Land of Civilizations. Québec. Fügert, A., 2015: Die Neuassyrische und Spätbabylonische Glyptik aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 16). Wiesbaden. Herbordt, S., 1992: Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.–7. Jh. v. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Siegelungen auf Tafeln und Tonverschlüssen (SAAS 1). Helsinki. Keel, O., 1990: Früheisenzeitliche Glyptik in Palästina/Israel. In O. Keel / M. Shuval / C. Uehlinger: Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel (OBO 100). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 379–396. –– 2013: Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel (OBO 33). Fribourg / Göttingen. Kohlmeyer, K. / Strommenger, E. (eds), 1982: Land des Baal. Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz. Kühne, H., 1997: Stempel- oder Siegelringe des Tukulti-Ninurta I. In: B. Pon Herbordt 1992, pl. 11:3; Mitchell / Searight 2007, 108, no. 239. Herbordt 1992, pl. 11:8, Pl. 29:8. 45 Fügert 2015, no. 325 in comparison to Fig. 4 and variations nos 323–324, 326–337. 43 44

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

456

H. Kühne

gratz-Leisten / H. Kühne / P. Xella (eds): Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik. Festschrift für Wolfgang Röllig (AOAT 247). Münster. Pp. 193–218. –– 2013: State and Empire of Assyria in Northeast Syria. In W. Orthmann / P. Matthiae / M. Maqdissi (eds): Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I. Wiesbaden. Pp. 473–498. –– 2016: The impact of Earth Quakes on Middel Assyrian Tell Sheikh Hamad (ancient Dur-Katlimmu). In J. MacGinnis / D. Wicke / T. Greenfield (eds): The Provincial Archaeology of the Assyrian Empire. Cambridge. Pp. 189–198. –– forthcoming: Die Glyptik der mittelassyrischen Zeit aus Dūr-Katlimmu (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 16). Wiesbaden. Kühne, H. (ed.), forthcoming: Die Zitadelle von Dur-Katlimmu in mittel- und neuassyrischer Zeit (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 12). Wiesbaden. Meyer, J.W., 2008: Die eisenzeitlichen Stempelsiegel aus dem ‘Amuq-Gebiet (OBO 28). Fribourg / Göttingen. Mitchell, T.C. / Searight, A., 2007: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Stamp Seals III. Impressions of Stamp Seals on Cuneiform Tablets, Clay Bullae, and Jar Handles. Leiden. Oates, D. / Oates, J. / McDonald, H., 1997: Excavation at Tell Brak, Vol. 1. The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Periods. Cambridge. Porada, E., 1947 : Seal Impressions of Nuzi (Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 24). New Haven. Radner, K., 2008: The Delegation of Power: Neo-Assyrian Bureau Seals. In P. Briant / W.F.M. Henkelman / M.W. Stolper (eds): L’archive des Fortifications de Persépolis: État des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes du colloque organisé au Collège de France par la “Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde achéménide et de l’empire d’Alexandre” et le “Réseau international d’études et de recherches achéménides (GDR 2538 CNRS), 3–4 novembre 2006. Paris. Pp. 481–515. Salje, B., 1990: Der „Common Style“ der Mitanni-Glyptik und die Glyptik der Levante und Zyperns in der Späten Bronzezeit (BaF 11). Mainz. Seidl, U., 2009–11: Siegelring. RlA 12: 474–476. Seidlmayer, S., forthcoming: Zu den ägyptischen Siegelabdrücken aus dem Gebäude P. In H. Kühne (ed.): Die Zitadelle von Dur-Katlimmu in mittel- und neuassyrischer Zeit (Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 12). Wiesbaden. Starr, R.F.S., 1939: Nuzi. Cambridge. Stein, D., 1993: The Seal Impressions. In G. Wilhelm (ed.): Das Archiv des Šilwa-Teššup, Vol. 8. Wiesbaden. Van de Mieroop, M., 2004: A History of the Ancient Near East. Oxford. Woolley, L., 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Excavation at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Oxford.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

Tell Brak, terracotta Fig. 1a. stamp seal (Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 161, fig. 180: no. 23).

457

Fig. 1b. Tell Brak, terracotta stamp seal (Fortin [ed.] 1999: no. 225).

Fig. 2. Tell Brak, terracotta stamp seal (Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 161, fig. 180: no. 24).

Fig. 3. Tell Brak, clay sealing with stamp seal impression (Oates / Oates / McDonald 1997, 161, fig. 180: no. 25).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

458

H. Kühne

Fig. 4. Tell Sheikh Hamad, stamp seal impression, star motive (©T. Sheikh Hamad Archive, Berlin).

Fig. 5. Tell Sheikh Hamad, stamp seal impression, concentric circles motive (©T. Sheikh Hamad Archive, Berlin).

Fig. 6. Tell Sheikh Hamad, stamp seal impression, cross and dots motive (©T. Sheikh Hamad Archive, Berlin). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Mittani and Middle Assyrian Stamp Seals

459

Fig. 7. Nuzi, terracotta stamp seal (Starr 1939, pl. 55:D–E).

Fig. 8. Nuzi, stamp impressions (Starr 1939, pl. 55:O and N).

Fig. 9. Tell es-Safi, terracotta stamp seal (Keel 1990, 382: no. 16 fig. 83 [instead of 84]; 2013, 94–95: no. 3).

Fig. 10. Nineveh, clay sealing with stamp impression. Reference: Mitchell / Searight 2007, 108: no. 239.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group Ahmed Fatima Kzzo*

1. Introduction Ideas do not have any physical or temporal borders. Thus, beliefs and religious thoughts could have survived through time in many different aspects. Faiths could have been evolved, transformed and conserved in different ways. Seyrig proved it in his research,1 when he published a study about a cylinder seals corpus that belongs to the 2nd millennium BC. This corpus presents a standard that consists of a pole that bears two human heads and that is topped by a bird. Seyrig supposed that the standard with the two human heads might be the Semeion (“Σημήϊον”) mentioned in the De Dea Syria, written in the 2nd century AD.2 This paper presents a group of cylinders, engraved in Cursive style, spread at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. A standard is depicted in the scenes of these cylinders. This standard is different from the standard of the two human heads. Here, the standard is simple and generally, consists of a pole, and a platform which supports a bird. This paper also proposes that these cylinders could represent the Semeion and mentions as well that this standard is possibly still alive through contemporary faiths. 2. The De Dea Syria and the Semeion The treatise De Dea Syria is ascribed to Lucian of Samosata, who called himself an Assyrian. The De Dea Syria was written in Ionic Greek language, attributed to the 2nd century AD. The De Dea Syria reveals the stories of the Sanctuary’s construction, in the Holy City (Hierapolis, modern Manbij), and the festivals of the Assyrian inhabitants. In the description of the Sanctuary, the writer speaks about the Semeion as a This article is dedicated to Professor Frances Pinnock, who transmits knowledge and passion for Syria to everybody. 1 Seyrig 1960. 2 For more information on the name Σημήϊον (Semion) used in De Dea Syria, see Caquot 1955, Seyrig 1960, 244, and recently, Lightfoot 2003, 446–449. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

462

AF Kzzo

statue that stands between the statues of Zeus and Hera.3 In the De Dea Syria description, the Semeion Statue is very distinct from the other statues. This Semeion is a standard made of gold and on the top stands a golden dove. Lucian adds that this Semeion makes two journeys a year to the sea in order to fetch the water.4 The Semeion should represent a third god that is worshipped beside Zeus/Hadad and Hera/Atargatis. De Dea Syria describes the Semeion as: “It has no shape of its own, but bears the forms of the other gods. It is called the “standard” by the Assyrians themselves, who have not given it a name of its own, nor have they anything to say about its place of origin and form. Some connect it with Dionysus, others with Deucalion, yet more with Semiramis, for on the top stands a golden dove; that is why they say the “standard” belongs to Semiramis. It makes a twice-yearly journey to the sea to fetch the water in the way I have described.”5

It is clear that the Sanctuary of Hierapolis is not exclusive to a unique ethnicity, because many goods are venerated by different people coming from different regions including Arabia, Babylon, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. From an iconographical point of view, the image of the Semeion appears in various evidence. Most of this evidence comes from upper Mesopotamian and northern Syrian sites like: 1. Coins from Hierapolis (Manbij) dating to the emperors Caracalla and Severus Alexander. 2. Relief from the temple of Atargatis in Dura-Europeos (Fig. 1). 3. The so-called “Nergal” relief from Hatra (Fig. 2), and other reliefs from near Urfa.6 3. A Group of Cylinder Seals from the 2nd Millennium BC A style of cylinder seals, which have the figures depicted in schematic way, appears in the 2nd millennium BC. This style, called Cursive Style, is spread in Anatolia and Syria. Several cylinders belonging to this style present a simple standard. Generally, this standard consists of a pole, topped by a platform, which supports a bird. These cylinders are: 1. Kültepe: Level Ib, n. Kt. H/k 225; Stone (light colour), H. 1.7 cm.; Diameter 0.8 cm. (Fig. 3). A male figure stands with his right arm raised in front of his

The De Dea Syria uses the Greek names Zeus and Hera, but the indigenous names of these two gods are Hadad and Atargatis. 4 Lightfoot 2003, 271. 5 Lightfoot 2003, 271, translation of Lucian text. 6 Lightfoot 2003, 540–542. 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group

463

face and the open hand has four fingers. His shoulders slope back and his left arm is on the waist. His garment is patterned with closely set horizontal lines in a panel between the spread legs. This figure seems to worship a standard in front of him. The standard consists of a serrated pole topped by a platform that supports a flame-like object, which might also be a stylised bird. A ball staff is represented between the standard and the male figure. In the back of the figure, a sphinx stands on its four legs with two serrated wings. 2. Lidar Höyük: n. LI 86/8, H. 1.9 cm.; Diameter. 0.9 cm. (Fig. 4). A male figure stands with his right arm raised in front of his face. His shoulders slope back. His garment is patterned with closely set horizontal lines. The figure seems to worship a standard. The standard consists of a pole topped by several rings tapering at the top. A ball staff is represented between the standard and the male figure. In the back of the figure, there is a sphinx standing on his four legs with two serrated wings. 3. Klavdia (Cyprus): Bronze Age tomb, British Museum GR 1898.10.20,2, brown hematite, H. 2 cm.; Diameter. 0.9 cm. (Fig. 5). A male figure stands with his right arm raised in front of his face. His shoulders slope back and his left arm is held at waist. His garment is patterned with closely set horizontal lines spread between his legs. This figure seems to worship a standard in front him. The standard consists of a serrated pole topped by platform supporting a flame-like object which may be a stylised bird. A ball staff is represented between the standard and the male figure. Behind the figure there is a sphinx which stands on four legs with two serrated wings. 4. Ras Shamra: n. RS 14.159; Damascus Museum n. 2558, Blackish brown stone, H. 2.15 cm. (Fig. 6). A male figure stands with his right arm raised in front of his face. His shoulders slope back. His garment is patterned with closely set horizontal lines. The figure seems to worship a standard in front of him. The standard has a serrated pole topped by a platform that supports a flame-like object that could be a stylised bird. A ball staff is between the standard and the male figure. Behind the figure, there is a sphinx which stands on his four legs with two serrated wings. 5. Ebla: Area: P north, Sq. EdVIII2iv + EcVIII2i. Locus: F.5861, Level 2b. n. TM.95.P.175, Idleb Museum, Steatite (?), H. 1.9 cm.; Diameter. 1.1 cm. (Fig. 7). Two male figures stand with right arms raised in front of their faces; the hands are quite schematic and depicted in a “V” shape; the shoulders formed by a drilled hole. Their garments are patterned with closely set horizontal lines that cover one leg and leave the other uncovered. Between the two figures there is a standard formed by globular base supports, a pole that has small branches on either side in a chevron-like pattern on his upper half. In front of the figures there is a quadruped standing on four legs, has a serrated long neck and tail finished by V shape. In front of the quadruped there is zig-zag vertical line similar to a snake. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

464

AF Kzzo

6. Ebla: Area: E, Sq. EiVI4iv, Locus: L. 1341, Level 5. n. TM.70.E.542, Brown stone, H. 1.8 cm.; Diameter. 0.9 cm. (Fig. 8). Two male figures stand with right arms raised in front of their faces. The arm of the first figure is depicted in a “V” shape, instead the second figure’s arm is finished with the shape of spearhead. Their garments are patterned with closely set horizontal lines. There is a zig-zag line like a snake between them and a ball staff as well. In front of the first figure, there is another ball staff and a standard which appears on the upper half only because the lowest one is chipping. The top of the standard has a platform that supports a bird represented by a head and five oblique rays (flame-like). These six cylinder seals belong to the Cursive Style and present the same scene (Figs 3–8). The first five cylinders (Figs 3–7) have three common elements: the male figure, the animal, and the standard. The male figures are depicted in schematic way with the garment represented by oblique horizontal lines. They seem to be part of a cultural act related to ritual offering. The animal, which is a sphinx, present in the first four cylinders, is identical (Figs 3–6). It appears with four legs, a short tail, and wings starting from the neck.7 Instead, the presentation of the quadruped in the cylinder of Ebla TM.95.P.175 (Fig. 7) is slightly different from the other cylinders. The sphinx of Ebla’s cylinder is presented with only two legs, and without wings, but has a tall schematic tail with a “V” shape. This “V” shape represents more probably a bird that is rendered in schematic way.8 Maybe this combination between a quadruped and a bird could reflect the winged sphinx present in the others cylinders.9 A principal element is the standard, which seems to have a central role in all the scenes as a cultic element. In fact, it should be mentioned that the standards in these cylinders have different shapes. This could be related to the different geographical regions of those cylinders. Two cylinder seals from Ebla (Figs 7–8) have the standard represented in different ways. This suggests that the two cylinder seals belong to two different workshops. The two cylinder seals were found in Areas E and P, both characterized by royal buildings: Palace E and Palace P. The former, Palace E, dated to the Middle Bronze Age, is located on the Acropolis, while the latter, Palace P, is located in the Lower City and was built on the top of the Archaic Palace, dated to the Early Bronze IVB and Middle Bronze IA‒B. The ball staff is also depicted in the cylinders (Figs 3–6, 8). The ball staff is an element, probably originally from Mesopotamia, and it has been dated to the The sphinx is not frequently represented in the Syro-Anatolian glyptic. It is attested in impressions from Kültepe which belong to the Level II (Mazzoni 1975, 31–32). 8 This way of representation of the bird is frequented in different styles of Cappadocia (Mazzoni 1975, 29). See Porada 1948, n. 847–849, 851, 855E, 859, 864E, 865E. 9 We should mention that some Anatolian cylinder seals present a bull on altar. The bull usually has a bird standing on its back. 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group

465

end of the 3rd millennium BC. Furthermore, it is also found in Cappadocia in the same period on a cylinder seal from Kültepe.10 The interpretation of the ball staff is still not defined. Otto suggests that it might be a lamp on a stand, but she notes that, in this case, the ball remains unexplained.11 Other scholars have seen it as a kind of stand, meant to carry the vessels represented near it. Özgüç adopted the interpretation of Douglas Van Buren as an elixir-vase, used by the divinity to pour the initial elixir of life into the vase.12 Another important element is also depicted in the two cylinders of Ebla (Figs 7–8), the zig zag lines in vertical position. This zig-zag line could represent a snake. The snake is a symbolic element in the glyptic of Cappadocia, especially in the worship scenes.13 Three other cylinder seals found at Ebla (Figs 9–11) also belong to the first centuries of the 2nd millennium BC. These cylinders belong to another style, a modelled style. Furthermore, these cylinders present scenes of worship including a standard. This standard is different from our standard. This standard consists of a pole that bears two human heads and topped by a bird. The bird here is probably a dove related to the goddess Ishtar.14 As previously mentioned, this standard was studied by Seyrig,15 who suggested that this standard is the same Semeion which was standing in the Sanctuary of Hierapolis, between the statues of Hadad/Zeus and Atargatis/Hera. In 2014, P. Matthiae has included a larger number of those cylinders and demonstrated the existence of these also in sites situated east of the Euphrates.16 Thus, the cylinders or impressions of cylinders that present this standard are found at Ebla, Kültepe II, Alalakh VI, Hammam al-Turkman, and Abu Habbah/Sippar.17 4. Conclusions In the Roman period, the Semeion took different shapes and aspects as is showed by iconographic evidence. In most of cases, The Semeion consists of a pole topped by a bird or crescent with rosettes or rings in the middle.18 Furthermore, in the description of the Semeion in De Dea Syria, there is no mention to the existence of two human masks or heads fixed on the pole of the Semeion. Therefore, the Se Mazzoni 1975, 28. Otto 2000, 270. 12 Van Buren 1945; Özgüç 1965, 57; Porter 2001, 388. 13 Mazzoni 1975, 28. 14 Pinnock 2000a, 1403–1404. 15 Seyrig 1960. 16 The group published by Seyrig consists mostly of cylinders that come from the antiquary market; only one cylinder and one impression come from Kültepe. 17 See cylinders in Matthiae 2014: for Kültepe: fig. A1, 2, 13, Alalakh VI: fig. E1, Hammam al-Turkman: fig. A23, Abu Habbah/Sippar: fig. G4. 18 See the Appendix II from Lightfoot 2003, 540. 10 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

466

AF Kzzo

meion of De Dea Syria could be very similar to our standard in the cylinders (Figs 3–8). It is obvious that the sites where the standard of two human heads were found and the sites where our standard was found are the same or geographically very close (see the previous paragraph). But still, it is strange that the standard with two human heads is not presented in the cylinders that belong to the Cursive Style. Is this a reflection of different worship? Or is it just a change in the shape of the same standard from one workshop to another? In addition, the popular imagination of the community could have led to a schematisation of the representations, thus the standard of two human heads could have been transformed into a pole, a platform, and a bird. It is also interesting to mention that our standard and the Semeion are similar to a cultic standard that belongs to the Yezidi religion. As we know, the Yezidi religion is one of the oldest religions in the Near East and has been influenced by different religions in the region. This standard, called Sanjaq, presents one of the central figures of Yezidi worship, the Tawûsê Melek. The name consists of two words Tawûsê (peacock), and Melek (king or angle). In Yezidi traditions the Tawûsê Melek is an emanation of God and the leader of the archangels. However, the Tawûsê Melek is represented iconographically as a peacock. So, Yezidi made a standard/statue for the Tawûsê Melek and called it Sanjaq19. Sancak (Sanjaq) is a Turkish word that means “flag” or “standard.”20 However, Austen Henry Layard during his tours in north Iraq describes the Sanjaq, which was in Redwan town, as a stand of bright copper or brass surmounted by the rude image of a bird.21 The Sanjaq consists of different pieces which could be assembled and disassembled for the tours. These pieces assembled like a pole that was topped by a bird with a swelling breast, small head, and widespread tail (Fig. 12). Usually, the Sanjaq is baptized or washed with the sacred water in Lalish.22 The Sanjaq was brought in tours by the Qawwals23 once or twice in the year in different Yezidi villages.24 When the Sanjaq arrived at a village, the inhabitants

The sources say that there was one Sanjaq for every Yezidi region. There probably were seven Sanjaqs in total, but today it seems that just one Sanjaq remained, and the others were destroyed. For more information see Joseph 1919, 156–157. 20 Dictionary 2008, 387. Also, Sanjaq was used by the Ottoman Empire in the administrative division for the Vilayets/regions. 21 Layard 1853, 39. 22 Lalish is a small mountain valley village, like a Yezidi Vatican, located approximately 50 km northeast of Mosul. In this place there is the sanctuary of Sheikh ʿAdi. It is the holiest sanctuary for the Yezidis. Inside the Sanctuary there is a water spring which is considered sacred. Water has a sacred role for almost all religions; also the Semeion makes two journeys in the year to the sea to fetch the water, as it is attested in De Dea Syria. 23 Qawwal, a reciter, is a figure that belongs to a clergy range who act as attendants in the religious ceremonies. 24 Sino 2012, 182. 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group

467

received it with tambourines and Shabbabe (flute). At the end of the reception party, the Sanjaq went to the inhabitant’s house who offered the best bid to host the Sanjaq. Therefore, they assembled it and set the Sanjaq at the end of a room. Underneath a jar probably filled with water to be drunk was placed as a charm and to offer protection from sickness and afflictions. It is notable also that beside the entrance of the Sanctuary of Sheikh ʿAdi25 there is an engraving representing a black snake (Fig. 13), very similar to the zigzag line in our group of cylinders (Figs 7–8).26 It is true that there are many differences between a dove27 and a peacock, but the image of the bird in the cylinder TM.70.E.542 (Fig. 8) recalls the peacock. Moreover, it is reflected as well in the other cylinders (Figs 3, 5–6) because the bird is very simplified and consists of rays that could recall peacock plumage. Bibliography Amiet, P., 1992: Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra-Ougarit. Vol. 2. Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 9). Paris. Caquot, A., 1955: Appendice. Note sur le Semeion et les inscriptions araméennes de Hatra. Syria 32/1–2: 59–69. Collon, D., 2005: First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London. Dictionary 2008: Webster’s Turkish – English Thesaurus Dictionary, San Diego. Joseph, I., 1919: Devil Worship. The Sacred Books and Traditions of the Yezidiz. Boston. Layard, A.H., 1853: Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon. New York. Lightfoot, J.L., 2003: Lucian on the Syrian Goddess. Oxford. Matthiae, P., 2014: Notes et études éblaïtes, I: Le semeion de hiérapolis dans l’ébla paléosyrienne. RA 108: 93–120. Mazzoni, S., 1975: Tell Mardikh e una classe glittica siro-anatolica del periodo di Larsa. Annali, Istituto Orientale di Napoli 35: 21–43.

Yezidis believe that Sheikh ʿAdi is an incarnation of Tawûsê Melek. Snakes are presented as well in a relief from the Roman period found in Hatra. This relief, Nergal relief (Fig. 2), presents a female divinity with the Semeion, beside Nergal, the Babylonian god of the underworld. Nergal could be a negative divinity, similar to a demon. The snakes in the relief could be related to Nergal, and the association with the female divinity has not been established yet. We should also mention that Tawûsê Melek intersects with Satan of Christianity and Islam. Nonetheless, Tawûsê Melek in Yezidi religion is not a negative figure. Therefore, the existence of a snake on the entrance of the Sheikh ʿAdi Sanctuary could be explained as Sheikh ʿAdi is an incarnation of Tawûsê Melek. 27 As was mentioned, the dove is related to divinities and presented in different classes of artefacts. At Ebla, jars were discovered. These jars present a unique example for decoration by dove on the rim of the jar. For more information, see Pinnock 2000b. 25 26

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

468

AF Kzzo

Otto, A., 2000: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8). Berlin. Özgüç, N., 1965: Kültepe Mühür Baskilarinda Anadolu Grubu. The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan V, n. 22). Ankara. –– 1968: Kaniş Karumu Ib Kati Mühürleri ve Mühür Baskilari. Seals and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan. V Seri sa. 25). Ankara. Pinnock, F., 2000a: Some Thoughts about the Transmission of Iconographies between North Syria and Cappadocia, End of the Third-Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome May 18th-23rd 1998, Vol. 2. Rome. Pp. 1397–1406. –– 2000b: The Doves of the Goddess. Elements of the Cult of Ishtar at Ebla in the Middle Bronze Age. Levant 32: 121–128. –– 2003: Osservazioni sulla glittica di Alalakh. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale IX: 203–222. Porada, E.,1948: Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals. In North American Collections. New York. Porter, B., 2001: Old Syrian Popular Style Cylinder Seals, Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University. May 2001. Seyrig, H., 1960: Antiquités syriennes. Syria 37/3–4: 233–252. Sino, H., 2012: Al-Yezidiya Abr Al-ʿussur. Ahled Westfalen. Van Buren, E.D. 1945: Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (Analecta Orientalia 23). Roma.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group

469

Fig. 1. Cult relief of Atargatis, Hadad, and the Semeion from the Temple of Atargatis in Dura Europos (http://artgallery.yale.edu/collections/objects/4217).

Fig. 2. “Nergal” relief with the Semeion, Hatra (Lighfoot 2003, fig. 25). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

470

AF Kzzo

Fig. 3. Kültepe Ib, Kt. h/k 225, r/15 (Özgüç 1968, pl. XXVII:3).

Fig. 4. Lidar Höyük, n. LI 86/8 (graphic elaboration after Hauptmann in Porter 2001, no. 380).

Fig. 5. Klavdia, GR 1898.10.20,2 (Collon 2005, fig. 143).

Fig. 6. Ras Shamra, n. RS 14.159 (Amiet 1992, fig. 6) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Another Semeion? New Perspectives on an Old Syrian Seals Group

Fig. 7. Ebla, TM.95.P.175 (©MAIS).

Fig. 8. Ebla, TM.70.E.542 (Mazzoni 1975, pl. I).

Fig. 9. Ebla, TM.88.R.396 (Matthiae 2014, fig. A21).

Fig. 10. Ebla, TM.92.P.800 (Pinnock 2003, fig. 5b). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

471

472

AF Kzzo

Fig. 11. Ebla, TM.96.V.276 (Matthiae 2014, fig. F6).

Fig. 12. The Sanjaq from Layard 1853, 40 (right), modern photo from www.bahzani.net (left).

Fig. 13. The entrance of Sheikh ʿAdi sanctuary with the snake decoration (https:// it.pinterest.com/pin/390194755195714550/). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman! Gender Identity in the Clay Votive Plaques of Hirbemerdon Tepe during the Early Second Millennium BC Nicola Laneri

1. Introduction The study of women’s roles in ancient societies has become a pivotal field for the introduction of innovative perspectives that can assist in identifying the relationship between gender representation and ancient material culture, as well the interpretation of gender differences emerging from archaeological, artistic and textual data. The development of this area of study also responds to the need for deeper investigations into the role played by women in ancient societies, a subject that until recently was mostly overlooked by the predominately male scholars mainly focused on the study of ancient male individuals. Regarding Near Eastern studies, the last 10 to 15 years have seen an increasing interest in a more thorough investigation of the role of women in ancient Near Eastern societies.1 The work of Frances Pinnock stands out as particularly important for its investigations into the role of women in public vs. private domains in ancient Mesopotamian societies.2 Pinnock’s research combines anthropological and art historical approaches and is rooted in the art historical tradition of the Roman school of ancient Near Eastern history brilliantly led by Paolo Matthiae. In support of the case study investigated in this contribution, a brief introduction will first review the concept of gender studies as applied to ancient Near Eastern societies, with particular attention given to the work of Frances Pinnock. This will be followed by the presentation of the clay votive plaques excavated at the early 2nd millennium BC architectural complex of Hirbemerdon Tepe in southeastern Turkey that may show gender differentiation in the depiction of the central anthropomorphic figure, which can consist of either a stylized stick figure, believed to represent a male, or a standing, frontally viewed, and clearly female nude figurine. 1 2

See Bahrani 2001; Bolger 2008; Chavalas 2014; Harris 2000; Parpola / Whiting 2002. E.g., Pinnock 1995, 2006, 2007/2008. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

474

N. Laneri

2. Gender Studies in the Ancient Near East: A Brief Introduction Since the first attempts of feminist theoretical approaches in the 1960s and 70s, the study of the role of the female figure has more recently developed into a coherent project, that, following the tenets of third wave feminism, aims to stimulate the debate on gender roles in ancient societies. Gender studies are based on the assumption that even though there is a “natural/biological” sexual distinction between human beings (male vs. female), the distinction is then based on cultural and social determination and, especially, on discourses of power that immediately determine gender distinctions and visual representations. In particular, the initial interest in defining the role of women in ancient societies has now been transformed into a need for defining how gender is “historically determined and linked to the process of power.”3 Using such a post-modernist approach, the importance of biological sex is substituted by the ways in which the body is socially constructed and defined by the members of a given community. Obviously, this determination leads to forms of power differentiation and cultural hegemony based on the cultural and social context in which these rules have been determined as well as in the individual agency.4 Thus, concepts such man, woman, child, elder, and homosexual are culturally determined and change depending on the context in which this differentiation occurred. The importance of the context is determined by the fact that gender identity can be transformed throughout time and according to geographic location.5 As mentioned before, in archaeology this approach has been developed over the last 35 years starting from the organization of a session at the American Institute of Archaeology by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey in 1984, the proceedings of which were then published in 1991 in the volume entitled, Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Since then, numerous scholars have been interested in developing a new perspective on gender studies in ancient societies.6 In that period, scholars interested in Near Eastern studies also initiated a new agenda of research that sought to investigate the role of women and the politics of gender representations in artistic works, but it has only been over the last 15 years that a coherent agenda has started to be applied in archaeological, art historical and textual studies of Near Eastern societies. From among these, two areas are of particular interest, both of which have have been throughly analyzed by Frances Pinnock, and both of which are related to the relationship between body representation and gender differentiation. The first relates to differences in the visual representation of the human body (i.e., an art historical perspective)

5 6 3 4

Bahrani 2001, 22. Joyce 2000. Bahrani 2001, 27. See for example Joyce 2000; Meskell / Joyce 2003; Nelson 1997; Wright 1996. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman!

475

and, the second focuses on the use of clothing for adorning the human body (i.e., an archaeological, anthropological, and, also, art historical perspective). Regarding the later, numerous studies have tried to identify the importance of gender differences based on clothing and sometimes also hair styles, either represented in visual imagery or as recorded in the archaeological record. Of particular interest is the work of Michelle Marcus on the Iron Age tombs of Hasanlu in Iran.7 Regarding gender distinction in the visual imagery of the ancient Near East, Irene Winter,8 Zainab Bahrani9 and Frances Pinnock10 have mastered the subject from an art historical perspective with a particular focus on the relationship between identity, gender and representation in a given historical context, because, as correctly noted by Zainab Bahrani, “one of the main challenges emerging from postmodernity is the intellectual challenge of how to think about representational practices within culture and history.”11 Thus, the image representing a female body should not be interpreted as a direct and passive representation of the woman, but rather as a construct in the process of determining gender differentiation. Following a semiotic perspective, the image is “a complex cultural sign/ representation that does not simply reflect a reality but serves in the creation of gender norms.”12 It is however interesting to note an almost lack of “women” figures in public representations in the visual imagery of ancient Near Eastern societies that are instead dominated by male figures (e.g., the battle scenes, the representation of libations, scenes of hunting and of religious devotion). It is for these reasons that Irene Winter proposed a separation between a public (more male dominated) and a private (female oriented) sphere.13 On the other hand, the representation in clay figurines and plaques that has dominated the production of forms of “low art” of ancient Near Eastern societies since prehistoric times both in religious and secular contexts is fully in the domain of female representations mostly presented naked and highlighting the breast and sexual organ.14 These forms of representation have usually been associated with the cult of the “Mother Goddess” or Inana/Ishtar and with a sort of fertility cult, but instead they should be interpreted as forms of representation demarcating gender identity and stimulating a discourse about the sensual power of the woman’s body, and, especially, of Marcus 1993. Winter 1996. 9 Bahrani 2001. 10 Pinnock 2006. 11 Bahrani 2001, 31. 12 Ibid, 32. 13 According to Winter (1987, 201), “the protagonist of public acts are seen to be men, then the absence of women in public art asserts their lack of publicness, to the extant that “women” is to be equated with “private.” 14 Pinnock 1995; Reade 2002. 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

476

N. Laneri

the nude body and the ways it was represented.15 In these visual representations the naked female body is usually presented frontally highlighting the breast and sexual organ. Accordingly, Zainab Bahrani suggests that “in the representation of the naked body, Mesopotamian imagery confirms a common and simplistic binary divide where woman is the sign of gender—the sexualized other—while the man transcends his sex to represent humanity.”16 In particular, starting from the 2nd millennium BC the representation of the women in terracotta figurines or plaques is consistently characterized by naked women presented frontally and exposing to the viewer her sexual parts (i.e., breast and genitals). At this time the visual representation of naked males is almost non-existent and, instead, it is the “female erotic allure” (kuzbu in Akkadian)17 that becomes pivotal in the visual imagery of ancient Mesopotamian societies. 3. Bodily Representation and Gender Differentiation in the Clay Votive Plaques of Hirbemerdon Tepe during the Early 2nd Millennium BC The presence of female visual imagery in clay plaques and human clay figurines is a trademark of the ritual paraphernalia unearthed in the early 2nd millennium BC architectural complex of Hirbemerdon Tepe, located on the west bank of the Tigris river ca. 90 km southeast of the modern city of Diyarbakir in Turkey (Fig. 1).18 The complex was located in the northern sector of the High Mound and it consisted of a terraced structure with a total extension of 5.000–6.000 sqm with at least two entrances (a major one along the northwestern corner and another one on the eastern side). The whole complex was divided into a series of sectors separated by a road system consisting of streets, alleyways and staircases. While the northern and southern sectors were characterized by the presence of buildings dedicated to specialized craft activities, the central sector was marked by the presence of ceremonial buildings and large outdoor spaces. It is within one of these outdoor spaces (i.e., the piazza) of the architectural complex that numerous fragments of decorated clay votive plaques (Figs 2–7) were brought to light together with other ritual paraphernalia during the excavation of the early 2nd millennium BC architectural complex.19 Despite their fragmented state, the clay votive plaques together form a unique cultural element when compared to both the broad material remains discovered at Hirbemerdon

Pruss 2002. Bahrani 2001, 68. 17 Bahrani 2002, 57. 18 The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project is part of the Ilisu Dam Rescue Project and the archaeological work has been performed in collaboration with the Archaeological Museum of Diyarbakir under the patronage of the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism. 19 Laneri 2011; Laneri et al. forthcoming. 15 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman!

477

Tepe and the remains from other sites in the upper Tigris river valley and contemporaneous Near Eastern regions. The plaques are made of coarse, chaffy clay and were fired at a low temperature. Except for one case, each plaque is in the form of a rectangular slab with the front side decorated. A spout is attached at the bottom section of each plaque’s frontal side, and it might have served the purpose of performing ritual libations with liquid or solid elements. A perforated element extends up from the top edge of each plaque for attachment to the wall. All the plaques are characterized by similar decorative patterns, with a central figure—either an applied and standing female figure (Figs 2, 4–5) or a stick-like human figure (Figs 3 and 6)—inserted into a recessed square. This central scene is framed along three sides (i.e., the two vertical and the upper sides) by impressed, incised or excised geometric (e.g., fishbone patterns, zig-zag lines, triangles, rosettes, crosses, circles, concentric circles, and hollow ovoid elements) and, in one case, animal motifs. It is also interesting to notice that most of the plaques are decorated using the combination of red and black pigments that served the purpose of further emphasizing the different sections of the plaques, and, as a consequence, to reinforce the visual power of the central figure. As mentioned in previous studies,20 these plaques are unique for both Anatolian and Mesopotamian artistic traditions; however, they can be associated with the use of decorated clay plaques that, as mentioned before, appear in Mesopotamian contexts beginning in Ur III and continuing during the Old Babylonian period (ca. 2150–1750 BC).21 These plaques are widespread throughout the whole period and specifically in southern Mesopotamian cities, but their size (“usually smaller than the palm of a hand”),22 the technology used for their production (i.e., mold-made), and their contexts (mostly domestic) do not offer a clear point of reference in the comparison with the plaques from Hirbemerdon Tepe. For the upper Tigris region, some other examples are available from an illegal excavation at the site of Ahmetli Köy currently kept at the Archaeological Museum of Diyarbakir,23 as well as one fragment discovered in the Middle Bronze Age “monumental building” at Salat Tepe.24 Even if chronologically earlier, a clearly similar example was excavated from the ceremonial complex of the temple of Ishtar at Assur in northern Mesopotamia (level G), and consists of the famous plaque showing a frontally presented female deity.25 In this case the plaque is composed of gypsum, but the size, decorative pattern, and the alternate use of red and black to decorate both the figurine and the

Abend / Caspi / Laneri 2010. Assante 2002; Auerbach 1994; Collon 2005; Opificius 1961. 22 Assante 2002, 2. 23 Nevin Soyukaya – personal communication. 24 Ökse / Görmüş 2006,176, fig. 21. 25 Andrae 1938, 54, pl. 27. 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

478

N. Laneri

frame appear as a possible trait d’union with Hirbemerdon Tepe’s plaques.26 To reinforce the comparison, the rope-like decoration framing one of Hirbemerdon Tepe’s plaques can be compared to the one visible in a metal votive plaque (VP2) from the Ishtar temple level E.27 In terms of iconographic similarities, the frontally presented female figure can be used for defining comparable elements with a traditional representation of clay figurines and plaques discovered in Mesopotamian contexts. The figure is naked and depicted with the breasts and a large incised triangle for the sexual organ and sometimes includes embellishments such as bracelets, anklets, and necklaces consisting of applied clay strips or incised linear patterns. In particular, some of the figurines’ iconographic elements (e.g., the “stumps” and the conical head with wide coffee-bean shaped eyes, Fig. 2; the hands around the waist, the wide incised pubic area, the prominent belly-bottom, Fig. 4; the coffee-bean shaped eyes and incised hair style around the head, Fig. 5) suggest a date ranging between the late 3rd and the first half of the 2nd millennia BC based on comparisons with other examples from Syro-Mesopotamian contexts.28 More complicated is the definition of analogies for the schematic stick-like human figures presented as the central figure in two plaques (Figs 3 and 6). Similar stylized human figures are also represented in two portable hearths found within the early 2nd millennium BC architectural complex. Possible comparanda can be seen in the stylized figures recognizable in wall paintings of the late 4th millennium BC complex (i.e., Edificio IV) at Arslantepe (northeastern Anatolia)29 or from the pre-Sargonic (ca. mid-3rd millennium BC) Ninhursag temple at Mari (Syria).30 In addition to these elements, the presence of stick-like figures in rock-paintings of uncertain date (possibly 3rd millennium BC) discovered at Hakkari Sat (Turkey), Demir Kapu (north-east Syria) and Haurain (northern Iraq) can suggest a tradition of this type of schematic representation of human beings in northern Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC.31 The representation of stylized human figures is also a clear cultural marker of Transcaucasian groups during the 3rd millennium BC as exemplified by the decorative pattern of both ceramic vessels and portable hearths. However, it is very difficult to define reliable examples from sites contemporaneous with Hirbemerdon Tepe’s architectural complex.32 When viewed together, these elements can thus represent a

Andrae 1938, 54, pls 27a, 28c; Bar 2003, 161–165, pls 61–62. Ibid. 2003, 159, pl. 57. 28 See for example, Badre 1980, pl. XXVI.12, L.21; Barrelet 1968, 358, pl. LV:580–587, pl. LXIV:694, LXXIX; Klengel-Brandt 1978, 49–50, pl. 8.245–252; Marchetti 2001, 27–61, pl. CCCIX; Opificius 1961, pls 1.15, 2.114. 29 Frangipane 1996, fig. 71. 30 Parrot 1940, 19–20, fig. 14. 31 Dunham 1993, 132. 32 Aquilano forthcoming. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman!

479

local eastern Anatolian tradition of depicting certain figures in a stylized way. In addition, when comparing the stick figure method of depicting the human body with the two obviously female ones depicted in the other plaques, it can be hypothesized that these stylized figures may represent males. However, a dominating and unique feature of the plaques is the dense geometric patterns that embellish their surfaces through the combined use of zig-zag incised lines, excised triangles and ovals, impressed concentric circles, excised and impressed crosses and rosettes, fishbone incised lines, as well as the spout at the bottom and a pierced hole at the top. In all of the plaques the geometric decorative patterns are symmetrically and repeatedly placed on both sides of the centrally framed figurine. These symmetrical placed elements have some commonalities with the scenes depicted in the clay plaques of the Old Babylonian tradition.33 Moreover, decorative patterns should be viewed “as a phenomenon of apparent motion whereby the dynamic aspect of the act of perception is subjectively experienced as a dynamic property of the object being perceived.”34 Obviously, the geometric decorative motifs create a framework for emphasizing the role of the figure presented in the central window that becomes the point of reference for the viewer’s gaze. Within this perspective, the differentiation between the stick and applied female figure becomes an ideological discourse about differentiating gender identities. The reason for not visually presenting male figures with a natural representation of the body is unclear. This element is confirmed by the human figurines found at the site, some in the same ceremonial context of the large outdoor space of the architectural complex (i.e., the piazza), that represent only women presented frontally, naked and, when available, highlighting the sexual elements.35 This is probably linked to the fact that the viewer is primarily male and he aimed at emphasizing the sexual allure and erotic aspects of the female body, rather than fertility. The allure of the female figures is further reinforced by the representation of jewelry adorning the woman’s body, but, obviously, is centered on the emphasis given to the sexual organ. This element confirms an ancient Mesopotamian tradition of giving centrality to the vagina in representations of women from both textual and visual imagery, because, as pointed out by Zainab Bahrani, “in Mesopotamia literary and visual imagery it was the vulva, emphatically exhibited as the sign of difference that defined femininity as other than man, and functioned as an index of femininity. The image of the idealised female body was thus the object of desire, and as such was the site of the crystallization of the male gaze, an aestheticism body presented for the male viewer’s pleasure.”36

Assante 2002, 4–5. Gell 1998, 78–79. 35 Laneri 2011; Laneri et al. forthcoming. 36 Bahrani 2001, 89. 33 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

480

N. Laneri

4. Conclusions The location of the plaques in a ceremonial context associated with other ritual paraphernalia that are not found in other sectors of the complex is an element that supports the magical power of these objects in a context of popular forms of religiosity that mark small-sized scale societies as is the case of the groups that inhabited the upper Tigris region during the early 2nd millennium BC.37 Within this context, the sexual allure of the female figure portrayed in the plaques must have been pivotal for presenting the role of the woman to the viewer. On the other hand, the figure of the male was instead stylized, almost unrecognizable and close to forms of aniconicity. The reasons for this gender differentiation are far from being clear, but are most likely associated with the sexual power of the woman and of her sexual organ that can bring elements of fertility to participants of the ritual activities, but, most of all, can become an object of desire as was the goddess Inana/Ishtar in her description in the ancient Mesopotamian texts as is the case of the descent of Inana/Ishtar to the Netherworld. Bibliography Abend K. / S. Caspi / N. Laneri, 2010: Conserving Fragments of Icons: Clay Votive Plaques from Hirbemerdon Tepe, Turkey. In C. Rozeik / A. Roy / D. Saunders (eds): Conservation and the Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 2010 Istanbul Congress for Conservation in the Eastern Mediterranean. Istanbul. Pp.158–164. Andrae, W., 1938: Das Wiedererstandene Assur. Leipzig. Aquilano, M. forthcoming. Andirons, Lamps, Portable Hearths. In N. Laneri Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project 2003–2013: The Final Report. Bologna. Assante, J., 2002: Style and Replication in ‘Old Babylonian’ Terracotta Plaques: Strategies for Entrapping the Power of Images. In O. Loretz / K.A. Metzler / H. Schaudig (eds): Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfred Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburstag (AOAT 281). Münster. Pp. 1–29. Auerbach, E., 1994: Terra Cotta Plaques from the Diyala and Their Archaeological Contexts. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. University of Chicago. Badre, L., 1980: Les figurines anthropomorphe en terre cuite a l’Age du Bronze en Syrie (BAH 103). Paris. Bahrani, Z., 2001: Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia. London. –– 2002. Sex as Symbolic Form: Erotism and the Body in Mesopotamian Art. In S. Parpola / R. M. Whiting (eds): Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki. Pp. 53–58. Bär, J., 2003: Die Älteren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur. Statigraphie, Architektur und Pruss 2002, 544–545.

37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman!

481

Funde eines altorientalischen Heiligtums von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. Jahrtausends bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur X). Saarbrücker. Barrelet, M.-T., 1968: Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique. Paris. Bolger, D., (ed.) 2008: Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East. Lanham. Chavalas, M. W., (ed.) 2014: Women in the Ancient Near East. A Sourcebook. New York. Collon, D., 2005: The Queen of the Night. London. Dunham, S., 1993: A Wall Painting from Tell al-Raqa’i, North-East Syria. Levant 25: 127–43. Frangipane, M., 1996: La nascita dello Stato nel Vicino Oriente. Roma. Gero, J.M. / Conkey, M.W., 1991. Engendering archaeology: Women and prehistory. Oxford. Gell, A., 1998: Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford. Harris, R., 2000: Gender and aging in Mesopotamia the Gilgamesh Epic and other Ancient Literature. Norman. Joyce, R. A., 2000: Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin. Klengel-Brandt, E., 1978: Die Terakotten aus Assur im Vorder-asiatischen Museum Berlin. Berlin. Laneri, N., 2011: Connecting Fragments: a Sensorial Approach to the Materialization of Religious Beliefs in Rural Mesopotamia at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21.1: 77–94. Laneri N et al., forthcoming: Ritual and Identity in Rural Mesopotamia: Hirbemerdon Tepe and the Upper Tigris Region during the Middle Bronze Age. AJA 119.4. Marchetti, N., 2001: La coroplastica eblaita e siriana del Bronzo Medio (2 Volumes). Campagne 1964–1980 (MSAE V). Rome. Marcus, M., 1993: Incorporating the Body: Adornment, Gender, and Social Identity in Ancient Iran. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3.2: 157–178. Meskell, L. / Joyce, R.A., 2003: Embodied Lives: Figuring Ancient Maya and Egyptian Experience. London. Nelson, S.M., 1997: Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. Walnut Creek, CA. Ökse T./ Görmüş, A., 2006: Excavations at Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region: Stratigraphical Sequence and Preliminary Results of the 2005–2006 Seasons. Akkadica 127/2: 167–198. Opificius, R. 1961: Das altbabylonische Terrakottarelief. Berlin. Parpola, S. / Whiting, R.M., (eds) 2002: Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki. Parrot, A., 1940: Les fouilles de Mari. Sixième campagne (Automne 1938). Syria 21.1: 1–28. Pinnock, F., 1995: Erotic Art in the Ancient Near East. In J. Sasson (ed.): Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. 4. New York. Pp. 2521–2531. –– 2006: Semiramide e le sue sorelle: Immagini di donne nell’antica Mesopotamia. Milano. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

482

N. Laneri

–– 2007–2008: Le tombe delle regine assire sotto il Palazzo Nord-Ovest di Nimrud. In G. Bartoloni / M. G. Benedettini (eds): Sepolti tra i vivi = Buried among the living: Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato: Atti del convegno internazionale: Roma, 26–29 aprile 2006, Rome. Pp. 309–322. Pruss, A., 2002: The Use of Nude Female Figurines. In S. Parpola / R.M. Whiting (eds): Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki. Pp. 537–545. Reade, J., 2002: Sexism and Homotheism in Ancient Iraq. In S. Parpola / R.M. Whiting (eds): Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001. Helsinki. Pp. 551–568. Winter, I., 1987: Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Office of the En-Priestess and the Weight of Visual Evidence. In J.-M. Durand (ed.): La femme dans le proche-orient antique: compte rendu de la 23e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 7–10 Juillet 1986). Paris. Pp. 189–201. –– 1996: Sex, Rhetoric, and the Monument. The Alluring Body of Naram-Sin of Agade. In N. Kampen / B.A. Bergmann (eds): Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece, and Italy. Cambridge. Pp. 11–26. Wright, R.P., 1996: Gender and Archaeology. Philadelphia.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 1. Map of the Upper Tigris Region highlighting the site of Hirbemerdon Tepe and other early 2nd millennium BC sites (thanks to Jason Ur).

What a Woman!

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

483

484

N. Laneri

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 2. Decorated clay votive plaque HM 1250 (picture and drawing) from the early 2nd

millennium BC architectural complex (©HTAP).

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 3. Decorated clay votive plaque HM 1321 (picture and drawing) from the early 2nd

millennium BC architectural complex (©HTAP).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

What a Woman!

485

a)

b)

Fig. 4. Decorated clay votive plaque HM 3017 (picture and drawing) from the early 2nd

millennium BC architectural complex (©HTAP).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

486

N. Laneri

a)

b)

Fig. 5. Decorated clay votive plaque HM 5924 (picture and drawing) from the early 2nd

millennium BC architectural complex (©HTAP).

Fig. 6. Picture of the decorated clay votive plaque HM 2980 from the early 2nd millennium BC architectural complex (©HTAP). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (2): Une tour de garde d’époque Early Jezirah IIIb à Tell Beydar Marc Lebeau

1. État des fouilles de 1999–2000 C’est lors des campagnes de 1999 et 2000 à Tell Beydar que le groupe de la Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, composante des Fouilles Euro-Syriennes à Tell Beydar, atteint, dans sa progression vers le S à partir du bâtiment administratif fouillé lors des campagnes précédentes, le secteur du chantier F1 où se situe le bâtiment dont il sera question dans le présent article (Fig. 1). Ce secteur, d’un peu plus de 100 m2, occupe la quasi-totalité du carré (10 ×10 m) 100.054, la limite E du carré 099.054 et effleure les carrés 100.053 et 100.055 (Fig. 3). En ce qui concerne le niveau Beydar IIIb, corres­pondant à l’époque Early Jezirah IIIb (c. 2450–2340 avant notre ère), ce secteur est occupé par un édifice de plan carré, traversé par un passage en corridor qui permet d’assurer la jonction entre deux sections de la rue principale du site, reliant la Porte S de la Ville Haute à l’entrée du Palais de l’Acropole, à savoir, vers le N, à la section supérieure de la grand-rue (Main Street) et, vers le S, à l’escalier monumental de douze degrés faits de dalles de basalte menant vers un espace pavé de pierres ouvrant sur les accès aux Temples C et D (Fig. 3). Dans ce secteur de fouille, l’architecture du 3e millénaire est profondément endommagée par de grandes fosses tronconiques d’époque hellénistique, vraisemblablement des silos au départ, transformés par la suite en dépôts d’ordures. Ces perturbations importantes – certaines fosses atteignant un diamètre de 4 m à leur base – ont rendu la compréhension de l’architecture préservée particulièrement délicate, d’autant plus que les espaces non perturbés révélèrent une grande densité de murs de briques crues. De plus, l’architecture préservée était fort érodée et difficile à comprendre (Fig. 9). Les plans architecturaux schématiques des rapports de fouilles rédigés en fin de mission en 1999 et 2000 par les responsables de chantier successifs attestent cette densité du bâti, à tel point que les fouilleurs de cette zone y ont perçu une intrication de deux phases architecturales distinctes datables de l’EJ IIIb et de l’EJ IVa (époque akkadienne ancienne), certains des murs représentés sur le plan étant à interpréter comme des murs de fondation de la phase plus récente, une reprise du bâtiment antérieur. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

488

M. Lebeau

Certains, dans la mission, firent part à l’époque de leur scepticisme à propos de l’existence de deux phases successives, car aucune céramique réellement attribuable à l’époque EJ IVa n’avait été découverte. De plus, les trois pièces allongées 32971a, 32971b et 32977 (Figs 4a et 10), communicantes, avaient livré un important matériel céramique en place sur les sols 32958 (pièces 32971a et 32971b) et 32960 (pièce 32977) de même qu’un ensemble d’objets liés aux activités de mouture également in situ et en connexion avec de petites installations (podium, table basse de travail) (Fig. 12). Ces trois pièces constituent les ailes N et E de l’édifice et sont vraisemblablement à identifier à des pièces de stockage où des activités de mouture pouvaient être réalisées. L’inventaire céramique important de ces pièces est homogène et clairement datable du niveau Beydar IIIb (EJ IIIb), vraisemblablement de sa phase 3 à Beydar, correspondant à la 3e phase architecturale du Palais de l’Acropole, vers 2415–2375 (Figs 13–17). Aucun réaménagement plus tardif ne pouvait y être décelé, aucun tesson d’époque Beydar IVa (EJ IVa) n’y avait été recueilli. Quant à la fonction du bâtiment, elle est restée énigmatique en raison de la densité de son centre et de l’état de préservation de sa moitié S, détruite en grande partie par les silos d’époque hellénistique. Lorsque la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie proposa à la Mission conjointe de procéder à d’amples travaux de restauration architecturale et que ceux-ci débutèrent lors de la campagne de restauration de 2003, je portai à nouveau mon attention sur ce secteur de fouille car l’on ne peut évidemment restaurer que ce que l’on comprend. Ayant été l’un de ceux doutant de l’existence d’une phase EJ IVa, je basai mon analyse sur le principe que tous les murs reportés sur le plan appartenaient à une seule et même phase de construction, d’époque Beydar IIIb, phase 3. Comme je l’ai déjà précisé, les pièces N et E ne posent pas de problème : il s’agit d’espaces de stockage, en relation entre eux, circonscrits par les murs 32572 (limite N du bâtiment), 32554–32599 (limite E), 32968 (délimitant à l’O la pièce 32971a), percé d’une porte permettant d’accéder à la pièce 32971a (et donc à l’ensemble des pièces de stockage) à partir de la section supérieure de Main Street – le même numéro étant utilisé erronément par le fouilleur pour désigner le mur S de la pièce 32971a – 32585 (limite O des pièces 32971b et 32977) et le mur S de la pièce 32977, complètement détruit par un silo hellénistique. Les ailes O et S de l’édifice sont beaucoup plus ardues à reconstituer en raison des perturbations majeures déjà mentionnées plus haut (Figs 2 et 3). Le plan schématique du secteur réalisé au terme de la campagne 2000 (Fig. 3) permet de reconstruire un accès S menant vers l’escalier monumental de la grand-rue, composé d’une porte à ressauts sur sa face externe. La partie O du secteur est à moitié détruite par un grand silo mais il est légitime d’y localiser la poursuite, sous une forme ou une autre, de la voie d’accès majeure que représente Main Street, soit sous la forme d’un tronçon de rue, soit sous l’aspect d’un corridor traversant de part en part un bâtiment qui engloberait ce passage. L’identification même partielle d’une porte S à ressauts va plutôt dans le sens de la seconde hypothèse. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

489

La partie SE du bâtiment, elle aussi très perturbée, est composée d’un fragment infime du piédroit E de la porte S à ressaut—permettant toutefois de reconnaître l’axe de la limite S de l’édifice—et d’un tronçon de mur plus au N, délimitant apparemment deux espaces très étroits 58271 et 58275 (Fig. 3). Quant au centre du bâtiment, il semble constitué d’un cœur massif de briques où le fouilleur a cependant identifié plusieurs murs accolés et non une masse unique structurellement liée (Fig. 3). Bien que les fouilleurs successifs aient hésité en 1999 et en 2000 à individualiser ces murs accolés, un nettoyage attentif au début de la campagne de 2003 a permis de trancher la question. Quatre murs de briques crues, d’orientation SO–NE et d’épaisseurs variables, sont accolés, successivement dénommés, de l’O vers l’E, 58270, 58273, 32586 et 32585, auxquels il faut ajouter, augmentant cette masse de briques, le retour 58269 vers l’O du mur 32586 (Fig. 4a). Les murs 58270 et 32585 marquent, pour le premier, la limite E de la très petite pièce 58260, pour le second, la limite O des pièces de stockage 32971b et 32977. En revanche, les murs 58273 et 32586-32594 sont plus ardus à interpréter. Si le mur 32586-32594 pourrait correspondre au retour vers le S du mur 58269, le mur 58273 pose des problèmes quant à son interprétation. Il semble, à première vue, s’agir d’un mur isolé, enserré entre deux autres murs (58270 et 32586) (Fig. 4a). La petite pièce 58260 est donc entourée d’une maçonnerie qui peut sembler exagérément massive et compacte. C’est en tout cas l’impression donnée par les plans réalisés au terme des campagnes de 1999 et de 2000 (Figs 2–3). Il faut également mentionner le fait qu’à proximité immédiate de la limite N du secteur (dans l’angle SO du carré 100.053) et dans l’angle NO du carré 100.054 (Figs 3–4), Main Street est ponctuée par deux petits escaliers composés de dalles cuites sur plusieurs degrés permettant de compenser la différence de niveau entre l’équivalent de cet axe à hauteur du bâtiment qui fait l’objet de la présente étude (passage longeant l’édifice ou corridor traversant ce bâtiment) et la section supérieure de la grand-rue menant vers le N à l’entrée du Palais de l’Acropole. L’escalier de briques cuites le plus septentrional est installé à la hauteur d’une bifurcation très importante du drainage principal de la cité dont le point de départ est la cour du Palais de l’Acropole et qui traverse la moitié S de la ville haute pour aboutir à l’un des talwegs SO du site. Cette bifurcation du drainage se fait à angle droit : la canalisation 6059 provenant du N, dans un axe N–S, tourne à 90° vers l’O et passe, dans une nouvelle orientation SE–NO sous la rue étroite séparant le Temple A d’un ensemble de magasins qui lui sont très probablement associés. 2. Observations de la campagne de 2003 C’est donc lors du nettoyage et du réexamen du secteur préalable aux premiers travaux de restauration architecturale au printemps 2003 que certaines observations supplémentaires ont pu être réalisées et que le chantier a fait l’objet d’une première interprétation fonctionnelle. J’ai déjà mentionné plus haut l’identification des divers murs accolés présents dans le centre du carré et la distinction qu’il © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

490

M. Lebeau

y avait lieu d’établir entre ces murs. Ensuite, l’existence de quatre espaces déjà identifiés par la fouille a été confirmée : les pièces 32971a, 32971b et 32977 constituent en effet une succession de pièces de stockage, bordées à l’E par un mur de briques crues massif d’une largeur de 1,20 m (Figs 3–4), une épaisseur supérieure à celle des autres murs du bâtiment, peut-être justifiée par le fait que le sol de ce bâtiment est établi à une altimétrie bien supérieure à celle de l’espace à l’E de celui-ci. Il s’agit donc d’un mur porteur vraisemblablement fondé par un mur de terrasse. Son épaisseur de 1,20 m est comparable à celle des murs du Palais de l’Acropole, supérieure à celle (1 m) des Temples A, B, C et D. La petite pièce 58260, délimitée par les murs 58261, 58269, 58270 et 58263, est accessible à partir de l’O (passage ou corridor) par une porte percée dans l’épaisseur du mur 58261. Le tronçon de mur 58257 est le fragment préservé d’un mur O–E séparant deux espaces distincts, les pièces 58275 et 58271. En revanche, il n’est pas percé d’une porte comme le laisse supposer le plan réalisé au terme de la campagne 2000 (Fig. 3). Cette interruption du tracé correspond en réalité à une petite fosse impossible à dater en l’absence de matériel. Une grande dalle en pierre marque le seuil de la porte S de l’édifice, confirmant donc à la fois l’accès et sa largeur supposée. De même, le petit escalier de briques cuites le plus méridional permet de rendre très crédible la restitution d’un accès N au passage/corridor 58278 et nous permet d’évaluer sa largeur (Fig. 4a). Le mur limitant ce passage à l’O semble correspondre à celui qui délimite à l’E les magasins associés au Temple A. Il n’y a donc pas de double mur entre le bâtiment constituant l’objet de cette étude et l’édifice abritant des magasins, reconnu uniquement sous la forme de fondations. Ceci mérite d’être souligné car la présence d’un mur mitoyen entre deux bâtiments est très rare à Tell Beydar (Fig. 4a). De même, il est assez logique de considérer que la pièce de stockage 32977 était limitée au S par un mur assurant également la fonction de limite N du Temple D. Cette pièce aurait de la sorte une longueur comparable à celle de la pièce 32971b avec laquelle elle communique vers le N (Fig. 4a). Poursuivant la même logique, il n’est pas impossible de considérer que la pièce la plus méridionale de l’édifice (58271) ait été limitée à l’E par un mur qui forme également une partie de l’angle NO du Temple D (Fig. 4a). Il est à noter enfin que le mur N 32572 ne semble pas se poursuivre vers l’O et que l’angle NO du carré virtuel formé par la construction est absent, les limites du bâtiment apparaissant en retrait, formant une sorte de baïonnette. Ceci peut s’expliquer par la présence du drainage principal 6059 qu’on voit mal passer sous l’angle d’un édifice important, ce qui constituerait une source certaine d’humidité et donc de danger pour la structure de l’édifice. Le secteur en question est donc très vraisemblablement occupé par un bâtiment unique, de forme carrée, de 11 m de côtés, dont les angles NO et SE sont en baïonnette du fait respectivement de la voirie et de la présence d’un bâtiment antérieur, le Temple D. Ce bâtiment carré est implanté à un point stratégique © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

491

(l’accès à la terrasse haute de l’Acropole) et est inséré entre d’autres édifices en s’appuyant partiellement sur eux. 3. Tentative de restitution Les ailes O et S sont les plus endommagées. On a vu qu’on peut quelque peu hésiter sur la disposition du passage assurant la continuité de Main Street (espace 58278) (Fig. 4a). La présence des silos d’époque hellénis­tique nous empêche d’en avoir un plan assuré. Pour ma part, en raison de questions liées à la structure de l’édifice, je suis convaincu que cette liaison entre les deux sections de la grandrue est intégrée au bâtiment et donc le traverse. Une grande fosse nous prive de l’éventuelle limite S du corridor de l’espace 58278, une limite matérialisée par un mur hypothétique percé d’une porte (Fig. 4a). La présence de ce mur n’est cependant pas assurée et l’espace 58278 a pu constituer avec la pièce 58271 un grand espace en L. Toutefois, je préfère la première hypothèse (deux espaces séparés) en raison de la fonction possible de la pièce 58271, à savoir un point de contrôle (un checkpoint) assurant le filtrage des personnes habilitées à accéder à la terrasse supérieure de l’Acropole, un point de contrôle comparable à celui établi en contrebas sur Main Street (la « Porte de l’Acropole ») immédiatement au N du Parvis Sud, cette grande cour cérémonielle proche de la Porte Sud de la Ville Haute1. La petite pièce 58260, dont la porte se situe à hauteur de la moitié du mur O de l’espace 58278 (à supposer que cet espace soit limité au S par un mur, en grisé sur notre plan et marqué d’un point d’interrogation) ne peut abriter qu’un nombre restreint de personnes pour une tâche spécifique et pourrait être assimilée à une guérite de sentinelle dans ce même souci d’assurer la sécurité de la terrasse haute (Fig. 4a). Les ailes N et E ne posent aucun problème. Les pièces qui les constituent (32971a, 32971b et 32977) sont, nous l’avons vu, des pièces de stockage où des activités de mouture pouvaient être accomplies (Fig. 4a). C’est incontestablement le cœur du bâtiment, constitué de plusieurs murs accolés, qui nous permet de mieux comprendre sa fonction. Cette concentration de murs dans un espace carré ou sub-carré restreint a vraisemblablement un rôle essentiel pour la structure et la stabilité de l’ensemble (Fig. 4a). Des masses de briques comparables ont déjà été constatées dans l’architecture du Proche-Orient ancien dans le cas d’escaliers ou, plus précisément, de cages d’escaliers. Il me paraît très possible qu’il s’agisse là non seulement de murs délimitant des volées de marches mais également d’alignements de briques supportant ces mêmes volées. C’est ainsi que le mur 58273, qui paraissait incongru, prend tout son sens en étant identifié, combiné au mur 58270 qui lui est accolé, comme un support de volée de

D’autres points de contrôle existent à Tell Beydar, tels les deux postes de garde qui sont établis de part et d’autre de la rue qui sépare les Temples B et C de l’ensemble d’ateliers situé plus au S (voir Lebeau 2006, 119).

1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

492

M. Lebeau

marches. Je considère donc comme vraisemblable l’hypothèse d’un escalier, en l’occurrence d’une cage de quatre volées se développant tout autour d’un massif central composé de l’ensemble compact de briques 58270+58273 (Fig. 4b). La pièce très étroite 58275, accessible à partir de l’espace 58278 à l’O, prendrait ainsi tout son sens, celui d’un espace abritant la première volée de marches, dont l’accès serait contrôlé par la guérite 58260 toute proche (Fig. 4a). Le rapport de la campagne de 2000 ne fait pas mention de marches mais l’examen du plan schématique (Fig. 3) permet de se rendre compte que, en raison des intrusions créées par les silos hellénistiques, cette reconnaissance de gradins aurait été très malaisée. Quand on examine la longueur de la pièce et la hauteur moyenne des degrés dans les bâtiments officiels de Tell Beydar (par exemple au Temple B et dans le Palais de l’Acropole), à savoir 15 cm environ (deux briques de haut avec un effet de tassement), on peut reconstituer huit emmarchements dans l’espace 58275, soit une hauteur de 1,20 m, compte tenu qu’un palier est nécessaire pour accéder, dans une orientation S–N, à la deuxième volée (Fig. 4b). Celle-ci, circonscrite par les murs 58273 et 32585, est plus longue et a pu, toujours selon les mêmes paramètres, compter dix emmarchements, soit une hauteur d’environ 1,50 m. La troisième volée, d’orientation E–O, supportée par le mur 58269 et circonscrite au N par le mur 32968, est de mêmes dimensions que la première, mais il faut tenir compte d’un palier supplémentaire. Il se peut qu’elle ait permis d’installer six emmarchements, soit une hauteur d’environ 0,90 m. Quant à la quatrième volée, de même longueur que la deuxième, elle était d’orientation N–S, circonscrite à l’O par le mur 58261, et pouvait développer 10 emmarchements, soit une hauteur d’environ 1,50 m. Ces dimensions sont bien sûr hypothétiques et le nombre de degrés dépend également de la nature des paliers d’angle (carrés et plats, ou arrondis et permettant une progression continue). Quoi qu’il en soit, le total estimé des hauteurs des différentes volées pour accéder au premier étage est d’environ 5,10 m, soit très précisément (à 10 cm près) la hauteur estimée des rez-de-chaussée des bâtiments officiels de l’antique Nabada (Palais de l’Acropole, Palais Oriental, Temples A, B, C, D et E). Il s’agit donc d’une tour de garde, d’un bâtiment essentiel destiné à contrôler non seulement la grand-rue de la cité, l’accès à la section supérieure de cette voie, mais également l’accès au Temple A, d’un édifice militaire intégrant des pièces destinées à abriter des réserves alimentaires, assurant le filtrage de la circulation vers la terrasse haute et vers l’entrée du Palais de l’Acropole, une sorte de donjon permettant vraisemblablement en outre de contrôler les toits des bâtiments environnants et de permettre l’observation de la cité en général et de ses abords. Combien d’étages cette tour pouvait-elle compter ? Il est évidemment très difficile de répondre à cette question. Ce schéma de quatre volées groupées autour d’un noyau central massif de briques crues peut évidemment se répéter à l’envi. Il me semble plausible d’estimer au moins trois niveaux. Le toit pouvait être muni d’un parapet et devait constituer le point d’observation idéal pour les contrôles à moyenne et grande portées. Ces trois niveaux au moins avaient une hauteur comparable et l’édifice a pu ainsi compter une hauteur totale de 15 m. Cette hauteur © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

493

minimale seule permet de répondre aux objectifs de contrôle à grande distance. Sa structure générale est ingénieuse. Malgré ses angles NO et SE tronqués, cette tour de garde devait apparaître comme une construction massive de plan carré, dominant de sa masse imposante Main Street à la moitié à peu près de son parcours rectiligne. Vraisemblablement percée de fenêtres étroites sur ses quatre côtés, elle devait être bien visible de l’extérieur, à bonne distance du site. Son plan est donc presque carré, même s’il est difficile de reconnaître les liaisons de murs, problème auquel ont été constamment confrontés les fouilleurs successifs tant en 1999 qu’en 2000 : un grand carré global de 11 m environ de côtés, composé de deux carrés plus petits, imbriqués en diagonale, avec un centre massif composé d’une proportion de masse de briques et murs porteurs trois fois supérieure au volume des espaces utiles au rez-de-chaussée et deux fois supérieure aux étages. S’appuyant sur trois bâtiments différents, elle devait avoir une grande stabilité et était traversée par une sorte de large corridor voûté (58278), permettant la liaison entre le parcours supérieur et le parcours inférieur de la grand-rue (Fig. 8). Aux étages, les pièces périphériques—pièces de stockage, dépôts de matériel (arsenal ?), corps de garde, postes de défense et de combat—peuvent s’être présentées d’une manière similaire à celle des pièces allongées et communicantes du rez-dechaussée (32971a, 32971b et 32977). 4. Matériel en place Nous l’avons vu plus haut, les sols 32958 (pièces 32971a et 32971b) et 32960 (pièce 32977) ont livré un abondant matériel céramique en place sur leur sols de même qu’un ensemble de molettes, broyon, pilons et mortier en basalte de grain varié, ainsi qu’un couvercle de jarre en argile (Fig. 12f), objets de mouture disposés sur de petites installations basses, sortes de tables de travail (Fig. 12a). La céramique se distingue par une proportion relativement élevée de jarres et de grandes jarres (Figs 13–17). Au total, cet inventaire comprend 1 passoire, 2 coupelles, 12 bols, 1 flacon, 10 bouteilles, 4 jarres, 11 grandes jarres, 1 jarre à pied haut, 2 couvercles, 1 support, soit 45 exemplaires complets sur une surface relativement réduite, à peu de distance d’installations supportant des molettes2. Tous les exemplaire sont en céramique commune, hormis la jarre à piédestal en céramique métallique (Fig. 14:6) et une bouteille en céramique grise (Fig. 16:7). Les natures de pâtes et la morphologie de ces pièces sont typiques du niveau

2

Cet assemblage a été jugé suffisamment représentatif de l’époque et du lieu pour être considéré comme l’un des inventaires de la banque de données du Projet ARCANE (‘Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean’), s. v. JZ002_I009. La description précise de ces céramiques, leurs dessins et leurs photos, le calcul de la contenance de ces vaisselles y sont disponibles en téléchargeant la banque de données à partir du site web du Programme, hébergé par l’Université de Tübingen. Le matériel de mouture y est également présenté en détail. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

494

M. Lebeau

Beydar IIIb (EJ IIIb), plus particulièrement de sa phase 3 à Tell Beydar (dont la céramique est caractérisée par une rapidité d’exécution et une qualité imparfaite de la finition), soit une époque contemporaine de la phase 3 a/b du Palais de l’Acropole. On peut donc la dater assez précisément de l’intervalle 2415–2375 avant notre ère (cal. BC). 5. Restauration architecturale J’ai déjà évoqué plus haut l’intérêt des autorités de la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie pour la restauration architecturale et la mise en valeur touristique des sites archéologiques. La Mission de Tell Beydar a ainsi réalisé, entre 2003 et 2008, cinq campagnes de restauration architecturale ou de reconstruction à l’identique des bâtiments officiels de la cité de Nabada. La tour de garde a été reconstruite sur une hauteur d’environ 2,50 m (soit la moitié de la hauteur estimée du rez-de-chaussée), en utilisant les matériaux traditionnels de l’époque et des formats de briques crues similaires à ceux des constructeurs originaux (briques de 36/37 × 36/37 × 8 cm) (Fig. 11). Ces travaux de restauration/ reconstruction se sont révélés très instructifs quant à la compréhension de l’apparence originelle et parfois de la fonction de cette architecture de terre qui est une architecture verticale (dans le cas des bâtiments officiels) et non horizontale, comme les archéologues ont souvent l’habitude de la considérer. Les travaux de restauration ont également pour conséquence une meilleure compréhension de la circulation, de l’éclairage et de la ventilation des bâtiments. 6. Restitution 3D Un travail commun de visualition architecturale en trois dimensions des bâtiments de la phase Beydar IIIb, phase 3 a été conçu en 2008 et réalisé lors de la campagne de 2009. J’en ai assuré la guidance scientifique et Houssam ed-Din Hammoudeh, topographe de la Direction Générale des Antiquités et des Musées de Syrie, s’est chargé de la réalisation graphique. Quelques vues de la tour de garde sont reproduites plus loin (Figs 5–8). Il faut souligner que seul le rez-de chaussée du bâtiment est ainsi restitué virtuellement. 7. Conclusion Les incertitudes de cette fouille et les difficultés d’interprétation du secteur et du bâtiment le composant ont eu pour conséquence que ce chantier ne fut présenté ni dans le deuxième rapport préliminaire des fouilles de Tell Beydar (campagnes 1995–1999) [Subartu X],3 ni dans le troisième, consacré aux fouilles de 2000–

3

Lebeau / Suleiman (eds) 2003. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

495

2002 [Subartu XV]4. Il était donc temps de rendre compte de cette fouille, en dédiant cette étude à l’amie Frances rencontrée pour la première fois en Syrie il y a quelque quarante ans et dont personne n’ignore le rôle éminent dans l’avancement des connaissances sur l’archéologie et l’histoire de l’art de la Syrie de l’Age du Bronze. Les plans AutoCad présentés dans le présent article ont été réalisés par Houssam ed-Din Hammoudeh (DGAM) et Manuela Core (Milan), architectes de l’équipe. Les deux plans figurant à la figure 4 sont de l’auteur du présent article. Les dessins d’objets et de céramiques ont été réalisés par les dessinateurs de la mission en 1999 et 2000, Anja Fügert (Berlin) et Sabah Sbeinati (Madrid). J’ai également profité du travail de compilation réalisé par Marie-Eve Sténuit (Bruxelles) en vue de la présentation de ce bâtiment et de son matériel dans le cadre du Programme ARCANE. Les illustrations photographiques sont de Michel Debruyne (fouilles) et de Marie-Eve Sténuit (restauration / reconstruction). Bibliographie Lebeau, M., 2006 : Les temples de Tell Beydar et leur environnement immédiat à l’époque Early Jezirah IIIb. Dans P. Butterlin et al. (éds) : Les espaces syro-mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien (Subartu XVII). Turnhuot. Pp. 101–140. Lebeau, M. / Suleiman, A. (éds), 2003 : Tell Beydar, the 1995–1999 Seasons of Excavations. A Preliminary Report (Subartu X). Turnhout. –– (éds), 2007 : Tell Beydar. The 2000–2002 Seasons of Excavations, the 2003– 2004 Seasons of Architectural Restoration. A Preliminary Report (Subartu XV). Turnhout.

Lebeau / Suleiman (eds) 2007.

4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

496

M. Lebeau

Fig. 1. Tell Beydar, ville haute (3e millénaire) : tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), plan de situation.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

497

Fig. 2. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), campagne 1999, plan schématique.

Fig. 3. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), campagne 2000, plan schématique. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

498

M. Lebeau

Fig. 4. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), rez-de-chaussée (a) et progression des volées de marches au 1er étage (b). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

499

Fig. 5. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), proposition de reconstitution, vue zénithale.

Fig. 6. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), proposition de reconstitution, vue zénithale. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

500

M. Lebeau

Fig. 7. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), proposition de reconstitution, vue à partir de l’E.

Fig. 8. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), proposition de reconstitution, passage de Main Street à travers la tour. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

501

Fig. 9. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), vue générale du secteur, à partir du S.

Fig. 10. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), pièces de stockage, vue à partir de l’O.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

502

M. Lebeau

Fig. 11. Tour de garde (chantier F, carré 100.054), reconstitution architecturale, vue à partir du NO.

Fig. 12. a–e : Sol 32958 (Pièce 32971b) : matériel de mouture ; f: Sol 32960 (Pièce 32977) : couvercle en argile. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

503

Fig. 13. Sol 32958 (Pièces 32971a et 32971b), céramiques d’époque EJ IIIb : coupelles, passoire, bols et bouteilles (céramique commune). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

504

M. Lebeau

Fig. 14. Sol 32958 (Pièces 32971a et 32971b), céramiques d’époque EJ IIIb : grandes bouteilles et jarres (1–5 : céramique commune, 6 : céramique métallique). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

505

Fig. 15. Sol 32958 (Pièces 32971a et 32971b), céramiques d’époque EJ IIIb : support, couvercles et grandes jarres (céramique commune). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

506

M. Lebeau

Fig. 16. Sol 32960 (Pièce 32977), céramiques d’époque EJ IIIb : bols, flacon, bouteille et jarres (1–6, 8–9 : céramique commune, 7 : céramique grise). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar

507

Fig. 17. Sol 32960 (Pièce 32977), céramiques d’époque EJ IIIb : grandes jarres (céramique commune). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan in the Museo Nazionale d’Arte Orientale ‘G. Tucci’ Giovanna Lombardo

MNAO, inv. 17670/26806 Object: circular stamp seal Material: copper Technique: fusion, “lost wax” technique Size: diam. cm 13.5 Provenience: Northern Afghanistan Cultural environment: Oxus civilization or Bactria-Margiana archaeological Complex (BMAC) Dating: last centuries of the 3rd – first half of the 2nd millennium BC MNAO, inv. 17671/26807 Object: drop shaped stamp seal Material: copper Technique: fusion, with an open mould probably resulting by imprint of a similar seal on sand or clay (see further, p. 8 ) Size: max. diam. cm 13.8; ax. thickn. cm 1.4; loop cm 1.3 × 0.7 Provenience: Northern Afghanistan Cultural environment: Oxus civilization or Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) Dating: Last centuries of the 3rd – first half of the 2nd millennium BC

Description: large compartment seals with suspension loop on the rear side (Figs 1–5). The decoration consists in the image of the “master of the animals” standing on a schematic representation of a stepped building surmounted by a frame, perhaps a roof (?), between two felines, seated on their haunches. The god’s head is turned to his right side and shows a protuberance, perhaps a headdress; a bulge at the knees in inv. 17671 (Fig. 4) could represent a kind of knee pants, in inv. 17670 (Fig. 1) instead, this bulge could indicate knee high boots. In the background, at the sides of the god, four ibex or goat heads, two at his head, two, reversed, at his feet, other filling motives in the field, near the edge of the impression surface. These two large seals belong to a particular type of metallic stamp seals, the © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

510

G. Lombardo

so called compartment seals, in which the images in the field are lined by relief contours or profiled with metal or yet, ajourées. The compartment seals are distributed, between the 3rd and the first half of the 2nd millennium, in a vast area from north-eastern Iran, central Asia, the Indus valley, up to China.1 In central Asia they characterized the glyptic of the Oxus civilization, also known as the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC).2 Their size (diam. cm 13.5/13.8), larger than that the ordinary compartment seals, let us hypothesize that our specimen may not have been ordinary stamp seals but may have had at least a ceremonial use or have been used to seal the lock of the doors of sacred or administrative buildings (see further). The decoration of the two seals reproduces the ancient iconographic motive of the “master of animals,” documented since the 4th millennium BC on the Iranian stamp seals of Tepe Giyan Vc and Luristan (3900–3200 BC),3 of Susa B (3500–3200 BC),4 and later, on the Mesopotamian cylinder seals and seals impressions of Jemdet Nasr and Susa C, in the form of the lion tamer hero or of the protector of herbivores, caprids or bulls.5 In the Luristan stamp seals the god is represented as an anthropomorphic demon with ibex head and body covered by ibex fur or by the scales of a snake, in the earliest representations of this demon he wears boots with pointing up tips, in some cases made of ibex fur or snake skin; a snake is coiled around his waist,6 he is often represented between two animals that are from time to time felines, caprids or bulls, snakes or, like in some specimen from two fishes.7 The iconography of the ibex demon is also documented in the glyptic of Tepe Gawra, in Upper Mesopotamia.8 In our two seals we can observe a male deity which in inv. 17671 (Fig. 4) seems to wear knee pants: two projections at the knees could be the hem of the pants but this element is not documented in the iconography of the “master of the animals,” in Inv. 17670 (Fig. 1) the same projections at the knee are more similar to the profile of the boots that often characterize the image of this god. This

For a complete examination of the compartment seals see Baghestani 1997. The names “Bactria” and “Margiana,” indicating the satrapies of the Achaemenian Empire more than a millennium later, are here conventionally used referring to the area of south-eastern Turkmenistan, southern Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and north-western Afghanistan. 3 Herzfeld 1933, 87, fig. 14, EH TG 2352,101, fig. 24, EH TG 2331, EH TG 2335, 102, fig. 25, EH TG 2375 recto, EH TG 2506 verso, EH TG 2373 verso; Barnett 1966, pls XX,1, XXII–XXIII; Amiet 1979, 334, figs 4, 6, 336, figs 7–10. 4 Amiet 1972, pl. 2:219–223. 5 Amiet 1961, pl. 98:1281, 1291–1295; 1972, pl. 13:594–598; 1979, 348, fig. 20. 6 Herzfeld 1933, 101, fig. 24, EH TG 2331, 102, fig. 25, EH TG 2505 verso; Barnett 1966, pl. XXII:1, 2, 7; Amiet 1979, 336, 7, 9. 7 Amiet 1972, pl. 2:219. 8 Tobler 1950, pls CLXII: 77, 78, CLXIII: 81, 90, CLXIV:94, 95, 96, 101. 1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

511

second hypothesis could be more plausible, as in the stamp seals from Luristan, Susa and Mesopotamia the “master of the animal” is represented naked except, in some cases, for the toed boots, curved side up, which are a distinctive element of the iconography of the “ibex god” or “master of the animals.”9 Another iconographic element characterizing the figure of the god on our seals is the headdress, which ends with a vertical tipped appendix. In the archaic iconography of some of the early seals of Tepe Giyan and Luristan and of Tepe Gawra this god or demon protector and guardian of the animal world is often represented with anthropomorphic body and ibex or goat head.10 On other seals the “master of the animal” is a completely anthropomorphic figure wearing a horned headdress or an ibex masque.11 In still other cases the god has no ibex or goat’s head or masque but is represented as an entirely anthropomorphic figure, with an elongated, dolichocephalic skull.12 The headdress wore by the god on our two seals and the stylization of the faces could indicate a masque similar to those of the “master of the animals” represented on the seal impressions from Susa A/B (see n. 12). with the difference that on our seals the god’s masque has no long and curved horns, the tipped appendix could perhaps be a reminiscence of the ancient headdress appearing on some impressions from Susa, where the “master of the animals” is represented as an anthropomorphic figure wearing a long gown, a snake around his waist in two of them, and a voluminous globular crown, ending with a tip.13 In one impression, in particular, the crown of the god and of his priest or assistant, standing behind him, are less voluminous and end with a spike.14 The figure of the god on the two seals seems to be partly related, from an iconographic point of view, to the stamp seals from Susa. The “master of the animals” on the more comparable Bactrian seals has nevertheless slightly different iconographic characters.15 Finally, on other compartment seals from Bactria with the same theme, the “master of the animals,” which can alternatively be a god or a goddess, has different iconographic characteristics: he (or she) is dressed with a long gown16 and in several cases is winged.17 Amiet 1979, 342, fig. 15, 343, figs 16–17; Barnett 1966, pl. XX: fig. 1, pl. XXII: 1,3; Herzfeld 1933, fig. 25, EH 2375, recto. 10 Tobler 1950, pls CLXIII:81, 90, CLXIV:94–96; Amiet 1979, 334, fig. 6, 336, figs 7, verso, 9, verso, 10, 338, fig. 14; Barnett 1966, pl. XXII:1, 4–6, 8. 11 Amiet 1972, pl. 2:219, 220; Amiet 1961, pl. 6:119A; Barnett 1966, pl. XX. 12 Tobler 1950, pls CLXII:76–78, CLXIII:83, 90, CLXIV:101–102; Amiet 1979, 336, 7 verso; Barnett 1966, fig. 1, 5 from Herzfeld 1933, fig. 14 and pl. 1. 13 Amiet 1972, pl. 2:228–231, in the impressions 229–230 the god wears a snake around his waist. 14 Amiet 1972, pl. 2:230. 15 Baghestani 1997, 286–287, 390, 390 A, 296, fig. 82, 1, 297, 296–297, fig. 83, 407. 16 Baghestani 1997, 292, fig. 80, 399, 399A. 17 Baghestani 1997, 292, fig. 80. 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

512

G. Lombardo

With regard to the other elements in the field of the seal, the two felines are symmetrically represented crouching at the sides of the god and the same can be said about the goat’s or ibex’s heads over his shoulders and at his feet. The decoration of the two seals reproduces the classical scheme of the protohistoric stamp seals with the “master of the animals” from Luristan and Susa: the god or demon in central position flanked by two animals and the group is surrounded by symmetrically disposed filling motives.18 An element of differentiation is the imagine of the god standing on the schematic representation of a stepped sacred building, which never appears in the seals with the “master of the animals” from Luristan, Upper Mesopotamia or from Susa. With regard to the stepped temple on which the god is standing, it could remind the great platforms discovered in Eastern Iran and Central Asia:19 a representation of a stepped building appears on a steatite plaque found at Tepe Yahya,20 nonetheless the representation of the building, formed by a roof covering a stepped or undulated motive, is not frequent neither on the seals from Bactria and the BMAC, nor on those from the Iranian Plateau or from Pakistan. The iconography of our seals does not find precise comparisons in that of the glyptic and, generally, of the Bactrian art, instead more than one iconographic element, beyond the decorative scheme usually characterizing the “master of the animals,” goes back, as we have seen, to the Iranian iconography of this deity. The art of the Oxus civilization gathers numerous elements from the Mesopotamian, Elamite and Iranian figurative heritage but its products are never identical to their prototypes, because it has been able to absorb different iconographic elements from various cultures, blending them with its own figurative heritage, creating original motives and representations in which the primary elements belonging to the Elamite, Iranian and Mesopotamian art are not always recognizable. Although there are no precise comparisons for their representation of the “master of the animals,” we can all the same ascribe our two seals to the Oxus civilization or, more generally to the BMAC, because, all in all, the style of their decoration remains within the Bactria-Margiana tradition and, besides, for the technique used in the seal working, which belongs to the wide horizon ranging from eastern Iran and Central Asia between the last centuries of the 3rd and the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. The technological elements and the composition of the seals have been studied by M. Vidale of the University of Padua and by the colleagues of the Italian “Isti-

Herzfeld 1933, 102, fig. 25, T.G. 2506, on the right (verso); Barnett 1966, pl. XXII:n. 5, n. 8. 19 Deshayes 1977; for step decoration in architecture, see Dumarçay 1984, figs 7–8, Mundigak. 20 Lamberg-Karlovsky / Potts, 2001, 223, fig. 9.10. For stepped motives in glyptic see Baghestani 1997, 282, 376 from Shahr-i Sokhta II (2750–2500 BC), 377 from Hona Qal’at, surface find. 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

513

tuto Superiore per il Restauro e la Conservazione (ISCR), (Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo – MiBACT). An Archaeometallurgical Note on Stamp Seals inv. 17670 and 17671 Giuseppe Guida, Stefano Ferrari, Vilma Basilissi, Edoardo Loliva, Massimo Vidale 1. Introduction We present the results of a short archaeometallurgical study of the two exceptional large bronze seals presented in the previous article. The two seals look very much the same, because they have exactly the same pattern. However, they are also technically different. So far, copper bronze-seals of proto-historic Middle Asia have been rarely analyzed in terms of alloys and manufacturing technology. What we presently know is that similar compartmented stamp seals – although much smaller - were cast at the bronze smithy dug by V. Sarianidi at Gonur North,21 dating to the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, in small individual clay moulds enveloping a complete wax model of the stamp (Figs 6 and 7). Also, chemical analyses of a few copper/bronze compartmented seals from Altyn-Depe (presumably of the same general age, the late Namazga V period) had suggested that significant percentages of lead were added to copper,22 in order to make easier and more efficient the flow of molten metal, given the intricacy of the seals’ patterns. How do these two unique, impressive stamp seals, with their similarity but also their difference, fit in the general picture? 2. Chemical Analysis In order to define the alloy of the seals, both objects were simply inserted in an ESEM (Environmental Electron Scanning Microscope) at the laboratory of Chemistry and non-Destructive Testing of ISCR (Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione e il Restauro), Rome. The artifacts were analyzed with a EDS probe with a INCA Ortec. Program; operative conditions were 20 Kv, current probe 300 pA. The images were generated by backscattered electrons. Analytical values are semi-quantitative and for the moment being, and because of the minimally invasive methods of observation here adopted, have indicative value. Both seals, although in fair and quite similar conditions of conservation, were covered by a substantial film of cuprite and malachite, that cemented on surface abundant sedimentary fractions (grains of quartz and other silicates and carbonates). Therefore, in order to test the metal underneath, we located and exploited pre-existing impact areas of the seals were the surface corrosion layers had 21 22

Dubova 2008; Salvatori 2010. Salvatori et al. 2002. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

514

G. Lombardo

chipped off, exposing millimetric patches of unaltered metal. No sampling was required, and the objects, thus, were left absolutely intact. Seal 17670, analyzed in the described way with the EDS probe, revealed on the compartmented face a copper-arsenic composition (Fig. 8), with limited traces of lead. In this and in the other analytical tables, the rest of the elements (including iron, aluminum, chlorine, sulphur and calcium) come, obviously enough, from soil. Arsenic, at any rate, is present in this seal in rather significant amounts. The compartmented side of Seal 17671, in turn, seems to have been made with pure copper (Fig. 9); but when we separately tested the rear (because this second seal seems to have been with two individual superimposed parts, see below) this part showed exactly the same composition of Seal 17670—copper with arsenic and limited inclusions of lead (Fig. 10). In this second specimen, we tested also the plug, where we found exclusively copper and arsenic. In conclusion, the two seals were made with an arsenical copper to which were added minor amounts of lead. The amounts of arsenic and lead showed secondary variations among the two seals and among the three parts (plug, rear, compartmented surface) of the second seal. Although given the semi-quantitative nature of the study we cannot speculate on the nature of the alloys, there is growing evidence that arsenic—a recurrent, distinguishing feature of copper alloys in Middle Asia and the eastern Iranian Plateau during the 3rd millennium BC—was an intentional addition, and not due to “natural alloys” as a random contamination from the exploitation of mixed copper-arsenic sulphides such as tenantite, enargite and others.23 In the Namazga V copper workshop sampled on the surface of Altyn Depe, both crucible and kiln lining fragments document selective casting events of tin-alloyed and arsenic-alloyed objects.24 3. Manufacturing Technology The two seals were cleaned at ISCR with soft rotating brushes, and carefully observed at a binocular microscope paying attention to their minimal formal and archaeometallurgical details. The most important information is that although the subject is precisely the same, the two seals were made with quite different casting techniques. Seal 17670 was evidently cast with a direct lost wax process, like the smaller specimens still assembled within their moulds found in the Gonur workshop were. In other words, a solid, single model of the seal, with its complete compartmented pattern was made in wax, and covered with its refractory clay envelope.

General discussion in Pigott 1999, Roberts / Thornton / Pigott 2009 and Thornton 2009 and 2010; for an early intentional use of arsenic in copper beads and pendants of different colours, Meliksetian et al. 2011. 24 Masioli et al. 2006. 23

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

515

Then, the mould was heated, the wax extracted, the vents closed with clay and the copper-arsenic-lead alloy poured from the crucible. The indicators of this technique are manifold and coherent, and can be listed as follows: • the compartments have slightly variable heights, and irregular sections with blunt corners. Probably these features came from manipulated wax strips (2 to 4 mm), and not from copper bars cut or sawn from a plate, that would have had more sharp corners and a constant thickness, soldered by overcasting onto the background; • the limited size of the compartments and their orthogonal setting to the background (for 17670) also suggest a wax-to-wax modeling and joining process, excluding a joining of separate elements by the means of overcasting; • finally, the plug on rear, a copper strip bent to a 90° corner, might have been cast directly after a wax piece carefully shaped on the rear. Seal 17671 is quite different: • its compartmented pattern is blunt and very irregular, details are hardly comparable (see Figs 10 and 11); • the depth of the compartments is highly variable: depths are comparable to those of the same features in 17670 only where the departments themselves are wider, like in the centre of the seal’s patterns; • the depths of the smaller peripheral compartments seems always limited, like the copper alloy, in casting, would have haphazardly occupied volumes that originally had been meant as empty; • in contrast with the previous specimen, the casting is rich of bubbles and pores, abundant even on the surface of the compartmented face; • the seal, if struck with a finger, has a completely different sound. While 17670 is entirely solid, 17671 seems to have been made with two round plates, mechanically joined one onto the other, leaving a space in between. The join between the two parts is actually well visible along the edge of the seal; • eventually, this is supported by the different alloy composition of the compartmented face and the rear (pure copper vs. arsenical copper). In conclusion, the evidence suggests that 17670 was made out of a complete, solid wax model, casting it in a single pouring into a mould similar to that visible in Fig. 7 (with its compartments, round background and plug). The differences and evident defects of 17671 (compare the details of Figs 11 and 12) might be ascribed to a miscasting or, more likely, to the fact that the first seal (or another having exactly the same pattern) was expediently impressed on sand or clay and the resulting imprint was used as an open mould. The resulting irregular plate would have been necessarily mended applying a second plate on rear (hence its double structure of 17671). Moreover, gases and moisture trapped on the stamped material (sand or clay) would convincingly explain the highly porous structure of the compartmented functional face of the second specimen.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

516

G. Lombardo

4. Discussion Beyond ancient technology, the main reason of interest of what proposed above is that the production of such large bronze seals (possibly used to secure the large doors of an important building, or a large enclosure) might have been serial. From Middle and Central Asia to Baluchistan, compartmented copper/bronze stamp seals appeared one or two centuries before 2500 BC, a crucial period in the evolution of local proto-state structures, when imposing terraced constructions such as the stepped buildings of Tureng Tepe25 and Mundigak26 were erected, or the citadel-like urban partitions and platforms of Nausharo27 and other sites had already taken form. All these monumental constructions, secular or sacred, materialized at the time in new dramatic forms the supremacy and the ideologies of the elites. Little attention, so far, was paid to the fact that these seals, too, had a potentially revolutionary impact, breaking a tradition of stamp seals made of pottery and hard stones that went back in time to the late 6th millennium BC. Copper/bronze seals could be larger and more intricate (particularly in the openwork versions) of clay and stone seals. While clay remained a poor material, copper/bronze specimens were prestigious like and perhaps more than seals carved in stone. These latter were made available through inherited trade networks and their making depended upon the presence of skilled stone cutters in sedentary communities; production was materially demanding in terms of procurement of base materials, as well as of narrowly specialized tool kits and skills. Copper/bronze seals, in contrast, could be cast everywhere by bronze smiths with an average level of skill, aside other metallic goods, and, if needed, could be rather easily duplicated by impressions and open mould castings. In other words, copper/bronze stamp seals might reflect more dynamic systems of production and distribution, not compatible with the traditional constraints of semiprecious stone cutting. What need could there be for serially reproduced seals? A first possibility is that families of traders active along expanding networks of exchanges, and resident in different stations, might have had the need of replicating the same seals, as tokens of authorization and recognition of their agencies. Perhaps it is not a case that at the time (the second half of the 3rd millennium BC) openwork copper/ bronze stamp seals rapidly diffused in similar forms from Middle Asia to mainland China, witnessing, as suggested 30 years ago by R. Biscione28 the opening of the first threads of a Bronze-age “Silk Road.” Another possible explanation might lie in the bowels of bureaucracy—more people enabled to perform the same functions, in administrative systems of grow-

Deshayes 1975. Casal 1961; Dumarçay 1984. 27 Jarrige 1987–1988. 28 Biscione 1985. 25 26

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

517

ing complexity, might need to own and use independently the same seal. Given the size of the two seals, this second hypothetical explanation, in the present case, might appear more fitting. Bibliography Amiet, P., 1961: La glyptique Mesopotamienne archaïque. Paris. — 1972: Glyptique susienne des origines à l’époque des Perses achéménides. Paris. — 1979: Iconographie archaïque de l’Iran. Quelques documents nouveaux. Syria 54/3–4: 333–352. Baghestani, S., 1997: Metallene Compartimentsiegel aus Ost-Iran, Zentralasien und Nord-China. (Archäologie in Iran und Turan 1). Rahden /Westfalen. Barnett, R.D., 1966: Homme masqué ou dieu-ibex?. Syria 43/3–4: 259–276. Biscione, R., 1985: The So-called ‘Nestorian Seals:’ Connection between Ordos and Middle Asia in Middle-Late Bronze Age. In G. Gnoli / L. Lanciotti (eds): Orientalia Iosephi Tucci Memoriae Dicata. Rome. Pp. 95–109. Casal, J-M., 1961: Fouilles de Mundigak. Paris. Deshayes, J., 1975: Les fouilles récentes de Tureng Tépé : la terrasse haute de la fin du IIIème millénaire. CRAIBL: 522–530. —1977: À propos des terrasses hautes de la fin du IIIème millénaire en Iran et en Asie central. In J. Deshayes (ed.), Le plateau iranien des origines à la conquête islamique, Paris 22–24 Mars 1976. Paris. Pp. 95–111. Dubova, N.A., 2008: Masterskaya po proizvodstvu splavov na osnove medi Severnogo Gonura (zapadnaya chast’ raskopa 9). In V.I. Sarianidi et al. (eds): Transactions of Margiana Archaeological Expedition. Moscow. Pp. 94–104. Dumarçay, J., 1984: L’architecture de Mundigak. Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient 73: 47–66. Herzfeld, E., 1933: Aufsätze zur altorientalischen Archäologie, II. Stempelsiegel. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 5: 49–104. Jarrige, F., 1987–1988: Excavations at Nausharo. Pakistan Archaeology 23: 149–203. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. / Potts, D., 2001: Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967–1975, The Third Millennium. Cambridge (MA). Masioli, E.D. et al., 2006: Copper-melting Crucibles from the Surface of Altyn-Depe, Turkmenistan (ca 2500–2000 BC). Paléorient 32/2: 157–164. Meliksetian, K. et al., 2011: Metallurgy of Prehistoric Armenia. In Ü. Yalcin (ed.): Anatolian Metal V, Der Anschnitt. Beiheft 24 (Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutschen Bergbau-Museum Bochum 180). Bochum. Pp. 201–210. Pigott, V.C., 1999: The Development of Metal Production on the Iranian Plateau: An Archaeometallurgical Perspective. In V.C. Pigott (ed.): The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World (University Museum Symposium Series, University of Pennsylvania 7). Philadelphia. Pp. 73–106. Roberts B.W. / Thornton, C.P. / Pigott V.C., 2009: Development of Metallurgy in Eurasia. Antiquity 83: 1012–1022. Salvatori, S., 2010: Thinking around Grave 3245 in the “Royal Graveyard” of Gonur (Murghab Delta, Turkmenistan). In M.F. Kosarev / P.M. Kozhin / N.A. Dubova (eds): On the Tracks of Uncovering a Civilization. A volume in honor © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

518

G. Lombardo

of the 80th-anniversary of Viktor Saranidi. Transactions of the Margiana Archaeological Expedition. Saint Petersburg. Pp. 244–257. Salvatori, S. et al., 2002: A Glimpse on Copper and Lead Metalworking at Altyn Depe (Turkmenistan) in the 3rd Millennium BC. Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 8/1–2: 69–106. Thornton, C.P., 2009: The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm. Journal of World Prehistory 22: 301–327. –– 2010: The Rise of Arsenical Copper in Southeastern Iran. Iranica Antiqua 45: 31–48. Tobler, A.J., 1950: Excavations at Tepe Gawra, II, Levels IX–XX. Philadelphia / London / Oxford.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

Fig. 1. Stamp seal from Afghanistan, MNAO, inv. 17670/26806 (recto).

Fig. 2. Stamp seal from Afghanistan, MNAO, inv. 17670/26806 (verso). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

519

520

G. Lombardo

Fig. 3. Particular of the suspension loop of the stamp seal MNAO, inv. 17670/26806.

Fig. 4. Stamp seal from Afghanistan, MNAO, inv. 17671/26807 (recto). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

521

Fig. 5. Stamp seal from Afghanistan, MNAO, inv. 417671/26807 (verso).

Fig. 6. The copper/bronze workshop excavated by V. Sarianidi within the compound of Gonur north (Margiana, Turkmenistan): copper/bronze pins, a mould for casting an adze and a part of circular mould used for casting a round compartmented stamp seal (courtesy of S. Salvatori). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

522

G. Lombardo

Fig. 7. Gonur north, in the copper/bronze workshop: detail of the circular mould used for casting a round compartmented stamp seal (see Dubova 2008).

Fig. 8. ESEM-EDS semi-quantitative analysis of the alloy of seal 17670 (ISCR, Rome). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Two Compartment Seals from Afghanistan

523

Fig. 9. ESEM-EDS semi-quantitative analysis of the alloy of the compartmented face of seal 17671 (ISCR, Rome).

Fig. 10. ESEM-EDS semi-quantitative analysis of the alloy of the plain rear face of seal 17671 (ISCR, Rome), chemically different from the opposite compartmented face. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

524

G. Lombardo

Fig. 11. Detail of the compartmented face of seal 16760, entirely cast with a direct lostwax process.

Fig. 12. Detail of the compartmented face of seal 16761, possibly cast in sand or clay after the impression of 17670 or another identical large seal. Comparing it with Fig. 6, see the noticeable difference in the intricated pattern and the much lower quality of the casting. For the scale of figs 6 and 7 see the previous contribution by G. Lombardo. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age according to Glyptic and Textual Evidence Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti

The dearth of Middle Bronze Age (hereafter MBA) iconographic and textual sources from Karkemish confronts us with considerable difficulties when we try to define the cultural traits of the city in this historical period more accurately.1 This is also the case for the pantheon, which we intend to investigate in this paper.2 Glyptic is a powerful visual tool for representing the affective relationships of worshipers to deities, but for MBA Karkemish we must rely on rare stray finds at the site and on few additional pieces that are epigraphically connected to that city. Two cylinder seals with presentation scenes were found at Karkemish in the Lower Palace area; both seem to be early Old Babylonian in style. The first, made of rock crystal and 2.3 cm in height (Fig. 1), was found “in the (late) filling against the south wall of the ‘Hilani’ [temple].”3 It portrays a royal personage carrying a lamb on his chest and, in front of him, a god holding what seems to be a saw in his left hand, and with his left foot placed on a stool. This kind of divine iconography is generally and correctly connected with the Sun-god Shamash,4 but in fact it is

This is due to the almost complete lack of excavated MBA levels at Karkemish. For the limited evidence relating to this period in the Lower Palace area, see Marchetti 2016, 379 fn. 12. A slightly wider exposure has been obtained in the deep sounding of Area G (Zaina [ed.] in press). The MBA epigraphic materials from the site were published and discussed in Marchesi 2014a. See also Marchesi 2014b, for a review of the historical sources relating to Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age. 2 We would like to thank Jonathan Tubb, Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum, for his permission to study and publish the cylinder seal BM 116149, the photos of which were taken by Luisa Guerri. Special thanks are also due to Carlo Zaccagnini, for discussing with us some of the issues dealt with in this paper, and to Avi Winitzer, for checking and correcting our English. 3 Woolley / Barnett 1952, 183 and fig. 74. The seal is illustrated in drawing only, so no judgment on style is possible; nor are its present whereabouts known. For a possible identification of the titular deity of the Hilani temple in the Iron Age with the goddess Nikarawa, see Marchetti 2014, 317; 2016, 379. 4 See, most recently, Kurmangaliev 2011. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

526

G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti

also used for other gods, to judge from the inscriptions on these seals.5 Some of these name the god Nergal, or a related divine figure.6 We wonder whether Nergal, and not Shamash, is intended in our seal too, especially considering the very special position that the former appears to occupy in the local pantheon of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age (see below). Be that as it may, Nergal almost certainly occurs on the other seal, BM 116149.7 This hematite seal, 2.4 cm high (Fig. 2), represents a surface find.8 It shows the two frequently associated protective spirits—the male udug/šēdum and the female lamma/lamassum (see below with fn. 18)—together with a high-ranking personage in front of a standing god. The god holds the leash of a lion (reduced to its forepart) and rests his right foot on the back/shoulders of the wild beast. With the brimmed cap typical of Babylonian kings, we would assume that the high-ranking human figure represents a king, but in this instance he is not bearded, as is usually the case with royal personages. The warrior deity in front of him is probably the god Nergal, whose association with the lion—be it the animal itself or the (usually double) lion-mace or -scimitar—is well known.9 In addition to these two seals from the British excavations, there is a group of sealings from Acemhöyük and seals from unknown locales that must be directly connected with the city of Karkemish, owing to their legends, which mention the king Aplah-Anda of that city.10 The style of these seals can perhaps be designated as North-Western Mesopotamian, although Adelheid Otto classified them as hochklassisch-syrisch.11 In four cases, the šēdum and lamassum figures appear

For seals with this iconography that mention deities other than Shamash in their inscriptions (but legends may have been added later on to stock seals), see Collon 1986, nos 317, 318 (in which, interestingly, the blizzard of Addu/Adad has been added above the saw), 322, 324, 328, 330, 334, 337, 338, 340, 343, 344, 353, 354, 361, and 371. 6 Collon 1986, nos 328, 337, and 343. 7 Woolley 1921, pl. 25:b.4; Collon 1986, no. 417 (p. 165 and pl. XXX); 2005, no. 169. 8 Woolley 1921, ad pl. 25:b.4. 9 See Wiggermann 1999. On the iconography of Nergal and related gods, see also Braun-Holzinger 1996, 307–316. Although the lion is the accompanying animal and symbol of other warrior deities too (see Marchesi 2016), it seems that in northern Mesopotamia the lion was associated with Nergal or one of his avatars (cf. the well-known lions of Tish-atal of Urkesh, inscribed with a dedicatory inscription to Nergal [Wilhelm 1998a; cf. Archi 2013, 8 with fn. 43]). 10 Collon 1999; Özgüç 2015, 50–58 and figs 38–40 (cf. also Collon 2005, nos 188–190, 539, and 541). Note that only the second seal of the Aplah-Anda series adds the royal title to the name of the king (for this seal and its inscription, see now Marchesi 2014a, 174–175 and pl. XII:5). 11 Otto 2000, 54–55, 119–122 “Gruppe 2b,” and pls 10–12 (cf. also ibid., pp. 117–119 “Gruppe 2a”). These seals present iconographic features belonging to both the Mesopotamian and the Syrian cultural spheres. This mixture of Mesopotamian and Syrian elements somehow defines the court workshop of Karkemish after the earlier phase in 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age

527

in the imagery.12 Incidentally, one of these seals—that of Aplah-Anda’s daughter Matrunna—names the goddess Kubaba, who is known from later sources to have been the main female deity of Karkemish.13 A more complex iconography is exhibited by the seal of Ahzib-Karkamis (an official in the service of Aplah-Anda), which depicts a “smiting god” holding a captive in front of a nude goddess.14 That the god in question is again probably Nergal is suggested by comparisons with similar imagery from Southern Mesopotamia.15 Finally, we must consider another Old Babylonian cylinder seal in the British Museum collections that attests to a mysterious deity named Il-Karkamis, “God of Karkemish.” The seal in question, BM 89172,16 is made of hematite and is 2.55 cm in height (Fig. 3). It was purchased in 1856 from the Irish explorer and entrepreneur Thomas Kerr Lynch (1818–1891).17 Its iconography consists of two standing figures facing one another: a personage with a mace who stands on a dais and a female deity with raised hands, representing the udug/šēdum spirit and the lamma-goddess or lamassum (a female tutelary deity), respectively.18

which the style was purely Mesopotamian (as attested to by the two seals from Karkemish discussed above). 12 Note that in two seals (Collon 1999, 50–51 nos 1 and 3), the šēdum wears a dress longer than the customary short kilt found on Mesopotamian seals and on the other seals of the Aplah-Anda group (ibid., nos 2 and 4; for the former, see Marchesi 2014a, pl. XII:5). 13 Hawkins 1980–1983. Incidentally, one may note that, on the Matrunna seal, the fish symbol (which, however, is not the only symbol in the field) may possibly hint at Kubaba (see Radner 2005, 546–548 and 552–553, for writings of the goddess’ name with the cuneiform sign KU6, the logogram for “fish”). 14 Collon 1999, 52 no. 5. The god, whose pointed and horned cap looks Old Syrian rather than Old Babylonian, brandishes a mace and steps on a mountain, holding a kneeling captive by his hair. 15 Braun-Holzinger (1996, 308–310) discusses the trampling god, often (but not always) to be identified with Nergal. Note that Nergal was also depicted as holding a mace as is the case with the deity on the seal of Ahzib-Karkamis. 16 Collon 1986, no. 162 (p. 104 and pl. XV). Cf. also Braun-Holzinger 1996, 344 no. 1107. 17 T.K. Lynch is known to have travelled extensively throughout Mesopotamia and Persia. For a short biographical note, see the entry “Thomas Kerr Lynch” in Wikipedia (https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kerr_Lynch). For accounts of his travels and activities in Mesopotamia, see Lynch 1879 and 1884. Lynch (1884, 125) did mention Karkemish in one of his accounts: “Antioch, Samosat, Harran, Thapsicus, Ur of the Chaldees, Heraglia, Carchemish, and Palmyra’s ruined palaces, ‘stand to tell a melancholy tale.’” There is no way to know if he ever visited the site of Karkemish, although his references to the ruins of Karkemish may mean that he passed through Jerablus (Karkemish was identified with Jerablus by George Smith in 1876). 18 For the figure with mace and kilt, see Collon 1986, 100–104. For the lamma-goddess, see already Spycket 1960. It was, however, Wiggermann (1985–1986, 23–27) who first argued convincingly for a precise identification of the pair, followed by Braun-Holzinger (1996, 249–252; see especially p. 251). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

528

G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti

According to Dominique Collon, this rather-common and geographically and chronologically widespread iconographic theme of Old Babylonian seals first appears in southern Mesopotamia and in the Diyala region at the beginning of the 19th century BC and remains popular until the end of the 17th century BC (Middle Chronology).19 Seal BM 89172, however, shows ties with Otto’s North Mesopotamian groups,20 while its stylistic features, in which the rendering of the figures still keeps a certain volumetric roundness, point to a chronological attribution no later than the reign of Samsu-iluna of Babylon (i.e., no later than the end of the 18th century BC).21 What makes this seal particularly interesting is its three-line Akkadian inscription, which reads: ka-mi-iš-ma-lik DUMU ra-aḫ-mu-dda-gan ÌR DINGIR-kar-ka-mi-ís d

Kamiš-malik mār Raḥmu-Dagān warad Il-Karkamis

Kamish-malik son of Rahmu-Dagan servant of Il-Karkamis

In a previous edition of this inscription, Christopher Walker interpreted DINGIR-kar-ka-mi-ís as “dkar-ka-mi-iš;”22 but, this reading, which accords a divine status to the city, is difficult. In fact, there is no other evidence for Karkemish being divinized. Nor is there any other occurrence of a divinized city in the so-called servant line of seal inscriptions.23 More likely, we have here a by-name of the city-god of Karkemish (Il-Karkamis = “God of Karkemish”) as one finds, for instance, with the compound Il-Halab (“God of Halab”), the name by which the Storm-god Addu, the city-god of Halab/Aleppo, was also known.24 If so, then a basic question of identity confronts us: who was this “God of Karkemish”? In later periods, the city-god of Karkemish is known to have been Karhuha, a warrior god generally considered to be a local avatar of the Hittite/Luwian Staggod Innara aka K(u)runt(iy)a/Runt(iy)a.25 However, Karhuha is only attested much later, beginning in the mid-14th century BC.26 In all likelihood Karhuha

Collon 1986, 100–131 (see, especially, pp. 100–101, for the chronological range of the motive); 2005, 45–52 with fn. 11 (on p. 57). 20 Cf. Otto 2000, 149–159 “Siegelgruppe 6” (Northern Mesopotamia and Middle Euphrates) and pls 34–40. 21 For seals with similar motives from the time of Samsu-iluna, see e.g. Colbow 1995, 169–172 fig. 14 (cf. ibid., p. 134 sub 80.1). 22 Apud Collon 1986, 104. So also Braun-Holzinger 1996, 344. 23 That is, in the formula “servant (ÌR/IR11) of such-and-such” that usually occurs in the third line of seal inscriptions. 24 See Lambert 1990; Schwemer 2001, 80, 111, and 216. 25 See, among others, Lebrun 1993, 16; Hawkins 2000, 106–107; Haas 2003, 301–302; Taracha 2009, 112. 26 See Singer 2001, 638–639; Archi 2009, 217–218 with fn. 21. 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age

529

was a Hurrian deity, whose cult may have been introduced at Karkemish during the so-called Mittanian period.27 Another possible candidate is the god Kamish, whose name appears in the name of the seal owner, Kamish-malik. It is tempting to assume that a connection existed between the two “statements” of Kamish-malik, that is, his proclaiming that “Kamish is Sovereign” (such is the meaning of the name Kamish-malik)28 and his declaring himself a “servant of Il-Karkamis.” If so, then this inscription may mean that Kamish and Il-Karkamis were one and the same god. A further element supporting an interpretation along these lines may be provided by the alleged etymology of Karkemish as “Quay of (the god) Kamish,”29 which makes Kamish the eponymous god of Karkemish and, therefore, most suitable for being called Il-Karkamis, “God of Karkemish.” However, this hypothesis, even if appealing, is not without difficulties. First, there is no evidence that Kamish was worshipped at Karkemish. This rather obscure deity is well attested in the Early Bronze Age texts from Ebla,30 but in the Middle Bronze Age, Kamish is only found in the onomasticon. Furthermore, personal names containing Kamish as a theophoric element are very few in this period: including our Kamish-malik, only three such names are known.31 As such, it seems hardly credible that such a poorly attested deity was the main god of MBA Karkemish. Nor can the notion that Karkemish was named after the god Kamish be upheld.32 In fact, the theonym Kamish and the last two syllables of the name Karkemish were not exactly homophonous: the final sibilant of Kamish is always written with the sign IŠ, while that of Karkemish is almost never represented in this manner33—the only exception being the seal inscription under discussion.

Marchesi forthcoming. ka-mi-iš-ma-lik can also be interpreted as an Akkadian name, i.e., as Kamiš-mālik, “Kamis Is Counsellor,” but in view of the Amorite name of Kamish-malik’s father (Raḥmu-Dagān, “Mercy of Dagan”) it is more likely that ma-lik here is to be interpreted as Amorite malkum, “king, sovereign” (cf. Durand 2008, 676–677 s.vv. Mal(i)kum and Muluk). 29 As has been proposed by Pettinato (1976) and as is generally held. 30 See Pomponio / Xella 1997, 175–181. Incidentally, note that the identification of Kamish with the Moabite god Kemosh (Pettinato 1976, 14–15; Israel 1987; Pomponio / Xella 1997, 180–181; etc.) is far from certain (despite the attempts by Israel [1987, 19–22], the different stems and vocalizations of the two names are difficult to reconcile). 31 I.e., the Akkadian (or Akkadianized) PN Iddin-Kamish (i-di/din*-(d*)ka-mi-iš) at Tuttul (Krebernik 2001, KTT 7:7) and Mari (Durand 2008, 648 M.7436*); and the Amorite PN Abdu-Kamish (ḫa-ab-du-ka-mì-iš) at Mari (ibid., M.5949). 32 Doubts on this etymology of the name Karkemish and arguments against it have already been advanced by Bonechi (1998, 229 fn. 65) and Biga (2014, 75). 33 See Kupper 1992, 16 fn. 5; Ziegler / Langlois 2016, 181–182 s.v. KARKAMIS (note that “kar-ka-mi-íski” from A.715:5 is a misquotation; that text in fact has kar-ka-mi-ús(UŠ)ki; see Dossin 1938, 117). 27

28 d

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

530

G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti

However, kar-ka-mi-IŠ here should be transliterated as kar-ka-mi-ís, on the basis of the other spellings of the name in Old Babylonian sources.34 There remain two other deities that could help establish the identity of Il-Karkamis. The Mari texts mention two gods who were worshipped at Karkemish in the Old Babylonian period: Nergal and Nubandag.35 The latter is certainly the same deity that occurs as Lubadag in the 3rd millennium foundation inscription of Tish-atal, king of Urkesh, and as Nubadig in later Hurrian texts.36 He was probably a warrior god,37 like Nergal, and perhaps a guardian deity, too (see below). According to Jean-Marie Durand, Nubandag may have been the name by which Nergal was known and worshipped at Karkemish.38 However, the above-mentioned inscription of Tish-atal clearly distinguishes between these two divine figures: “Tish-atal, king of Urkesh, has built a temple of Nergal. May the god Lubadag protect this temple. Who destroys it, (him) may Lubadag destroy.”39

It is certain that both Nergal and Nubandag enjoyed a special position in MBA Karkemish. But was one of them the city-god of Karkemish? As is often the case, the answer yields itself upon a closer examination of the documentation. A letter from Sidqum-la-nasi, the vizier of Karkemish, to Zimri-li’im, king of Mari,40 even makes explicit mention of the city-god of Karkemish. In the letter, Sidqum-la-nasi complains with Zimri-li’im about the bad behavior of a subject of the king of Mari, one Asqudum, with whom the vizier of Karkemish maintained business relationships; at a certain point, Sidqum-la-nasi says (ll. 29–49):

In this connection, it should be noted that in texts written at Karkemish, the name Karkemish is always written either kar-ka-mi-is(ki) or with the Mari spelling kar-ka-miìski*; see Marchesi 2014a, 170 and 174; ARM 5:6 (letter of Aplah-Anda); ARM 26/2, 530:35 and 534:20* (letters of Sidqum-la-nasi, vizier of Aplah-Anda); FM 2, 8 rev. 7ʹ (letter of Yasim-sumu, chief accountant of Mari, sent from Karkemish). The fact that in BM 89172 the sign IŠ was employed to write both /iš/ (in dka-mi-iš, line 1) and /is/ (in DINGIR-kar-ka-mi-ís, line 3) indicates that the inscription on this seal has probably not been engraved at Karkemish, but in some other place where a syllabary that did not distinguish between /iš/ and /is/ was in use. This is the case with some letters of Shamshi-Adad to his son Yasma-Addu (see, for instance, ARM 1:10 [li-ís-ni-qú-ni-kum] and 20 [iš-pu-ra-ak-kum]), which may suggest that the seal in question also dates from the period of Shamshi-Adad, when Karkemish too was under the hegemony of the great Amorite conqueror (see Marchesi 2014b, 82–83; cf. Marchesi 2014a, 173–174). 35 For Nergal, see Ziegler 2007, 66–70. For Nubandag, see ARM 26/1, 281 (cf. Heimpel 2003, 283). 36 See Wilhelm 1998b. Cf. Lipiński 2009, 92–94. 37 Being equipped with bow, arrows, and quiver (see Lipiński 2009, 93, 105–106). 38 Durand 2008, 308. See also id. 2010, 68. 39 Translation from Hurrian adapted from that of Wilhelm 1989, 11. Cf. id. 1998a, 119–120. 40 A.337+M.8290, published by Durand (2010). 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age

531

“Well now! Let us make (our) accounts. His servants—Sumeshtar, Kiliya, Qaqqadanum, Eshtar-asi and Abi-andulli—they knew (the situation of) our business; we made the accounts: I had embarked many more (goods) than him (= Asqudum). Moreover, that same day I sent a big gift to him by boat, but he did not return an equivalent to me. Now, his travelling servants who used to bring his gift to me—let him send (them) to me and let them deal with me in a proper way. All that they count on my debt, they should count it in the temple of the Mighty God. If I owe (him) something, I will give twice as much. For one I will give two. And I shall send my servants in the temple of Itur-Me’ir. They will count all that I have been sending without interruption to him. If he owes (me) something, he will give twice as much.”41

This passage makes it clear that ilum dannum, “the Mighty God,” was the Karkemishite counterpart of Itur-Me’ir. And since Itur-Me’ir was the city-god of Mari,42 the former must have acted as the city-god of Karkemish. Moreover, speaking to Zimri-li’im, Sidqum-la-nasi does not mention his city-god by name, but he uses the appellative “the Mighty God.” Quite obviously, the deity referred to as “the Mighty God” was known as such at both Karkemish and Mari. Thus, he had to be the Mighty God par excellence, that is, most probably, “Nergal, the mighty one of the gods.”43 A confirmation that Nergal was the city-god of Karkemish is provided by a letter from the Karkemishite king Ya‘dun-li’im to Zimri-li’im (ARM 28, 23). To the request of the king of Mari to make an exchange of personnel, the king of Karkemish answers as follows (ll. 9–11): “To do [this, I must ask] N[ergal]. I am reverent!”44

Ya‘dun-li’im needs the authorization of Nergal, who thus must have been his (29) a-ga-na ni-[ik]-ka-sí i ni-pu-úš (30) LÚ.TUR.MEŠ-šu msu-mi-U.DAR mki-li-ia (31) m qa-qa-da-nu-um mdINANA-a-si (32) ù ma-bi-AN.DÙL-lí šu-nu mu-de-e a-wa-ti-ni ni-ik-ka-s[í] (33) ni-pu-úš-ma ma-da-⸢am⸣-ma e-li-šu (34) ú-ša-ar-ki-ib ù i-na UDmi-šu-ma (35) ap-pu-na-ma gišMÁ šu-bu-ul-tam ra-bi-tam (36) ú-ša-bi-il-šum ù šu-ú qa-tam ki-i qa-tim (37) ú-ul ú-te-er-ra-am i-na-an-na LÚ.TUR.MEŠ-šu (38) mu-ut-tali-ku-tum ša šu-bu-ul-ta-šu (39) a-na ṣe-ri-ia it-ta-ab-ba-lu-nim (40) li-iš-pu-ra-am-ma it-ti-ia li-iš₇-ki-ṣú (41) mi-im-ma ša e-li-ia i-ma-an-nu-nim (42) i-na É DINGIR-lim dan-nim li-im-nu-ma (43) šum-ma e-li-ia ir-ta-ši (44) ta-aš-na-a lu-ud-di-in a-na ki 1-šu a-na-⸢ku⸣ (45) 2-šu lu-ud-di-in ù a-na-ku LÚ.TUR.MEŠ-ia (46) [l]u-úš-pu-ur-ma i-na É di-túr-me-ir (47) [m]i-im-ma ša uš-ta-na-bi-lu-šum (48) [li-i]m-nu-ma šum-ma e-li-šu (49) [mi-im-ma a-ra-š]i ta-aš-na-a li-id-di-na[m]. Our translation differs in some details from that of Durand (2010, 66–67). 42 See Durand 2008, 189–194. 43 d KIŠ.UNUG.GAL dan-nu-um i-na ì-lí (CH li 24–25; see Borger 1963, 45). See also Tallqvist 1938, 83. 44 Restoring: … a-n[a an-ni-tim] / e-pé-ši-im dK[IŠ.UNUG.GAL lu-ša-al] / pa-al-ḫa-ku š[a...]. 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

532

G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti

direct superior, as the city-god of Karkemish. To conclude, only three deities of Karkemish can be identified with certainty in the glyptic and textual evidence from the Middle Bronze Age. However few, their identities—the Mesopotamian Nergal, Anatolian Kubaba, and Hurrian Nubandag—are nonetheless highly informative, and seem to indicate that the city of Karkemish, located at the crossing of important trade routes, was a mixed cultural and religious center. Nergal was probably the city-god of Karkemish at that time. As such, he was also called Il-Karkamis, “God of Karkemish.” Abbreviations A. = Siglum of Mari tablets. ARM = Archives royales de Mari. BM = British Museum (siglum). CH = Codex Hammurabi. FM = Florilegium marianum. KTT = Siglum of the texts from Tuttul in Krebernik 2001. M. = Siglum of Mari tablets. Bibliography Archi, A., 2009: Orality, Direct Speech, and the Kumarbi Cycle. AoF 36: 209–229. –– 2013: The West Hurrian Pantheon and Its Background. In B.J. Collins / P. Michalowski (eds): Beyond Hatti. A Tribute to Gary Beckman. Atlanta. Pp. 1–21. Biga, M.G., 2014: Karkemish in the Ebla Texts: Some New Data. In N. Marchetti (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Pp. 75–80. Bonechi, M., 1998: Remarks on the III Millennium Geographical Names of the Syrian Upper Mesopotamia. In M. Lebeau (ed.): About Subartu. Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, 1. Landscape, Archaeology, Settlement (Subartu 4/1). Turnhout. Pp. 219–241. Borger, R., 1963: Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke, Heft II. Die Texte in Umschrift. Roma. Braun-Holzinger, E.A., 1996: Altbabylonische Götter und ihre Symbole. BaM 27: 235–359. Colbow, G., 1995: Die spätaltbabylonische Glyptik Südbabyloniens (MVS 17). München. Collon, D., 1986: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals III. Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods. London. –– 1999: Seals Naming Aplahanda of Carchemish. In K. van Lerberghe / G. Voet (eds): Languages and Cultures in Contact. At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. Proceedings of the 42th RAI (OLA 96). Leuven. Pp. 49–59. –– 2005: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East (2nd, revised, ed.). London. Dossin, G., 1938: Aplaḫanda, roi de Carkémiš. RA 35: 115–121. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age

533

Durand, J.-M., 2008: La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari. In G. del Olmo Lete (ed.): Mythologie et religion des Sémites occidentaux, I. Ébla, Mari (OLA 162). Leuven. Pp. 163–716. –– 2010: Des dieux, un ministre et un coquin. In D. Shehata / F. Weiershäuser / K.V. Zand (eds): Von Göttern und Menschen. Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg (CM 41). Leiden. Pp. 63–72. Haas, V., 2003: Betrachtungen zu CTH 343, einem Mythos des Hirschgottes. AoF 30: 296–303. Hawkins, J.D., 1980–83: Kubaba. A. Philologisch. RlA 6: 257–261. –– 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, Vol. I. Inscriptions of the Iron Age. Berlin. Heimpel, W., 2003: Letters to the King of Mari. A New Translation with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (MC 12). Winona Lake. Israel, F., 1987: Studi moabiti II: Da Kamiš a K’môš. Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 53: 5–39. Krebernik, M., 2001: Tall Biʽa/Tuttul – II. Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde (WVDOG 100). Saarbrücken. Kupper, J.-R., 1992: Karkémish aux IIIème et IIème millénaires avant notre ère. Akkadica 79–80: 16–23. Kurmangaliev, A., 2011: Sonnengott. B. I. In Mesopotamien. Archäologisch. RlA 12/7–8: 616–620. Lambert, W.G., 1990: Ḫalam, Il-Ḫalam and Aleppo. M.A.R.I. 6: 641–643. Lebrun, R., 1993: Aspects de la présence louvite en Syrie au VIIe siècle av. J.-C. Transeuphratène 6: 13–25. Lipiński, E., 2009: Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity (OLA 181). Leuven. Lynch, T.K., 1879: Across Mesopotamia to India by the Euphrates Valley. London. –– 1884: The Navigation of the Euphrates and Tigris and the Political Rights of England thereon, with an Account of Personal Travels, and Oriental Notices from Arab Authors. London. Marchesi, G., 2014a: Epigraphic Materials of Karkemish from the Middle Bronze Age. Orientalia NS 83: 166–181. –– 2014b: Karkemish nel Bronzo Medio. In N. Marchetti (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Pp. 81–85. –– 2016: Gudea and the Master of Lions: Philological Notes on the Louvre Dish AO 153. JNES 75: 85–89. –– forthcoming: Karhuha, Luwian or Hurrian? On the Origin of the City-God of Karkemish. Marchetti, N., 2014: Bronze Statuettes from the Temples of Karkemish. Orientalia NS 83: 305–320. –– 2016: The Cultic District of Karkemish in the Lower Town. In P. Matthiae (ed.): L’archeologia del sacro e l’archeologia del culto. Sabratha, Ebla, Ardea, Lanuvio (Roma, 8–11 ottobre 2013). Ebla e la Siria dall’età del Bronzo all’età del Ferro (Atti dei Convegni Lincei 304). Roma. Pp. 373–414. Özgüç, N., 2015: Acemhöyük-Burušhaddum I. Silindir mühürler ve mühür baskılı bullalar / Cylinder Seals and Bullae with Cylinder Seal Impressions. Ankara. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

534

G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti

Otto, A., 2000: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (UAVA 8). Berlin. Pettinato, G., 1976: Carchemiš - Kār-Kamiš. Le prime attestazioni del III millennio. Oriens Antiquus 15: 11–15. Pomponio, F. / Xella, P., 1997: Les dieux d’Ebla. Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire (AOAT 235). Münster. Radner, K., 2005: Kubaba und die Fische. Bemerkungen zur Herrin von Karkemiš. In R. Rollinger (ed.): Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004 (AOAT 325). Münster. Pp. 543–556. Schwemer, D., 2001: Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Wiesbaden. Singer, I., 2001: The Treaties between Karkamiš and Hatti. In G. Wilhelm (ed.): Akten des IV. Internationalen Kongresses für Hethitologie. Würzburg, 4.–8. Oktober 1999 (StBT 45). Wiesbaden. Pp. 635–641. Spycket, A., 1960: La déesse Lama. RA 54: 73–84. Tallqvist, K., 1938: Akkadische Götterepitheta. Mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen (StOr 7). Helsingforsiae. Taracha, P., 2009: Religions of Second Millennium Anatolia. Wiesbaden. Wiggermann, F., 1985–86: The Staff of Ninšubura. Studies in Babylonian Demonology, II. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 29: 3–34. –– 1999: Nergal. B. Archäologisch. RlA 9/3–4: 223–226. Wilhelm, G., 1989: The Hurrians. Warminster. –– 1998a: Die Inschrift des Tišatal von Urkeš. In G. Buccellati / M. Kelly-Buccellati (eds): Urkesh and the Hurrians. Studies in Honor of Lloyd Cotsen (BiMes 26). Malibu. Pp. 117–143. –– 1998b: Lupatik, Nupatik. RlA 7/3–4: 173–174. Woolley, C.L., 1921: Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum, Part II. The Town Defences. London. Woolley, C.L. / Barnett, R.D., 1952: Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum, Part III. The Excavations in the Inner Town and the Hittite Inscriptions. London. Zaina, F. (ed.), in press: Excavations at Karkemish I. The Stratigraphic Sequence of Area G in the Inner Town (OrientLab, Series Maior 3). Bologna. Ziegler, N., 2007: Les musiciens et la musique d’après les archives de Mari (FM 9). Paris. Ziegler, N. / Langlois, A.-I., 2016: Les toponymes paléo-babyloniens de la Haute-Mésopotamie (MTT 1/1). Paris.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Deities of Karkemish in the Middle Bronze Age

535

Fig. 1. Drawing of the impression of a cylinder seal made of rock crystal, h. 2.3 cm, from the “Hilani” temple area at Karkemish. Present whereabouts unknown (Woolley / Barnett 1952, fig. 74).

Fig. 2. Hematite cylinder seal, 2.4 cm high, surface find in the Lower Palace area at Karkemish. British Museum: BM 116149 (courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum).

Fig. 3. Hematite cylinder seal, 2.55 cm high, unknown provenance. British Museum: BM 89172 (Collon 1986, pl. XV:162). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

Maria Grazia Masetti-Rouault

1. Introduction Quand on parcourt le volume XIII de la série ARET (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Testi), intitulé Testi di cancelleria : i rapporti con le città (Archivio L.2769), publié par P. Fronzaroli en 2003, on ne peut qu’admirer le savoir et le courage intellectuel de cet épigraphiste et philologue, qui lui ont permis de mettre à la disposition d’autres chercheurs, par une traduction très dense et évocatrice, des documents complexes, parfois même obscurs dans leur signification et leur fonction. P. Fronzaroli a donné dans ce volume des interprétations de documents de type littéraire qui défient dans quelque cas la possibilité même de les comprendre aujourd’hui dans leurs détails. Produits par la chancellerie palatiale éblaïte, certains de ces textes, de par leur langue, structure et contenus ainsi que par leur chronologie, ne se laissent pas comparer aisément avec le reste de la tradition mythologique, épique, rituelle et religieuse du monde syrien et mésopotamien de l’âge du Bronze. Mais il s’agit bien de textes importants et significatifs pour la culture et la société antiques, puisqu’ils ont été conservés par l’écriture et intégrés dans les bibliothèques de la cité syrienne avant sa destruction. L’étrangeté d’un texte en particulier, ARET XII 1, a attiré l’attention des historiens et des spécialistes, ainsi que la mienne1. D’emblée, je voudrais préciser que ma lecture de cette narration est au fond naïve, sans doute peu philologique : l’interprétation que je propose se fonde surtout sur documentation plus récente, notamment amorrite, qui traite des mêmes thèmes, et peut-être des mêmes lieux et dieux, attestés dans la tradition écrite de Mari et de Terqa au Bronze Moyen. Mon essai d’interprétation de ce texte, qui se fonde sur l’analyse et la traduction fournie dans l’édition, peut fonctionner et lui donner une signification particulière, seulement si on considère que les cultures mariote et éblaïte de l’époque « présargonique » n’ont pas connu de rupture définitive dans leur continuité, après le changement politique et institutionnel importé

1

Cf. Biga 2006, 21 ; Foster 2006, 109–110 ;  Milano / Tonietti 2012, 63–67. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

538

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

par la conquête akkadienne. Au contraire, ce récit, entre autres, mettrait en évidence le fait que les mêmes conceptions et traditions qui ont caractérisé la phase finale du Bronze Ancien ont pu perdurer, se développer et évoluer de façon parallèle pendant le Bronze Moyen, et, de là, marquer aussi les époques ultérieures. Il m’est agréable de dédier cet essai d’interprétation à Frances Pinnock, qui a investi une grande partie de sa carrière dans l’étude de la civilisation d’Ebla comprise dans le contexte de la culture et de l’histoire des sociétés du monde syrien et mésopotamien. 2. Les acteurs de l’histoire Il s’agit donc du texte ARET XIII 12, récemment appelé la « Visite du roi au temple »3, qui se présente comme une histoire assez élaborée, avec une valeur et une tension historiographiques évidentes, concernant le régime des relations économiques et politiques entre la royauté mariote et un temple. Elle est constituée par le récit d’événements dont les protagonistes sont un roi (en) de Mari4 et son ministre et conseiller Enna-Dagan, apparemment sans aucune référence directe à Ebla, à son gouvernement ni à ses dieux. Le roi de Mari n’est jamais désigné par son nom mais, grâce aux informations contenues dans un autre document, ARET XIII 4, la célèbre «  lettre de Enna-Dagan  »5, il a été identifié avec le roi Nizi (NI-zi), dont Enna-Dagan était le fils et successeur sur le trône6. De par leurs caractéristiques épigraphiques et grammaticales, on a déduit que ces textes avaient été produits par la même chancellerie éblaïte, à partir de versions provenant de Mari. Représentant donc la royauté mariote à un moment précis de son histoire, la période où la capitale sur l’Euphrate exerçait son autorité sur Ebla7, dans ce récit, le roi (en) et Enna-Dagan entrent en relation avec des personnels d’un temple où le roi doit se rendre, et répondent à leurs exigences. Ni le nom du temple ni sa localisation, ni non plus le nom du dieu qui y réside, ne sont indiqués explicitement. Le résultat de cette « visite au temple », qui comporte une interrogation directe, par un rite d’incubation8, à la divinité résidente pour s’assurer de son accord ainsi que de son soutien, est manifestement nécessaire afin de garantir la réussite des projets du roi, comme l’atteste une tradition antique, déjà attestée dans la culture et l’idéologie royale post-akkadiennes.

4 5 6 7 8 2 3

Fronzaroli 2003, 3–13. Milano / Tonietti 2012, 63. Fronzaroli 2003, 12 ; cf. I, l.38, et p. 21 (38). Fronzaroli 2003, 35–39, et cf. Archi 1985b. Fronzaroli 2003, 12, et cf. Archi 1985a ; Archi / Biga 2003, 3–4, 9. Archi / Biga 2003. Oppenheim 1956, 210–245 ; Zgoll 2006, 309–343 ; Biga / Capomacchia 2008, 144 (Ebla), 147 (Mari). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

539

Selon la traduction, motivée, de P. Fronzaroli9, la communication avec la divinité, connotée dans le texte par les titres de « Seigneur du ciel » (BAD an)10 et de « Seigneur du Pouvoir politique » (BAD ba-lu-tum)11, passe par le truchement d’un « prêtre » (a-bí dingir.dingir.dingir)12 et, de façon encore plus fréquente, d’une « prêtresse » (ama dingir.dingir.dingir). Ces deux titres, des hapax dans la littérature éblaïte, auraient été créés dans ce texte pour se référer à des réalités mariotes, et bâtis sur le modèle du titre équivalent à Ebla « lú.dingir.dingir » avec la variante « lú.é.dingir.dingir.dingir »13, terme qui, avec celui de «  purificateur  » (pa4-šeš, et pa4-šeš-mì14, prêtresse « ointe »), couvre la plus grande partie des fonctions culturelles et religieuses locales15. Toutefois, n’étant précédés par aucun signe déterminatif, ils pourraient littéralement identifier des épiclèses de deux divinités, peut-être un dieu et sa parèdre, appelés respectivement le « père » et la « mère » des dieux. Si, dans le texte, le temple lui-même est défini - de façon insolite - comme « la maison du prêtre » (é a-bí dingir.dingir.dingir)16, mais, ensuite, « é maḫ dingir » « la maison grande/sublime du dieu »17, la prêtresse, elle, de son côté - et elle seule - est qualifiée comme « Celle qui est compétente/qui connaît le sommeil » (mu-sani-za si-dè)18 et « Celle qui interroge le sommeil » (mu-sa-il-da si-dè), indiquant sans doute une spécialisation professionnelle19. Elle officie dans le temple qui, lui, est logiquement défini aussi comme « la maison de l’oracle/du sommeil, celle du destin » (é si-ni ša me)20. Quand elle n’est pas à la porte du temple, discutant avec les visiteurs qui attendent dans le parvis, et accusant réception des offrandes, elle se tient près d’un lit (pour le sommeil/le rêve) et d’un siège (« du destin »)21.

Fronzaroli 2003, 14 (6). Voir aussi Fronzaroli / Catagnoti 2006, 286. Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.37. 11 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.37, et cf. p. 21, (37), possible identification avec Dagan de Tuttul. 12 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l. 6 , 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48, 50 , 52, et cf p. 14 (6). Le titre est aussi attribué à Enlil, cf. Pomponio / Xella 1997, 78–179, cf. i3-li-lu a-mu dingir.dingir.dingir 13 Biga 2006, 20. 14 Cf. par exemple, Fronzaroli 1993, 5, l.15. 15 Biga 2006. 16 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.6. 17 Fronzaroli 2003, 11, l.63, et cf. p. 26 (63), e2 maḫ “cella” du temple. 18 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.24. et cf. p. 18–19, (24), avec référence au rituel mariote TH 80.111, mettant en scène une femme qui dort accompagnée par un interprète, cf. Bonechi / Durand 1992. Voir aussi Oppenheim 1956 : 217–225 ; pour l’époque paléo-babylonienne, Durand 1988, 455–482. 19 Fronzaroli 2003 : 6, I, l.27, et cf. p. 19 (27) : la racine *š’l est la même qui, dans les archives de Mari à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, forme le titre de ša’ilu/ša’iltu, Durand 2008, 421. 20 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.23, et cf. pp 17–18, (23), mais, sur si-ni « oracle », voir aussi p. 15 (13). 21 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.13, et cf p. 15 (13) : si-ni “oracle” mais d’une racine signifiant 9

10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

540

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

3. Les débats dans le temple Avec quelques insertions narratives, qui décrivent la scène, la situation et les actions—surtout les déplacements du roi et d’Enna-Dagan—permettant ainsi la contextualisation du récit, la partie la plus importante du texte est constituée par des discours directs, les dialogues/débats entre les quatre personnages, qui véhiculent de façon explicite les contenus idéologiques de la narration. Enna-Dagan parle uniquement au roi, qui lui répond et lui donne des instructions, mais il n’intervient pas dans la discussion entre le roi et les « prêtres » du temple—le « père » et la « mère » des dieux. Le roi parle et répond surtout à la « prêtresse », parfois aussi au « prêtre », mais apparemment toujours en présence de la femme. Le « prêtre », de son côté, prononce des discours importants et autoritaires, ne posant jamais de questions directes au roi. C’est lui qui, par contre, cite les titres du dieu et donne des instructions générales, destinées tant à la « prêtresse » que directement au roi, mais dans un contexte qui laisse penser que les trois interlocuteurs sont présents. En effet, la « prêtresse » commente et glose parfois, pour le roi, les phrases prononcées par le « prêtre », fournissant une sorte d’interprétation ou d’actualisation de son discours. Dans la première partie de la narration, la réponse du dieu et de son personnel de service dans le temple tarde à être obtenue. Le roi de Mari, peut-être mal conseillé par Enna-Dagan, ou bien parce qu’il y avait effectivement, dans le palais de Mari, une pénurie de réserves prêtes au transport, a omis de façon volontaire d’apporter au temple les versements réguliers en orge, bière et huile nécessaires à l’entretien du culte et du temple, ainsi que la compensation attendue pour la consultation de l’oracle22. Le temple aussi connait manifestement une période de pénurie grave et ce comportement du roi provoque de vifs reproches de la part de la prêtresse, dès son accueil dans le temple. Grâce à l’intervention d’Enna-Dagan, —qui, sur ordre royal, part chercher l’offrande, et offre des sacrifices d’animaux dans le temple—, le roi peut régler ses comptes et sa dette. Sa balance économique ayant été rétablie, et sa présence étant désormais rituellement « purifiée » —conditions nécessaires à l’obtention de l’oracle qu’il est venu chercher—, le roi est enfin admis en présence du  « prêtre/père des dieux », et il peut alors poser sa question aux deux résidents du temple. Plutôt que la réponse attendue (sur le succès de la prochaine expédition), l’oracle apparaît comme un avis complexe sur la situation politique et sur la stratégie pour garantir la paix sociale dans la région. La prêtresse en effet interroge d’abord, et à nouveau, le roi sur les raisons de son voyage (au temple ?), et, lorsque le roi, après avoir confirmé la nécessité d’obtenir un oracle, lui

« sommeil ». Pour l’attestation d’un rite d’incubation, et du rôle d’une femme dans ce cadre, dans la documentation de Mari à l’époque présargonique, voir Bonechi / Durand 1992 ; Zgoll 2006, 309–342. 22 Milano / Tonietti 2012, 44–49 ; Zgoll 2006, 326–331. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

541

demande, de façon précise, s’il doit attendre (ou ne pas attendre) «  des gens  » dans le temple, elle lui indique qu’il doit absolument y rester, pour recevoir la parole du « prêtre», qui se fait entendre de suite. Le « prêtre », utilisant une formulation qui ressemble à une sentence ou à un proverbe—il s’agit sans doute de l’oracle—, affirme l’obligation, primaire et morale, pour l’homme, de craindre le dieu et de décider en conséquence de son comportement. S’adressant au roi, il lui confirme l’obligation, d’une part, d’obéir aux ordres transmis par la « prêtresse » et, de l’autre, de reconnaître sa soumission—et/ou de légitimer son autorité—en embrassant sa (propre) main23 devant le « Seigneur du ciel, Seigneur du Pouvoir (politique) », qui , logiquement, doit être le dieu local. La prêtresse, glosant cette réponse, ou au moins sa première partie, explique au roi que sa négligence dans sa façon de traiter les populations est criminelle, et ne correspond pas à la volonté du dieu. Parlant cette fois directement à la prêtresse, le « prêtre » confirme et insiste sur cette position. Enfin, interpellant le roi, il l’invite explicitement à suivre ses prescriptions, à « marcher sur sa route ». Se référant au discours de la prêtresse, le « père des dieux » pourrait ainsi, implicitement, demander au roi de changer d’attitude par rapport aux « populations » : c’est à cette condition que l’oracle reçu—une sorte d’investiture ?—sera efficace. Le roi de Mari ne peut qu’accepter les ordres du « prêtre /père des dieux », qui insiste alors à nouveau, et de façon ferme, sur l’inutilité de développer des programmes (politiques) sans avoir reçu d’abord l’oracle et sans avoir versé les offrandes dues à « Maison du sommeil » (é si-na-ti)24. 4. Offrandes au temple et une cérémonie de serment La prêtresse intervient dans le débat rappelant au « prêtre /père des dieux » que les versements/offrandes de céréales sont prévus (aussi ?) de la part des « clans / populations » (li-im li-im)25, dont la présence ou une représentation était sans doute attendue au temple. De son côté, le roi s’engage à changer/modifier le régime des tributs au temple, l’équilibrant par rapport à la taille et aux possibilités réelles des clans, peut-être même en les complétant par de l’argent26,—sans doute, s’il n’y a pas assez d’orge. La prêtresse prononce une formule finalisant cet accord devant le « prêtre/père des dieux », qui vaut convocation, pour régler la question des versements au temple. A ce point, le texte évoque en effet une sorte de convention, un serment commun, qui paraît résoudre de façon définitive le problème, qui est prêté dans le temple, et auquel participent Enna-Dagan et d’autres hommes, désignés par leurs noms propres—peut-être les chefs tribaux attendus. La cérémonie

Fronzaroli 2003, 21 (37). Cf. aussi Fronzaroli / Catagnoti 2006. Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.47 et p. 23. 25 Fronzaroli 2003, I, l.49 ; Bonechi 1997, 477–481. 26 Cf. Archi 1985b, 65–66, livraisons d’argent, « cadeaux » d’Ebla au roi Nizi ; voir aussi Archi / Biga 2003, 2–4. 23 24

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

542

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

comporte ou prévoit le versement de l’argent promis devant le temple, où le roi réunit les « lingots » d’argent—apportés peut-être par Enna-Dagan, et/ou par les chefs des clans. L’histoire se conclue ici par un dialogue, presque philosophique, entre le roi et Enna-Dagan, qui lui pose une question sur la stratégie à suivre à ce point. Le roi répond que la direction—de son voyage/de sa politique—a désormais changé, l’argent étant réuni, et l’ensemble des offrandes dues ayant été consigné au temple. C’est là le sens de cette expérience, et sans doute aussi la fonction de son pouvoir : ce qui est donné à la maison du dieu perdure et fructifie. Par l’intermédiaire du temple et de son oracle, qui ont reçu tous les versements sacrificiels dus, la royauté a été ainsi légitimée, encore une fois, devant les « gens » de la région. La leçon a été apprise, et le roi peut (re)partir, pour rentrer à Mari. 5. Commentaire : le « temple du repos silencieux » à Terqa Cette façon de synthétiser et de commenter le récit d’ARET XIII I laisse certes déjà transparaître ma propre compréhension des événements et du discours. Ayant fait partie de l’équipe qui a fouillé à Terqa, dans les espaces du tell en rive droite de l’Euphrate laissés libres par les maisons de la ville syrienne d’Ashara27, j’ai eu, lorsque j’ai lu ce texte pour la première fois, une impression de « déjà vu ». La référence au « temple de l’oracle/du sommeil », son rôle particulier dans les relations du roi de Mari avec, d’une part, le dieu Dagan et, de l’autre, la population (amorrite) des « rives de l’Euphrate », m’ont semblé familières, me rappelant, en premier lieu, l’empressement du roi Šamši-Addu à reconstruire le temple de Dagan à Terqa, l’e2.ki.si.ga, « le temple du silence/du repos silencieux, le temple de Dagan qui se trouve à Terqa »28. Le texte de l’épopée de Zimri-Lim confirme que la lecture de ce nom en accadien était Ekisiqqa, à Terqa, « la cité aimée par Dagan »29. On est revenu d’une interprétation exclusivement funéraire du nom e2.ki. si.ga, qui aurait évoqué la mort et les aspects chtoniens et infernaux de Dagan, voire une éventuelle spécialisation dans les rites et les cultes destinés aux morts30. Toutefois, cette référence au silence, au sommeil, donc sans doute à l’incubation, portée par le nom du temple de Terqa aurait un sens plus clair si, au lieu de la considérer comme une remarque érudite, on la comprenait plutôt comme une mémoire, le reflet d’une tradition antique. Elle devient encore plus claire dans le contexte des activités divinatoires—prophéties, visions et rêves—qui y prenaient place, destinées spécialement à la royauté « amorrite » de Mari31. A l’époque présargonique, le temple de Terqa et son clergé, qualifié dans les rites d’incubation, auraient déjà eu la même fonction dans la légitimation de la royauté basée à Mari,

Rouault 2013 ; 2014. Grayson 1987, 60, l. 6–9, et cf. Jacquet 2009, 175–176. 29 Guichard 2014, 23, col. IV, 8–9. 30 Feliu 2003, 65–73, 305–306. 31 Feliu 2003, 99–100 ; Durand 1997–2000, 103–106. 27 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

543

ainsi que la même capacité de fournir aux rois des informations avisées quant à la situation politique et sociale de la région, qui lui seront reconnues par la documentation mariote paléo-babylonienne, des lettres d’archive aux textes littéraires et épiques32. Cette relation particulière entre le roi de Mari, Dagan et son temple à Terqa aurait pu exister depuis le Bronze Ancien III, et se refléter dans le récit d’ARET XIII, I. Le texte n’indique pas que le temple où le roi se dirige se trouvait à Mari même, et le nom de la capitale n’apparait qu’une seule fois dans le récit, associé au titre mariote officiel porté par le roi (LUGAL Ma-ríki)33, au lieu de l’habituel « en », et cela seulement après la mention de la cérémonie où il embrasse sa propre main en présence du dieu. Dès le début de l’histoire le roi est représenté au moment de son départ pour un voyage, qu’on peut certes comprendre comme une expédition (militaire)—pour le succès de laquelle il aurait besoin d’une communication divine. Mais il est aussi possible que le texte, par le terme « kaskal »34 évoque plutôt un pèlerinage à Terqa, bien que ni ce toponyme, ni non plus le théonyme Dagan, ne soient jamais cités dans le texte35. Mais la définition mêmes du temple vers lequel le roi se dirige, « é a-bí dingir.dingir.dingir » la « maison du père des dieux»36, pourrait être suffisante pour véhiculer cette information spécifique : à l’époque paléo-babylonienne, le titre de « père des dieux » est clairement attribué à Dagan, ce qui permet d’ailleurs d’établir une équivalence théologique avec Enlil, ainsi qu’avec Anu37. Les textes présargoniques de Mari mentionnent un culte et des offrandes pour un temple de Terqa, celui du dieu « LUGAL ter5qá», considéré comme une hypostase de Dagan, dont on connait les liens forts et préférentiels avec cette cité à l’époque paléo-babylonienne.38 La motivation du pèlerinage est indiquée par les termes qui connotent le temple—la maison du sommeil/de l’oracle/du destin—ainsi que par les titres attribués à la « prêtresse » qui y réside et le gère. 6. Un pèlerinage à Terqa Le voyage du roi de Mari à Terqa pourrait avoir été motivé par une situation économique critique—peut-être la perte d’une récolte—, qui expliquerait le besoin Oppenheim 1956, 195 ; Feliu 2003, 101–118, 157–170 ; cf. Durand 2008, 431–528 ; Guichard 2014. 33 Fronzaroli 2003, 7, l. 38, et cf. p. 21 (38). Cf. Archi 1987 ; Fronzaroli / Catagnoti 2006, 286, sur le lien possible entre la cérémonie d’« embrasser sa main » et la consécration royale. 34 Archi / Biga 2003, 8, et n. 26 ; Ristvet 2011 ; Milano / Tonietti 2012, 64, et cf. n. 104. 35 Cf. Durand 2008, 366–367, 370–371. 36 Fronzaroli 2003. 37 Feliu 2003, 170–173. Cf. Durand 1997–2000, 103–106. 38 Charpin 1987, 74, texte no. 8, III.4  (compte de pains), 92 ; voir aussi Lambert 1985, 529, et n. 4 ; Feliu 2003, 94–100. 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

544

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

d’une consultation oraculaire, et/ou des offrandes pour obtenir la faveur divine, ainsi que, d’autre part, d’une rencontre avec les responsables politiques de la région. Alternativement, ce pèlerinage pourrait avoir été dicté par l’obligation du roi à participer—sans doute de façon régulière et à un moment précis de l’année39—à une cérémonie dans un temple à l’extérieur de la capitale, qui confirmerait sa royauté devant une représentation des clans, « les gens », locaux. Cette cérémonie, à laquelle est associé un rite d’incubation, ne pourrait avoir lieu si la royauté n’avait pas accompli ses devoirs d’entretien du culte et du personnel du temple en question, et sans que l’ensemble des offrandes—y compris celles provenant des « gens » de la région—, n’aient été versées. Tout en présentant un développement très différent des rituels royaux éblaïtes40, sans évocation des aspects funéraires et dynastiques, ni référence au transport des statues divines ou au rôle de la reine, le voyage du roi de Mari hors de sa ville, vers le temple de la divinité principale de la région, accompagné par son fils et héritier, pourrait avoir toutefois une signification générale analogue. Peut-être, pour cette raison, aurait-il une valeur exemplaire, faisant alors l’objet d’un récit recueilli par les écoles scribales et la chancellerie à Ebla. Reste pour le moment inexpliquée et inexplicable la raison pour laquelle le nom du dieu Dagan, pourtant bien attesté dans l’onomastique (par exemple, dans le nom En-na-Da-gan), semble couvert par une sorte de tabou linguistique dans la documentation mariote présargonique, où il apparaîtrait seulement par une de ses épiclèses, évoquant son pouvoir sur tout le bassin du Moyen-Euphrate—DINGIR. KALAM ou LUGAL. DINGIR. KALAM, le « Seigneur/Roi du Pays ». Ce titre « politique » a permis une identification, plutôt logique, avec le dieu Dagan cité dans les inscriptions des rois d’Akkad, qui, narrant leur conquête, reconnaissent en lui une des divinités qui leur ont donné accès à la région41. Cette convention est respectée aussi à Ebla : le théonyme Dagan n’apparaît pas dans les textes qui concernent Mari, ni nulle part ailleurs. Même là où on l’attendrait, comme dans le cas (du temple) de Dagan de Tuttul42, on le voit systématiquement remplacé par le titre générique de BE (BAD), « bel’um », le « Seigneur (de Tuttul) ». Préféré, une fois de plus, au mariote LUGAL, le terme BE/BAD « bel’um », suivi par un toponyme, indique aussi une série de divinités poliades d’autres villes, qui, on peut s’en douter, n’étaient pas toutes des formes de Dagan. Comme on l’a vu, dans le texte ARET XIII, 1, le « prêtre », lorsqu’il se réfère au dieu du temple,

Cf. Fronzaroli 2003, 3, 1, kaskal gibil, « voyage nouveau », dans le sens « répété/renouvelé » ? et voir la question de Enna-Dagan diri du « Voyages-tu encore/une deuxième fois? », p. 3, l.4 , et de la « prêtresse », p. 7, l.33 Le règne de Nizi ayant été très bref (cf. Archi / Biga 2003, 7), le récit pourrait illustrer le second pèlerinage du roi à Terqa. 40 Fronzaroli 1993, 3–90 ; Biga / Capomaccchia 2008, 141–143. Le déplacement du roi et de la reine d’Ebla vers le mausolée de Nenash aussi est un kaskal. 41 Lambert 1985 ; Feliu 2003, 146–170 ; Jacquet 2009, 164–170. 42 Feliu 2003, 7–26. Cf. Jacquet 2009, 164, et n. 16. 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

545

l’identifie comme le «  Seigneur du ciel  » (BAD an) et «  Seigneur du Pouvoir (politique) » (BAD ba-lu-tum), titres écrits sans déterminatif divin. Il utilise donc des expressions qui, sans désigner directement Dagan, témoigneraient déjà d’une réflexion théologique avancée sur ce dieu, exploitant ses liens avec Anu et surtout avec Enlil, reconnu à Ebla comme « le père des dieux », selon une formule qui sera développée et explicitée à l’époque amorrite, en particulier par rapport à la légitimation de la royauté43. L’habitude d’éviter d’écrire le nom de Dagan sauf dans l’onomastique, qui révèle peut-être une idéologie religieuse particulière, prend fin avec la conquête akkadienne. Ce théonyme apparait ensuite souvent, et notamment dans des listes de dieux, les « panthéons de Mari » d’époque shakkanakku, parfois en même temps que le terme plus ancien LUGAL.KALAM. Pour ces raisons, certains assyriologues ont mis en doute l’idée de la priorité de Dagan dans le panthéon mariote depuis l’antiquité présargonique. Ils ont souligné le fait que le titre DINGIR.LUGAL.KALAM-tim (bēl mātim) pourrait se référer à une autre importante divinité nord-mésopotamienne, en particulier une forme du dieu de l’Orage syrien, Addu44. Plus tard aussi identifié à Ba’al dans la littérature mythologique, ce dieu est ensuite reconnu comme fils de Dagan, dont le temple principal se trouve à Alep45. Sur cette même base, la question de la présence d’un temple de Dagan dans la cité de Mari présargonique a été longtemps débattue parmi les assyriologues et les archéologues46. Le titre de « Seigneur/Roi du Pays » est désormais bien attesté dans la documentation mariote présargonique grâce aux découvertes épigraphiques et archéologiques, réalisées à Mari ces dernières années47. La présence d’un temple de LUGAL.DINGIR.KALAM, a pu ainsi être démontrée48, et l’interprétation de cette divinité comme une épiclèse de Dagan a trouvé ainsi une nouvelle base, soulignant la continuité des cultes. Le fait que les espaces du temple du LUGAL.DINGIR.KALAM à Mari appartiennent au même secteur et s’articulent avec les locaux appartenant au temple d’une déesse NIN.HUR. SAG, une forme de déesse-mère, considérée une parèdre de Dagan, renforcerait ultérieurement cette identification49. Toutefois, l’importance de ce temple et de ce dieu et leur implantation antique dans la capitale n’excluent pas pour autant la possibilité qu’à Terqa aussi pouvait exister un lieu de culte réservé à une (autre) Guichard 2014, 123–124, col. IV, l.6–10, et pp 127–130 ; cf. Durand, 2008, 177–179 ; voir 1997, 103–107. 44 Durand 2008, 196 ; Fronzaroli / Catagnoti 2006, 284, Addu dieu du rite de ARET XII, I. 45 Durand 2008, 203–209 ; voir aussi Masetti-Rouault 2008 ; 2014. 46 Feliu 2003, 126–132 ; Margueron 1985, 494–496 ; 2004, 234–238 ; Durand 2008, 203– 204. 47 Butterlin 2015. 48 Cavigneaux 2014 ; Lecompte 2015. Voir aussi Charpin 2005. 49 Margueron 1985, 494–496 ; 2004, 234–240 ; Butterlin 2014 ; pour Terqa, cf. Durand 2008, 471. 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

546

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

forme de Dagan, le temple dédié au « Seigneur/Roi de Terqa  LUGAL ter5-qá », auquel on verse des offrandes, bien que rien n’atteste sa spécialisation dans la divination par incubation à cette époque. 7. L’Oracle de Terqa et la prêtresse L’interprétation du couple « père et mère des dieux » ou du « prêtre et prêtresse » pose toutefois, manifestement, un problème, dans la mesure où la forme des deux titres laisse supposer une équivalence dans la nature et le statut de leurs porteurs respectifs. En effet, partant de l’identification du temple (de Terqa) comme « maison du père des dieux », donc de Dagan, il est possible de proposer que c’est bien ce dieu, le « père des dieux »—pas un « prêtre »—qui parle dans l’espace sacré, et qui s’exprime par l’oracle. Son discours est caractérisé par une formulation particulière et, tout en citant le dieu (du temple) à la 3e personne—le « Seigneur du ciel, Seigneur du Pouvoir politique »—, de fait, parlant au roi, il utilise le style direct dans des expressions comme « notre route », « ma décision », « mon oracle », ce qui semble confirmer qu’il s’agit du dieu Dagan. Ce style semble avoir plusieurs points communs avec celui des messages de Dagan de Terqa au roi de Mari à l’époque paléo-babylonienne50. Le dieu insiste par ailleurs sur l’importance de l’oracle et sur l’obligation, pour le roi, de suivre les dispositions données par la prêtresse. Dans ce cas, si le prêtre est bien un dieu, la « prêtresse » aussi pourrait représenter une figure divine, une déesse-mère—par exemple, Ninhursag / Šalaš. Le texte connote toutefois cette femme, et sa fonction dans le temple, d’une façon assez claire, les présentant de façon strictement associée au rite d’incubation, sans qu’il soit clair si elle est la pythie du temple, recevant elle-même l’oracle, ou bien l’interprète des rêves des visiteurs. Les documents des archives épistolaires de Mari d’époque amorrite illustrent l’importance d’au moins une fonction sacerdotale, celle de prêtresse « ugbabtum » associée au temple de Dagan de Terqa et attribuée à des princesses royales51. Au moins une fois, une princesse ugbabtum, Kunšim-mȃtum, porte le titre d’épouse du dieu, « DAM dda-gan ». Nous ne pouvons pas distinguer, parmi ses fonctions dans le temple, une activité oraculaire, mais au moins un autre type de prêtresse liée au culte de Dagan, connue seulement à Terqa, la qammatu52, est par contre une prophétesse. Elle transmet à la sœur de Zimri-Lim un message de Dagan, concernant la politique et la stratégie du roi vis-à-vis d’Eshnunna53. Par conséquent—au-delà de la signification « Dagan » dans le cas du nom du temple—, la

Cf., par exemple, Durand 1988, 402–452 ; 1997–2000, 74–91. Durand 1997–2000, 386–390 ; 2008 : 392–402 ; Feliu 2003, 97–99. 52 Durand 1997–2000, 386–390 ; 2008 : 452–453 ; Feliu 2003, 99–100. 53 Durand 1997–2000, 402–404, t.1203 ; Feliu 2003, 99–100, cf. le titre de igi-gál-la-tu « la sage, celle qui sait », de Dagan, mère d’une dame Ili-Dumqi, elle-même ig-gal, attesté dans un contrat d’époque Khana, cf. Rouault 1984, 6, ll. 7–10, 8. 50 51

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

547

traduction de P. Fronzaroli, serait la meilleure, puisque le couple « père et mère des dieux » agit effectivement comme deux agents du culte de Dagan, dans le cadre duquel le « prêtre » occupe une position plus élevée et exprime l’oracle, tandis que la « prêtresse » se limite à la communication avec les monde extérieur, à l’accueil des visiteurs comme à l’administration du temple. 8. Conclusions : une pythie à Terqa ? Tenant compte de la tradition ultérieure, il me semble toutefois que le thème du voyage du roi de Mari vers le temple de Terqa assume une valeur particulière, et qu’il ne méritait d’être consigné dans un récit d’une évidente qualité littéraire, que s’il mettait en scène une rencontre du roi avec le dieu « père des dieux » et « seigneur du pouvoir » dans un contexte rituel et historique compréhensible. A travers cette expérience, le roi de Mari anonyme a obtenu la confirmation divine de la légitimité de sa royauté, en présence de son fils et successeur Enna-Dagan,— sans doute très intéressé à l’événement—, ainsi que des « gens » de la région, qui reconnaissaient l’autorité et la fonction de ce temple. Grâce à son intervention, qui l’amène à augmenter à effectuer ces offrandes en crescendo—céréales, animaux, argent—, le roi a pu régler un problème spécifique, mais peut-être aussi structurel, dans la gestion de la dynamique sacrificielle, concernant la qualité et la quantité des versements et des offrandes destinés au dieu qui maîtrise toute la région. Il a ainsi assumé, selon l’ordre de l’oracle, sa responsabilité directe vis-à-vis des dieux dans la gestion et le partage des obligations entre les communautés locales. L’idéologie correspondante, qui sera développée clairement par la production littéraire postérieure dès l’époque paléo-babylonienne, en particulier en Mésopotamie du Nord, trouverait dans ce texte une de ses premières expressions narrative, qui l’associe à la légitimation même de la royauté et de son pouvoir. Bibliographie Archi, A., 1985a : Le synchronisme entre les rois de Mari et les rois d’Ebla au IIIe millénaire. M.A.R.I. 4 : 47–52. –– 1985b : Rapports politiques et économiques entre Ebla et Mari. M.A.R.I. 4 : 63–69. ––1987 : Les titres de en et lugal à Ebla et des cadeaux pour le roi de Kish. M.A.R.I. 5 : 37–52. Archi, A. / Biga, M.G., 2003 : A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla. JCS 55 : 1–44. Biga, M.G., 2006 : Operatori cultuali a Ebla. Dans M. Rocchi / P. Xella / J.A. Zamora (éds) : Gli operatori cultuali. Verona. Pp.17–37. Biga, M.G. / Capomacchia, M.G., 2008 : Il politeismo vicino-orientale. Introduzione alla storia delle religioni del Vicino Oriente antico. Roma. Bonechi, M., 1997 : Lexique et idéologie royale à l’époque proto-syrienne. M.A.R.I. 8 : 477–535. Bonechi, M. / Durand, J.-M., 1992 :  Oniromancie et magie à Mari à l’époque © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

548

M.G. Masetti-Rouault

d’Ebla. Dans P. Fronzaroli (éd.) : Literature and Literary Language at Ebla (Quaderni di Semitistica 18). Firenze. Pp. 151–161. Butterlin, P., 2015 : Au cœur du pouvoir à Mari  : Le « Massif Rouge et le temple du « Seigneur du pays ». Enjeux et résultats des nouvelles recherches conduites à Mari 2006–2010. Dans C. Michel (éd.) : De la maison à la ville dans le Proche-Orient Ancien. Bâtiments publics et lieux du pouvoir. Nanterre. Pp. 119–130. Cavigneaux, A., 2014 : Nouveaux textes de Mari Ville II (Campagnes 1998 à 2007). Syria Supplément II : 291–340. Charpin, D., 1987 : Tablettes présargoniques de Mari. M.A.R.I. 5 : 65–127. –– 2005 : Mari et Ebla : des synchronismes confirmés. NABU (2005/1). Durand, J.-M., 1988 : Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 (ARM 26/1). Paris. –– 2008 : La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari. Dans G. Del Olmo Lete (éd.) : Mythologie et religion des Sémites occidentaux, Vol. I (OLA 162). Leuven / Paris / Dudley, MA. Pp. 163–752. –– 1997–2000 : Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, tomes I–III. Paris. Feliu, L., 2003 : The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (CHANE 19). Leiden / Boston. Foster, B.R., 2006 : Compte-rendu de Fronzaroli, P. – Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi, XIII. Testi di cancelleria : I rapporti con le città (Archivio L. 2769). BiOr LXIII/1–2 : 108–111. Fronzaroli, P., 1993 : Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi, XI. Testi rituali della regalità (Archivio L. 2769). Roma –– 2003 : Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi, XIII. Testi di cancelleria : I rapporti con le città (Archivio L. 2769). Roma. Fronzaroli, P. / Catagnoti, A., 2006 : The MI-SA-GA-TIM Rite at Ebla. Dans P.G. Borbone / A. Mengozzi / M. Tosco (éds) : Loquentes linguis. Studi linguistici e orientali in onore de Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti. Wiesbaden. Pp. 277–290. Jacquet J., 2009 : Chroniques bibliographiques 14. Dagan Le Seigneur du pays : quelques remarques sur Dagan dans la Syrie de l’Âge du Bronze. RA 103 : 159–188. Grayson, A.K., 1987 : Assyrian Rulers of the Third and second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (RIMA I). Toronto / Buffalo / London. Guichard, M., 2014 : L’épopée de Zimri-Lim (Florilegium Marianum 14). Paris. Lambert, W.G., 1985 : The pantheon of Mari. M.A.R.I. 4 : 525–539. Lecompte, C., 2015 : Le Sanctuaire du « Seigneur du pays » : les temples et le palais à Mari au 3e millénaire : apports des inscriptions lapidaires ». Dans C. Michel (éd.) : De la maison à la ville dans le Proche-Orient Ancien. Bâtiments publics et lieux du pouvoir. Nanterre. Pp. 131–137. Margueron , J.-Cl., 1985 : Quelques remarques sur les temples de Mari. M.A.R.I. 4 : 487–507. –– 2004. Mari Métropole de l’Euphrate, Paris. Masetti-Rouault, M.G., 2008 : Armes et armées des dieux dans les traditions mésopotamiennes. Dans Ph. Abrahami / L. Battini (éds) : Les armées du ProcheOrient ancien 3ème–1er millénaire av.-J.-C., Actes du Colloque international organisé à Lyon les 1–2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. Oxford. Pp. 219–230. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Vu d’Ebla, un roi de Mari en pèlerinage à Terqa ?

549

–– 2014 : Fathers and Sons in Syro-Mesopotamian Pantheons : Problems of Identity and Succession in Cuneiform Traditions. Dans L. Marti (éd.) : La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien : réalités, symbolismes, et images. Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 6–9 July, 2009. Winona Lake. Pp. 133–140. Milano, L. / Tonietti, V., 2012 : Cerimonialità alimentare a Ebla : offerte, pasti, sacrifici. Dans L. Milano (éd.) : Mangiare divinamente. Pratiche e simbologie alimentari nell’antico Oriente (Eothen 20). Firenze. Pp. 33–82. Oppenheim, A.L., 1956 : The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46, Part 3). Philadelphia. Pp. 179–360. Pomponio F., / Xella P., 1997 : Les dieux d’Ebla. Etude analytique des divinités éblaites à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire (AOAT 245). Münster. Rouault, O. 1984 : L’Archive de Puzurum (Terqa Final Reports 1). Malibu. –– 2013 : Terqa. RlA 13 : 597–603. –– 2014 : Le Moyen Euphrate depuis la région de Terqa au IIIe Millénaire av. n. ère. Syria Supplément II : 247–264. Ristvet, L. 2011 : Travel and the Making of the North Mesopotamian Polities. BASOR 361 : 1–31. Zgoll, A., 2006 : Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien. Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.–1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens. Münster.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie : le décor du sceau-cylindre RS 2009.9019 Valérie Matoïan

En témoignage de mon estime pour Frances Pinnock, dont l’œuvre scientifique s’est attachée à approfondir nos connaissances sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de la Syrie antique, je souhaite lui offrir l’étude d’un sceau-cylindre (RS 2009.9019) du Bronze récent final découvert dans le « Palais sud » d’Ugarit au printemps 2009. Son décor fait référence à la représentation du pouvoir dans l’art syrien du second millénaire av. J.-C., thème particulièrement cher à Frances Pinnock1. L’objet provient de la partie occidentale de la construction (locus 217) et a été présenté dans le rapport conjoint de la mission archéologique syro-française de Ras Shamra – Ougarit paru dans Syria 20132. Taillé dans une stéatite-chlorite de couleur noire3, le sceau a une hauteur de 2,11 cm et un diamètre de 1,1 cm. S’il est complet, sa surface est érodée et en partie couverte de concrétions (rougeâtres et blanchâtres). L’objet est conservé au Musée de Lattaquié. Le thème de son décor, gravé assez sommairement, est inédit à Ugarit : une figure de sphinx et une figure de taureau, toutes deux ailées, encadrent deux personnages masculins : le premier, debout, un bras levé, menace et maîtrise le second, agenouillé à ses pieds et maintenu par la chevelure (Figs 1 et 2)4.

En dernier, Pinnock 2015. Dans le cadre d’un nouveau programme de la mission portant sur l’étude des « grandes demeures » de la cité du Bronze récent, le dossier du « Palais Sud » ou Résidence dite « de Yabninu » a été repris en 2009 par une équipe conjointe. L’un des objectifs de cette opération est, d’une part, de mener à bien, sur le terrain, l’étude architecturale détaillée du bâtiment et d’en terminer le dégagement au sud (Matoïan et al. [éds] 2013, 448–451) et, d’autre part, de publier le matériel inédit issu des fouilles anciennes. Sur la provenance de l’objet, découvert en 2009 lors d’une opération de terrain réalisée par Y. Kanhoush, voir : Matoïan et al. (éds) 2013, 448–449, fig. 11. 3 Sur l’emploi de cette roche dans la documentation archéologique d’Ugarit, voir Icart / Chanut / Matoïan 2008. 4 Je remercie Carole Cheval pour les dessins du sceau-cylindre et de son empreinte et Emma Croidieu pour la mise en page des photographies. 1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

552

V. Matoïan

La scène centrale fait référence au thème du Pharaon combattant / vainqueur, élaboré dès les premières dynasties égyptiennes 5 et attesté au Levant à partir de la première moitié du second millénaire av. J.-C. Le thème du roi maîtrisant ses ennemis est en effet connu en Syrie, dans le domaine de la glyptique, dès la période du Bronze moyen. Sur certains documents, le monarque apparaît piétinant son ou ses ennemis6. Sur d’autres, il adopte l’attitude illustrée sur le sceau du « Palais Sud »7. Mais ce thème n’est pas attesté à Ras Shamra dans la documentation du Bronze moyen où les figures masculines représentées un bras levé tenant une arme semblent réservées à des représentations divines8. Au Bronze récent, l’image du roi vainqueur—maîtrisant un ennemi humain— est connue par plusieurs documents du répertoire ougaritique. Le plus célèbre est l’une des pièces maîtresses de l’ivoirerie levantine. Le décor d’une plaque du panneau de lit en ivoire du Palais royal est en effet consacré à ce thème (Fig. 3). Mais, sur l’ivoire aulique, l’attitude du souverain est différente. Le monarque debout est armé d’une épée qu’il tient à la hauteur de sa hanche et menace un ennemi, représenté un genou à terre face à lui et dont il tient, de la main gauche, une mèche de cheveux9. Le roi s’apprête peut-être à lui crever un œil de la pointe de son épée. Il est difficile de trancher quant à la signification de l’attitude de l’ennemi, les deux bras levés vers le souverain. Elle pourrait exprimer l’hommage, la soumission ou la supplication. Celle du roi, dont le bras armé n’est pas levé vers l’arrière, rappelle quant à elle d’autres représentations connues dans la glyptique du Bronze récent d’Ugarit (Fig. 4)10. 1. Description de la représentation Les figures représentées sur le sceau-cylindre RS  2009.9019 sont rendues de manière stylisée. L’état de conservation de la surface de l’objet est variable et certains détails ont aujourd’hui disparu ou sont peu lisibles. La figure principale

5 6

Sur ce thème, repris tout au long de l’histoire égyptienne, voir notamment : Hall 1986.

On citera par exemple l’empreinte du sceau de Mukanishum de Mari : le roi vainqueur

piétine ses ennemis tandis qu’il tient l’un d’eux par le bras et le frappe de sa harpé (Otto 2000) ou encore une empreinte d’Alalakh (Collon 1975, 12‒13, nos 11 et 170–172). 7 L’image du pharaon, un bras levé tenant une masse d’armes et de l’autre empoignant par les cheveux un ennemi agenouillé devant lui, apparaît sur plusieurs sceaux : un sceau-cylindre en hématite (Bruxelles, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, O.1484) provenant de la côte levantine, 1750–1500 av. J.-C. (Gubel 2013, 22–23, fig. 1) ; un sceau en hématite de provenance inconnue, période III (1600–1500 av. J.-C.) (Teissier 1996, 50–55, no. 24). 8 Pour la glyptique : Amiet 1992, nos 42 et 45. Pour Alalakh, voir Collon 1975, 184, Pls XXV–XXVI. Sur le « Smiting God », voir Collon 1972. 9 Gachet-Bizollon 2001, 42–44, fig. 12. L’ivoire est daté vers 1250 av. J.-C. 10 Sur lesquelles J.  Gachet-Bizollon (2001) avait attiré l’attention : voir Amiet 1992, nos 294, 295, 296. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

553

est celle d’un personnage masculin debout, tourné vers la gauche, et vêtu d’un pagne court. Deux lignes verticales, légèrement divergentes, sont gravées sur le vêtement, évoquant peut-être un motif décoratif ou un devanteau. Le torse nu du personnage est rendu par un triangle opposé à celui du pagne et de surface identique. Le personnage porte une coiffe ovoïde dont l’extrémité est pointue. Il est dans l’attitude du roi combattant / vainqueur, le bras gauche levé. Il ne semble pas tenir d’arme. Le roi touche de sa main droite la chevelure de l’ennemi qui se termine par une sorte de toupet au sommet de sa tête. En s’appuyant sur les autres représentations connues de ce thème, le motif semble évoquer les mèches de cheveux que l’on observe généralement au-dessus de la main du pharaon. Mais, ici, le traitement schématique n’offre pas le rendu de tous les détails. L’attitude de la figure du vainqueur est assez statique : on observe la verticalité du corps, le buste n’étant pas penché vers l’avant, et les deux pieds semblent posés à plat. Le roi n’est pas surdimensionné par rapport au second personnage. Le visage de ce dernier est tourné vers lui alors que le bas de son corps est orienté vers la gauche. Le bras gauche de l’ennemi est fléchi et levé en direction du roi, alors que son bras droit est tendu en direction du sol. Une certaine distance est marquée entre le roi et son ennemi, ce qui diffère de la scène de l’ivoire du Palais royal où l’on observe une imbrication des jambes des protagonistes. Au-dessus du personnage agenouillé, dont l’attitude traduit un déséquilibre et contraste avec celle du roi, on voit un scorpion et, au-dessus, un disque solaire muni de deux ailes ajourées. Emprunté à l’Égypte et connu au Proche-Orient dès le Bronze moyen, le disque solaire ailé a une symbolique forte, à la fois solaire et royale11. À Ugarit, il est attesté principalement dans la glyptique du Bronze récent, pour l’essentiel sur les sceaux-cylindres en pierre12. La tradition des ailes ajourées remonte au Bronze moyen en Syrie13 et ce type sera la caractéristique des disques solaires du premier millénaire en Phénicie14. Le scorpion est un motif fréquent dans la glyptique sur pierre de Ras Shamra. Il apparaît comme élément figuré dans de très nombreuses scènes gravées sur sceaux-cylindres (plus d’une cinquantaine)15, mais aussi comme motif principal sur quelques cachets quadrangulaires et scarabées16. S’il n’est pas dans nos objec Parayre 1990 ; 1993. Pour des exemples de sceaux-cylindres en pierre, voir : Amiet 1992, nos 48, 140, 145, 164, 166, 180, 193, 198, 212, 220, 223, 251, 306, 319, 352. Pour la glyptique en matières vitreuses, voir : Schaeffer-Forrer 1983, RS 14.117. Le motif du disque solaire ailé apparaît sur d’autres supports, comme les stèles (RS 8.295) et les « supports » cultuels en terre cuite (RS 24.520 ; RS 78.041 + RS 81.3659). 13 Parayre 1993, 31. 14 Parayre 1993, 33. 15 Voir Amiet 1992. Si le scorpion apparaît dans la glyptique dès le Bronze moyen (Amiet 1992, nos 5, 9, 15, 23), les occurrences les plus nombreuses datent du Bronze récent. 16 La figure du scorpion apparaît plus rarement sur d’autres supports ; on mentionnera notamment une masse d’arme inédite RS 24.57 (étude en cours par l’auteur et A.-S. Dalix). 11

12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

554

V. Matoïan

tifs d’analyser ici les occurrences de cette figure à Ugarit, on retiendra toutefois plusieurs sceaux-cylindres dont le décor associe le scorpion à une scène dont la thématique pourrait faire référence à la guerre ou à l’art cynégétique17. Sur le sceau-cylindre RS 4.129 en stéatite de Minet el-Beida18 et sur le sceau-cylindre RS 6.389 en faïence de Minet el-Beida19, le scorpion côtoie des parties de corps humains, évoquant peut-être des ennemis vaincus dont le corps a été dépecé, ainsi que d’autres motifs parmi lesquels le disque ailé et le lion. Les deux personnages centraux du sceau RS 2009.9019 sont encadrés par deux figures mythologiques. À droite du souverain est présent un sphinx, animal monstrueux fréquemment associé au roi. Il est représenté passant, tourné vers la gauche, comme le roi, et muni de deux grandes et hautes ailes. Il porte une coiffe rappelant la couronne rouge égyptienne20. Le visage est rendu de manière très schématique; les yeux ne sont pas représentés. Deux globules sont visibles entre ses pattes. Les ailes sont relevées, de profil, représentées l’une au-dessus de l’autre. Elles sont implantées presque à la verticale, non pas au sommet des épaules mais sur le dos, et sont coudées, presque à angle droit; chacune présente six lignes verticales évoquant le plumage. À gauche de l’ennemi, une figure, que nous identifions à un taureau ailé, est représentée selon une oblique, tête vers le bas. Le corps de l’animal est strié. Contrairement au sphinx, une seule aile est figurée de profil et relevée. Elle est marquée de cinq stries horizontales qui évoquent le plumage. Le traitement des ailes des deux animaux mythologiques, fortement séparées du corps, permet de faire des rapprochements avec d’autres sceaux-cylindres du répertoire ougaritique21. Le répertoire iconographique de la glyptique d’Ugarit est riche de figures ailées réelles ou imaginaires. Les deux êtres ailés figurés de chaque côté de la scène de combat / victoire sont des entités du monde mythique. Mais que représentent-ils ? À droite, le sphinx, dans une attitude passante, fait écho au roi qu’il accompagne. L’image de cet être hybride, créée en Égypte dès l’Ancien Empire et conçue « comme celle d’un homme participant du divin »22, c’est-à-dire Pharaon, a été très tôt adoptée et adaptée dans l’iconographie proche-orientale comme symbole royal. Le sphinx23 est une figure fréquente dans l’imagerie ougaritique

Amiet 1992, nos 92, 300, 328; Schaeffer-Forrer 1983, RS 6.389. Amiet 1992, no. 300. 19 Schaeffer-Forrer 1983. 20 Les figures de sphinx à Ugarit peuvent ou non porter une coiffe. Plusieurs coiffes paraissent être inspirées de coiffes égyptiennes : la « couronne rouge », le « casque bleu », le « némès ». 21 Voir Amiet 1992, nos 350, 402, 404, 487. 22 Zivie-Coche 2006, 57. 23 Sur ce motif, voir aussi Dessenne 1957. 17 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

555

du Bronze récent, en particulier dans l’ivoirerie24, l’orfèvrerie25, et la glyptique où l’image du roi associée à celle du sphinx est connue dès le Bronze moyen26. Le taureau ailé est au contraire un monstre rarement représenté27. Un parallèle intéressant peut être établi avec un sceau-cylindre découvert dans la Maison dite « de Patili » ou « Patiluwa » de la « Tranchée Sud-acropole » (RS 27.57) (Fig. 5)28. Le décor montre un personnage vêtu d’un pagne strié, peut-être dans l’attitude du vainqueur mais ne tenant pas d’arme ; l’un de ses bras est tendu au-dessus d’un second personnage, de plus petites dimensions, agenouillé. Les deux regardent dans la même direction, vers la gauche. À côté de ces deux figures, sont représentés, au-dessus d’une bande décorée de cercles avec croix et d’un enroulement, un sphinx à demi accroupi face à un taureau ailé accroupi. Ce dernier, traité avec un certain réalisme, est représenté de profil, avec les cornes vues de face. Ainsi, quatre des six éléments de notre sceau apparaissent dans le décor de RS 27.57, mais organisés selon une composition très différente. De plus, la tension exprimée dans le décor de notre sceau fait défaut. L’attitude plongeante du taureau ailé de RS 2009.9019 est en effet exceptionnelle dans le répertoire ougaritain. Si des figures d’animaux cabrés sont présentes dans la glyptique sur pierre de Ras Shamra, il s’agit le plus souvent d’animaux dressés sur leurs pattes postérieures29 et les représentations d’animaux plongeant restent rares30. Les parallèles les plus probants pour ce motif sont à rechercher dans le corpus des sceaux médio-assyriens,31 où l’image du taureau ailé est bien connue32 et où les animaux (réels ou monstrueux) dans une attitude plongeante sont communes33.

Gachet-Bizollon 2001 et 2007 (cf. des ivoires du Palais royal : le guéridon, cat. 272 ; l’« olifant », cat. 386 ; un fragment de meuble, cat. 321 ; une plaque en forme d’aile, cat. 337). 25 Voir la coupe en or de l’Acropole (RS 5.032). Dans le domaine de l’orfèvrerie, nous avons proposé qu’une feuille d’or en forme d’aile (RS  16.169) à décor ajouré ait pu participer au décor d’un meuble décoré d’une figure de sphinx (Matoïan 2008, 59–60 ; Matoïan 2014, 39 sq). 26 Amiet 1992, no. 42 et aussi no. 40 pour un sceau rattaché à l’« atelier d’Alep ». Pour les attestations au Bronze récent, voir Dalix 2003, tableau p. 50. 27 Sur l’image du taureau dans la glyptique d’Ugarit, voir Cluzan 2007. Dans cette étude, S. Cluzan ne prend pas en compte les représentations de taureaux ailés. 28 Amiet 1992, no. 295. 29 Voir par exemple : Amiet 1992, cat. nos 48, 80, 276, 289, 302, 320, 355, 362. 30 Amiet 1992, cat. nos 140, 168, 358. 31 Par exemple, Teissier 1984, cat. 141, 148–149. 32 Moortgat 1944, fig. 23 : taureau ailé androcéphale en diagonale ; Teissier 1984, 31, cat. nos 139, 148–149 ; Beyer 2001, cat. G3. 33 Voir notamment : Moortgat 1942, fig. 54 ; 1944, figs 22, 23 ; Venit 1986 ; Matthews 1991, 24, 37. 24

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

556

V. Matoïan

2. Essai d’interprétation symbolique La composition suggère une distinction entre la partie droite de la scène, où le sphinx et le roi montrent une attitude relativement statique, assurée, et la partie gauche, sous-tendue par le mouvement rendu par la diagonale du taureau et de l’ennemi. La puissance du vainqueur—le roi—contrebalance le déséquilibre de l’ennemi vaincu, vers lequel plonge le taureau ailé. Aucun indice ne permet de rattacher la scène gravée sur le sceau-cylindre RS 2009.9019 à un évènement historique. La présence du sphinx et du taureau ailés place de suite la représentation dans le domaine de la symbolique royale. Le centre de la composition—le combat des forces au plan humain—est encadré par les équivalences de ces forces au plan mythique. L’œuvre a pour fonction de traduire visuellement le pouvoir du roi. Nous sommes probablement en présence de l’évocation symbolique de l’une des fonctions du roi qui se doit de maintenir l’ordre (du royaume d’Ugarit ?) et par là même de maîtriser ses ennemis. L’imagerie n’est pas en contradiction avec la documentation textuelle d’Ugarit, où le roi apparaît en commandant suprême de l’armée34 et comme l’intermédiaire entre les dieux et les hommes, garant de l’équilibre du royaume. Le décor du sceau-cylindre RS 2009.9019 célèbrerait ainsi l’équilibre entre Chaos primordial et Cosmos organisé. Dans le champ des études ougaritiques, l’enquête iconographique et iconologique se révèle particulièrement ardue en l’absence quasi systématique de textes associés de manière directe aux images. Le décryptage des figures associées au monde divin est des plus délicats. Ici, la composition parfaitement conçue de la scène permet d’envisager que chaque élément revêtait un sens. Dans cette perspective, nous souhaiterions proposer à titre d’hypothèse quelques identifications. L’image du sphinx, dont le lien avec la symbolique royale a été évoqué ci-dessus, ne pourrait-elle être associée à une figure divine ougaritique. Nous pensons au dieu Ḥoron35. Celui-ci n’est-il pas invoqué dans un passage du poème de Baal

Selon J.-P. Vita (Vita 2005, 70) : « le roi d’Ougarit pouvait diriger lui-même les opérations militaires depuis le champ de bataille ». 35 La documentation épigraphique d’Ugarit offre l’un des dossiers les plus riches pour l’étude de cette figure divine au IIe millénaire av. J.-C. : voir notamment, Stadelmann 1967, 76–88 ; Xella 1972 ; 1989 ; 1992 ; Caquot 1979–80 ; Rüterswörden 1999 ; Pardee 2000 ; Dietrich / Loretz 2008b ; del Olmo Lete 2014. À l’instar d’autres dieux empruntés au monde proche-oriental, le culte de Ḥoron est introduit en Égypte au IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Il se distingue toutefois de ces divinités car il fut identifié, dès le règne du pharaon Amenhotep II, à Hor-em-akhet, « Horus dans l’Horizon » en égyptien (Harmachis en grec), le nom divin du Grand Sphinx de Guizeh. C’est en effet à partir du Nouvel Empire que la statue monumentale, taillée directement dans le roc calcaire du plateau au cours de la IVe dynastie égyptienne, prend un statut divin. Le Sphinx devient alors un forme spécifique d’Horus, tourné vers l’Orient, lieu du lever du soleil. Et, tout comme lui, Ḥoron peut apparaître en Égypte sous la forme d’un sphinx ou d’un faucon 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

557

et la Mer36, pour briser la tête de Yam, la Mer, symbole du Chaos liquide et ennemi du dieu de l’orage qui est garant de la royauté ougaritique37?  L’interprétation de la figure du taureau ailé est quant à elle plus difficile dans la mesure où elle n’apparaît pas dans les textes ougaritiques et où elle est atypique dans l’imagerie ougaritique. La composition de la scène donne à penser que le monstre pourrait avoir un lien avec la figure de l’ennemi maîtrisé / vaincu, et que la diagonale du taureau ailé a pour objectif de traduire, de manière explicite, un mouvement du haut vers le bas du cadre de la représentation, du ciel vers la terre. Par ailleurs, les parallèles iconographiques semblent orienter vers la Mésopotamie, comme nous l’avons vu. Une figure de la mythologie mésopotamienne vient alors à l’esprit, celle que l’on peut associer à l’image littéraire du « Taureau céleste » dans l’Épopée de Gilgamesh (Tablette VI)38. Un passage du récit raconte comment cet être fabuleux fut envoyé sur terre pour tuer Gilgamesh, car celui-ci avait refusé à la déesse Ishtar son offre de mariage, et comment il fut finalement abattu par le roi d’Uruk, avec l’aide d’Enkidu. Nous savons que cette œuvre littéraire, qui narre l’histoire d’un roi mythique au courage et à la force insurpassables, était connue à Ugarit, comme d’ailleurs dans tout le Proche-Orient ancien. Plusieurs documents, provenant tous de la Maison dite « d’Urtenu », en livrent des passages39. Précisons toutefois que le contenu des tablettes trouvées à Ras Shamra ne fait pas référence à l’animal mythologique. Ce dernier est peut-être mentionné dans l’une des deux versions de la « Ballade

(Stadelmann 1967, 81–88 ; van Dijk 1989 ; Zivie-Coche 2006). Sur l’iconographie de Ḥoron sous la forme d’un sphinx dans la glyptique du Ier millénaire, voir Gubel 2002. 36 Caquot / Sznycer / Herdner 1974, 127. 37 Matoïan 2014. 38 Sur cette œuvre littéraire, voir entre autres : Bottéro 1992; Tournay / Shaffer 1994 ; George 2003. Sur le « taureau céleste », voir Black / Green 1992, 49. 39 Il s’agit d’une tablette complète RS 94.2066 (Arnaud 2007, 8  ; George 2007, MB Ug1 [George donne pour ce texte un numéro d’inventaire incorrect RS 94.2006 à la place de RS 94.2066]) et de trois fragments appartenant probablement à la même tablette (Arnaud 2007, no. 43 (RS 94.2191), no. 44 (RS 94.2082), no. 45 (RS 94.2083) ; George 2007, MB Ug2). Selon D. Arnaud, la tablette RS 94.2066 est une copie locale qui fait référence à la version canonique du poème, alors que les trois fragments reproduiraient une version « ancienne » remontant à l’époque paléo-babylonienne. Pour A.R. George (2007, 253–254) : « Both texts show clear connections with the canonical Gilgameš poem of the first millennium, but both also exhibit clear differences. (…) For the moment I see good reason to identify them both as corrupt representatives of a single, Middle Babylonian version of the poem that reached the Mediterranean via Assyria ». Récemment, voir aussi Anthonioz 2015. A. Cavigneaux (Cavigneaux 2007) a par ailleurs émis l’hypothèse que RS 94.2953, provenant également de la Maison dite « d’Urtenu », puisse aussi faire référence à Gilgameš. En revanche, D. Arnaud y voit un texte rattaché au Cycle de Baal (Arnaud 2007, no. 65, 201–202). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

558

V. Matoïan

des héros du temps jadis » connues à Ugarit40. Ce texte (RS 23.034+), considéré comme une édition locale, livre la liste des rois fabuleux qui ont régné après le Déluge et fait référence à un taureau vaincu : « Héros qui [honores] ton [dieu ;] terrasse ! vainc le Taureau… »41. Le taureau ailé du sceau d’Ugarit pourrait-il représenter le « Taureau céleste » et symboliser, au même titre que la figure de l’ennemi agenouillé, les « forces négatives » maîtrisées ? Le combat se placerait sur deux plans : céleste (évoqué par le taureau ailé) et humain (évoqué par l’ennemi agenouillé), voire peut-être trois si l’on relie la figure du scorpion au monde chtonien42. L’originalité de cette œuvre ougaritique serait l’adoption par le graveur d’un motif iconographique de la glyptique mésopotamienne pour illustrer une figure de la littérature mésopotamienne symbolisant les « forces destructrices en mouvement », le « Taureau céleste » au moment où il descend du ciel et non pas lorsqu’il est vaincu par Gilgamesh et Enkidu comme l’illustrent d’autres représentations du Proche-Orient ancien43. Le scorpion, de part sa position centrale et haute, sous le disque ailé, ferait-il aussi référence au monde divin ? L’animal pourrait-il être ici l’emblème de la déesse ’Ušḫarâ [’Ušḫr(y)] ? Cette divinité, qui correspond à Išḫara en Mésopotamie44 et en Anatolie, est la dame des serments et de la justice45. Elle présente aussi des caractéristiques guerrières et deux animaux de nature chtonienne lui sont associés : le serpent46 et le scorpion. Ces derniers éléments supporteraient notre hypothèse. Par ailleurs, d’après le rituel RS 24.260 (KTU 1.115), on peut envisager que ’Ušḫarâ soit la parèdre de ’ilu Bêti, théonyme interprété comme « le dieu de la maison/du palais »47, ce qui nous ramène à la sphère royale. 3. Les données livrées par l’étude contextuelle Selon notre interprétation, la composition iconographique, originale, traduirait un double emprunt, à l’Égypte et à la Mésopotamie, dans les domaines de l’image et

Arnaud 2007, no. 48 B-C, RS 23.034+. Arnaud 2007, 146, lignes 14–15’.

40 41

On rappellera la tablette 15289 de Mari où l’on trouve la métaphore du taureau pour le scorpion, appelé « Taureau des Enfers » (Cavigneaux 1994). 43 Cf. Lambert 1987; Ornan 2010. 44 Black / Green 1992, 110. 45 Sur cette divinité à Ugarit, voir notamment Pardee 2000, 77 ; del Olmo Lete (éd.) 2008. Sur cette divinité en Syrie, en particulier dans la documentation d’Ebla et de Mari : Archi 1993 ; Durand 2008, 262–263. 46 Dans le texte RS 24.260 (Pardee 2000, 643–651) la déesse est associée au mot ḫlmẓ : « lézard, serpent » (cf. Pardee 2000, 77, note 307, 645–646). 47 Pardee 2000, 76 ; del Olmo Lete (éd.) 2008, 116. D’après le texte RS 24.260, ’Ušḫarâ pourrait aussi être la parèdre du dieu Qlḥ (selon Pardee 2000, 647). D’autres auteurs préfèrent voir dans Qlḥ une épithète de la déesse (en dernier, Durand 2014). 42

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

559

de la littérature, et témoignerait une nouvelle fois de la faculté des Ougaritains à produire des œuvres dont l’iconographie s’inspire de traditions extérieures. L’étude du contexte de découverte de l’objet apporte des éléments qu’il est possible de mettre en parallèle avec cette hypothèse de lecture. Concernant la référence à l’iconographie égyptienne, rappelons tout d’abord que les textes mis au jour dans le « Palais Sud » nous renseignent sur les activités de son propriétaire, un dénommé Yabninu, qui joua un rôle dans les relations avec l’Égypte à la période finale du Bronze récent. Ses activités commerciales, tournées pour partie vers l’Égypte48, expliquent probablement, du moins en partie, la découverte dans le « Palais Sud » d’une série remarquable d’objets, importés de la Vallée du Nil ou témoignant d’une influence assyrienne des productions artistiques égyptiennes. La liste des artefacts est en effet assez longue et nombre d’objets sont exceptionnels à Ugarit : un socle de statuette (RS  19.186)  datée de la XIXe dynastie portant une dédicace au dieu de l’Orage49; une dizaine de vases en travertin de formes variées (des amphores, des alabastres, une cruche la plupart décorés50, parmi lesquels un fragment de vase inscrit au nom du pharaon Ramsès II (RS 21.310)51 ; un fragment de vase en anorthosite (RS 19.244) dont la provenance égyptienne est possible52 ; un miroir en bronze qui est peut-être une importation égyptienne53 ; un ensemble de perles en faïence (RS 21.194)54 importé d’Égypte; une pièce d’applique (RS 28.32) en ivoire d’hippopotame en forme de pilier-djed55 ; une exceptionnelle statuette (incomplète) de singe assis, en stéatite (?) glaçurée (RS 2009.9040), découverte en 2009 comme le sceau-cylindre56. RS 2009–9019 vient enrichir le corpus de la glyptique mise au jour dans le « Palais Sud » par C. Schaeffer, au sein duquel le sceau-cylindre RS 21.01857 retiendra plus particulièrement notre attention (Fig. 6). Son décor est de style égyptisant et le thème iconographique est celui de la chasse : une chasse au lion à laquelle participent trois personnages masculins armés. La thématique du héros / roi / chasseur combattant un fauve, animal dont la symbolique royale a été maintes fois soulignée58, est souvent mise en parallèle avec celle du roi combattant ses ennemis. Le motif présente plusieurs variantes dans le répertoire iconographique d’Ugarit, selon la posture et la position des protagonistes l’un par rapport à l’autre, le(s) type(s) d’arme(s) (lance, poignard, Cf. RS 19.50 et RS 19.66. Schaeffer 1962, 124, fig. 101, 133. 50 Caubet 1991 ; Sparks 2007 ; Matoïan 2015. 51 Courtois 1990 ; Lagarce-Othman 2013 ; Matoïan 2013 ; 2015. 52 Courtois 1990, 134 ; Icart / Chanut / Matoïan 2008, 164, pl. VII : 3. 53 Matoïan / Carbillet 2014. 54 Matoïan 2000. 55 Gachet-Bizollon 2007, 175, 177, 296, cat. 354, pl. 42, 105. 56 Matoïan et al. (éd.) 2013 (objet cité p. 450). 57 Amiet 1992, no. 316. 58 Voir, entre autres, pour Ugarit  Dalix-Meier / Vila 2008. 48 49

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

560

V. Matoïan

arc et flèche) utilisées ou encore le statut que l’on peut attribuer aux personnages représentés59. Sur le panneau de lit en ivoire, les deux thèmes sont juxtaposés :60 le personnage combattant le lion porte une coiffe pharaonique (le « casque bleu »)61, et il est armé d’une pique ou d’une lance, comme le personnage figuré sur l’empreinte du sceau du roi Niqmaddu62. Dans certains cas, plusieurs personnages participent à l’action, comme sur la coupe en or (RS 5.032) de l’Acropole conservée au Musée d’Alep63 ou sur le sceau-cylindre RS 21.018 du « Palais Sud ». Notons aussi le décor d’un sceau-cylindre (RS 4.021) de Minet el-Beida, qui associe la chasse au lion en char et la victoire sur l’ennemi, ce dernier étant représenté allongé sous les pattes des chevaux64. Si notre regard porte maintenant vers l’Orient, certaines données révélées par l’étude de l’archive retrouvée dans le « Palais Sud » sont tout aussi intéressantes. Les études paléographiques ont montré que les textes syllabiques témoignent d’une influence assyrienne, qui pourrait être due à la présence d’un scribe originaire de Mésopotamie, dont le nom, Naḫeši-šalmu, est connu par le texte de la tablette RS 19.05365. Bien qu’aucun lien direct ne puisse être établi, on peut s’interroger sur les éventuels impacts de la présence d’un lettré assyrien sur la culture matérielle locale révélée par la fouille de cette habitation. On rappellera par ailleurs que les deux tablettes ougaritiques de l’épopée de Gilgameš (voir supra) témoignent d’assyrianismes et que leur texte ferait référence à une version médio-babylonienne du poème ayant gagné la côte méditerranéenne via l’Assyrie. Le « facteur humain » est l’un des plus intéressants à étudier et l’un des plus difficiles à appréhender. Essayer de le cerner, au travers d’approches multiples, est l’un des enjeux de la recherche actuelle. Et dans un espace fondé sur le cosmopolitisme, la question de l’identité culturelle est au premier plan. La variété et la richesse des échanges dont Ugarit fut le cadre en font un creuset pour l’approfondissement de notre réflexion sur les interactions culturelles au Levant nord, en particulier dans le domaine de l’iconographie. L’image de Gilgameš à Ugarit n’a pas encore fait l’objet d’une étude spécifique. Or, l’identification que nous avons faite récemment, sur une empreinte de sceau inédite, de plusieurs scènes que nous interprétons comme des versions visuelles de l’Épopée de Gilgameš66, montre, s’il est encore besoin, le potentiel Voir notamment pour le Bronze récent, Amiet 1992, nos 55, 92, 166, 168, 316, 319, 320, 331, 368. 60 Gachet-Bizollon 2001, 44–47. 61 Cette coiffe caractéristique est également attestée sur un sceau-cylindre : Amiet 1992, no. 92. 62 Schaeffer 1956, 78, fig. 100. 63 Schaeffer 1949, pl. VIII. 64 Amiet 1992, no. 302. 65 Voir Van Soldt 2001; 2002 ; 2012. 66 RS 17.77 : une première présentation de cet objet a été faite à Münster à l’automne 2015 dans le cadre du colloque Literaturkontakte Ugarits – Wurzeln und Entfaltungen, orga59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

561

documentaire du matériel ougaritique. L’image du roi mésopotamien que nous offre le décor de ce sceau apparaît en effet sur une tablette rédigée par le scribe qui fut probablement l’auteur de la tablette du Déluge retrouvée à Ugarit. 4. Mode d’utilisation de l’objet L’une des difficultés majeures de l’étude vient de l’absence de données concernant le mode d’utilisation de l’objet qui, rappelons-le, n’a pas été retrouvé en situation fonctionnelle. A-t-il appartenu à Yabninu, personnage de l’élite ougaritique ? A-t-il servi de sceau et, si oui, dans quel(s) contexte(s) ? Fut-il porté comme amulette, la symbolique du décor offrant une valeur apotropaïque à l’objet ? L’étude des realia de la magie à Ugarit témoigne d’interactions culturelles dont la cité fut le cadre. Celles-ci se traduisent notamment par la présence d’objets importés, par exemple d’Égypte67 ou de Mésopotamie68. Plus rares sont les pièces produites localement dont l’analyse permet des rapprochements pluri-culturels. L’interprétation du cachet RS  25.188 donnée par M. Dietrich et O. Loretz en offre un autre exemple69. Le plat de l’objet est décoré d’une figure de sphinx et présente une inscription de trois lettres, dont différentes lectures ont été proposées70 (Fig. 7). Selon ces auteurs, l’inscription ferait usage de l’alphabet cunéiforme long d’Ugarit et se lirait : « ald ». Ce mot correspondrait à la forme ougaritique du sumérien « dalad » (= « Šêdu »), terme qui désigne un génie protecteur en Mésopotamie. Sur le cachet d’Ugarit, « ald » serait le nom de l’entité représentée, c’est-à-dire le sphinx, ou une épithète lui étant attribuée. La notion d’efficacité magique imprégnait la mentalité des Anciens et il est possible que de tels emprunts soient liés à la volonté d’augmenter le pouvoir prophylactique d’un objet ou de permettre que le message soit compris du plus grand nombre, l’un n’empêchant pas l’autre ? Les recherches iconographiques représentent ainsi une autre voie d’approche que celle offerte par l’épigraphie pour l’étude de la « fluidité spatiale et culturelle

nisé par M. Dietrich, H. Neumann et I. Kottsieper (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Institut für Altorientalische Philologie und Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde, 13–15 oct. 2015). 67 Scarabées, scaraboïdes, bagues, perles, pendentifs, cf. Matoïan 2014, 166. 68 On pense par exemple à la perle en agate RS 14.242, de la Ville Basse ouest, qui porte une dédicace en sumérien adressée au dieu Enki (le dieu de la magie en Mésopotamie, l’équivalent de Kôṯaru à Ugarit). Voir Arnaud 1998, 203–204 ; photographie dans Galliano / Calvet 2004, 269. L’étude du contexte de découverte de cet objet mériterait d’être entreprise. Un rapide examen des archives nous a ainsi montré que la perle RS 14.242 n’était pas une découverte totalement isolée (contra Arnaud 1998, 204) ; parmi les découvertes faites à proximité, on trouve un scarabée au nom d’Amenhotep III. 69 Dietrich / Loretz 2008a. 70 Pour l’editio princeps, voir Dalix 2003. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

562

V. Matoïan

» des figures associées à la sphère du divin dans le domaine des pratiques magico-religieuses des sociétés antiques. 5. Vers le premier millénaire L’étude des images constitue aussi l’une des voies de la recherche pour appréhender les échanges et les phénomènes de transmission dans le monde antique, en particulier au sein des sociétés marquées par le cosmopolitisme71. Le décor du sceau-cylindre RS  2009.9019 témoigne, pour la première fois à Ugarit, de l’existence de l’image du « roi vainqueur », dans l’attitude combattante, un bras levé et maîtrisant son ennemi qu’il tient par la chevelure. Ce thème occupera une place privilégiée dans l’art phénicien, en particulier au sein du répertoire des scènes historiées décorant les coupes « phéniciennes » en métal précieux72, mais aussi dans le domaine de la glyptique73. Il en est d’ailleurs de même pour le motif du « héros » combattant un fauve ou pour celui du sphinx, l’un des motifs les plus répandus de l’art phénicie74. L’une des interrogations récurrentes dans le domaine des études iconographiques et iconologiques portant sur les origines de l’art phénicien est la définition du rôle joué par le Levant de l’âge du Bronze final dans l’élaboration du répertoire phénicien du premier millénaire et notamment dans l’adoption de motifs d’origine égyptienne75. Le thème illustré sur le sceau RS 2009.9019 de la Maison dite « de Yabninu » vient aujourd’hui s’ajouter aux motifs déjà répertoriés par E. Lagarce dans son étude sur le rôle d’Ugarit dans l’élaboration du répertoire iconographique syro-phénicien, qui soulignait très justement la récurrence de thèmes liés à la figure royale. Par ailleurs, la reconnaissance de l’impact d’une œuvre littéraire d’origine mésopotamienne76 sur l’iconographie en rapport avec la royauté—si l’on retient notre hypothèse selon laquelle la figure du taureau ailé serait identifiée à celle du « Taureau céleste »—renforcerait la valeur documentaire de notre sceau-cylindre dans une perspective diachronique, ce type de phénomène étant reconnu dans le champ des études d’iconographie levantine et chypriote s’attachant aux représentations du premier millénaire77. Pour d’autres exemples dans le domaine de la glyptique, voir par exemple Amiet 2001. Gjerstad 1946, pl. V, VIII, X ; Markoe 1985, 45–47 ; 2007. Ce thème y apparaît le plus souvent en position centrale sur plusieurs coupes (Idalion, Préneste, Pontecagnano), et on le retrouve parfois en position secondaire comme sur la coupe de Kourion. 73 Lipinski 1992, 147, figs 122–123 ; Gubel 1993 ; 2013. 74 Ciafaloni 1995, 544–545. 75 Concernant le rôle d’Ugarit, voir notamment Lagarce 1983. 76 Sur d’autres exemples témoignant du rôle joué par l’Épopée de Gilgamesh dans l’imagerie ougaritique, voir Puytison-Lagarce / Lagarce 2015. 77 Dans des scènes montrant des personnages divins maîtrisant un ou plusieurs lions. On retiendra notamment le commentaire de S. Aufrère à propos de la figure de « Bès » sur le plat d’un scaraboïde découvert à Amrit, daté du VIe siècle av. J.-C. (Aufrère 71 72

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

563

Bibliographie Amiet,  P., 1992 : Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra-Ougarit, II, Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (Ras Shamra – Ougarit IX). Paris. –– 2001 : Texte et image : vaines attentes et transferts inattendus. Archaeology & History in Lebanon 13 : 2–8. Anthonioz, S., 2015 : Miroir d’une transmission du Gilgameš akkadien en périphérie  (deuxième partie). Dans C. Roche-Hawley / R. Hawley (éds) : Devins et Lettrés dans l’orbite de Babylone (Orient & Méditerranée / archéologie 16). Paris. Pp. 47–58. Archi, A., 1993 : Divinités sémitiques et divinités de substrat. Le cas d’Išḫara et d’Ištar à Ebla. M.A.R.I. 7 : 71–78. Arnaud, D., 1998 : Cinq dédicaces d’époque cassite provenant de Babylonie et de Syrie. SMEA 40/2 : 197–204. –– 2007 : Corpus des textes de bibliothèque de Ras Shamra-Ougarit (1936–2000) en sumérien, babylonien et assyrien (AuOr Supplementa 23). Barcelone. Aufrère, S., 2004 : Croyances, enjeux économiques et politiques. Acteurs cananéens, phéniciens et égyptiens du mythe de la Lointaine. Dans M. Mazoyer / O. Casabonne (éds) : Antiquus Oriens. Mélanges offerts au Professeur René Lebrun, Vol. I (Collection KUBABA, série Antiquité V). Paris. Pp. 17–64. Black, J. / Green, A., 1992 : Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, An Illustrated Dictionnary. Londres. Beyer, D., 2001 : Emar VI, Les sceaux (OBO SA 20). Fribourg / Göttingen. Bottéro, J., 1992 : L’Épopée de Gilgameš, Le grand homme qui ne voulait pas mourir. Paris. Caquot, A., 1979–80 : Horon : revue critique et données nouvelles. AAAS 29–30 : 173–180. Caquot, A. / Sznycer, M. / Herdner, A., 1974 : Textes ougaritiques, I, Mythes et légendes (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 7). Paris. Caubet, A., 1991 : Répertoire de la vaisselle de pierre, Ougarit 1929–1988. Dans M. Yon (éd.) : Arts et Industries de la pierre (Ras Shamra – Ougarit VI). Paris, Pp. 205–264. Cavigneaux A., 1994 : Magica Mariana. RA 88 : 155–161. –– 2007 : Les oiseaux de l’arche. AuOr 25 : 319–320. Ciafaloni, D., 1995 : Iconographie et Iconologie. Dans V. Krings (éd.) : La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Leiden / New York / Köln. Pp. 535–549. Cluzan, S., 2007 : La présence bovine dans la glyptique d’Ougarit et d’Enkomi. Cahiers du Centre d’Études Chypriotes 37 : 116–144. Collon, D., 1972 : The Smiting God. A Study of a Bronze in the Pomerance Collection in New York. Levant 4 : 111–134. 2004, 41 : « le dieu à la puissante musculature, étrangle deux lions comme s’il était assimilé à Gilgamesh ») et l’analyse récente qu’I. Tassignon vient de livrer de la figure du « seigneur aux lions » d’Amathonte, interprétée comme celle d’un dieu-roi (Tassignon 2013, 83). L’auteure parle, à propos du groupe des deux statues colossales d’une «  coïncidence presque parfaite  » avec «  l’image ‹littéraire› de Gilgamesh à l’époque néo-assyrienne à Ninive » (Tassignon 2013, 49). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

564

V. Matoïan

–– 1975, The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh. Neukirchen / Vluyn. Courtois, J.-Cl., 1990 : Yabninu et le palais sud d’Ougarit. Syria 67 : 103–142. Dalix, A.-S., 2003 : Dlq et le sphinx : le cachet RS 25.188. UF 34 : 45–52. Dalix-Meier, A.-S. / Vila, E., 2008 : Le roi et le bestiaire symbolique d’Ougarit : rencontre des données ostéologiques, épigraphiques et iconographiques ». Dans M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan (éds) : « L’Orient des palais ». Le Palais royal d’Ougarit au Bronze récent (Documents d’archéologie syrienne XV). Damas. Pp. 247–250. Dessenne, A., 1957 : Le sphinx. Étude iconographique, I, des origines à la fin du second millénaire, (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 186). Paris. Dietrich, M. / Loretz, O., 2008a : Die apotropäische Sphinx ald = Alad auf dem Siegelamulett RS  25.188. Dans M.  Dietrich (éd.) : Orbis Ugariticus. Ausgewählte Beiträge von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz zu Fest- und Gedenkschriften. Anläßlich des 80. Geburtstages von Oswald Loretz (AOAT 343). Münster. Pp. 335–344. –– 2008b : Ḥoron, der Herr über die Schlangen. Das Verhältnis von Mythos und Beschwörung in KTU 1.100. Dans M. Dietrich (éd.) : Orbis Ugariticus. Ausgewählte Beiträge von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz zu Fest- und Gedenkschriften. Anläßlich des 80. Geburtstages von Oswald Loretz (AOAT 343). Münster. Pp. 119–140. van Dijk, J., 1989 : The Canaanite god Ḥauron and his cult in Egypt. Göttinger Miszellen 107 : 59–68. Durand, J.-M., 2008 : La religion amorrite en Syrie à l’époque des archives de Mari. Dans G. del Olmo Lete (éd.). Pp. 161–716. –– 2014 : Le dieu Qul(l)uh. NABU 4 : 133–134. Gachet-Bizollon J., 2001 : Le panneau de lit en ivoire de la cour III du Palais royal d’Ougarit. Syria 78 : 19–82. –– 2007, Les ivoires d’Ougarit (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XVI). Paris. Galliano, G., Calvet, Y., 2004 : Catalogue d’exposition : Le royaume d’Ougarit. Aux origines de l’alphabet. Paris / Lyon. George A.R., 2003 : The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic : Introduction, critical edition and cuneiform texts. Oxford. –– 2007 : The Gilgameš epic at Ugarit. AuOr 25 : 237–245. Gjerstad, E., 1946 : Decorated metal bowls from Cyprus. Opuscula Archaeologica IV : 1–18. Gubel, E., 1993 : The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic. Dans B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (éds) : Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (OBO 125). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 101–129. –– 2002 : The anthroponym ‘Ḥr: new light on the iconography of the god Horon ? Dans M.G. Amadasi Guzzo / M. Liverani / P. Matthiae (éds): Da Pyrgi a Roma, Studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca (Vicino Oriente – Quaderno 3/1). Rome. Pp. 269–281. –– 2013 : Decoding Phoenician Art (I) : Pharaoh Triumphant. Rivista di Studi Fenici XL/1 : 21–38. Hall, E.S., 1986 : The Pharaoh Smites his Ennemies. A comparative Study (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien Heft 44). Berlin. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

565

Icart, J.-C. / Chanut, C. / Matoïan, V., 2008 : Le matériel en pierre du Palais royal d’Ougarit : diagnose, nomenclature, provenance et usage. Dans V. Matoïan (éd.) : Le mobilier du Palais royal d’Ougarit (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XVII). Lyon. Pp. 157–190. Lagarce,  E., 1983 :  Le rôle d’Ugarit dans l’élaboration du répertoire iconographique syro-phénicien du premier millénaire avant J.-C. Dans Atti del I Congresso internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Roma, 5–10 novembre 1979. Rome. Pp. 547–561. Lagarce-Othman, B., 2013 : Un nouveau vase inédit d’Horemheb. Dans V. Matoïan / M. Al-Maqdissi (éds) : Études ougaritiques III (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XXI). Paris / Leuven / Walpole. Pp. 347–364. Lambert, W.G., 1987 : Gilgamesh in Literature and Art : The Second and First Millenia. Dans A.E. Farkas / P.O. Harper / E.B. Harrison (éds) : Monsters and Demons in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Paper presented in Honour of Edith Porada. Mainz. Pp. 37– 52. Lipinski, E. (éd.), 1992 : Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique. Turnhout. Markoe, G.E., 1985 : Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean. Berkeley / Los Angeles / Londres. –– 2007 : L’art du métal phénicien : Les coupes décorées. Dans Catalogue d’exposition : La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage, Institut du Monde Arabe. Paris. Pp.167–173. Matoïan, V., 2000 : Ras Shamra-Ougarit et la production des matières vitreuses au Proche-Orient au second millénaire av. J.-C., Thèse de l’Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne (non publiée). –– 2008 : Les objets du Palais royal d’Ougarit : un état de la question. Dans V. Matoïan (éd.) : Le mobilier du Palais royal d’Ougarit (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XVII). Lyon. Pp. 17–71. –– 2013 : La Maison dite « de Rashapabou ». Inventaire des objets découverts lors de la fouille de l’édifice et essai d’interprétation. Dans V.  Matoïan / M. Al-Maqdissi (éds) : Études ougaritiques III (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XXI). Paris / Leuven / Walpole. Pp. 157–202. –– 2014 : Ugarit, l’Égypte et les Phéniciens (manuscrit inédit, dossier d’HDR, Université de Paris I Panthéon Sorbonne). –– 2015 :  Ougarit et l’Égypte : Essai d’interprétation de la documentation archéologique et perspectives de la recherche. Dans B. Eder / R. Pruzsinszky (éds) : Policies of Exchange, Political Systems and Modes of Interaction in the Aegean and Near East in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E., Proceedings of the International Symposium at the Université de Freiburg, Institute of Archaeological Studies (2012) (Oriental and European Archaeology 2). Vienne. Pp. 35–84. Matoïan, V. et al. (éds), 2013 : Rapport préliminaire sur les activités de la mission archéologique syro-française de Ras Shamra – Ougarit en 2009 et 2010 (69e et 70e campagnes). Syria 90 : 441–480. Matoïan, V. / Carbillet, A., 2014 : « Miroirs, mes beaux miroirs... » ou un instrument de toilette peu attesté à Ugarit. Semitica et Classica 7 : 171–181. Matthews, D., 1991 : Middle Assyrian Glyptic from Tell Billa. Iraq 53 : 17–42. Moortgat, A., 1942 : Assyrische Glyptik des 13. Jahrhundert. ZA 13/47 : 50–88. –– 1944 : Assyrische Glyptik des 12. Jahrhundert. ZA 14 (48) : 23–44. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

566

V. Matoïan

Olmo Lete, G. del (éd.), 2008 : Mythologie et religion des sémites occidentaux II (OLA 162). Leuven / Paris / Duddley. Olmo Lete, G. del, 2014 : Incantations and anti-witchcraft texts from Ugarit (SANER 4). Berlin. Ornan, T., 2010 : Humbaba, the Bull of Heaven and the Contribution of Images to the Reconstruction of the Gilgameš Epic. Dans H.U. Steymans (éd.) : Gilgamesch Ikonographie eines Helden. Gilgamesh Epic and Iconography (OBO 245). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 229–260, 411–424. Otto, A., 2000 : Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8). Berlin. Parayre, D., 1990 : Les cachets ouest-sémitiques à travers l’image du disque solaire ailé (perspective iconographique). Syria 67 : 269–314. –– 1993 : À propos des sceaux ouest-sémitiques : le rôle du l’iconographie dans l’attribution d’un sceau à une aire culturelle et à un atelier. Dans B. Sass / C. Uehlinger (éds) : Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals (OBO 125). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 27–51. Pardee, D., 2000 : Les textes rituels (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XII). Paris. Pinnock, F., 2015 : From Ebla to Guzana : The Image of Power in Syria between the Bronze and Iron Ages. Studia Eblaitica 1 : 109–129. Puytisson-Lagarce, E., du / Lagarce, J., 2015 : Dieux protecteurs et de renaissance dans l’iconographie à Ugarit et au Levant. Essai d’interprétation du cylindre RS 20.039. Dans B. Geyer / V. Matoïan / M. Al-Maqdissi (éds) : Mélanges en l’honneur d’Yves Calvet (Ras Shamra – Ougarit XXII). Paris / Leuven / Walpole. Pp. 175–194. Rüterswörden, U., 1999 : Horon. Dans K. van der Toorn / B. Becking / P.W. van der Horst (éds) : Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2e ed.). Leiden / Boston / Köln. Pp. 425–426. Schaeffer C.F.-A. (éd.), 1956 : Ugaritica III, Sceaux et cylindres hittites, épée gravée du cartouche de Mineptah, tablettes chypro-minoennes et autres découvertes nouvelles de Ras Shamra, Mission de Ras Shamra VIII, Paris. Schaeffer, C.F.-A., 1949 : Ugaritica II, Nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra, (Mission de Ras Shamra V). Paris. –– 1962 : Fouilles et découvertes des XVIIIe et XIXe campagnes, 1954–1955. Dans C.F.-A. Schaeffer (éd.) : Ugaritica IV (Mission de Ras Shamra XV – BAH LXXIV). Paris. Pp. 1–150. Schaeffer-Forrer,  C.F.-A., 1983 : Corpus I des cylindres-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi-Alasia. Paris. Sparks, R.T., 2007 : Stone Vessels in the Levant (The Palestinian Exploration Fund Annual VII). Maney. Stadelmann,  R., 1967 : Syrisch-palästinensische Gottheiten in Ägypten (PA  5). Leiden. Tassignon, I., 2013 : Le « seigneur aux lions » d’Amathonte. Étude d’iconographie et d’histoire des religions des statues trouvées sur l’agora (Études Chypriotes XVIII). Athènes. Teissier, B, 1984 : Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection. Berkeley. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

567

–– 1996 : Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (OBO SA 11). Fribourg / Göttingen. Tournay, R.J. / Shaffer, A., 1994 : L’épopée de Gilgamesh (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 15). Paris. Van Soldt, W.H., 2001 : Nahis-Salmu, an Assyrian Scribe Working in the ‘Southern Palace’ at Ugarit. Dans W.H. Van Soldt et al. (éds) : Veenhof Anniversary Volume. Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Leiden. Pp. 429–444. –– 2002 : The Orthography of Ugaritic Words in Texts Written by the Assyrian Scribe Naḫiš-Šalmu. Dans O. Loretz / K.A. Metzler / H. Schaudig (éds) : Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux, Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburstag (AOAT 281). Münster. Pp. 685–697. –– 2012 : The Palaeography of Two Ugaritic Archives. Dans E. Devecchi (éd.) : Palaeography and Scribal Practices in Syro-Palestine and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age. Leiden. Pp. 171–183. Venit, M.S., 1986 : Toward a definition of Middle Assyrian Style. Akkadica 50 : 1–21. Vita, J.-P., 2005 : Ougarit entre la guerre et la paix. Brève histoire militaire d’un royaume cananéen du Bronze récent. Dans J.-M. Michaud (éd.) : La Bible et l’héritage d’Ougarit (Proche-Orient et Littérature Ougaritique). Sherbrooke. Pp. 67–98. Xella, P., 1972 : Per una riconsiderazione della morfologia del dio Horon. AION 32 : 271–286. –– 1989 : D’Ugarit à la Phénicie : sur les traces de Rashap, Horon et Eschmun. WO 19 : 45–64. –– 1992 : Horon. Dans E. Lipinski (éd.). Pp. 219–220. Zivie-Coche, Ch., 2006 : Le Sphinx de Giza et le culte d’Harmachis. Dans catalogue d’exposition, Sphinx, les gardiens de l’Égypte. Bruxelles. Pp. 55–69.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

568

V. Matoïan

Fig.  1. Sceau-cylindre RS  2009.9019, stéatite-chloritite, «  Palais Sud  », Ugarit, Musée de Lattaquié (©  Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra, clichés V. Matoïan, infographie E . Croidieu).

Fig. 2. Dessin du sceau-cylindre RS 2009.9019, stéatite-chloritite, « Palais Sud », Ugarit, et de son empreinte (© Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra, dessin C. Cheval). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

L’image du roi vainqueur à Ugarit, entre Égypte et Mésopotamie

569

Fig. 3. Détail du décor du panneau de lit en ivoire RS 16.56 et RS 28.31, H. 24 cm, Ras Shamra – Ugarit, Palais royal, Ugarit, Musée national de Damas (© Mission de Ras Shamra, d’après RSO XVI).

Fig. 4. Décor du sceau-cylindre en stéatite RS  23.434, « Tranchée Ville Sud  », Ugarit, Musée national de Damas (Amiet 1992, no. 296). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

570

V. Matoïan

Fig. 5. Décor du sceau-cylindre en stéatite RS 27.57, « Tranchée Sud-acropole », Ugarit, Musée national de Damas (Amiet 1992, no. 295).

Fig. 6. Décor du sceau-cylindre RS 21.018, Palais Sud, Ugarit, Musée national de Damas (Amiet 1992, no. 316).

Fig. 7. Cachet en stéatite RS 25.188, « Tranchée Sud-acropole », Ugarit, Musée national de Damas (© Mission de Ras Shamra). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology: A Note on the Banquets of the Old Syrian Basins of Ebla Paolo Matthiae

The start of the excavations in Tell Mardikh was determined by a number of factors. These included various significant elements relating to the tell topography and the chronology of the surface ceramics,1 but above all to the discovery, some years before the present author’s first visit to the site (July 1962), of a double chamber basalt basin carved in relief on three sides2 found by chance on the tell’s surface and fortunately transported to the Aleppo Archaeological Museum by the Aleppo General Directorate of Antiquities and Museums.3 The basin is to be considered an important piece of temple furniture, the most characteristic but certainly unusual decorative aspect of which is the series of protomes of roaring lions protruding from the lower sectors of all three relief–decorated sides. The front Those elements, which determined the choice of the site of Tell Mardikh for the request of an excavation permit to the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums of Damascus, are summarized, together with a definition of the excavation strategy of the 47 field seasons at the site from 1964 to 2010, by Matthiae 2008, 9–21 and Matthiae 2010, 24–32. 2 Matthiae 1965; Matthiae 1977, 141–143, pl. 81; Matthiae 1984, 110–111, pl. 58. 3 In 1962, this important artefact was kept in a madrassa used as a deposit during the temporary closure of the Museum, for which the planning process of a new building was in progress, which was, in fact, built and opened to the public some years later based on a new collaboration with architects of the German Democratic Republic. The credit for the salvage of the basin, possibly discovered during agricultural works, found complete by the inhabitants of the village of Mardikh, who started to cut it into pieces to make fragments which could more easily be sold on the antique market, belongs to Subhi Sawaf, one of the curators of the Museum of Aleppo and also one of first representatives of the Directorate–General of Damascus during the first field season of the Italian Archaeological Expedition, in 1964. The basin was included into a short guide of the Aleppo Museum (Sawaf 1963, 38–39, fig. 18), but remained unknown to the scholarly world and was published by Matthiae 1965, 71–80, pls LXVIII:2‒LXXI. Today it is kept in the National Museum of Damascus. Only many years later, Jeanny Vorys Canby very kindly told the present author that, during a journey to Syria at the end of the 1950’s, she was able to see the basalt carved basin in the warehouse of the Aleppo Museum. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

572

P. Matthiae

shows a ritual banquet presided over by a royal personage, seated and raising a goblet in libation towards an offertory table piled high with unleavened bread. At the other end of the table stands a figure making a similarly libatory gesture, while behind them advance a large group of people armed with lances and some curved weapons. The other figure seemingly present at the banquet is the mythical bullman, of increased dimensions, to the right of the relief, holding a rod the top of which is broken off but probably ended in a palmette.4 This basalt basin (Fig. 1) was probably placed in the cella of Temple B in the Lower Town, almost certainly dedicated to the god Rashap5 since a fragment of the basin was discovered on the steps to the temple entrance during the 1965 excavations.6 There must also have been another basalt basin, similar in decorative structure to the other though rather larger, in the same temple or the forelying space, fragments of which were found in the well in the floor of the cella.7 This basin

A wall fragment of a basalt basin (TM.00.Q.727: h. 22.5 cm) with a bull-man head (the kusarikku of the Akkadian texts: Wiggerman 1992), identical in every detail to that of the mythical being of the basin discovered before the Italian excavations, was discovered very close to the north of the eastern perimeter wall of the Western Palace (Area Q), at the foot of the Acropolis, within a heap of materials certainly thrown away or fallen in the open area in front of the façade of the Ishtar Temple (Temple D), built on the western edge of the Old Syrian Citadel: Matthiae 2006, 430–431, fig. 9. It is very likely that this fragment was part to the same basalt basin, to which also another important fragment belonged, depicting the heads of two male figures carrying spears, originally found in the area of the Ishtar Temple, published by Matthiae / Pinnock /Scandone Matthiae (eds) 1995, 398, 406, no. 248. 5 Matthiae 1986a; 2103a, 305–308. 6 It is TM.65.B.229: h.31 cm: Matthiae 1966, 129–133, pl. LIV:2. This fragment with the head of a grinding lion and part of the legs of a human figure with weapons proves that both lateral sides of the basalt basin of Rashap Temple (Temple B) depicted both armed figures, appearing also at the edge of the main face, and, at the base, the lion heads, which evidently were part of a continuous frieze on the three decorated faces and, therefore, had to bear a particular meaning, very likely connected with the Netherworld. 7 The fragments certainly belonging to this bigger basalt basin of Rashap Temple are: TM.64.S.2 (central sector of the base with walking bull or human-headed bull h. 22.0 cm), TM.64.B.25 (bearded figure all turned to the left and maybe in the act of libating: h. 22.5 cm; w. 53.5 cm), TM.65.B.230 (central sector of one of the main faces with walking human-headed bull: h. 53,0 cm) and only probably TM.65.S.231 (lower part of a walking bull or human–headed bull: h. 16.5 cm), TM.64.B.37 (paw of a bull-man turned to the left: h. 35.0 cm), TM.B.64.B.23 (frontal face of a Lakhmu: h.31.0 cm), TM.64.B.35 (head of a full relief grinding lion: h. 21.5 cm), TM.64.B.36 (fragment of full relief with grinding lion: h. 16.0 cm), TM.64.B.26 (fragment of full relief of a grinding lion: h. 16.0 cm), TM.64.B.27 (h. 34.0 cm), TM.64.B.28 (fragment of central inner sector of basin: h.28.3 cm: Matthiae 1965, 66–71, pls LX–LXVII; 1966, 130–131, pls LII:1–LIII. One of the basic elements to believe that all those fragments belonged to a single, large–sized basalt basin is the thickness of the carved wall. In fact, without 4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

573

similarly had protomes of roaring lions in the lower part, though the overall decoration must have been different: any reconstruction is extremely difficult however given the reduced size of the extant fragments.8 A bearded figure, possibly the protagonist of the main scene, was possibly not unlike the well-preserved figure of the sovereign in the smaller basin, and the far right of the main side would similarly have contained an upright bull-man of which however only the hoof of the back leg remains.9 A rather different iconography compared to the better-preserved smaller basin is evinced however in the figure of a naked, bearded hero (Fig. 2) looking straight ahead, with the characteristic three curls on each side of the face10 indicative of the well-known Mesopotamian iconography of Lakhmu, the “Hairy one,”11 probably represented on one of the smaller sides, and a relatively small winged creature behind the bearded figure.12 The undeniable differences

taking into account the thickness of the reliefs, it ranges between 13.0 and 15.0 cm and, in just one case, (TM.64.B.25) is of 7.0/9.7 cm, while the thickness of the walls of the basalt basin discovered before the excavations is definitely lower, ranging between 5.7 and 6.2 cm. 8 One of the main problems, though not the only one, in the reconstruction of the structure of the decoration of this noteworthy sculptured basalt basin of Temple B, is the placement of the heads of grinding lion, of which, as said before (note 5), one was almost complete and two were preserved only on small fragments. In fact, two base fragments of this larger basis, one with a bull (TM.64.S.2) and one with a human-headed bull (TM.65.B.230) depicted on one of the two main faces, show on the back the beginning of the inner dividing wall between the two squared parts of the basin. This undoubtedly testifies that this basin not only had both the main faces carved with reliefs, but also that, at least in the central zone of both faces, in the lower sector, there were no lion heads, but images of bulls or human-headed bulls. The heads of the grinding lions, therefore, had to be depicted either on just the side faces, or there and at the edges of the two main faces. 9 Matthiae 1965, pl. LXIV:1–2. 10 Matthiae 1965, pl. LXV. 11 The identification of this well known figure of the mythical world with the Lakhmu, certainly since its origin in the Early Dynastic II Period connected with the god Enki of Eridu (Black / Green 1992, 115), is credited to Wiggermann 1981–1982 and was studied in more depth by Wiggermann 1992, 164–166. It has to be noticed that in the remarks presented by Matthiae 1965, 70 the statement that the frontal head of the curly mythical being could be the head of a bull-man certainly located on the main face at the right edge like in the smaller basalt basin is wrong: Matthiae 1965, 71–73, pls LXIX–LXX. 12 The hypothesis that the figure of the Lakhmu was placed on one of the side faces of this second carved basin from Temple B can be put forward based on the comparison with the limestone basin of Temple D, where the same mythical image is located on the upper register of one of the side faces in connection with the lion-dragon. However, two data argue against this hypothesis. On the one hand, the dimensions of the bearded frontal head of the fragmentary larger basin from Temple B suggest that they did not belong to a smaller figure on one of the registers, but, rather to a figure occupying the height of © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

574

P. Matthiae

in decoration between the two basins of Temple B, for all the clear similarities, make it impossible to state with certainty (though no elements exist to exclude this) that the larger basin, mostly destroyed, like the smaller, far better–preserved one also showed on its main face a banquet showing a libating king, an offertory table, and bread.13 On the other hand, a third limestone basin, intact albeit deeply corroded on the carved surface, found in the 1965 excavation season in situ in the cella of Temple D of the Acropolis14 and undoubtedly dedicated to the Ishtar Eblaitu15 also presents at the centre of its main face a very different banquet (Fig. 3), although the the figuration field as a whole. On the other hand, if the fragmentary basalt basin had the same composition structure and meaning as the quite well preserved basaltic basin from the same Temple B, the iconologic meaning, certainly completely different (despite the presence, almost surely, in all the three cases of a banquet scene on the main face), of the basin of Temple B and the basin of Temple D would lead to exclude analogies in the composition between the limestone basin of Temple D and the larger basalt basin of Temple B, also as concerns the figure of the Lakhmu. 13 There is an argument against the hypothesis that also this basin featured the image of a king before an offering table on its main face. In fact, the figure that might have been the protagonist of the scene of the main face, of which only the shoulder and a very small part of the face with some beard are preserved, is turned toward the left, instead than toward the right like in both the basin from Temple B of the Lower Town and the complete basin of Temple D on the Acropolis. Therefore, if the general rule was that on carved ritual basins of Ebla the king was always located to the left of the offering table and was, therefore, generally turned to the right, the figure preserved on the larger basalt basin of Temple B cannot be but a second protagonist of the banquet, perhaps a standing figure, like the male personage of the basin found before the Italian excavations started. In the latter case, however, the bird figure on the right of the badly preserved figure on the second basalt basin of Temple B would be, anyway, a certainly important variant for the iconologic interpretation of the representation compared to the ritual scene of the smaller basin. With regard to this, after the discovery of Ishtar’s Stele and Ishtar’s Obelisk, it has to be noticed that on both these monuments, which had to be erected at the very entrance of the Temple of Ishtar (Temple D) there are animals represented, without a base line, scattered among the figures in the upper parts of some of the registers: Matthiae 1986b; 2001a, 761–772; 2013a, 517–555; 2015, 143–145, figs 5–6. 14 Matthiae 1966. 15 Matthiae 1986a; 2013a, 312–315. To the data already provided in Matthiae 1986a it has to be added that the discovery, in 1985, of the base and the major fragment of the Stele of Ishtar, a minor fragment of which was discovered precisely in the Ishtar Temple in 1967, has finally proven that it was the great goddess who was worshipped in Temple D: Matthiae 1986b; 2013a, 517–555, pls 151–157. To this evidence, it has been added the Ishtar Obelisk, largely put together in 2008 and 2010: Matthiae 2011a, 741–742, fig. 6; 2015, 144–145, fig. 6. On the two different iconographies of Ishtar Eblaitu, austere and licentious, and on the oldest records for the latter one, see, recently, Matthiae 2012b and 2013b. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

575

two protagonists are similarly at two ends of an offertory table heaped with unleavened bread, identical to that of the Temple B basin. The Temple of Ishtar basin, like that of Temple B, shows a seated king on the left offering a libation, while on the right, in perfect symmetry, can be seen a seated female figure, equally offering up a libation with an identical gesture. Behind the king, wearing the habitual royal tiara of Ebla in the form of a peaked cap,16 stand three functionaries with a stick or spear;17 behind the female figure—the queen or high priestess, characterized by a thick head of long hair,18 are two priestesses (?) with very peculiar situlae shaped like the female abdomen.19 The lower frieze on the main face depicts a flock of sheep attacked by a lion,20 while the two side faces show very different scenes of

Teissier 1993. In fact, as it can be fully appreciated in the photo published by Matthiae 1966, pl. XLV 2, despite the erosion of the surface of the relief, it is clear that only the first figure, among the three standing functionaries behind the sitting king, holds a rod placed on the ground which does not reach above the shoulder, while the other two following personages hold a spear, the head of which is very clear on the last figure. Therefore, it is likely that only the first personage, who held an emblem, was a dignitary, while the other two should have been armed guardians. 18 Porada 1942, 57–58, pl. VIII:1 was the first to call attention upon this female character with long hair falling over her shoulders, which features on several impressions of Kanesh cylinder seals of Syrian style: Teissier 1994, 169, 172, 179–180, 182, 231–234. nos 471, 492, 536, 545, 551, 556. This important female figure, which is characterized by dense hair loose on the shoulder, seems to be always connected with various kinds of deities and certainly has a basic priestly function. The hypothesis recently put forward by Pinnock 2008, 510–514, based on the analysis of the record from the Early and Old Syrian periods, that she was a queen/priestess, who was distinguished by the rest of the female personnel of the court and the temple precisely by her hair, is really likely. A very interesting argument in favour of this hypothesis is that in a seal impression of a cylinder seal almost certainly from Kültepe II, this female character features not only beside the “warrior with plumed helmet” defined by E. Porada, but also beside the image of Ishtar Eblaitu: Özgüç / Tunca 2001, 241, pls 36, 127: no. 222 (Kt. 94/k 875). 19 An extraordinary cultic object precisely corresponding to those depicted on the limestone basin from Ebla was found at Byblos: Dunand 1958, 853, pl. CXXXVI: no. 16695. While already Matthiae 1966, 117–118 had called attention upon the fact that the golden cult situla of Byblos and the situla reproduced in the Ebla cult scene are identical, recently new remarks have been put forward particularly with regard to the relationships between Byblos and Ebla, by Nigro 2009 and Pinnock 2009. The considerations made by Pinnock 2012, 87, 98–99, figs 2, 19, 21 are particularly important: Pinnock proposes that some precious votive objects (on some of which see also Braun-Holzinger / KönigFaran 2001), among which the situla in question, were actually made in Ebla and dedicated in a temple at Byblos. 20 The considerations by Matthiae 1966, 122–123 concerning the possibility of a remote inspiration to Early Dynastic III Mesopotamia (Selz 1983, 318–319, 408–411) for the combination of the banquet in the upper register with grazing animals in the lower register 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

576

P. Matthiae

mythical beings. One of these is divided into two registers (Fig. 4): the upper one shows two dignitaries, one with a stick, short javelin, or club, and the other with a curved, sickle–shaped weapon; both advance towards a central figure, a naked, long–haired hero, full face: the Lakhmu, holding by the tail a winged lion dragon with the head and forelegs of a lion and the hind legs, wings and tail of a bird of prey, vomiting streams of water.21 The lower register depicts a bowman aiming at a lion attacking a bull.22 On the other side (Fig. 5), a mythical figure with human body and lion head,23 in the centre, holds by a back leg two roaring lions moving towards the sides of the scene, while a number of sheep are grazing below the two lions.24

still hold. Obviously, this is not to be intended as a direct influence but as the result of a long stratification of relationships within figurative traditions, in which the productions of Early Syrian cylinder seals certainly played a primary role. The productions have not yet been studied adequately; after the pioneering observations of Amiet 1963, 70–72, today this hypothesis seems confirmed partially by the documentation from Mari and even much more from Nagar: Beyer 2007, 240–241, 246–247; Matthews 1997, 248, pl. XX: nos 220–221. 21 Matthiae 1966, 115–116, pls XLVII–XLIX. The two characters who seem to proceed toward the Lakhmu, for their similarity to the three personages depicted behind the king in the banquet seen on the main face cannot be but mortal personages, apparently from the court, whose presence beside the mythical Lakhmu is certainly peculiar. It is clear, moreover, that the curved weapon held by the first personage is similar in whole to the weapons hold by several characters on the basalt basin discovered before the Italian excavations, but belonging to the furniture of Temple B. Differently, the short curved rod held by the second personage it is definitely different from the spears held by the corresponding characters in the basalt basin. However, it cannot be ruled out completely that the analogy among these two figures on the side face and the three figures of the main face of the limestone basin of Temple D was only apparent and that, actually, those two personages are, rather a different iconographic version precisely of the numerous characters on the basalt basin. As discussed later on in the article, these characters likely have to be identified with the Rapi’uma, the deified ancestors, living in the Netherworld, which could explain why they are with the Lakhmu, mythical figure certainly belonging to the deep. 22 Matthiae 1966, 116, pls XLVII, L. 23 Green 1986; Green 1993–1997, 251. 24 Matthiae 1966, 116, pl. LI. See also Braun-Holzinger 1987b, 102. In this contribution, which correctly recalls the image of the limestone basin, no one of the mentioned cylinder seals are comparable with the iconography of the Ebla basin, because the seal in Moortgat 1940, 104, pl. 32: no. 234 is an Old Akkadian seal with the representation of the Etana myth, while very probably it was meant to quote the cylinder Moortgat 1940, 133, pl. 64: no. 540 (VA 738) bought in Cyprus. In the latter seal, there are two lion-headed winged figures with a short skirt; on the other hand, the seal of the Morgan Library no. 936, which is also quoted (Porada 1948, 123, pl. CXLI), has a semi-human winged double lion-headed monster completely different from the Ebla mythical being. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

577

As regards the two sculptured basins remains of which were found in Temple N, probably dedicated to the solar deity Shapash/Shamash,25 and in Temple P2,26 undoubtedly dedicated to Ishtar,27 the carving on their main face of a banquet presided over by the king is very probable in the first case and impossible in the second. Of the impressive limestone basin of Temple N, in fact, are fully preserved the back face, unusually decorated with scenes of facing or embracing dignitaries, and parts of the side faces, depicting full face figures of minor goddesses.28 This basin must have commemorated some pact or alliance of particular The only vaguely similar monster mentioned—a lion headed figure with short skirt in profile—can be found in an impression of a cylinder seal from Kanesh II published by Őzgüç 1965, 40, 71, pl. XVI (not XIII): no. 49a (Kt c/k 186). Also in the wide documentation of the seal impressions of Kanesh, this figure of lion–man is extremely rare: Özgüç / Tunca 2001, 151, pls 2, 44: no. CS 22 (Kt. a/k 936), where, moreover, the figure in question is simply defined “lion.” Of course, the mythical being of the Ebla basin is different from the winged lion griffin identified by Otto 2000, 255. 25 Matthiae 1986a; 2013a, 308–312. Pomponio / Xella 1997, 335–342 noticed that, as later in Ugarit, although the solar deity was present in the texts of the Royal Archives in the logographic form dUTU, are very strong elements in favour of the hypothesis that these writing may mask the goddess Shapash and not god Shamash, on the one hand, verbal forms used in the texts referring to the deity and, on the other, that dUTU appears mainly in female anthroponyms. Although there are no data from Old Syrian Ebla to decide whether the solar deity was either male or female, as was the rule in the West Semitic milieu, it seems very likely that, even several centuries after the destruction of the city of the Archives, Shapash was worshipped at Ebla as in Ugarit. 26 Matthiae 1990b. 27 Matthiae 1986a; 2013a, 308–313. It has to be recalled that two major cult buildings of the old Syrian Ebla were dedicated to the Ishtar Eblaitu—Temple D on the Acropolis and Temple P2 in the Lower Town north: that of the Lower Town was certainly, so to speak, the true residence and the public temple of the great goddess, while the building on the Citadel was a kind of monumental palace chapel, built because the goddess was the patron of the dynasty of the Archaic and Classic Old Syrian Period at least at the time of Ibbit Lim of Ebla. This is clear from the inscription on his votive statue, certainly dedicated in that very sanctuary, perhaps recently built on the western edge of the Acropolis at that time: Gelb 1984. 28 The limestone basin of Temple N (TM.72.N.468), although only its back sector was preserved and it had several cracks on all sides, was found in place in the cella of the temple, documenting, this way, the original placement of most of, if not all, the basins in the temples of the Old Syrian Ebla: in the centre of the cella, in front of the podium and/or of the niche in which the cult statue had to be located and next to the main offering table of the temple: Matthiae 1984, pls 54, 61–62, figs 99–100. In this original placement, the back main face which was well preserved, with the couples of embraced bearded dignitaries, was hidden because it was placed against the front of the large and low podium of the back wall of the cella. Differently, the two side faces were largely visible, and were also largely preserved with the numerous figures of frontal goddesses, but certainly, it was the main face, now completely lost, which had to be in © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

578

P. Matthiae

political importance, probably with Aleppo, the capital of the Yamkhad kingdom, and plausibly the back and side scenes were integrated on the front face by a banquet picture celebrating and sealing the alliance.29 The basin of Temple P2, on the other hand, had at the centre of its main face the image of the same full face winged goddess Ishtar, almost certainly surrounded by dignitaries or priests involved in various cult-related observances and, consequently, there was no place for a banquet scene.30 The banquet scenes of the two basins in the temples dedicated to Ishtar on the Acropolis and Rashap in the Lower Town share a number of iconographic similarities but equally substantial differences, both the protagonists and the lateral decorations clearly bespeaking ritual banquets of wholly divergent significance.31

full evidence and completely visible, standing in frot of who entered the cella. Pinnock’s (Pinnock 1994, 22–23) proposal of reconstructing a banquet scene on the main face of the limestone basin of Temple N, as at least on the limestone basin of Temple D and on the minor basalt basin of Temple B, is really likely and of great interest, because it would attest to another meaning and value of the banquet theme Ebla’s figurative culture, that is that of the ratification and celebration of an international treaty or alliance. 29 A re-examination of this important carved fitting of Temple N, with the proposal to identify the scene with the sacred celebration of the alliance with Yamkhad, which would explain that, a destruction of the city between the end of and the beginning of the Classic Old Syrian Period (Middle Bronze IIA) has not been identified by the archaeological exploration of the site, will be published in an article in preparation that will appear in Studia Eblaitica 4 (2018). Note that the dating of the limestone basin of Temple N to ca. 1800 BC or slightly later, suggested since its discovery, and recently confirmed (Matthiae 2006, 434: second period of the production of the Ebla ritual basins, probably little later than the limestone basin of Temple D: 1825‒1750 BC) corresponds to the rise of the great figure of Yarim-Lim I of Yamkhad in the Syro-Mesopotamian political scenario: Klengel 1992, 54–58. 30 Matthiae 1996; 2013a, 574–585, pl. 161a. The ritual basin of Temple P2 in the Lower Town north is the only one that, although very poorly documented by only two, very modest, fragments discovered in the disturbed area of the cella (TM.00.P.260a+260b e TM.00.P.800) had to be very different from the others, because it represented on the main face, certainly over the entire height, the imagine of Ishtar Eblaitu in one of her two representations as licentious goddess, therefore is it definitely unlikely that, among its decorations, there might have been a banquet scene: Matthiae 1996; 2013a, 575–583, unless, unlike all the other basins, it was represented on one of the side faces. However, in one of the two faces there were, in a lower register, naked and frontal figures of sacred prostitutes. 31 The early hypothesis of the present author (Matthiae 1966, 126–127) that the banquets represented on the first two, well preserved, basins from Tell Mardikh referred to a single rite with different protagonists in different occasions has been rightly corrected by Pinnock 1996, who maintained that the banquets of the Eblaite sculptured basins referred to definitely different rites. Moreover, if, as it is likely, the bigger basalt basin of which several fragments were found in 1964 in a cavity of the rock opened in what, © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

579

Besides the figure of the king, on the left of the scene and in an identical pose in both basins, another shared element is the identical and structurally complex offering table commonly present in Old Syrian temples. This presence is proved by the large fragment of a splendid exemplar in basalt found in the square in front of the façade of Temple P2,32 identical in every particular to that of the two basins and of many scenes in Old Syrian glyptic, which must have been one of the most precious pieces of sacred furniture of the great Temple of Ishtar in the Lower Town.33 Of considerable assistance in reading the iconography of the two types of banquet on the two basins are the figures of those participating in the ritual on the one hand, and the complementary representations on the side faces of the basins on the other; all iconological deductions from these must then of course be contextualized with the data of their respective discovery. As mentioned above, one substantial difference between the two banquets is constituted by the protagonists. In the limestone basin of Temple D these are clearly the king and queen or high priestess (of course the queen might well herself have been the high priestess of some particularly prestigious divinity in Old Syrian Ebla34), and the structure of the figurative composition leaves no doubt that the two ritual figures are equal in all respects: in their clothing, the type of seat, and their attitudes and actions. in 1965, turned out to be the cella of Temple B, also had, as hypothesized since the beginning, a banquet scene in the front face, it is very likely that the rite recalled by the reliefs were identical or at least analogous to that represented in the smaller basalt basin before the beginning of the excavations. This evaluation is strongly supported by the sure presence on the two basins of the really original and really characterizing decoration of the basins with the jutting heads of the lions baring teeth in the round. 32 Matthiae 1994. 33 While one can wonder if the very particular structure of this exceptional offering table with the singular presence of thin peripheral columns presupposes a derivation from a prototype in a precious metal, it is certain that, although in terms of the sculpted reliefs, the quality of the basalt furniture of Ebla is incomparably higher, the types of sacred furniture present in the Ebla temples in Middle Bronze I‒II should have been common also to the other major Old Syrian urban centres. This is demonstrated, just to quote some clear examples, by the basalt offering table AT/39/287 of Alalakh (Woolley 1955, 243, pl. LIIa), the stele of Hama (Pinnock 1992) and the basalt basin with two squared chambers without reliefs but identical in size and structure to the sculptured basins of Ebla, which was not published by Woolley, but was seen by the current author in 2009 before the then decaying house of the British Expedition to Tell Atshana. 34 To support the hypothesis sustained by Pinnock 2008, 510–514, it must be recalled that the female figure with long hair falling over the shoulders appears in several cases in relation to the two heads standard, studied for the first time by Seyrig 1960, and that, very likely, was an important, and perhaps also precious because of the materials from which it was made, sacred furniture of the Temple of Ishtar (Temple P2) of the Lower Town of Ebla: Matthiae 2014, 95–102, 117–118. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

580

P. Matthiae

The situation is completely different in the scene on the Temple B basin where while the king is shown seated, with tiara and regal mantle, as in the other basin,35 his partner is standing, and wearing not a king’s tiara, but simply a band, clearly visible on his forehead but not in evidence on the heads of the other numerous armed figures running towards the banquet.36 Very significantly, he is also wearing a flounced mantle similar to the king’s although seemingly shorter, and equally significantly, is dressed exactly like all the other figures advancing behind him and behind the enthroned king. The libating figure before the king, then, is not only dressed identically to all the other figures on the three decorated sides, headband apart, but more importantly is dressed differently from the three dignitaries with sticks or spears who follow the king on the basin of Temple D.37 The figures advancing behind the two personages offering up the libation at the table in the Temple B basin are extremely numerous, unlike the secondary participants visible at the banquet of the Temple D basin. The Temple B figures are also all identical, with no difference between those advancing behind the seated king and those behind the upright figure. All hold a spear in one hand and a sickle–shaped weapon in

The tiara of the kings of Ebla in the representations of the Archaic Old Syrian Period is the one defined as peaked cap by Teissier 1993, who studied its presence in royal figures on a series of seal impressions from Kültepe II. The hypothesis that these seal impressions might be related with the Eblaite kingship cannot be ruled out, although, obviously, this particular royal crown might have been typical of the kings of inland Western Syria as a whole. With regard to this, it is really peculiar that an art object, singular for size (h. 2.85 m) and subject, though not for its formal quality, like the basalt stele 6B599 from Hama, discovered re–used as a threshold in level E and assigned, erroneously, by the excavators to level F1, around 900 BC (early Iron Age II: Ingholt 1940, 79–80, pl. XXVI; Riis / Buhl 1990, 56–58, fig. 26: the correct date to Middle Bronze I was proposed by Pinnock 1992), shows the protagonist of the banquet in the upper register without the tiara, although there are no doubts that this was a royal monument. 36 The headdress of all the other personages depicted on the basin is delimited on the forehead by a single horizontal incision, while, in the figure libating before the king, the band on the forehead is delimited by an upper incised line that detached it from the hair and by a lower one that distinguish it from the forehead. What makes the identification of the band difficult is its absence behind the ears, which would lead to believe that it was attached directly to them: Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae 1995, fig. a p. 422. 37 Obviously, it is difficult to establish how much this difference depends on the fact that the basalt basins of Temple B and Temple D, characterized by very strong stylistic similarities, seem definitely more archaic and should be dated to an earlier phase of production, possibly between 1950 and 1850 BC, while the limestone basins of Temple D and N, although featuring rather different sculpted subjects, must surely be dated to a second phase of production, possibly between 1825 and 1750 BC: Matthiae 2006. After ca. 1750 BC, the practice to dedicate sculptured ritual basins in temple, frequent in the two centuries before, became certainly less frequent, if not even came to an end. 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

581

the other and, with the exception of the headband and of course the weapons, are represented as visibly comparable with the figure of the second protagonist at the banquet.38 The ritual scene of the Temple B banquet is conceived so as to create a strong impression that the second protagonist is simply another member, albeit with some distinguishing traits, of the same strongly homogeneous class as all the other, indistinguishable participants in the ritual. In this it differs considerably from the scene of the Temple D basin, where the male figures behind the king and the female same behind the queen/high priestess are all simply components of the two protagonists’ retinue and all belong to a class visibly very inferior to theirs. The iconographic elements present on the side faces of the limestone basin in Temple D of the Acropolis are of great interest although not all of certain interpretability. On the one hand, the side face decorations were clearly conceived as complementary to the main face, and the meaning of the scenes of daily living and of the mythical beings depicted is for the most part relatively transparent, while on the other hand no divinity from the pantheon evincing any specifically recognizable iconography appears on the side faces.39

A minor detail of the relief on the main face of this basalt basin of Temple B, to which also the current author has not paid due attention, is the presence of a hand with a cup, which seems to be visible below the elbow of the left arm bent at the chest of the standing character libating before the offering table. Naturally, if this reading of the relief of a detail very close to the break is correct, it is clear that that hand holding a cup cannot but belong to a second figure, completely lost and as yet not identified, certainly standing like the first one, who, instead of holding weapons, like the other following personages on the right side face, was represented in the act of making a libation like the first one, although with the arm holding the cup lower than that of the first character. Because the space between the standing libating character and the figure of the bull-man is really narrow, it should be deduced that on the right side of the main face of the basin there were two, and not just one, standing personages making a libation, although we cannot be fully sure that this second figure was a male character, that, moreover, seems likely. 39 The conceptual relationship between the subjects of the front face and of side faces which must have inspired the realization of the figurative program of the limestone basin of the Temple of Ishtar (Temple D) of the Acropolis is very interesting because undoubtedly different from and more complex than those, apparently more traditional and homogenous with one another, of all the other basins of Ebla, earlier and later than that of Temple D. In fact, only on the limestone basin of Temple D the scenes of the side faces are completed compositions in se and independently, in terms of narration, from the scene on the main face, although, obviously, their meanings are complementary. On the contrary, both in the minor basalt basin of Temple B, which can be the oldest one, and in the limestone basin of Temple N, which, conversely, can be the later one, the characters on the side faces are not only closely connected with each other, for composition and meaning, to that of the main face, but even explicitly the completion of the composition of the main side, with serial figures, in full height—in one case the armed male personages, in the other the frontal female deities—, identical to at least one 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

582

P. Matthiae

The most readily legible face has scenes divided into two registers: mythical beings on the top, and a hunting scene on the lower level. The lion dragon with the body, head and forelegs of a lion and the hind legs, wings and tail of a bird of prey is, in Ishtar’s Stele (Fig. 6)40 and Ishtar’s Obelisk (Fig. 7)41 from the same Temple D, a mythical being in the retinue of the great Ishtar Eblaitu. His significance is made clear by the trickle of water issuing from his jaws,42 almost certainly indicating a mythical being from the depths of the earth which presides over the fresh waters of natural fertility and, very probably and more specifically, over the sources of the rivers. In support of this is the fact that on both the goddess’s stele and obelisk, while in the upper panel the winged naòs with the deity’s image seems to soar heavenwards on the back of a bull, this too a clear allusion to the fertility of the earth, the lion dragon, identical to that of the limestone basin, is relegated to the lower panel, almost certainly signifying its collocation in the bowels of the earth. Indeed, between the winged naòs in the highest heaven and the lion dragon in the bowels of the earth, it is the musicians, in the middle section, inhabited by humanity, who clearly accompany the rituals in praise of the goddess.43

which is depicted on the main face. It is, obviously, more difficult to evaluate the basalt basin of Temple P2 for the narrowness of the two remaining, but the presence, very likely on one of the side faces, of the figures of frontal sacred prostitutes, possibly serial also in this case, suggests that the concept of the figurative program of this monument, very interesting because it’s the only one that has the images of a great deity as the main focus, was aligned to the traditional and prevalent perspective of the ritual basins rather than to that, rare if not unique, of the limestone basin of Temple D. 40 Matthiae 1986b; 2013a, 517–555. 41 Matthiae 2011a, 761–772; 2015. 42 This detail of the water streams, which is very clear in the iconography adopted at Ebla both in the relief on the side of the sculptured basin of Temple D and the panels of Ishtar’s Stele and Ishtar’s Obelisk, has been interpreted for a long time as flames in the image of the lion dragon of the Akkadian glyptic: Frankfort 1939, 124 (“a fire-spitting dragon”); Boehmer 1965, 63 (“der feurige Atem der Tiere”), while Moortgat 1940, 104, no. 240 pl. 33; Porada 1948, 28, no. 220, pl. XXXIV, and Collon 1987, 170, nos 779– 780) do not express their opinion on the identity of what emerges from the jaws of the lion dragon. Moreover, it is clear that at the origin of the interpretation of H. Frankfort there is the hypothesis that the lion dragon was a mythical being, defeated, tamed and subdued by the weather god, and that to celebrate this new victory, he would have been represented, like his female counterpart, standing on the back of the tamed monster or on a chariot pulled by the same monster, according to a concept that has been clearly explained in its foundations, which presuppose the existence of myths which, for a great part, have not reach us, in Sumerian or Akkadian literary compositions, by Amiet 1961, 170–181 and 1980. 43 The two-register scenes of Ishtar’s Stele in the central sector of the front face with the musicians engaged in the sacred liturgies which are often mentioned in the hymns of the Neo-Sumerian tradition have strong analogies with similar scenes both on the UrNamma’s Stele, also on the “poor face” of the important new proposal of reconstruction © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

583

The hairy naked hero, Lakhmu, depicted on the basin with the lion dragon, is well known for being, particularly in Early Dynastic III glyptic in Southern Mesopotamia, a mythical being in the retinue of the god Enki, inhabitant of river courses and thus similarly a supernatural being linked to the fertility of the waters in the abyss.44 This characteristic of Lakhmu’s is signalled on the Temple D basin by the medium-sized fish he is holding in one hand; it is less clear why the two mythical beings of the divine retinue of Ishtar, mistress of the fertility-bestowing river waters, are followed by two dignitaries who appear to be holding in one case a sickle-shaped weapon and in the other a rod or virtually illegible banner.45 The scene on the lower register, showing a bowman hitting a lion attacking a placidly grazing bull, inevitably alludes to the sovereign’s power and vigilance, with his armies, over the order of the civilized world, attacked by the lions which naturally represent the forces of chaos tending to subvert or certainly endanger the order of the sovereign-ruled state, here in the sphere of nature rather than history. This hunting scene on one of the two side faces’ lower registers should however be read in conjunction with those on the lower registers of both the front face and of the other side face, where the representation, with some variation, is always of grazing herds of cows or sheep threatened by a lion which only in one case is (register IV) of J. Vorys Canby (Canby 2001, 36, pls 11, 38, 39: no. 28a) and in the fragments of the stelae of Gudea of Lagash, that also, very likely, appeared in the central part of the decoration divided in registers: Börker-Klähn 1982, 148, pls E–F: nos 64, 66. These iconographic data seem to argue in favour of a knowledge and influence of the Neo-Sumerian figurative tradition in the Old Syrian artistic culture. This influence might have been parallel to a similar influence that possibly concerned the architectural culture: Matthiae 2002. 44 This identification of the original character of the bearded, hairy and naked hero connected with Enki and the domination of the Abzu, of the undergoing water springs and of river sources by the great god of Eridu is credited to Amiet 1961, 148–152, while the observations, very insightful as usual, of Frankfort 1939, 59–61 concerning the fact that very likely the Sumerians represented through this image “a whole class of heroic or daemonic figures.” If these are uncertain for the Early Dynastic III period of Mesopotamia, but certainly correct for the following long history of this particular image of mythical being. 45 The connection between Enki and the mythical beings of his environment with the fish remained constant until the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, as observed by Seidl 2006, 137–138. As mentioned supra at fn. 21, the fact the one of the two characters, who, from their dress, seems to be functionaries, holds a curved weapon completely similar to those of the numerous figures of the minor basalt basin of Temple B might lead to believe that they are, actually, not functionaries, but semi-divine beings connected with the Underworld, where the solar goddess Shapash hides during her overnight journey, that, in fact, in a ritual text from Ugarit concerning the royal deified ancestors, is invoked so that she leads the just deceased king to the world of the dead, among the Rapi’uma “of heaven and earth,” that is the Underworld: Caquot / de Tarragon / Cunchillos 1989, 105–110; Pardee 2002, 85–88. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

584

P. Matthiae

shown as about to be killed by a bowman.46 It would then seem certain that the meaning of the herds and belligerent lions is the same for all the lower registers: herds and flocks are an important part of humanity–dominated nature, and an essential support for culture, while wild beasts which think nothing of savaging tame animals belong to that part of nature which is hostile to humanity and its culture. There is one substantial difference however in the decoration of the three faces and the relationship between the upper and lower registers. In the side face showing the lion dragon and Lakhmu, on the upper, since these mythical beings allude to the fertilizing power of the springs and rivers,47 there seems to be no clear interrelation of meaning between the upper and the lower scene. On the main face, on the other hand, some interrelation between the two registers can be inferred, albeit not immediately, in that the theme of the banquet is indeed ultimately connected with the promoting of universal fertility and therefore of the flocks too, if the uncontrollably savage nature of the predatory wild beasts can only be kept at bay.48 Lastly, on the other side face the lower-regi-

The menace of the lion against flocks and cattle is explicit on the side face in which an archer is about to pierce the lion and on the main face in which the lion jumps on a caprid, while on the second side face the lion does not appear on the lower register, clearly only because on the upper register the two lions seem to be tamed by the power of the lion-headed mythic being. If one wants to put forward a unitary interpretation of the three lower friezes with flocks and cattle, it could be suggested that, overall, the intention of the royal commitment was to represent the forces of chaos could be contrasted by means of, so to speak, three different positive interventions. They were: a human ritual intervention on the main face, for the power of the solemn rite represented by the banquet; a human armed intervention on the side face, by means of the archer, and a mythical divine intervention on the other side face, through the power of a positive mythic being who halts the destructive power of the two lions. 47 This apparent contradiction in the relation between the subjects of the upper and lower registers, which does not occur in the case of the relationship between the other side face and the main face, could be explained if it is believed that, on the two side faces, in parallel ways, in the divine or semi-divine sphere, it alludes to the fact that, in the divine or semi-divine sphere positive forces protecting culture are present: in one case at the origin because the supernatural beings that govern fertility of nature—the Lakhmu and the lion-dragon—ensure that flocks and cattle can be fed on the fruit of earth and in the other case, at the end of the life-cycle, a mythical, semi-human and semi-leonine being, tames and blocks the lion that is inclined to destroy those flocks and cattle. 48 The images of the two lions blocked by the grasp of the lion-headed mythic being’s hands, even if grinding as the numerous lion’s heads at the base of the basalt basin del Temple B, are certainly something different from those lion heads and must have a different value and meaning. In fact, on the ritual furniture of Temple of Rashap (Temple B) those heads are independent from any narrative scheme and are non included into a mythical context like in the limestone basin of the Temple of Ishtar on the Acropolis. Moreover, the orthostats with the figures of lions on the door jambs of the temples, already present in Middle Bronze I‒II, as, in fact, they are found both in the Temple 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

585

ster theme of the danger for the flocks represented by the wild predators is clearly closely related to the upper-register representation of the two lions flanking a lion-headed mythical being. This decoration of the second side face is certainly the most enigmatic of all the basin’s compositions since its theme of the full face lion-man gnashing its jaws and holding by a hind leg two lions similarly snarling and facing outwards occurs only here.49 Given its attitude and posture the mythical being in the centre could of course be interpreted as a creature which neutralizes the negative power of the lion, but the fact that both the two wild beasts and the mythical being all share the same snarling jaws somewhat reduces the plausibility of the hypothesis—all the more so since the usual figurative formula for lion taming, common in Ebla’s artistic circles from the figurative schemes of high Early Syrian court style glyptic of Royal Palace G50 and obviously deriving from Early Dynastic

of Ishtar on the Acropolis (Temple D) and in the Temple of Ishtar in the Lower Town (Temple P2), have a further different value: Matthiae 2010, 421, 426. In fact, tt is likely that the entrances to the temples decorated with orthostats with lions were typical only of cult places dedicated to Ishtar: on the documentation from Tell Bazi and this issue in general, see now Einwag / Otto 2012. 49 This mythical being seems a creation of the milieus of the Dynasty of Akkad, because the first attestations of a lion-headed human being, naked or with short skirt, always with its face on the profile, appear in the Old Akkadian glyptic in a non-initial phase of the productions, when differently from what is maintained by Braun-Holzinger 1987b, 100, the extremities of the figure are visibly human feet and not eagle’s hooks, as it will be the case, as a rule, only really later in Mesopotamia and, particularly, in Assyria: Boehmer 1965, nos 346, 461, 462, pls XXIX, XXXVIII. In the Old Babylonian glyptic this figure is maintained, but it wears, as a rule, a short skirt, while the face is always depicted in the profile and it often holds a more ore less human figure upside down: Delaporte 1910, 250–251, no. 445, pl. XXX; Porada 1948, 47, no. 381, pl. LV; Buchanan 1981, 324–325, no. 906. Although some minor variants are attested in the Old Babylonian iconography of the lion–demon, moreover not frequent in the glyptic from that period in Mesopotamia, it never appears, in the Old Babylonian milieu, in a composition with lions, like in the limestone basin at Ebla. Interpretations of this mythical figure in the Old Akkadian world as Shamash’s enemy (Braun-Holzinger 1987a, 102) and in the Old Babylonian glyptic as one of the destructive minions of Nergal, as god of the Netherworld (Porada 1948, 47), plausible for the contexts documented in the Mesopotamian world, do not seem to have been at the origin od the re-elaboration of this image in the Old Syrian world. 50 Matthiae 2010, 172–178; Micale / Nadali 2010. As concerns the problem, really complex, of the relationship between the Old Syrian and the Old Babylonian figurative cultures, it must be noticed that, in the case of both the lion-man and the lion-dragon (Goldman 1960), the iconography adopted by the Eblaite royal workshop that produced the limestone basin of the Temple of Ishtar is that of the Old Akkadian tradition documented by the glyptic, not that of the Old Babylonian period, both in important details and in the attitude of the two composite beings. Since in both cases, they were © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

586

P. Matthiae

II‒III Mesopotamia, is that of the hero or bull-man fighting with the lion in the so-termed contest scenes.51 The full face lion-man holding the two lions by the hind legs seems, then, to correspond to a mythical being which, by virtue of its semi-human, semi-leonine nature has the power to maintain subjection over the lion, as part of the various natural forces hostile to man. With some plausibility then the representation on the second side face of the basin could be of the mythical being which on the negative side of the forces of chaos hostile to humanity governs the action of the lions, which in real manifestations of nature attack the flocks and herds representing, on the positive side, the order of tamed nature, benevolent towards the human race. Such an interpretation is confirmed in the history of the infrequently represented lion-man if it is considered that in the long figurative tradition of Mesopotamian myth, the relatively persistent formal structure of these beings has no corresponding function or cohesive and unchanging meaning. At the origins of the lionman, in Old Akkadian glyptic, the compound demon figure had the head of a lion always presented in profile, a human body, naked or with loincloth, hands usually without arms, and human legs,52 while in later representations, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian, when it was termed ugallu, “big weather-creature,”53 it is usually armed, always wears a loincloth, and has legs with the talons of a bird of prey.54 apparently creations of the Old Akkadian period in Lower Mesopoptamia, the presence in the Eblaite repertory of at least those two mythical figures seems to go back to the relationships between Ebla and Babylonia in the period of the Dynasty of Akkad. Since the first Ebla of the age of the Royal Archives, Early Bronze IVA, was certainly destroyed during the reign of Sargon of Akkad, and it seems difficult that the possible transmission of figurative themes from Mesopotamia to Syria took place in the first decades of the second Ebla, precisely during the Dynasty of Akkad, when the late Early Syrian town certainly was in a state of decline, it cannot be completely ruled out that, at least in some cases, the seemingly Old Akkadian creations were influenced, on the contrary, precisely by the Early Syrian tradition, as maintained also by Edith Porada, in the course of several personal communications to the current author: Matthiae 1984, 51–54, 139–141. 51 Frankfort 1939, 58–67; Porada 1948, 11–14, pls XI–XV: nos 63–96; Amiet 1961, 146– 148; 1980; Black / Green 1992, 48–49. 52 Boehmer 1965, 34, 79, nos 339, 346, 461, 462, pls XXIX, XXXVIII; Collon 1982, 76–77, no. 146, pl. XXI. 53 Wiggermann 1992, 170; Green 1997, 142. 54 Although it is fully understandable that, in contemporary archaeological literature, there are some attempts to follow, both in iconography and texts, developments and changes of value and meanings of the composite mythic beings mostly created during the Early Dynastic period (Braun-Holzinger 1987a; Braun-Holzinger 1987b; Wiggermann 1992), two important factors have been not taken into due consideration: first, that in each different period, the material contexts of the artistic genres attesting these mythic beings are always different; second, that at least between Early Dynastic / Old Akkadian and Neo-Assyrian / Neo-Babylonian periods the changes in ideology and religion are so © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

587

The Old Syrian lion-man of the Ebla sculptured basin is clearly to be compared with his Old Akkadian counterpart, since only in that period of the Mesopotamian world it was naked, armless, and with human legs, as in the Ebla furniture piece. The only substantial difference between the two is the position of the lion head, in profile during the Akkad dynasty and full face in the later figurative monument of Ebla. The totality of the scenes sculpted on the basin of the Temple of Ishtar (D) in the Acropolis of Ebla would appear to be consistently illustrating the consequences within community life and the sphere of universal fertility of the ritual act— the sacred banquet—performed by the king and queen/high priestess in terms of the preservation of the natural order, positive for humankind, and conversely the contrasting of the forces of wild nature, decidedly negative for humankind in being able to subvert the natural order. This is why, below the image of the sacred banquet officiated over by the highest representatives of the human community, male and female, the main face subtly and indirectly depicts a flock of domesticated animals attacked by wild beasts. However, this connection between the scene of the banquet and the flock of domesticated animals at the mercy of wild nature is historically documented by a small number of Early Dynastic IIIA cylinder seals, including some from the Royal Cemetery in Ur, in which, exactly as on the Old Syrian limestone basin from Temple D in Ebla, the upper register depicts a sacred banquet and the lower register a herd of animals, i.e. contest scenes with lions savaging bulls.55 It is of course far from easy to explain quite how the tradition of the Mesopotamian Early Dynastic IIIA cylinders was handed down to Old Syrian palatial and templar workshops, particularly given that compositions of this kind are not found in Old Akkadian seals. The fact remains that on the one hand the connection between scenes of sacred banquets with one male and one female protagonist and scenes of grazing bovine and caprine animals is extremely ancient, dating to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC in Early Dynastic III Mesopotamia and on the other hand, that the same iconology was in use in works of royal commission in Old Syrian milieux in the decades between the end of the nineteenth and the early 18th century BC. strong that any linear development has to be excluded. In order to mention some of the clearest cases, it is certain that, for example, lion-men figures didn’t appear in the most ancient periods neither in foundation deposits nor in any type of wall decoration, even though they maintained over the centuries their original role as protective spirits; all the same, figures like Lakhmu, the lion dragon and the bull-man progressively became characters autonomous from the deities to whom, in the earliest periods, they were closely related. 55 The traditional general evaluations of Frankfort 1939, 77–78, pl. XV and Amiet 1961, 123–127, pls 88–91 underline the presence of secondary scenes obviously related to the banquet, like those with musicians and servants with jars. For the cylinder seals of the Royal Cemetery of Ur with goats and lions in the lower register see Woolley 1934, pls 194:33, 195:34–35, 37–39, 200:103–207; Wiseman 1962, 27–28, pl. 24. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

588

P. Matthiae

The sacred banquet, officiated over by the king and queen or a high priestess, of Old Syrian Ebla is, then, linked with the fertility of the herd, the protection of domesticated nature, and the contrast with wild nature. If the reasons behind the connection, very clearly evinced in the reliefs on all three sides of the Temple D limestone basin, are not immediately accountable, it will depend on the fact that the banquet is one of many aspects, clearly highly significant, of a fundamental rite which in Old Syrian Ebla’s religious ideology was considered to ensure universal fertility by means of that of the herd, and through this universal fertility to guarantee the natural order against attack by the obscure forces of chaos. In all likelihood this basic rite very probably contains a form of the sacred marriage documented in Mesopotamia in the hymns in honour of the sovereigns of the Dynasties of Isin, Larsa and Babylon I.56 In endorsement of this is the fact that one of the complementary aspects of the ritual, explicitly cited in Mesopotamian texts of approximately the same date as the Ebla sculptured basin, is the banquet that appears to have concluded the cycle of ritual acts, real or symbolic, the cyclic function of which was to ensure the renewal of universal fertility, one of the responsibilities of kingship.57 Though no proof exists that any such ritual, fundamental in the contemporary Mesopotamian world, was practiced in Syria, the fact that it was the king and queen/high priestess who officiated in the banquet of Ebla’s Temple D basin, dedicated in the palatine sanctuary of Ishtar, indicates that the rite of the sacred marriage was very probably a cult practice in both the Old Babylonian and Old Syrian world. If the officiating presence of the king and queen/high priestess at the royal banquet of the Temple D basin of the Citadel points to the probability of the act being part of a rather more complex ritual to ensure the cyclic renewal of universal fertility, it is evident that the substantial differences regarding both the protagonists and the other participants in the scenes depicted on Temple B’s basalt basin point to a very different interpretation of the banquet depicted in the piece of furniture from the sanctuary in the Lower Town, clearly connected with the Netherworld.58 A list of the hymns and of the mythological texts, in majority belonging to the cycle of Dumuzi, usually considered pertaining to the so-termed “sacred marriage” may be found in Lapinkivi 2004, 29–59. For the very complex problem of the sexual reality or symbolic value of the physical encounter of the king and a goddess represented by a human female character, queen or high priestess, are important the comparative contributions collected in Nissinen / Uro 2008. 57 A comprehensive synthesis of this basic meaning of the sacred marriage in the Mesopotamian milieu, not only during the Old Babylonian period, is presented by Lapinkivi 2004, 241–252; on this subject see also Westenholz 1997. 58 The Temple B, identified as Rashap’s Temple (Matthiae 1986a = Matthiae 2013, 301– 322) was part of a Sacred Area of Rashap which included also the Sanctuary B2, whose function was the cult of deified royal ancestors, and was related to Western Palace and the Royal Necropolis: Matthiae 2010, 254, 257, 275–277. 56

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

589

A possible explanation of the iconological question may lie in the complete analogy between the second protagonist of the ritual banquet and all the other participants or assistants as regards dress, the only exception being the band around the forehead of the other personage offering the libation with the sovereign. The differences between the participant and all the other figures are, then—besides of course the libation goblet—the curved weapon and the spear in the hands of the other figures and the headband of the second protagonist.59 On the basis of the consideration that Temple B and Sanctuary B2 are undoubtedly strictly connected with the Royal Necropolis area,60 which extended considerably beneath the flooring of the Western Palace (Palace Q), in all likelihood the residence of the crown prince, it is very probable that the depictions on the basalt basin of Temple B, identified as the Temple dedicated to the god Rashap, illustrate some important ritual act connected with both death and regality. If this is a funeral banquet held by the king, then clearly it must be the banquet which, according to a tradition well-documented in Middle Syrian ritual texts of 13th century BC Ugarit, formed a fundamental part of the ceremonies ensuring both that the deceased sovereign would be received among the Rapi’uma, the deified royal ancestors, and that the reign of his legitimate successor would begin under the most propitious auspices. This banquet for the deceased king is the subject of one of the faces of the ivory talisman of the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats at Ebla, presided over by two full face figures, one male and one female, both ritually naked,61 who have been identified as the firstborn son and daughter of the deceased king. According to a passage from the Ugaritic Poem of Kirta, their duty was to ensure the correct celebration of the funeral rites, thereby guaranteeing the dead king’s assumption among the Rapi’uma.62 The scene on the third register of an exceptional Old Syrian cylinder seal, almost certainly from the Yamkhad kingdom, very probably depicts the assumption to the throne of the new king as he receives the highest dignitaries under the patronage of the Aleppo pantheon depicted in the first reg-

A small section of the upper sector of the face of a two-chamber basalt basin of noteworthy size, recomposed from two joint fragments (TM.65.D.227+TM.93.G.309), found in the area of the Ishtar Temple (Temple D) of the Acropolis, features two heads, one complete and one incomplete, of two personages identical iconographically and stylistically to the numerous figures carrying a spear and curved weapon of the basin of Temple B, although they do not have the curved weapon and hold with both hands a spear leaning on the shoulder: Matthiae 2006, 430; Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae (eds) 1995, 398, 406, no. 248. The very strong analogies of the execution of the reliefs between this fragment and the basalt basin found before the beginning of the excavations compel to us to believe that the two works were produced during the same years by the same royal workshop. 60 Matthiae 2012a. 61 Matthiae 1980; 2010, 300–303; Polcaro 2015. 62 Caquot / Sznycer / Herdner 1974, 548–559; Wyatt 1998, 226–230. 59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

590

P. Matthiae

ister and in the presence, in the second register, of the Rapi’uma “of the heavens and of the earth”: a number of these hold a goblet probably alluding to the fact that they are the participants of a funeral banquet to which they have been convoked to receive the recently deceased king among their number.63 One problem is the identity of, on the one hand, the seated king with royal tiara and mantle, and on the other, of the second standing protagonist at the banquet. Two possibilities should be considered. According to the first, the seated king with the attributes of regality is the new sovereign who has taken possession of the throne, while the standing figure is the deceased king libating with his successor during his own funeral banquet; those rushing to participate are his Rapi’uma predecessors, carrying the curved weapon which could mark the regality of the royal deified ancestors. According to the second hypothesis, the seated king is the deceased sovereign present at his funeral banquet, at which the crown prince, the other major protagonist, participates although he has yet to mount the throne; the new king is surrounded by the Rapi’uma who have been invited to the banquet and rush welcome his deceased predecessor as a new member of their elect band. In both cases it would seem certain that the numerous figures with curved weapon and spear are the Rapi’uma, present at the banquet to receive the deceased king among their number. Neither hypothesis carries decisive weight. In favour of the first is the fact that as on the Yamkhad seal with the gods and the Rapi’uma, the new king is seen enthroned, with kingly tiara and mantle and, as on the talisman of the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, the deceased king no longer wears a crown, the central symbol of sovereignty, at his funeral banquet. According to this first interpretation, arguably the most preferable, during the funeral banquet, a preliminary to the deceased king’s assumption among the Rapi’uma, he can neither wear the crown of the mortals, nor yet that of the deified royals, which however appears on the head of the Rapi’uma on the Yamkhad cylinder. A possible explanation, then, as to why the putative deceased king, standing, has a headband but neither the crown of mortal kings nor that of deified same could be the fact that the Temple B basin depicted a particular phase of the royal funeral banquet in which, as in the talisman, the dead king, still undeified, had to have his head uncovered. The Rapi’uma too would very probably have been depicted as bare-headed in this same phase, and not, as was the norm in representations of individual Rapi’uma, wearing the royal tiara with the divine horns, as the Rapi’uma in the bronze cult statuettes of the late Old Syrian and early Middle Syrian period.64

Matthiae 2011b. Matthiae 1990a. The class of bronze statuettes depicting Old Syrian kings, mostly sitting and rarely standing, is included into a wider series, incorrectly defined Syro-Anatolian, identified by Negbi 1976, 172–173, pls 31–36. It is very likely that, within this class, only nos 1432, 1438, 1446, 1451, 1457, 1459 1464, 1467 (?) are cult statuettes of royal deified ancestors. To those collected by O. Negbi, some statuettes from Kamid el-Loz

63 64

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

591

In conclusion, the Old Syrian representation of banquets on the two basins of Temples B and D respectively only appears to be the reproduction of the same ritual with different protagonists. In actual fact the banquets represent two very different sacred ceremonies but share the one (very significant) fact that the king appears as protagonist in both.65 In the case of the limestone basin in Ishtar’s Temple on the Citadel, the banquet represented a highly significant moment, since alluding to abundance,66 of a ritual in which the living king, together with the queen/high priestess, ensured the prosperity of the whole community. The banquet portrayed on the basin in the Temple of Rashap in the Lower Town, on the other hand, where the guests were the Rapi’uma, represented both the central moment in the ritual ensuring the deceased king’s assumption among his deified ancestors, who had come down to earth to receive him, and the propitious beginning of the reign of his legitimate successor. In both cases these represent ritual banquets of fundamental value and significance in the ideology of Old Syrian kingship in Middle Bronze I‒II. Bibliography Amiet, P., 1961: Glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. Paris. Amiet, P., 1963: La glyptique syrienne archaïque. Note sur la diffusion de la civilisation mésopotamienne en Syrie du Nord. Syria 40: 57–83. Amiet, P., 1980: The Mythological Repertory in Cylinder Seals of the Akkad Period (c. 2335–2155 B.C.). In E. Porada (ed.), Ancient Art in Seals. Princeton. Pp. 35–59. Beyer, D., 2007: Les sceaux de Mari au IIIe millénaire. Observations dur la documentation ancienne et les données nouvelles des villes I et II. Akh Purattim 1: 231–260. Black, J. / Green, A., 1992: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary. London. Bleibtreu, E. / Steymans, H.U. (eds), 2014: Edith Porada zum 100. Geburtstag. A Centennary Volume (OBO 268). Fribourg / Göttingen. Boehmer, R.M., 1965: Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4). Berlin. Börker-Klähn, J., 1982: Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsre-

(Kühne 1980; Metzger 1990, 263–265, 271, pls 19–21, nos 703, 713, 746) have to be added and, above all, one, really noteworthy, from Hazor: Ornan 2011; Ornan 2012a; Ornan 2012b. The doubts raised by Ornan 2011, note 80 and Ornan 2012a, 14–15 on the authenticity of the renown statuette of Old Syrian king with oval tiara decorated by divine horns from Qatna, now at the Louvre (AO. 3992), originally published by Ronzevalle 1914, are unfounded: Frankfort 1954, 149–150, pl. 142. 65 Pinnock 1994. 66 The relation between abundance and the banquet has been recently underlined for the Neo-Assyrian period by Winter 2013, clearly in a completely different context (Villard 2013), which had a long tradition in Mesopotamia: Charpin 2013. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

592

P. Matthiae

liefs. I‒II (BaF 4). Mainz am Rhein. Braun-Holzinger, E.A., 1987a: Löwendrache. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987‒1990): 97–99. — 1987b: Löwenmensch. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987–1990): 99–102. Braun-Holzinger, E. / König-Faran, U., 2001: Eine syrisch–babylonische Herrscherszene aus Byblos. In J.-W. Meyer / M. Novák / A. Pruss (eds): Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet. Frankfurt am Mein. Pp. 38–51. Buchanan, B., 1981: Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven / London. Canby, J. Vorys, 2001: The “Ur-Nammu” Stela (University Museum Monograph 110). Philadelphia. Caquot, A. / Sznycer, M. / Herdner, A., 1974: Textes ougaritiques. I. Mythes et legendes. Introduction, traduction, commentaire (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 7). Paris. Caquot, A. / de Tarragon, J.-M. / Cunchillos, J.-L., 1989: Textes ougaritiques. II. Textes religieux et rituels. Correspondance. Introduction, traduction, commentaire (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 14). Paris. Charpin, D., 2013: Les usages politiques des banquets d’après les archives mésopotamiennes du début du IIe millénaire av. J.–C. In Grandjean / Hugoniot / Lion (eds) 2013: 31–52. Collon, D., 1982: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals, II, Akkadian – Post Akkadian – Ur III Periods. London. — 1987: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. Dunand, M., 1958: Fouilles de Byblos, II, 1933–1938. Paris. Delaporte, L., 1910: Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro–cappadociens de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris. Einwag, B. / Otto, A., 2012: Die Torlöwen an Tempel 1 von Tell Bazi und ihre Stellung in der Reiche steinerner Löwenorthostaten. In H. Baker / K. Knauth / A. Otto (eds): Stories of Long Ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (AOAT 397). München. Pp. 91–115. Finkel, I.L. / Geller, M.J. (eds) 1997: Sumerian Gods and Their Representations (Cuneiform Monographs 7). Gröningen. Frankfort, H., 1939: Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London. — 1954: Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Harmondsworth. Gelb, I.J., 1984: The Inscription of Jibbit-Lim, King of Ebla. Studia Orientalia 55: 213–229. Goldman, B., 1960: The Development of the Lion-Griffin. American Journal of Archaeology 64: 319–328. Grandjean, C. / Hugoniot, Ch. / Lion, B. (eds) 2013: Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique (Tables des hommes 16). Tours. Green, A., 1986: The Lion–Demon in the Art of Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions. BaM 17: 141–254. — 1993–1997: Mischwesen. B. Archälogie. Reallexikon der Assyriologie 8: 246– 270. — 1997: Myths in Mesopotamian Art. In Finkel / Geller (eds): Sumerian Gods and © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

593

Their Representations (Cuneiform Monographs 7). Gröningen. Pp. 135–158. Ingholt, H., 1940: Rapport préliminaire sur sept campagnes de fouilles à Hama en Syrie (1932–1938) (Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Archaeologisk–kunsthistoriske Meddelelser 3/1). København. Klengel, H., 1992: Syria 3000 to 300 B.C. A Handbook of Political History. Berlin. Kühne, H., 1980: Die Bronzestatuetten aus dem „späthethitischen“ Tempel. In R. Hachmann (ed.): Bericht über die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen in Kāmid el–Loz in den Jahren 1968 bis 1970 (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 22). Bonn. Pp. 63–81. Lapinkivi, P., 2004: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage in the Light of Comparative Evidence (SAAS 15). Helsinki. Matthews, D.M., 1997: The Early Glyptik of Tell Brak: Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria (OBO SA 15). Fribourg / Göttingen. Matthiae, P., 1965: Le sculture in basalto. In Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Rapporto preliminare della campagna 1964. Roma. Pp. 61–80. — 1966: Le sculture in pietra. In Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Rapporto preliminare della campagna 1965. Roma. Pp. 103–142. — 1977: Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Torino (English Translation by Ch. Holme: Ebla. An Empire Rediscovered, London. 1980). — 1980: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh-Ébla, 1978: Le Bâtiment Q et la nécropole princière du Bronze Moyen II. Akkadica 17: 1–52. — 1984: I tesori di Ebla (Haskell Lectures 1981, Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio). Roma / Bari. — 1986a: Sull’identità degli dèi titolari dei templi paleosiriani di Ebla. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 3: 335–362 (= About the Identity of the Titular Deities of the Old Syrian Temples at Ebla. In Matthiae 2013a: 301– 322). — 1986b: Una stele paleosiriana arcaica di Ebla e la cultura figurativa della Siria attorno al 1800 a.C. Scienze dell’Antichità 1: 447–495 (= An Archaic Old Syrian Stele from Ebla and the Figurative Culture of Syria around 1800 B.C. In Matthiae 2013a: 517–555). — 1990a: A Class of Old Syrian Bronze Statuettes and the Sanctuary B2 at Ebla. In P. Matthiae / M. van Loon / H. Weiss (eds): Resurrecting the Past. A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. Leiden. Pp. 345–362. — 1990b: A New Monumental Temple of Middle Bronze II at Ebla and the Unity of the Architectural Tradition of Syria-Palestine. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 40: 111–121. — 1994: Old Syrian Basalt Furniture from Ebla Palaces and Temples. In P. Calmeyer et al. (eds): Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologie und Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden. Pp. 167–177. — 1996: Due frammenti di un nuovo bacino scolpito dal Tempio P2 di Ebla. Studi Miscellanei 30. Studi in memoria di Lucia Guerrini 3–12 (= Two Fragments of a New Carved Basin from Temple P2 at Ebla. In Matthiae 2013a: 574–585). — 2002: About the Formation of Old Syrian Architectural Tradition. In L. al-Gailani Werr et al. (eds): Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

594

P. Matthiae

75th Birthday. London. Pp. 191–209. — 2006: Old Syrian Statuary and Carved Basins from Ebla: New Documents and Interpretations. In P. Butterlin et al. (eds): Les espaces mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l’expérience humaine au Proche-Orient ancien. Volume d’hommage offert à Jean–Claude Margueron (Subartu 17). Bruxelles. Pp. 423–438. — 2008: Gli Archivi Reali di Ebla. La scoperta, i testi, il significato. Milano. — 2010: Ebla. La città del trono. Archeologia e storia. Torino. — 2011a: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh–Ebla en 2009‒2010: Les débuts de l’exploration de la Citadelle paléosyrienne. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles–Lettres 155 no. 2: 735–773. — 2011b: The Gods and Rapi’uma of Yamkhad: An Interpretation of a Rare Old Syrian Cylinder Seal. In B.S. Düring / A. Wossink / P.M.M.A. Akkermans (eds): Correlates of Complexity. Essays in Archaeology and Assyriology dedicated to Diederik J. W. Meijer in Honour of His 65th Birthday (Netherlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden 116). Leiden. Pp. 161–175. — 2012a: L’archéologie du culte: les ancêtres royaux dans la documentation archéologique d’Ebla et les témoignages textuels d’Ougarit. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 156 no. 2: 951–992. — 2012b: Une nouvelle image de l’Ishtar Eblaitu paléosyrienne. In T. Boiy et al. (eds): The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe (OLA 220). Leuven. Pp. 387–407. — 2013a: Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980‒2010. Edited by F. Pinnock. Wiesbaden. — 2013b: La déesse nue et le dieu au panache. Aux origines de l’iconographie de l’Ishtar d’Ébla. In O. Loretz et al. (eds): Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in the Ancient World in Honour of Paolo Xella (AOAT 404). Münster. Pp. 1–23. — 2014: Notes et études éblaïtes. I: Le semeion de Hiérapolis dans l’Ébla paléosyrienne. Revue d’Assyriologie 108: 93–120. — 2015: On the Origin of the Middle Assyrian Obelisks. In P. Ciafardoni / D. Giannesi (eds): From the Treasures of Syria. Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stefania Mazzoni (PIHANS. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten te Leiden, CXXVI). Leiden. Pp. 131–152. Matthiae, P. / Pinnock, F. / Scandone Matthiae, G. (eds) 1995: Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza.” Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 18 marzo – 30 giugno 1995. Milano. Metzger, M., 1990: Kamid el–Loz. 8. Die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen. Die Kleinfunde (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 40). Bonn. Micale, M.G. / Nadali, D., 2010: Royal Palace Officials at Ebla in the 3rd Millennium BC: Names, Duties and Movement through Their Seal Impressions. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 3: 8–26. Moortgat, A., 1940: Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin. Negbi, O., 1976: Canaanite Gods in Metal. An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines (Tel Aviv University. Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 5). Tel Aviv. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

595

Nigro, L., 2009: The Eighteenth Century BC Princes of Byblos and Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age. In Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze Age (BAAL HS 6), Beirut. Pp. 159–176. Nissinen, M. / Uro, R., (eds) 2008: Sacred Marriages. The Divine–Human Sexual Metaphor from Sumer to Early Christianity. Winona Lake. Ornan, T., 2011: “Let Ba‘al be Enthroned”: The Date, Identification and Function of a Bronze of Hazor. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70: 253–280. — 2012a: The Long Life of a Dead King: A Bronze Statue from Hazor in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 366: 14–15. — 2012b: The Role of Gold in Royal Representation: The Case of a Bronze Statue from Hazor. In R. Matthews / J. Curtis (eds): Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 12 April – 16 April 2010. II. Wiesbaden. Pp. 445–458. Otto, A., 2000: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8). Berlin / New York. Özgüç, N., 1965: The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından V 22). Ankara. Özgüç, N. / Tunca, Ö., 2001: Kültepe-Kaniš. Sealed and Inscribed Clay Bullae (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları V 48). Ankara. Pardee, D., 2002: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Writings from the Ancient World 10). Atlanta. Pinnock, F., 1992: Per una riconsiderazione della stele di Hama 6B599. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 4: 101–121. — 1994: Considerations on the «Banquet Theme» in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome, May 17‒19, 1990 (History of the Ancient Near East. Studies 6). Padova. Pp. 15–26. — 2008: Of Servants and Priestesses. An Analysis of Some Female Characters in Mesopotamian and Syrian Art. In H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March – 3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin, I. Wiesbaden. Pp. 507–519. — 2009: Open Cults and Temples in Syria and the Levant. In Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze Age (BAAL HS 6). Pp. 195–207. — 2012: Some Gublite Artifacts Possibly Made at Ebla. Syria 89: 85–110. Polcaro, A., 2015: The Bone Talisman and the Ideology of Ancestors in Old Syrian Ebla: Tradition and Innovation in the Royal Funerary Ritual Iconography. Studia Eblaitica 1: 179–204. Pomponio, F. / Xella, P., 1997: Les dieux d’Ébla. Étude analytique des divinités éblaïtes à l’époque des archives royales du IIIe millénaire (AOAT 245). Münster. Porada, E., 1942: The Warrior with Plumed Helmet. A Study of Syro-Cappadocian Cylinder Seals and Bronze Figurines. Berytus 7: 57–63 (= Bleibtreu / Steymans [eds] 2014: 177–184). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

596

P. Matthiae

— 1948: Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections. The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library (The Bollingen Series XIV). Washington. Riis, P.J. / Buhl, M.-L., 1990: Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931‒1938. II 2. Les objets de la période dite syro-hittite (Ãge du Fer) (Nationalmuseets Skrifter 12). København. Ronzevalle, S., 1914: Notes et études d’archéologie orientale. XX. Tête de statuette syrienne. Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph 7: 127–135. Sawaf, S., 1963: Alep, son histoire, sa citadelle, son musée et ses monuments. Alep. Seidl, U., 2006: The Roles Played by Fish on Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seals. In P. Taylor (ed.), The Iconography of Cylinder Seals (Warburg Institute Colloquia 9). London / Turin. Pp. 134–142. Selz, G., 1983: Die Bankettszene. Entwicklung eines „überzeitlichen“ Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien, I‒II (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 11–12). Wiesbaden. Seyrig, H., 1960: Les dieux de Hiérapolis. 1. Cylindres représentant une enseigne sacrée. Syria 37: 233–240, 251–252. Teissier, B., 1993: The Ruler with the Peaked Cap and Other Syrian Iconography from Kültepe in the Early Second Millennium. In M.J. Mellink / E. Porada / T. Özgüç (eds): Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç. Ankara. Pp. 601–612. — 1994: Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe Kārum Level 2 (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 70). Leiden. Villard, P., 2013: Les commençaux des rois néo–assyriens. In Grandjean / Hugoniot / Lion (eds) 2013: 213–230. Westenholz, J. Goodnick, 1997: Nanaya: Lady of Mystery. In Finkel / Geller (eds)1997: 57–84. Wiggermann, F.A.M., 1981–1982: Exit Talim! Studies in Babylonian Demonology I. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 27: 90–105. — 1992: Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts (Cuneiform Monographs, 1). Groningen. Winter, I.J., 2013: Le banquet royal assyrien: mise en œuvre de la rhétorique de l’abondance. In Grandjean / Hugoniot / Lion (eds): Le banquet du monarque dans le monde antique (Tables des hommes 16). Tours. Pp. 287–309. Wiseman, D.J., 1962: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, I, Cylinder Seals. Uruk – Early Dynastic Periods. London. Woolley, C.L., 1934: Ur Excavations. II. The Royal Cemetery. Oxford. — 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937‒1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 18). Oxford. Wyatt, N., 1998: Religious Texts from Ugarit. The Words of Ilimilku and His Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar 14). Sheffield.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

Fig. 1. Ebla: basin found before Italian excavations, front face, basalt, from Area B.

Fig. 2. Ebla: fragment TM.64.B.23. of a basin, basalt, from Temple B.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

597

598

P. Matthiae

Fig. 3. Ebla: basin TM.65.D.236, front face, limestone, from Temple D.

Fig. 4. Ebla: basin TM.65.D.236, left side face, limestone, from Temple D.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Problem of Iconology

Fig. 5. Ebla: basin TM.65.D.236, right side face, limestone, from Temple D.

Fig. 6. Ebla: Drawing of the Ishtar’s Stele, basalt, from Temple D.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

599

600

P. Matthiae

Fig. 7. Ebla: Drawing of the Ishtar’s Obelisk, basalt, from Temple D.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space: On the Use of Crenellation from Architecture to the Definition of Pictorial Spaces Maria Gabriella Micale

1. Introduction Battlements and crenellation on the upper part of buildings in the Ancient Near East are constitutive elements in pictorial representations of architecture. Contrary to ancient depictions and modern reconstructions,1 they are rarely present in the archaeological record for they are presumably poorly preserved, barely recognizable, or because the use of these elements in images and real architecture has two different meanings. However, the analysis of these elements in some specific iconographies and archaeological contexts, even though independent from each other, is able to reveal specific meanings and patterns of iconographies circulation inside the Ancient Near East, and permits further considerations on the relationship between built and depicted architecture. As an architectural, decorative, and iconographic feature, battlements have been already discussed in the past in two influential works2 where their iconography especially was treated, together with the textual evidences in Edith Porada’s article, in an attempt of reconstruction of the symbolic meaning of these elements and its origin. Both G. Garbini and E. Porada assumed a sacred symbolism of the stepped battlements and especially Garbini connected the stepped shape to the symbolic representation of the sacred mountain, as the ziqqurrat was in the real three-dimensional built architecture.3 Even though a certain connection to sacred symbolism will emerge also in the present contribution, nevertheless the reasoning for such a conclusion is different from both of the influential studies just mentioned. On the one hand, in front of the real architecture, Porada used all the data (archaeology, iconography, texts) assuming that they are diverse versions of the same architectural materiality and revealing a certain idea that originated with built architecture followed by image Micale 2005. It is at this point, quoting the publication of what was my MA thesis, whose manuscript was read and corrected in the trains between Rome and Parma where she taught in 2001, that I would like to dedicate this contribution to Frances Pinnock with much affection and gratitude. 2 Garbini 1958; Porada 1967. 3 Garbini 1958, 91, fn. 21. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

602

M.G. Micale

and text. On the other hand, considering the history of the battlement in archaeology and iconography, Garbini assumed that in both architecture and images the stepped merlons were an Assyrian invention, even if inspired by Iranian models arrived to Assyrian directly from the Zagros in the middle of the 2nd millennium.4 Moreover, his assumption of a religious meaning for them is based on the fact that he saw their earliest employment topping the walls of presumably sacred buildings depicted in some Middle Assyrian seal impressions.5 In the light of a wide range of sources, the present contribution will expose the archaeological and the iconographic evidence with some punctual references to extra regional examples in a chronological perspective. A rigorous methodological approach to the topic must treat the archaeological and the iconographic sources as independent elements of the Mesopotamian culture, understanding the images not necessarily as a reproduction of architecture’s materiality. Following this approach, the analysis will present a more plausible picture of the cultural nature of the available evidence, considering each element autonomously and letting them independently interact with the others, without taking for granted the supremacy of the materiality over the image. Thus, the changes that occur in the course of the centuries may be better understood in the light of the historical and regional framework of Mesopotamian art and architecture. Following the use of crenellation in iconography and archaeological record, the stepped elements, in particular, will be recognized as a powerful feature that, since the earliest documented employments, were used in order to create an ideal space for the performance of meaningful actions in the human and the divine world as well as in abstract symbolic spaces. Beyond the purely decorative employment of crenellated elements, which might have occurred from time to time when the relationship between shape and function was probably lost,6 this contribution will suggest the hypothesis that the crenellation in form of a frieze of individual elements first appeared in the iconography, though not in the representation of buildings where it probably arrived only as soon as real architecture had adopted it. 2. The Archaeological Documentation 2.1 Material and Shape The majority of the archaeological documentation for crenellation and battlements as architectural elements (both functional and decorative) in the Ancient Near East discussed here come from Mesopotamian contexts. An exhaustive catalog of such pieces is not the intention here. Instead, together with a few meaning-

Garbini 1958, 86, 88–89. Garbini 1958, 86. 6 See Garbini 1958, 90 according to which the great expansion of the stepped motive favored its decorative character and the loss of importance of his original religious symbol. 4 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

603

ful exemplars from neighboring regions, they offer a significant overview on the archaeological documentation available and an important base for the evaluation of their function in architecture and pictorial representations. In general, the elements of crenellation represent an exceptional discovery and for this reason they should be considered as a significant element of Mesopotamian and Near Eastern architecture, even though they are not documented throughout the Near East. Stepped merlons were already described by A.H. Layard, according to whom they were discovered among the debris at the base of the ziqqurrat of Nimrud.7 Victor Place also brought to light a few exemplars (he writes about bricks but it is not clear if they are baked/enameled or mudbricks) still in situ on the parapet of the ramp of the ziqqurrat of Khorsabad at the time of the excavations (Fig. 1).8 He then assumed that these elements could often have been made of mudbricks and for this reason they are so seldom archaeologically documented.9 Later, this hypothesis was partially followed also by the American archaeologists of Khorsabad, even though they concluded that, in reality, the scarcity of documentation could depend on a false perspective of interpretation and, especially, on the contrast between the expectation mostly derived from the ancient images (i.e. all the buildings were crenellated) and the documentation itself. However, they assume that this scarcity, in reality, could reflect an original design according to which the architects could have chosen to use a crenellation only in specific sectors of a building.10 In fact, they brought to light a considerable sample of stone stepped merlons (H 100/120 cm, T 28 cm)11 exclusively among the debris concentrated at the feet of the basement of the Palace on the Citadel, including some half merlons that could probably occupy the extremities of a parapet.12 A similar discovery by another expedition of the Oriental Institute was done at Sennacherib’s aqueduct at Jerwan (Fig. 2), where the archaeologists found, in the proximity of an archway, a group of five stepped stones (H 55, W 60, T 30 cm). Among them, one of the stones was a “half,” and thus interpreted as an angular stone of a continuous row.13 However, according to the exiguous number of elements and to the fact that, when imagining to reintegrate them into the main parapet of the structure they result too small to be significant architectural or decorative elements, the archaeologists excluded the possibility that they could originally crown the entire parapet and suggested, instead, that they might have been used to decorate the tops of the Layard 1853, 125. In Thomas’ detailed presentation of the restored parapet wall, the crenellation is showed to be triple stepped, each three bricks high (36 cm) and one brick thick (40 cm), Place 1867–1870, I, 137–148. 9 Place 1867–1870, I, 52, 142. 10 Loud /Altman 1938, 40–41. 11 The dimensions of the pieces here reported, complete or partial, correspond to those provided in the publications. 12 Loud / Altman 1938, 30, pls 8C, 11A,C. 13 Jacobsen / Lloyd 1935, 12, pl. 12B. 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

604

M.G. Micale

projecting breakwaters.14 Other stone stepped merlons (H 70 cm) were found in Assur among the debris of the eastern sector of the fortifications and in the area of the Mushlalu.15 In Northern Syria at Carchemish a possible example of elements similar in function has been located, unfortunately without clear images—Woolley describes a possible crenellation he found in front of the Long Wall of Sculpture, but dating back, according to Woolley himself, to what he calls “the Late Hittite” period.16 Most interesting is the shape of the elements, which, according to his description, were elongated/ovoidal with occasionally rounded elements on their top.17 However, in a much later publication,18 with an unclear picture, Woolley described these stones as “curious round-crocketed” blocks, and without any reference to the chronology (in 1921 he had in fact hypothesized a possible non-contemporaneity between the sculptures and these elements), he defined them as decorative battlements. Again, outside Mesopotamia, a particular, most probably purely decorative variant of the free standing stepped exemplars, but possibly intended for interior spaces, was discovered in the burnt layer of the so-called Kalamu-Building in Zincirli, which is the most ancient (9th cent. BC) of the group of hilani built on the Citadel. In fact, the group of three free-standing glazed stepped merlons from room J2 (each approximately H 14 cm, W 20 cm, T 10 cm) was interpreted, especially due to the dimensions, as decorative element of the inner architecture of the room or as elements of an altar according to the comparison with a possibly similar small altar from Tell Half.19 However, even though in this case the archaeological record contains only small decorative elements, the hypothesis of crenellated buildings in Zincirli was widely diffused. Beside the architectural reconstructions showing a diffused imagination of stepped merlons on the top of the buildings, Woolley quoted exactly the excavators of Zincirli and their idea of

Jacobsen / Lloyd 1935, 12. Andrae 1913, 90, figs 136, 148; pl. 105, fig. 266. Andrae (1938, 158–159) also describes a crenellation along the apparently well preserved lower external battlement of the western city wall of Assur at the time of Sennacherib—in the photographic documentation, however, there is no trace of it. He also assumes possible crenellations in the external wall of the Temple of Assur at the time of Shalmaneser I quoting fragments of crenellation in the debris of the structure (ibid., 118–119). However, in both cases, he does not specify whether these elements were either made of stone or bricks. 16 Woolley 1921, 151. 17 “In front of the Long Wall of Sculpture were found several stones cut in hawara [soft limestone] but dating well back in the Late Hittite period; some of these were oblong blocks 0.20 m high, the tops rounded from back to front; the others were similar, but in the middle rose a tall round-topped crocket 0.25 m in height; these would seem to have stood along the top of the wall” (Woolley 1921, 151). 18 Woolley 1952, 165, pl. B.37 19 Von Luschan 1943, 60–61, pl. 31a–c. 14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

605

a largely crenellated architecture when describing two Late Hittite fragments of small stone altars from Carchemish decorated with stepped merlons and a series of rosettes on them.20 In addition to the use of free-standing stone merlons, another way of creating parapets or crenellations was a composition of glazed bricks, as was well documented in Assur where Andrae recognized them (H 63 cm ca.) and dated them to the reign of Shalmaneser III.21 Also Koldewey says that some stepped battlements were found as part of the stepped crenellation of the Ishtar Gate parapet.22 However, both Andrae and Koldewey are not clear as to whether they found them in situ or among the debris, especially because in other parts of their publications they assert that no enameled bricks were in fact found in situ. Documented in a few exemplars are the clay plaques/tiles in the shape of stepped merlons. The Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin exhibits an unpublished clay plaque from Assur in the shape of a half stepped merlon (VA 17247) (H 35, W 35, T 6 cm) (Fig. 3). The piece was found inside the große Kanal under the forecourt of the Assur Temple, relating to a system of basins and canals that was continuously reconstructed up until the last renovation of the temple at the time of Sennacherib. A close observation of the object, covered with a light pinkish slip, reveals two faces with irregular surfaces, whereas the surface of the three sides (two regular and one stepped) is exceptionally regular and smooth, with no traces of having been leaning or fixed to any support. For this reason, the object seems to have been never used, at least as element of a crenellation.23 The contour of one face (face a) seems to be slightly raised and flattened on pur-

Woolley 1921, 151. Andrae 1913, 3, Blatt 3, pl. LXXVIII. 22 Koldewey 1913, 34. 23 The exceptionally good quality of the surface of the presumed sides of the plaque, in comparison with the two faces, initially led me to doubt about the real function of the object and the perspective according to which it is exhibited (i.e., standing with one large face visible). In fact, if the object was intended to be part of a crenellation, the best sides (best worked out and not only best preserved) would have been hidden. If one changes the perspective, turning the object so that it lays on one of the two large faces, it acquires another perspective, and thus seems to be something else. It could be interpreted, for example, as a brick whose three-stepped side was in reality to be the only one visible and frontally viewed as part of the multiple rabbets of a recessed door. Even though there are no possible comparisons either for such a brick composition, or for a door with a multiple recession of only 13 cm each step, nevertheless the object could have been part of a wall decorative treatment made of backed bricks, as suggested by the fact that according to the field documentation it was found together with three other bricks, though of different shapes. Among these, one is clearly cutaway and could be part of half-column wall decoration similar (though not identical also for they are backed and not mudbricks) to the one reconstructed by Andrae for the Temple of Anu and Adad (1909, 30, fig. 23). 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

606

M.G. Micale

pose and traces of a white slip seem to be recognizable so as to create a colored distinguishable profile of the object. This apparent distinct colored profile is the only sign that might indicate which face was exposed. Coming, as it does, from an accumulation of discarded materials, it is impossible to advance a hypothesis as for the chronology. Some painted clay plaques come from another northern Mesopotamian context. It is possible, in fact, that the T-shaped tiles from the recent excavations in the Lower Zab region at Tell Satu Qala, ancient Idu, can be interpreted as plaques in the shape of stepped merlons with two instead of three steps (Fig. 4). The published piece is part of a group of two24 and is composed of two fragments25 of the total approximate measures of H 36 x W 41 x T 6 cm. These plaques unfortunately come from a secondary context and are reported to have been found reused in the masonry of a building of possible domestic function26 where other similar materials were also found reused in the same way. Most interesting among these materials are a wall painted peg fragment with the name of Ashurnasirpal II on it27 and, even more interesting, some fragments of other glazed plaques with a similar iconography as the one recognized in other pieces from a different and more disturbed stratigraphic context with the names of two earlier kings of the local dynasty of Idu on them.28 The authors attribute the plaques with the names of the local rulers, according to iconographic elements and relative comparisons, to the 9th cent. BC including the reign of Ashurnasirpal II.29 For chronological and regional evaluation, it is also important the fact that one of these names is inscribed in an object found in the level IV of Hasanlu, whose destruction can be dated to the end of the 9th cent. BC.30 A comparison with the rare plaques of Satu Qala, however, comes from the Northern region around the Urmia Lake (Azerbaijan province), where already in the 80s the excavations at Qalaychi Tepe had brought to light, in a building then interpreted as a temple, similar painted plaques.31 Unfortunately, the majority of these pieces ended up sold on the antiquity market and it is only recently, also with the reopening of the excavations at Rabat Tepe, that some new studies have focused on new pieces together with the old pieces in private collections and the Museums where some of them are stored.32 Among these pieces, it is possible to Van Soldt et al. 2013, 204, 233, fig. 13. The inventory numbers mentioned in both text and caption of fig. 13 (Van Soldt et al. 2013) are slightly different and for this are not here reported. 26 Van Soldt et al. 2013, 203–204. 27 Van Soldt et al. 2013, 203–204. 28 Van Soldt et al. 2013, 201–202 and, for the epigraphic comment, 212–213. 29 Van Soldt et al. 2013, 202. 30 Van Soldt et al. 2013, 213. 31 Mousavi 1994, 7. 32 Hassanzadeh / Mollasalehi 2011. The similarity between the exemplars from Satu Qala and Rabat Tepe was already reported in Reade / Finkel 2014, 586. However, conclusions 24 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

607

recognize painted plaques in the shape of stepped merlons, with three or four steps (but they are often fragmentary) and one figure (sacred tree, sphinx, lamassu, and other types of mythical figures) which occupies the entire face of the plaque (Fig. 5). Some pieces are also provided with a horizontal element of support33 possibly suggesting that they could not be applied to a vertical surface (e.g. wall), but, instead, placed on a horizontal surface.34 However, due to the state of preservation of these plaques, it is not clear whether they originally belonged to two different types (one with and one without horizontal element) or not. To be noted is also a square brick painted along its small sides with a motive of a triple-stepped merlons with a colored profile35 as the plaques from Satu Qala and possibly the plaque from Assur. The chronology of these bricks and plaques is clearly difficult to establish for the lack of proper publications and knowledge of stratigraphic contexts. Thus, it is also difficult to assume that, even when coming from the same site, they can be dated to the same period. However, due to some iconographic comparisons with materials from Hasanlu IIIB, some authors suggest that they can be earlier than the 8th cent. BC36 and thus to be dated to the Mannean cultural context of the region at that time.37 2.2 The Function The examples just described reveal how limited the archaeological documentation of these architectural elements is and how difficult it becomes, as a consequence, to imagine a hypothetical function for these elements, even when they seem to be easily recognizable as either architectural or decorative components. This is true especially for the free-standing stone elements whose original size is only seldom reported. As already noted, the excavators excluded the possibility that the elements found in Jerwan could have been part of the aqueduct’s parapet, for they considered them too small to be perceived as significant architectural elements at a certain distance, i.e., at the top of the structure, imagining them in a lower sector of the structure instead. Following this hypothesis, a certain correspondence with the possible original location of some stone elements described seems to exist. In Assur, in fact, they seem to come also from the well preserved lower external battlement of the western city wall and in Khorsabad from the basement of the Palace on the Citadel, both locations which exclude they had to be seen from a certain on their functional and symbolic aspects and their material and iconographic historical relationship with other exemplars deeply differ from the perspectives and the conclusions presented by the author in this contribution. 33 Kargar / Binandeh 2009, 128, fig. 11. 34 See Heidari 2010, 149, who interprets this “extra material” as a way “to place them more secure,” not specifying though if this part was inserted in the structure of the wall or not. 35 Kargar 2004, 240, fig. 4. 36 Mousavi 1994, 14–15. 37 Hassanzadeh / Mollasalehi 2011. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

608

M.G. Micale

distance and at a certain height. In addition to this, even though the original location remains hypothetical, it seems likely that stone stepped merlons were used in walls belonging to external structures, like city gates and terraces, fortifications, and sector of buildings related in someway to water, including the eastern part of the city wall in Assur and the Mushlalu both facing the river. Woolley hypothesized that on fortresses or walls of defense there were solid brick-built crenellations (rectangular or stepped triangular), while on palaces or private houses, where the decorative effect was important, the real functional crenellations were replaced by smaller panels of stone or brick, sometimes painted, round-topped, or even as stepped crenellations adorned with rosettes.38 In spite of the lack of a real basis for Woolley’s assumption, it is certainly true that the clay elements here discussed seem to come from non-defensive contexts and that they could have been employed in the inner spaces of monumental building. Whether these spaces were open or roofed cannot be established and the examples from Assur and Satu Qala are certainly not enough even for an approximate evaluation; the religious or non-religious nature of the buildings where they were used also remains difficult to establish. However, even though the details of the elements described by Layard and Place as belonging to the ziqqurrat of Nimrud and Khorsabad are unknown, and even though the plaque found in the Temple of Assur did not necessarily originally belong to the temple itself, there is no indication that they could come from palace contexts either. In this respect, the materials from Satu Qala can help only if one assumes that they belonged to the same decorative system of the plaques and the wall peg bearing the inscriptions mentioning respectively the palace of the local ruler Ba’auri and the palace of Ashurnasirpal II.39 2.3 Chronological Considerations Even though they might occur in the textual sources,40 there is no material evidence for stepped crenellation or similar architectural elements before the 1st millennium. The stone stepped merlons found in Assur among the debris at the foot of the fortifications could originally belong to any period before the 1st millennium, thus technically it is not possible to exclude that they were already present Woolley 1921, 152. For the section concerning the inscription, see van Soldt et al. 2013, 212–214. 40 A first attempt to collect all the Akkadian terms possibly associated to the battlements, most of them already published in the CAD, can be found in Porada 1967, 7–12. A contribution to the general topic of temple building, with some specific reference to the stock phrase “from the foundations to the crenellations,” comes from Novotny 2010 with further extensive literature on the topic; see also Dalley 2010. Novotny (2010, 125) reports that at the time of Enlil-nasir I or Assur-rabi I the vice-regents started to boast the rebuilding of a structure from foundations to parapets. In general, it seems that there are no direct textual references to parapets or crenellations as architectural elements before the 2nd millennium BC. 38 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

609

in the 2nd millennium. The same for the plaque from the Assur Temple, which, as found in the große Kanal with other wasted building materials, could originally belong to any period. However, the lack of archaeological data cannot be compensated by the textual description (nor with iconography) and for this reason it must be assumed either that the presence of archaeological evidence from only the 1st millennium onwards must reflect the ancient reality or that the archaeological record for some reason has failed to identify all earlier examples. While it is certain that a heavy concentration of these materials is recognizable in the 9th and 8th cent. BC, it is difficult to imagine that any of the examples discussed here could have come earlier than the 9th cent. In this respect, some further consideration might be done concerning the plaques of Satu Qala/Idu, which seem to be, within the sample proposed here, the most ancient pieces. Even though their chronology is not confirmed, one must also mention the plaques from Qalaychi Tepe and Rabat Tepe which could be dated to the same 9th cent., meaning that, whatever the connection between these examples and the northern Mesopotamian plaques is, this connection must have been already well developed at a level not easily identifiable in the material and architectural culture. 3. The Iconographic Documentation 3.1 Merlons and Crenellation in the Assyrian Iconography The majority of the merlons depicted in the Neo-Assyrian sculptures is triangular41 and constitutes the most common finishing element of the buildings represented. They are very regular in shape and size and usually are repeated in long series all over the upper part of the buildings, or limited to single sections. Their profile is emphasized and thickened only rarely (e.g. in an anonymous besieged fortress at the time of Ashurnasirpal II42 and in Gabbutunu, besieged by the army of Sargon II43). Triangular merlons are represented also on the top of the majority of the buildings depicted in the bronze bands of the Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III and in some ivories from Nimrud44 as well as in the Ashurnasirpal’s crown in the shape of a building with towers as depicted on a glazed slab from Nineveh.45 Beside these examples, in some buildings depicted on seals the style of the depiction seems to affect the shape of the merlons so that the triangular shape appears reduced to simple vertical lines.46 A peculiar and rare type of triangular merlons, with a slightly curved profile, is depicted as the upper element of the walls of two See Porada (1967, 4) who assumes that the triangle shape is just a simplification of the stepped ones. 42 Barnett / Falkner 1962, pl. CXVIII. 43 Botta / Flandin 1849–50, II, pl. 89. 44 Mallowan 1970, pl. XXVII:92b–c, XXVIII:98. 45 Nunn 1988, pl. 126. 46 E.g. Moorey / Gurney 1978, pl. VII:43. 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

610

M.G. Micale

buildings in the representation of Sennacherib’s Babylonian campaign, with the representation seeming to indicate that they were a structural part of the masonry itself.47 At least one of these buildings has square elements that are also rare and in one case,48 as in the triangular exemplar just quoted, are depicted as part of the masonry rather than top of the wall. Contrary to the fact that in modern reconstructions the battlements of Assyrian buildings are mostly represented with stepped merlons, in the iconographic Neo-Assyrian repertoire this type of crenellation is rare. Stepped merlons create different and various types of crenellation depending on the number of the stages, their reciprocal arrangement and their location inside the single image of a building. In the sculptures of Ashurnasirpal II, these elements are depicted only once not on the top of a building, but upon a peculiar Omega-shaped arch gate in a city supposedly of Bit Zamani,49 whereas they find much space in the contemporary bronze bands from the Gates of Balawat where they seem to be almost exclusively, also as a half merlon, on the top of T-shaped towers. An identical arrangement of merlons and towers occurs also in the building depicted on the surface of an ivory vessel from the same North-West Palace of Nimrud.50 Equally significant seems to be the comparison with the building represented on a stone vessel, again from the North-West Palace.51 The almost absolute absence, on the one hand, of stepped merlons in the sculptures of Ashurnasirpal II and, the other, their frequent use in other media also for non-historical narrative contexts can be seen in their occurrence in some ivory plaques both contemporary and slightly later52 where they are meaningfully used in order to define the scenographic space where the action of a non-historical event takes place (Figs 6–7). In the realm of the representation of non war-related-events, the stepped merlons find a widespread use in the representation of buildings in religious or cultic-related contexts in the seals and seal impressions from Assur dated to the 13th and 12th centuries, and in what seems to be a temple model carved in a stone mold from the Ishtar Temple of Tukulti-Ninurta I (Fig. 8).53 In the examples discussed here, however, the use of this form of merlon is so limited that their employment could depend either on stylistic choices or, more probably, on a specific meaning that this form carries inherently thus conferring it to the depicted architectural contexts where it is employed. The rarity of this element in the narrative contexts

Barnett / Bleibtreu / Turner 1998, pls 428:552a, 431:555. Barnett / Bleibtreu / Turner 1998, pl. 410:523a–524a. 49 Meuszyński 1981, pl. 2:4. 50 Mallowan 1966, I, no. 132. 51 Searight / Reade / Finkel 2008, pl. 61. 52 Mallowan 1966, I, nos 223, 250; Mallowan 1970, pls VI:13, VII:16, XI:30g, XIV:47a,c,49, XV:53a–c,e–f,h,j–l, XXII:70,71, XXIV:82. 53 Fischer 2004, 102, fig. 1; Moortgat 1944, 43, fig. 46; Freydank / Feller 2004, 80, no. 4; Andrae 1935, 29, fig. 8, fig. 61; Collon 2005, 162, no. 752. 47 48

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

611

of the sculpted slabs can be identified also for the time of Shalmaneser III, when stepped merlons are employed in two unique objects from Fort Shalmaneser: a fragment of clay basin in the shape of crenellated walls and towers, and a bronze brazier in the shape of a similar building.54 Stepped merlons become rarer and rarer in the following centuries in any kind of representational context and independently from the type of object on which they might be found (sculptures, small objects, seals, vessels, etc.). The sculpted slabs of Sargon II show a very rare use of these merlons that are, in fact, represented only in the possible representation of Gabbutunu55 and in the so-called Pavilion with columns.56 The same scarcity of documentation can be identified in the sculptures of Sennacherib, where they can be recognized only in a single fragment,57 and to those of Ashurbanipal, where stepped merlons are located on the top of some buildings of the alleged representation of Arbela,58 of the city of Khamanu,59 and, on the top of an alleged arch or celebrative monument.60 3.2 Note on the Function and Inter-Regional Connections Considering the possibility of finding a function for the elements represented in the Assyrian images in both narrative and non-narrative contexts, it is important to emphasize the fundamental distinction between the function that the representation of the elements has (i.e., the image of a merlon) and the architectural function of the element itself (i.e., the merlon as architectural [depicted or not] element of a building). For the first type of function, it has already been assumed61 that both presence and absence of merlons on the buildings depicted under siege could be a temporal indicator, representing a specific moment of the event depicted. For example, the representation of one of the buildings of Harhar,62 with a clear comparison in the bronze Gates of Balawat (Fig. 9),63 seems to document this “temporal” function of the merlons in the narration of the events. In fact, whereas one half of the fortress represented under siege has merlons, the second half, which is burning, has no merlons; in fact, it is from this side of the building that the Assyrian army is depicted as leaving the place. Thus, the lack of merlons must be a clear Mallowan 1966, II, no. 378; Fiorina 1998, 171, 173, figs 2–5. The datum on the scarcity of stepped merlons in the reliefs of the period was already noticed by Fiorina (1998, 178) discussing the shape of the brazier. 55 Botta / Flandin 1849–50, II, pl. 89. 56 Botta / Flandin 1849–50, II, pl. 114. 57 Barnett / Bleibtreu / Turner 1998, pl. 320:421. 58 Barnett 1976, pl. XXV. 59 Barnett 1976, pl. XVII. 60 Barnett 1976, pl. VI. 61 Micale 2008, 446; 2011, 53. 62 Botta / Flandin 1849–50, I, pl. 55. 63 King 1915, pls X, XVII. 54

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

612

M.G. Micale

sign that conquest already occurred.64 However, there is no strict correspondence between the specific shape of the merlons and their role as temporal markers in the narration of the historical events. On the contrary, it should be mentioned that stepped merlons represent the only type used almost exclusively which have the function of only “evoking” an architectural space and “framing” a scene instead of referring to a precise building. An important exception is a wall painting from Khorsabad where a frieze of rounded elements, possibly a stylized version of merlons, frames a procession of apparently female characters (Fig. 10). The rare use of the stepped shape in specific depicted buildings in sculptures and sealing impressions, however, should allow one to hypothesize a specific meaning for the use of the stepped merlons in both these buildings and the scenes that they frame as well as a possible symbolic value in non-narrative contexts. The ivory plaques mentioned above, which come exclusively from Nimrud, show a certain variety of stepped merlons. In fact, they can have a plain surface, or with a brick-, grid- or lozenged-pattern and in the majority of the cases also an emphasized profile. Most interesting is that they delimit processions of men of the court, tribute bearers and, in one single piece from the Ezida (Fig. 6), bearers of offerings probably to Nabu, all atemporal events that seem to take place in an abstract architectural space marked by the presence of crenellations. On a glazed vase decorated with a hunting scene from Nimrud, depicting horsemen running down ostriches near a river with swimming fishes,65 stepped merlons frame this scene to some extent suggesting also here that these architectural elements have been selected, especially in the 9th century, as the only appropriate element to re-create the proper space for the mise-en-scène of specific scenes. The Neo-Assyrian iconographic repertoire shows a relative extensive use of stepped-crenellation patterns, in addition to the already mentioned example of a possible frieze of rounded elements, also in ornamental wall paintings where, in fact, it is easy to find them arranged in lines between bands and strips composed of geometric, and floral and faunal motifs, such as those in the “Upper Chambers” of Nimrud,66 as well as outside of Assyria in the Assyrian-inspired Median wall paintings of Altintepe and Arinbad dating between the 8th and the 7th cent. BC.67 Albenda interprets the presence of these stepped crenellations as an attempt of the Assyrian artist to create, by means of a set of motives, the facade of a lofty structure.68 As a miniature replica, these

This is also one typical example of two events in chronological sequence represented contemporaneously and by means of the representation of a single building. See Micale 2011, 172. 65 Mallowan 1966, I, 119–120, n. 61. For a similar glazed vase from Assur decorated with caprids, see Andrae 1925, pl. 22. 66 Albenda 2005, 16–17, pls 3–5. 67 Nunn 2012. 68 Albenda 2005, 18. 64

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

613

motives find place also in Ashurbanipal’s tunic covering the chest.69 In the building G at Dur-Katlimmu, dated between 8th and 7th cent. BC, for example, a wall preserved to a height of about 220 cm was painted with patterned-bands and a black on white frieze, whose top was framed by stepped merlons.70 If one wants to create an abstract space or re-create a verisimilar architectural feature (i.e., a crenellated wall as suggested by Albenda), it is evident that stepped merlons are the sole elements able to enclose, by their simple presence, a meaningful space where the crenellation itself must have given a particular significance to the place where both characters in images or people in a room were placed. Thus, even though there is no contextual evidence for an original association between the T-shaped tiles (as described by the archaeologists, and interpreted for the purpose of this article as stepped merlons) and the square plaques of Satu Qala bearing the name of Ba’auri—⸺with the possible representation of a tribute bearer (SQ 10–6) and a bearded human-headed and winged lion wearing a feathered conic heat (SQ 10–10+)—⸺ would be quite plausible to hypothesize that they originally belonged to a unique wall decoration where processions of human beings, animals, and/or mythological figures were framed by a stepped crenellation according to an iconographic and visual arrangement documented in Neo-Assyrian culture, present at least until the early 7th cent. BC. The Assyrian stepped crenellation used for creating a pictorial space and the mise-en-scène of symbolic events has an important antecedent in the representation carved on a stone mace head, partially broken, from the 2nd millennium royal Palace at Mari (Fig. 11).71 The object, which clearly is a votive mace, shows the representation of mountain and river deities both facing right towards what seems to be a second river deity facing left. The scene, which seems to be a meeting of deities, is framed by an upper frieze composed of three-stepped elements whose bases frame from above each deity’s head. Concerning the pure iconography of the stepped elements, Alexander connects them to the cruciform motives of both mosaics and paintings found in the same palace.72 These motives seem to recall the stepped-lozenges pattern of the much earlier fragments of the Banesh period wall paintings of Tell i-Malyan,73 interpreted as dependent from local pottery or tapestry traditional motives,74 and a metal stamp seal found in the pre-sargonic palace of Mari and interpreted as an eastern Iranian import.75 Stepped elements are represented also in some jar sealings from Tell i-Malyan76 where, in one case,

Albenda 2005, 69. Nunn 1988, pl. 103. 71 Alexander 1970. 72 Alexander 1970, 46–47. 73 For the description of iconography and context, see Sumner 2003, 27–29; figs 15–18. 74 Nickerson 1977, 2–6. 75 Beyer 1989, 111. 76 Sumner 2003, fig. 44f, h. 69 70

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

614

M.G. Micale

one element seems to be a podium/altar. An almost identical element is present in a much later cylinder seal from Nuzi where the same element is interpreted by Porada as the “faithful representation of existing ritual furnishing.”77 However, even though the stepped elements on the mace, and their position, might recall a crenellated battlement, Alexander excludes the possibility that such an architectural feature could be represented since it is unknown whether it was in use or not in that period. Instead, he hypothesizes that they are symbols of the mountain, possible connected to the mountain deity, and a visual evocation of the artificial mountain (i.e., the ziqqurrat), and thus not only a decorative motive.78 However, in the light of the present analysis, it is undeniable that, even though they do not reproduce architectural features, the stepped elements topping the scene are identical in shape and contain the same reciprocal arrangement to what is the image of a stepped crenellation topping the walls of later images of architecture, and to the architectural elements archaeologically documented only for the 1st millennium. Thus, the question of whether their representation as architectural feature was elaborated contemporary to the mace or later is difficult to establish on the basis of the available data. In any case, in the mace they are used as topping of a scene framing a pictorial abstract space whatever the object they reproduce (supposing that the image intends to reproduce a real object) was. To complete his analysis, Alexander asserts that the best parallel for the figurative representation on the votive mace is the “Investiture” wall painting of the Court 106 for both show a certain tendency to a centered composition and a similar distribution of the symbolic elements.79 Nevertheless, for the purpose of this discussion two even more interesting features must be put here in certain evidence. The first is the occurrence, at both top and bottom of the scene, of a frieze of pointed oval and white elements80 (Fig. 12) that, even though they are not stepped merlons, could however recall architectural decorative features framing and recreating an ideal architectural space where the “Investiture” can be performed.81 The second is the existence of a wall painting fragment apparently belonging to the scene of the “Sacrifice procession” where in the background behind a male character, possible the king, one sees the clear representation of a brick pattern within a rounded limit (Fig. 13). Even though this image is generically interpreted as an architectural background,82 the hypothesis of reconstruction of the original painting shows, behind the male char Porada 1975, 169–171, pl. XXXIII, fig. 11. Alexander 1970, 41, 46. 79 Alexander 1970, 41, 42, 45. 80 Without any claim for a possible relationship, it must be mentioned here that the shape of these elements recall the shape of the elements found in front of the Long Wall of Sculpture of Carchemish and described by Woolley as elongated/ovoidal with occasionally rounded elements on their top (see fn. 17 above). 81 See Luciani 2010, 104, quoting the official interpretations of the excavators that interpret these elements as tassels strongly recalling the threads and fringes of a carpet. 82 Parrot 1958, 24. 77 78

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

615

acter, what seems to be a crenellated wall, though square and not stepped. If this reconstruction was confirmed, it would be possible to assert that the image of a certain type of wall crenellation did already exist at the time of the mace. Thus, the Palace of Mari only would offer at least two or three opportunities to see specific scenes framed by different elements and even though only one is surely intended as the reproduction of a real wall, nevertheless it is clear that all of them were intended as the frame or background of a space where specific scenes took place. This evidence might suggest the existence of a known iconographic scheme according to which the representation of ritual or symbolic events required a well defined pictorial space delimited by a frieze of individual elements. Whether they had different meanings and convey their own meaning to the scene that they frame is difficult to reconstruct. The iconographic evidence may also suggest that the stepped elements might bring with them a specific traditional meaning, possibly connected to the symbolism of the ziqqurrat and/or the sacred mountain, as hypothesized by Garbini for the stepped merlons, and for this reason were used in specific scenes. Moreover, the hypothesis of Porada, according to which stepped battlements have a sacred and implicitly protective symbolism, which was based on arguments other than those proposed in the present contribution, seems to perfectly fit the iconographic documentation here reviewed where the framing of a pictorial space could been intended as a sacred protection/legitimization over the represented scenes. 3.3 Chronological Considerations The stepped patterns of Tell i-Malyan and Mari reviewed above seem to arrive as pure decorative interlocking lozenges in some rare fragments of ivory elements from Nimrud,83 thus prefiguring the existence of two iconographic streams across the centuries: the stepped geometric pattern, which seems to be used as decorative motive in Iran already in the 3rd millennium, probably arriving and being used in Mari and in Mesopotamia until the 1st millennium; and the stepped crenellation, which, beside its occurrence in some images of buildings, is used in Mesopotamia until the 1st millennium specifically to frame scenes of symbolic value and non-narrative contexts. In this respect, it is important to emphasize here that the tiles from Idu seem to be a very early example of representation of tribute bearers, as well as Mischwesen, within a crenellated space. Since it is clear, according to the inscriptions, that they belonged to a non-Assyrian monument, this circumstance must induce reflection on the possibility that such an iconography (stepped crenellation plus offerings, tributes or theories of figures) was already in use in the Assyrian cultural and artistic milieu and was transmitted to Idu or adopted by the local rulers thanks to a political and administrative relation of this center to Assyria during the first expansion of the Neo-Assyrian empire, a hypothesis that

Hermann 1992, pls 5:37. ND 7969, 74:359. ND 10629.

83

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

616

M.G. Micale

has been already brought by the excavators according also to other findings,84 although this iconography is not documented in any Assyrian monument before the 9th century. Thus, this original composition, which has parallels in the iconography of small objects from Nimrud dating to the reigns of Ashurnasirpal II and Shalmaneser III, could suggest a local imitation of dominant motives and that the crenellated frame for pictorial spaces was associated to some form of palatial authority of divine source. All the same, the existence of a stepped crenellation in the mace from the palace of Mari, and the contemporary use of some kind of elements to frame the “Investiture” scene and the “Sacrifice procession” in the wall paintings of the same palace, suggest that these elements were used in order to frame an abstract space possibly connected to the sacrality of either that space or the represented scene, also when it is the legitimization of the royal power which is represented. Therefore, it might be assumed that, in the second half of the 2nd millennium, a specific meaning, already traditional, of crenellated elements had been established. That means that the occurrence of stepped merlons on top of the buildings in the Middle Assyrian seal impressions, manifested in images centuries before any archaeologically documented use of similar elements (not considering Andrae’s record of stepped merlons in the debris of the Assur Temple of Shalmaneser I) can be considered the earliest case of the use of these elements as architectural features, though at that time apparently just in the form of images. Thus, although many architectural elements from Assur cannot be dated because of their unreliable stratigraphical context, and thus cannot be taken into account, it is undeniable that the majority of stepped merlons in both real buildings and iconography are concentrated in the 9th century. The stepped crenellation reported by Layard for the ziqqurrat of Nimrud and that one reconstructed by Andrae in the Tabira Gate in Assur seem to be what the iconography manifested exactly in the depiction of a gate in one of the sculpted slabs of Ashurnasirpal II and, more extensively, in several other images of buildings on other objects; as in the 9th century, whatever the meaning of the stepped crenellation was, this meaning was largely attached to the several buildings depicted on the most diverse artifacts. The consistency in the use of crenellations in the 9th century, to some extent mirrored by the early exportation/adoption of the motive to/by centers under the influence of Assyria (as in the case of Idu, but probably also the Mannean centres), is emphasized by the adoption of the crenellated motive in the following centuries. The iconography testifies to a dramatic reduction in the use of the stepped crenellation in both the representation of buildings and the framing of abstract spaces. Besides the image of the so-called Pavilion with columns, at the time of Sargon II the stepped crenellations are largely attested only in real buildings, though specifically only in the terrace of the Palace on the Citadel of Khorsabad in the archaeological record. One could hypothesize that in this case the architects of Sargon II had the intent of

Van Soldt at al. 2013, 208.

84

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

617

creating in the materiality of the real topographic space the setting for the processions that, at the time of Ashurnasirpal II, was recreated in images and, possibly, also in real architecture not archaeologically documented. Thus, the homage of Sargon II to Nimrud, already extensively argued on the basis of the planimetric correspondences between the Palace of Khorsabad and the North-West Palace of Nimrud,85 could have found expression also in conferring a special meaning to the external spaces of Khorsabad by means of the crenellation in the light of their traditional employment that had found its largest application in Nimrud. Unfortunately the archaeological documentation of Assur is too limited and, excluding the possibility of an urban landscape with extensive crenellation as imagined in the reconstructing drawings of Andrae, it is difficult to imagine exactly which parts of the city’s architecture were crenellated. However, it would be verisimilar that particularly visible and meaningful spots, for example the entrance of the city and some parts of both the main temple and the ziqqurrat, were crenellated with elements that possibly recalled the special holy status of the city. In the 7th century, apart from the possible crenellated battlement of the Western fortification of Assur at the time of Sennacherib, and the well documented merlons found among the debris of the aqueduct of Jerwan, very little remains of the stepped elements even though not necessarily of their original significance. The image of the city interpreted as Arbela and the representation of a Gate or Triumph Arch86 on two sculpted slabs of Ashurbanipal are the latest possibilities to see the Assyrian artists using stepped merlons to crenellate a depicted building. However, their function of recreating a pictorial space in Assyrian art was already over. 3. Extra Regional Cases The representation of crenellations on depicted buildings is not exclusive to the Mesopotamian culture, but they occur in other more or less contemporary cultural contexts. Beside Hittite and Egyptian examples, the most quoted in this kind of research, the widespread images of architecture in Aegean art represent a possible further comparison for some particularly interesting iconographies they have in common with the Mesopotamian examples. This is particularly true considering their use, a factor that makes them all the more interesting and appropriate comparisons for the Mesopotamian cases, although the meaning and function of these images could have been different. It is not my intention to propose a diffusionist paradigm in exposing the archaeological and iconographic evidence for the use of crenellation in different regions. Even though contacts between the regions must be taken into consideration according to rare though meaningful epigraphic evidence,87 iconographies without a historical based reconstruction can not prove

Matthiae 1994. Hrouda 1965, 61, 146; Matthiae 1998, 71; Börker-Klähn 1982, 218, n. 229. 87 See the mention of a man and objects from Crete (kaptarium) in the archive of Mari, 85 86

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

618

M.G. Micale

an artistic transmission, exchange or movement of artisans—the discussion of which, however, goes beyond the purpose of the present contribution. In the fragments of frescos brought to light at the site of Ayia Irini in Keos (Cyclades) and dated to the end of the Neopalatial Period (1700–1430 BC), found in the debris of the collapse of the upper part of the building, perhaps upper rooms, of the Northeast Bastion of the fortifications,88 pointed oval crenellations can be recognized on top of the walls in buildings of what have been interpreted as the miniaturist image of a hillside town and its inhabitants (Fig. 14). Among the fragments it is possible to recognize also two women standing inside window or door openings in a gesture that makes them possible spectators, thus linking the architecture to the action going on outside the walls of the city.89 The general iconographic framework, on the one hand, recalls the images of people on the top of the crenellated city walls following a procession in both the ivory vessel and in the stone pyxes from Nimrud already described; on the other hand the shape of the crenellation seems to be in common with the oval pointed elements depicted as framing the “Investiture” scene of Mari as well as the oval elements on the wall painting from Khorsabad. Additionally, the free-standing stone elements supposedly belonging to the Long Wall of Sculpture of Carchemish might have belonged to this type of crenellation. Abramovitz quotes Porada for a possible comparison with similar Hittite elements,90 alluding to a possible influence from the Aegean centers to the Hittite world, a paradigm of influence that in the light of the meager documentation that these fragments represent, seems to be unreliable. More interestingly she hypothesizes that their white color does not reproduce white stones, but instead mudbricks whitewashed and painted in imitation of masonry, based on a comparison with a common practice in modern-day Greece.91 This is a practice that if hypothesized also for Mesopotamia could explain the huge gap of merlons in the archaeological record. However, for the possible circulation of iconographies in Eastern Mediterranean islands and countries, it seems particularly notable that, according to Abramovitz, not only does this kind of oval pointed crenellation have no parallels in Aegean art, but also the iconography of a hillside town is unique. Nevertheless, unconvincing is her assumption that both the pointed oval crenellations and the representation of a hillside town are a Cycladic invention.92 A second important example for the strong analogy with Mesopotamia comes from Crete where, in the so-called Villa of the Lilies (Neopalatial Period), a huge fresco reconstructed from several fragments depicts white lilies blooming in front

Guichard 2005, 162, 208–209. Caskey 1971. 89 Abramovitz 1980, 57. 90 Abramovitz 1980, 60. 91 Abramovitz 1980, 60. 92 Abramovitz 1980, 57, 61, 70. 88

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

619

of a stepped parapet (Fig. 15).93 The wall painting is preserved to a height of 170 cm, and can be interpreted as the attempt to recreate a real architectural feature and, in the light of Palyvou’s theory concerning the way both architectural and pictorial space are interconnected,94 this example seeks to eliminate the two-dimensional character of a wall painting by melting it with the three-dimensional real world. It is of great interest here to emphasize not so much the fact that a stepped crenellation in wall paintings occurs in different regions as much as the fact that even in different regions (and thus with possible different symbolic meanings) it was used to create an architectural, surely meaningful, framework for an equally meaningful interior space where the performance of special actions might be proposed. However, whereas in Crete it is evident that the illusionary space created by the stepped parapet was designed around the human body that acted inside that real three-dimensional interior space, the documentation from Mesopotamia seems to indicate, in a long chronological perspective that is missed in Crete, that crenellations, possibly stepped, were used to create an architectural framework for the pictorial symbolic space where human and/or non-human characters acted. In the light of the long employment of this iconographic motive, the imagined and symbolic architecture and the symbolic frame of non-historical narrative scenes, may have been adopted by Mesopotamian architects in the attempt to confer to the real buildings the same traditional symbolic value that images first were required to represent. 4. Conclusion This review of selected examples of materials and images is an attempt to reassess the interpretation of crenellation in the archaeological record as well as in iconographic sources and to give them, individually, their proper value within the artistic and architectural Mesopotamian culture. While, in fact, the reconstruction of extensive crenellations in Mesopotamian built architecture does not match any reliable source, it must be asserted that the occurrence of merlons, especially in the shape of stepped elements, is linked with special valence as possible symbolic frames of abstract spaces. Whether the shape was originally intended to recall the ziqqurrat or the sacred mountain or not, it is undeniable that their earliest record in the iconography shows them in connection to deities and rituals, thus prefiguring the possibility that the frieze of stepped elements was first created in images and became only later an architectural feature (the merlon) able to confer to a building or an urban space the original meaning of the first images. This iconography seems to have matured in the area of Mari where, however, other types of crenellations might have been depicted for the same purpose. This analysis, however, demonstrates that over time only the stepped elements found a larger

Stürmer 1992, 149–150; pl. 69:1. Palyvou 2012, 24.

93 94

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

620

M.G. Micale

and larger space and the occasions for their employment were multiplied. While their use as frame for pictorial spaces across the centuries found application in the most diverse contexts also as pure decorative motives, the images of architecture began being crowned with the same elements that probably, in this period, also started to find a place in the materiality of the real architecture wherever the symbolic sacred or defensive character of the stepped motive was needed. If this hypothetical reconstruction would be confirmed, the architectural function would have followed the symbolic meaning and, contrary to the traditional approach to images and reality, it was the material world (for once!) to replicate an image. Bibliography Abramovitz, K., 1980: Frescos from Ayia Irini, Keos. Parts II–IV. The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 49: 57–85. Albenda, P., 2005: Ornamental Wall Painting in the Art of the Assyrian Empire (CM 28). Leiden / Boston. Alexander, R.L., 1970: Une masse d’armes à figures de l’époque du Palais de Mari. Syria 47/1–2: 37–49. Andrae, W., 1909: Der Anu-Adad-Tempel in Assur (WVDOG 10). Leipzig. — 1913: Die Festungswerke von Assur (WVDOG 23). Leipzig. — 1923: Farbige Keramik aus Assur. Berlin. — 1935: Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur (WVDOG 58). Leipzig. — 1938: Das wiedererstandene Assur. Leipzig. Barnett, R.D., 1976: Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh (668–627 BC). London. Barnett, R.D. / Bleibtreu, E. / Turner, G., 1998: Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh. London. Barnett, R.D. / Falkner, M., 1962: The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II (883–859 BC), Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BC), Esarhaddon (681–669 BC) from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud. London. Beyer, D., 1989: Un nouveau témoin des relations entre Mari et le monde iranien au IIIème Millénaire. Iranica Antiqua 24: 109–120. Börker-Klähn, J., 1982: Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (BaF 4). Mainz am Rhein. Botta, P.E. / Flandin E., 1849–50: Monuments de Ninive, Vols. 1–5. Paris. Caskey, J.L., 1971: Investigations in Keos. Part I: Excavations and Explorations, 1966–70. Hesperia 40: 359–396. Collon, D., 2005: First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. Dalley, S., 2010: Temple Building in the Ancient Near East: A Synthesis and Reflection. In M.J. Boda / J. Novotny (eds): From the Foundations to the Crenellations. Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Münster. Pp. 239–251. Fischer, C., 2004: A Goddess with Two Faces, a Story of Two Cultures. Orient-Express 4: 102–105. Fiorina, P., 1998: Un braciere da Forte Salmanassar. Mesopotamia 33: 167–188. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

621

Freydank, H. / Feller, B., 2004: Mittelassyrische Rechtsurkunden und Verwaltungstexte, V (WVDOG 106). Saarbrücken. Garbini, G., 1958: The Stepped Pinnacle in Ancient Near East. East and West 9/1–2: 85–91. Guichard, M., 2005: Materiaux pour le dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris, Vol. II. La vaisselle de luxe des rois de Mari (ARM 31). Paris. Hassanzadeh, Y. / Mollasalehi, H., 2011: New Evidence for Mannean Art: An Assessment of Three Glazed Tiles from Qalaichi (Izirtu). In J. Alvarez-Mon / M.B. Garrison (eds): Elam and Persia. Winona Lake. Pp. 407–417. Heidari, R., 2010: Hidden aspects of the Mannean rule in Northwestern Iran. In A. Kosyan / A. Petrosyan / Y. Grekyan (eds): Urartu and its Neighbours: Festschrift in Honor of Nicolay Harutyunyan in Occasion of his 90th Birthday (Aramazd: Armenian Journal of Near Eastern Studies 5[2]). Yerevan. Pp. 147–151, 287, 334–341. Hermann, G., 1992: The Small Connections from Fort Shalmaneser (Ivories from Nimrud 5). London. Hrouda, B., 1965: Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes. Bonn. Jacobsen, Th. / Lloyd, S., 1935: Sennacherib’s Aqueduct at Jerwan (OIP 24). Chicago. Kargar, B., 2004: Qalaychi / Izirtu: A Mannean Center. In M. Azarnoush (ed.): Proceedings of the International Symposium on Iranian Archaeology. Tehran. Pp. 229–345. (Farsi). Kargar, B. / Binandeh, A., 2009: A Preliminary Report of Excavations at Rabat Tepe, Northwestern Iran. Iranica Antiqua 44: 113–129. King, L.W., 1915: Bronze Reliefs from the Gate for Shalmaneser King of Assyria B.C. 860–825. London. Koldewey, R., 1913: Das wieder erstehende Babylon. Leipzig. Layard, A.H., 1853: Discoveries in the Ruines of Nineveh and Babylon. London. Loud, G. / Altman Ch.B., 1938: Khorsabad II. The Citadel and the Town (OIP 40). Chicago. Luschan, F., von 1943: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli. 5. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli (Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen 15). Berlin. Mallowan, M.E.L., 1966: Nimrud and its Remains, I–II. London. — 1970: Ivories from Nimrud II. Ivories in Assyrian Style. London. Matthiae, P., 1994: Da Nimrud a Khorsabad: Storia di un modello tra progetto e realizzazione. In S. Mazzoni (ed.): Nuove fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente antico: realtà e ideologia. Atti del colloquio 4–6 dicembre 1991, Università degli Studi di Pisa. Pisa. Pp. 29–45. — 1998: Ninive. Milano. Meuszyński, J., 1981: Die Rekonstruktion der Reliefdarstellungen und ihrer Anordnung im Nordwestpalast von Kalḫu (Nimrūd) (BaF 2). Mainz am Rhein. Micale, M.G., 2005: Immagini d’architettura. Struttura e forma dell’architettura mesopotamica attraverso le ricostruzioni moderne. In D. Nadali / A. Di Ludovico (eds): Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae presentati in occasione del suo sessantacinquesimo compleanno (CMAO X). Roma. Pp.121–166. — 2008: Considerations about the Architectural Representations on Balawat Gates: The City in the Narrative of the Conquest. In H. Kühne / R. Czichon / © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

622

M.G. Micale

F.G. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th ICAANE, Berlin, 29th March–3rd April 2004, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 445–458. — 2011: L’immagine dell’architettura nel rilievo storico neoassiro: la forma, i componenti e la funzione della rappresentazione architettonica tra percezione e riproduzione dello spazio (CMAO XIV). Roma.   Mousavi, A., 1994: Une brique à decor polychrome de l’Iran occidental (VIIIe– VIIe s. av. J-C.). Studia Iranica 23: 7–18. Moorey, P.R.S. / Gurney, O.R., 1978: Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals Acquired by the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, 1963–1973. Iraq 40: 41–60. Moortgat, A., 1944: Assyrische Glyptik des 12. Jahrhunderts. ZA 48 (N.F. 14): 25–44. Nickerson, J.W., 1977: Malyan Wall Paintings. Expedition 19/3: 2–6. Novotny, J., 2010: Temple Building in Assyria. Evidence from Royal Inscriptions. In M.J. Boda / J. Novotny (eds): From the Foundations to the Crenellations. Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Münster. Pp. 109–139. Nunn, A., 1988: Die Wandmalerei und der glasierte Wandschmuck im Alten Orient (Handbuch der Orientalistik, VII, 1, II, B6). Leiden. — 2012: Wandmalerai in Urartu. In S. Kroll et al. (eds): Biainili-Urartu. The Proceedings of the Symposium held in Munich 12–14 October 2007 / Tagungsbericht des Münchner Symposiums 12.–14. Oktober 2007. Leuven. Pp. 321–337. Place, V., 1867–1870: Ninive et l’Assyrie, avec des essais de restitution par F. Thomas, Vols I–III. Paris. Parrot, A., 1958: Le Palais. Peintures murales (M.A.M. II/2). Paris. Porada, E., 1967: Battlements in the Military Architecture and in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East. In D. Fraser / H. Hibbard / M.J. Lewine (eds): Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolf Wittkower. Berlin. Pp. 1–12. — 1975: Standards and Stools on Sealings of Nuzi and other Examples of Mitannian Glyphic Art. In E. van Donzel et al. (eds): Le Temple et le Culte. Compte rendu de la vingtième Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organisée à Leiden du 3 au 7 juillet 1972 sous les auspices du Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten (PIHANS 37). Leiden. Pp. 164–172. Reade, J. / Finkel, I., 2014: Between Carchemish and Pasargade: Recent Iranian Discoveries at Rabat. In S. Gaspa et al. (eds): From Source to History. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014 (AOAT 412). Münster. Pp. 581–810. Searight, A. / Reade, J. / Finkel, I., 2008: Assyrian Stone Vessels and Related Material in the British Museum. London. Van Soldt, W.H. et al., 2013: Satu Qala: A Preliminary Report on the Season 2010–2011. Anatolica 34: 197–239. Stürmer, V., 1992: Areal A: Die “Villa der Lilien.” In J. Schäfer (ed.): Amnisos. Nach den archäologischen, historischen und epigraphischen Zeugnissen des Altertums und der Neuzeit. Berlin. Pp. 129–149. Sumner, W.M., 2003: Early Urban Life in the Land of Anshan: Excavations at Tal-e Malyan in the Highlands of Iran (Malyan Excavation Report II). Philadelphia. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

623

Woolley, C.L., 1921: Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum. Part II. The Town Defences. London. — 1952: Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum. Part III. The Excavations in the Inner Town. London.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

624

M.G. Micale

Fig. 1. Drawings reproducing the state of preservation of the ziqqurrat of Khorsabad at the time of the discovery. Detail of the location of the stepped merlons (Place 1867–1870, III, pl. 36).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

625

Fig. 2. The crenellated stones from the aqueduct of Jerwan (Jacobsen / Lloyd 1935, pl. 12B).

Fig. 3. Clay plaque (VA 17247) in the shape of a stepped element, probably a merlon, from the Assur temple, face a (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Vorderasiatisches Museum). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

626

M.G. Micale

Fig. 4. Clay plaque in the shape of a stepped element, probably a merlon, from Tell Satu Qala, ancient Idu (van Soldt et al. 2013, fig. 13).

Fig. 5. Glazed plaque from Rabat Tepe (Courtesy of R. Heidari). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

627

Fig. 6. Ivory plaque with procession of offerings from Nimrud (Mallowan 1966, I, n. 250).

Fig. 7. Ivory plaque with procession of men of the court from Nimrud (Mallowan 1970, pl. VI:13). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

628

M.G. Micale

Fig. 8. Stone mold with model of temple from the Ishtar temple of Tukulti-Ninurta I (Andrae 1935, fig. 61).

Fig. 9. Bronze band from the Gate of Balawat of Shalmaneser III (King 1915, pl. XVII).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

629

Fig. 10. Wall painting with characters and horse in procession from Khorsabad (Place 1867– 1870, III, pl. 32).

Fig. 11a‒b. Drawings reconstructing the shape and the pictorial space of a ritual mace from Mari (Alexander 1970, 40, fig. 2). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

630

M.G. Micale

Fig. 12. Copy of the “Investiture” wall painting from the court 106 of the Palace of Mari. Detail of the upper frieze (Parrot 1958, pl. XII:2).

Fig. 13. Drawing reconstructing some fragments of the “Sacrifice procession” wall painting from the court 106 of the Palace of Mari (Parrot 1958, 26, fig. 21). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Framing the Space

631

Fig. 14. Fragment of fresco representing an image in miniature of a hillside town from Ayia Irini - Keos. Detail of the image of a wall with oval crenellation (Abramovitz 1980, pl. 3b).

Fig. 15. Fresco with white lilies and stepped parapet beyond from the Villa of the Lilies, Crete (Stürmer 1992, pl. 69:1). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Titles and Activities of Hittite Women: The Evidence of the Seals Clelia Mora

As we know, some women in Hittite society enjoyed particular importance, fame and prestige. One of the best known examples is the role played by Queen Puduhepa, wife of king Hattusili III (13th Century BC):1 Puduhepa was a very important person, both during her husband’s reign and during his son, King Tuthaliya IV’s reign. The passage in the text called the “Apology” in which Hattusili describes his marriage to Puduhepa is very significant in my opinion, because of special terms used within a political-military context: “Da nahm ich die Tochter des Pemtipsarri, des Priesters, (namens) Puduhepa auf Geheiss der Gottheit zur Ehe. Und wir hielten zusammen, und uns gab die Gottheit die Liebe des Gatten Gattin.”2

Queen Puduhepa had important official and religious functions, as shown by numerous documents: see, for example, the inscriptions on her seals, with reference to the Sun-goddess of Arinna, or the prayers and vows addressed to the gods for the health of the king.3 Also from a political point of view the documentation is very rich: we can mention the letters she exchanged with the Egyptian court, the great number of decrees issued with her husband,4 or the important decree CTH 225, with King Tuthaliya IV, son and successor of Hattusili III (and Puduhepa’s son). Lastly, we cannot forget the depiction of the royal couple (Queen Puduhepa and King Hattusili) on the relief of Fraktin, while making offerings to the gods. But also other figures of women stand out in Hittite texts:5 see, e.g., the priestess Kuwattalla,6 known as the author of rituals, and especially as the ad Cf. Otten 1975; Bryce 1998, 315–320; Ünal 2014. Otten 1981, 17. 3 Cf. Otten 1975, 20–24; Laroche 1949; Otten / Souček 1965. For observations on the connections between religion and policy in the texts CTH 383 and 384 cf. Ardesi 2001, 239–240. 4 Otten 1975, 24; Mora 2008, with bibliographic references. 5 For a comprehensive collection of Hittite female names cf. Zehnder 2010. 6 Cf. Zehnder 2010, 191. 1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

634

C. Mora

dressee of an important land-donation document dating to the Middle Hittite Kingdom (KBo 5.7 = LSU 1, CTH 223). There are also examples of negative behavior by female characters in Hittite history: I will not dwell in depth on these figures, but it is worth mentioning some well-known cases of queens described as being responsible for intrigues, sorcerous activities and other crimes.7 One of the best known cases is that of Tawananna, the last wife of King Suppiluliuma I (14th cent. BC), accused of various crimes by the son and successor of the King Suppiluliuma (Mursili II), including actions of black magic. After these accusations, Tawananna was condemned to exile. We have to add, to increase our doubts, that in a later prayer addressed by King Hattusili III and his wife Puduhepa to the Sun goddess of Arinna the matter is seen as a sin committed by Mursili.8 Regarding a different type of source, in a recent paper written jointly with M. Vigo,9 we examined the evidence of the Hittite Inventory texts and of the socalled “Westbau-Archiv” of Nişantepe in Hattusa, with its treasure of thousands of sealed cretulae. The data provided by these two contexts, in fact, include a much higher number of female names than in other Hittite administrative or political texts dating to the imperial period.10 In the mentioned paper we analyzed the names and the functions performed by these people, pointing out similarities and differences between the two contexts. The percentage of female names is about 14% in the inventory texts, and about 4% on the seals of the Nişantepe-archive. Even though there is a clear difference in role and status among the women mentioned in the two types of documents, we think that there might be a link between the two types of activities (see the final comments in the quoted paper): “I dati raccolti e commentati potrebbero essere letti in modo conforme: se si interpretano infatti i testi di inventario (o almeno una parte di essi) come descrizione e registrazione di procedure di controllo delle varie fasi di acquisizione e assegnazione di beni, e gli archivi di cretulae come testimonianza dei controlli effettuati sugli stessi beni, anche le due categorie di donne coinvolte trovano una spiegazione e ci forniscono inoltre un panorama sociale piramidale piuttosto omogeneo: produttrici dirette di beni, come le tessitrici; collaboratrici più o meno legate alla corte di Hatti che aiutano la regina e gli altri amministratori o che ricevono prodotti tradizionalmente lavorati da don-

Cf. for example Bryce 1998, 86–99, de Martino 1998. But cf. Collins 2007, 100, who correctly points out that “what we know of the activities of the queens comes to us primarily through the often-unflattering lenses of their male counterparts.” 8 Cf. CTH 383 (see comments and bibliographical references in Mora 2011). 9 Mora / Vigo 2012. 10 For the first editions (with comments) of the inventory texts see: Košak 1982; Siegelová 1986. For the “Westbau-Archiv,” excluding seals of queens and kings, see Herbordt 2005. 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Titles and Activities of Hittite Women: The Evidence of the Seals

635

ne; persone di alto grado (o per filiazione o per matrimonio) che gestiscono/ collaborano alla gestione dei beni dello stato (o della famiglia?).”11

Concerning the seals in the Nişantepe-archive, I summarize here some useful data and observations, according to the mentioned research: there are 12 (or 13?)12 female names in the Nişantepe-archive, except those of queens, and they are distributed on about 25 seals and 50 impressions on the same number of cretulae, therefore none of the cretulae with female names bear multiple seals. In at least seven cases the names belonged to women of high social rank, as shown by their titles (REX.FILIA, REX.FEMINA);13 the more important names, with reference to their titles or textual evidence, are Muwatti (see fn. 12) and Tarhuntamanawa.14 It is important to note that in one case the title FEMINA is associated to the title SCRIBA. In this paper, dedicated to my dear friend and colleague Frances Pinnock, the evidence of Hittite seals from locations outside the Hittite capital will be considered, and especially the material dated to the final phase of the imperial period, by analogy with the documentation from the Nişantepe-archive. The collection of data examined in the present work consists of a great number of Hittite seals bearing hieroglyphic inscriptions discovered outside the Hittite capital (or without information on the place of production or discovery).15 The research aims to check whether there are seals held by women also among these “external” seals, in what proportion, and what titles these women held. Excluding the seals (seal impressions) from Emar (see below), the number of examined seals is 485; I excluded the royal seals from this total number because the queens had a particular status, already discussed in several studies. Among these 485 seals, there are approximately 6016 that bear a female name, which amounts to more than 12%. This data is particularly interesting: in fact, it is a higher percentage than the percentage found on the seals from the Nişantepe-archive in the Hittite capital, i.e. 4% (s. above). Therefore, we might think that the use of the most important administrative tool (i.e. the seal) by Hittite women was more common in the peripheral areas than in the capital. But on this topic it is appropriate to examine the situation in detail.

Mora / Vigo 2012, 197. Cf. Mora / Vigo 2012, 191: the female name Muwatti is associated with two different titles (REX.FEMINA, REX.FILIA) on different seals. 13 But also for the remaining names, that have the “simple” title FEMINA, we can hypothesize an important position at the Hittite court (see Mora / Vigo 2012, 191–192). 14 See Mora / Vigo 2012, 194. 15 Cf. Mora 1987; 1990 for a collection of material and for sampling that is useful for this purpose. To extend/widen the analysis, also the seals with hieroglyphic inscription from Emar were examined. 16 The approximate number is due to the difficultly of recognizing the presence of female names on some damaged seals. 11

12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

636

C. Mora

Among the examined pieces, five seals bear titles that are different from the most common title, BONUS2.FEMINA; these five titles indicate a prestigious role. With reference to the above quoted publications,17 these seals are the following: V, 6.1: round impression on a cretula found at Tarsus; name: Ha/e-pa-p[i? REX.FILIA (see Laroche 1966, no. 365).18 VIa, 3.5: biconvex seal (from Denek Maden?); two different names on the two sides, male and female: MAGNUS.TONITRUS-tá; Tá?/Pi?-za/i-tà, REX. FILIA.19 VII, 1.5: three identical round impressions on a conical cretula, from Tarsus; on the impressions there are two names, male and female: Nu-VITELLUS (CERVUS4?)-ti, MAGNUS.AURIGA; Ha/e-pa-pi-ya, REX.FILIA (see Laroche 1966, no. 365).20 VII, 4.9: round impression on a cretula from Maşat-HöyüK; Ná-na, BONUS2. FEMINA, BONUS2.DOMINA (see Laroche 1966, no. 854).21 X, 2.1: Two identical impressions, from a ring-seal, on a cretula from Tarsus; the impression seems to bear the name of a woman: Ku?-lá/í/u-ma/i, REX.FILIA? Four of these seals can be dated to the 13th Century BC, while the seal from Maşat probably dates back to a slightly earlier period. In addition to these five seals, two seals that most likely date to an older period bear the title / sign DOMINA.22 Therefore, the female titles on the seals outside the capital correspond to those on the seals from the Nişantepe-archive in Hattusa:23 there are no titles indicating professions or special functions, the preserved titles simply indicate that the owner of the seal was a lady, or, if she had an important role in court, they indicate the kind of relationship she had with the king (wife or daughter). In the Nişantepe-archive, in addition, there are the impressions of some seals whose owners were two women bearing the title REX.FEMINA.24 The fact that three of our five seals were found at Tarsus is a clue of the importance of the site during the imperial period; the two seals bearing the name Ha/e-pa-pi-ya may have belonged to the same individual, who was perhaps the wife of the man bearing the title MAGNUS.AURIGA (a very important title),25 whose name occurs on one

Mora 1987; 1990. Cf. Zehnder 2010, 156. 19 Cf. Zehnder 2010, 290, with reference to Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005, no. 285a. 20 Cf. Zehnder 2010, 156. 21 Cf. Zehnder 2010, 230. 22 Cf. Mora 1987, seals Ib, 1,5; IIIa, 1,1: both seals are preserved in the Louvre Museum and there is no information on the site of discovery. 23 Cf. above and Herbordt 2005, 372 ff.; Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005, 300 ff. 24 Cf,. Herbordt 2005, 104; Mora / Vigo 2012, 191 f. 25 Cf. Hawkins apud Herbordt 2005, 302. 17 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Titles and Activities of Hittite Women: The Evidence of the Seals

637

of the two seals. As far as the seals with the simple title BONUS2.FEMINA are concerned, some additional information may be useful. I spoke above of a total of approx. 60 seals bearing a female name; if we take away the previously mentioned seven seals, there are just over 50 seals left to examine. 39 of these remaining seals are biconvex seals. There is information (more or less precise) on the places of discovery for about 11 of these 39 seals. These places are located in the south-east corner of the Anatolian peninsula, except for one seal which come from Malatya. It would be useful to hint at the problem of dating the biconvex seals; in a recent contribution I summarized the terms of the issue by saying that: “according to some scholars, the production of these specimens may indeed have continued after the end of the Empire period,” and by concluding that: “I fully agree with this hypothesis, based on increasingly evident data,” which is contrary to what R. Gorny tried to prove, i.e. that the seals found on later levels were survivals and that their production date was to be placed between the 14th and the 13th cent. BC.26 Most of our biconvex seals that lack of information on the place of discovery generally have the same features as a late production, and were perhaps produced outside the official laboratories/factories. All these elements seem to focus on the transition period between the LBA and the IA and on a period of economic, but also socio-political, change (or weakness) after the end of the Hittite Empire.27 As I observed in the paper quoted above, these objects “may be evidence of a change in mentality and of the widespread use of seals even among the lower strata of the population, given the frequency of materials of low value and the large amount of seals that emerge during the excavations.”28 The increased use of female names on the seals compared to the data of the imperial age could therefore also be explained by these social and political changes. I would like to make one more comment on the seals bearing two names, male and female: a high percentage of biconvex seals (more than 40%) bear two different names on both sides, one male and one female. It would be interesting to investigate this typical feature of biconvex seals29 further, perhaps connected with economic or social conjuncture in later times. An exemplar of a biconvex seal in Gaziantep Museum bears two female names on both sides;30 this is a very strange case: we might think of administrative or economic reasons, or a mother-daughter relationship. Finally, the case of a very well known seal: the biconvex seal from Troia (found during the excavations of 1995), that bears a different name on each side, the name of a man with the title SCRIBA and the name of a woman with the

See the detailed discussion in Mora 2013. Cf. Mora 2014; Dinçol / Dinçol / Jean 1998. 28 Cf. Mora 2014. A “social interpretation” for the particular stylistic features of these seals is also proposed by Weeden (2010), but with reference to a date from the imperial period. 29 Cf. also Güterbock in Boehmer / Güterbock 1987, 65. 30 See Mora 1990, VIb 1.45. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

638

C. Mora

simple “title” BONUS2.FEMINA.31 The female name seems to be similar to the female name on a biconvex seal from Dörtyol (but the male name on this seal is different).32 Lastly, a little information on the situation at Emar. Unlike the seals previously examined, the seals of the “hittite” or “syro-hittite” type found in this center,33 almost all impressed on tablets, bear very few female names.34 In my opinion, the explanation for the percentage differences lies in the fact that these seals are evidence of an earlier (imperial) production, and of a different—more traditional—use of the seal. Bibliography Ardesi, A., 2001: Il tema della malattia come spia della propaganda politica nei testi del periodo imperiale ittita. Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche 9: 229–257. Beyer, D., 2001: Emar IV. Les sceaux (OBO SA 20). Fribourg / Göttingen. Boehmer, R.M. / Güterbock, H.G., 1987: Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Boğazköy. Berlin. Bryce, T., 1998: The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford / New York. Collins, B.J., 2007: The Hittites and their World. Atlanta. de Martino, S., 1998: Le accuse di Mursili II alla regina Tawananna secondo il testo KUB XIV 4. In S. de Martino / F. Imparati (eds): Studi e Testi 1 (Eothen 9). Firenze. Pp. 19–48. Dinçol, A.M. / Dinçol, B. / Jean, E., 1998: Unpublished Hittite Seals in the Collections at Adana. Anatolia Antiqua 6: 183–193. Hawkins, J.D. / Easton, D.F., 1996: A Hieroglyphic Seal from Troia. Studia Troica 6: 111–118. Herbordt, S., 2005: Die Prinzen- und Beamtensiegeln der hethitischen Gro‰reichszeit auf Tonbullen aus dem Nişantepe Archiv in Hattusa. Mainz. Košak, S., 1982: Hittite Inventory Texts. Heidelberg. Laroche, E., 1949: Le voeu de Puduhepa. RA 43: 55–78. –– 1966: Les noms des Hittites. Paris. Mora, C., 1987: La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: Classificazione tipologica. I. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica (Studia Mediterranea 6). Pavia. –– 1990: Primo Supplemento a: La glittica anatolica del II millennio a.C.: classificazione tipologica. I. I sigilli a iscrizione geroglifica (Studia Mediterranea 6). Pavia.

Hawkins / Easton 1996; cf. also Mora 2016. Cf. Mora 1987, XIIa 2.24 (with bibl. references). The name on the seal from Dörtyol is written Pa-tà-á, on the Troia seal the same first sign and perhaps the second are recognizable. 33 See Beyer 2001. 34 There are only three seals with female names: A 67, A 75, C 22 (in this case, the name is perhaps the same as in A 75, a cylinder seal on which there are the name of a prince and the name of a woman, with the title BONUS2.FEMINA). 31 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Titles and Activities of Hittite Women: The Evidence of the Seals

639

–– 2008: La “Parola del re.” Testi ittiti a carattere politico-giuridico e politico amministrativo: Editti e istruzioni. In M. Liverani / C. Mora (eds): I diritti del mondo cuneiforme, Atti Seminario Cedant 2006. Pavia. Pp. 293–323. –– 2011: Humain, trop humain. Le roi hittite entre dieux, femmes et hommes. In H. Rouillard-Bonraisin (ed.): Jalousie des dieux, jalousie des hommes (Homo religiosus II/10). Turnhout. Pp. 83–92. –– 2013: Seals and Seal Impressions. In F. Manuelli: Arslantepe – Late Bronze Age (Arslantepe IX). Rome. Pp. 251–274. –– 2014: An Interesting Group of Post-Hittite Biconvex Seals. In C. Brosch / A. Payne (eds): Festschrift für Helmut Nowicki zum 70. Geburtstag. Würzburg. Pp. 139–147. –– 2016: The Luvian-Hieroglyphic Seal from Troy: An Update and Some Remarks. In H. Marquardt et al. (eds): Anatolica et Indogermanica, Fs J. Tischler. Innsbruck. Pp.213–218. Mora, C. / Vigo, M., 2012: Attività femminili a Hattusa: La testimonianza dei testi di inventario e degli archivi di cretulae. In N. Bolatti-Guzzo / S. Festuccia / M. Marazzi (eds): Centro Mediterraneo preclassico. Studi e ricerche III. Napoli. Pp. 173–223. Otten, H., 1975: Puduhepa, eine hethitische Königin in ihren Textzeugnissen. Mainz. –– 1981: Die Apologie Hattusilis III. Das Bild der Überlieferung. Wiesbaden. Otten, H. / Souček, V., 1965: Das Gelübde der Königin Puduhepa an die Göttin Lelwani. Wiesbaden. Siegelová, J., 1986: Hethitische Verwaltungspraxis im Lichte der Wirtschafts- und Inventardokumente. Prag. Weeden, M., 2010: A Hittite seal from Kaman Kalehöyük. In I. Singer (ed.): ipamati kistamati pari tumatimis – Luwian and Hittite Studies Presented to J. David Hawkins on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Tel Aviv. Pp. 249–255. Ünal, A., 2014: Puduhepa ve Zamani. Ankara. Zehnder, Th., 2010: Die hethitischen Frauennamen. Katalog und Interpretation. Wiesbaden.  

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées Béatrice Muller

À Frances Pinnock, fin connaisseur en iconographie diverse, plutôt qu’un long article académique ou l’étude d’un objet particulier, j’ai choisi de dédier une sorte de petit essai, une réflexion qui s’est imposée à moi au détour de mes travaux de ces deux dernières années. Cette réflexion est le fruit d’un étonnement admiratif toujours renouvelé devant l’ingéniosité de ces anciens Mésopotamiens qui ne reculaient ni devant une organisation parfaitement maîtrisée de travaux colossaux, ni devant l’acquisition de produits exotiques comme la coquille—nacrée en particulier—, pour satisfaire les exigences d’une sorte de perfection esthétique inséparable, comme on le sait, d’une forme de perfection dans la réalisation technique1. En effet, les circonstances m’ayant amenée d’une part à étudier des pièces d’incrustation en coquille provenant de Mari (du fameux « Étendard » entre autres)2 et d’autre part à proposer une synthèse sur les « antécédents orientaux des stucs architecturaux »3 , j’ai été frappée par certaines similitudes—non immédiates, il est vrai—entre les moyens mis en œuvre pour des supports iconographiques aussi éloignés l’un de l’autre que la « mosaïque » de coquille et la brique moulée : éloignés par le matériau (matière dure animale vs terre), l’époque (DA II et surtout IIIb vs empire néo-babylonien)4, l’échelle (figures mesurées en centimètres vs représentations colossales mesurées en mètres) et le contexte d’utilisation (panneaux mobiles de quelques dizaines de centimètres de côté5 vs intégration architectonique). Alors que l’image s’impose dans une globalité de perception à laquelle nous, modernes, aurions tendance à associer une continuité dans l’exécution (le geste

1

Cf. Winter 1995.

Muller 2014 ; 2016 et travaux en préparation. Muller sous presse. 4 J’insiste ici sur la période florissante, tout en sachant que l’empire achéménide a perfectionné la technique du cloisonné et la composition de la brique, et que le procédé de la brique à relief remonte à l’époque kassite. 5 Ce caractère n’est pas absolument général puisque les incrustations en pierre de Kish, d’el-Obeid ou d’Ebla faisaient, pense-t-on, partie d’ un décor architectural inamovible. 2 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

642

B. Muller

ample du dessinateur ou du peintre), les images dont il va être question ici procèdent d’un découpage volontaire—auquel peut s’ajouter le caractère fragmentaire inhérent à nombre d’objets archéologiques, ce qui est un autre problème— préalable au réassemblage qui va donner le produit fini, c’est-à-dire l’image recomposée. Il va sans dire qu’un tel procédé ne s’applique ni à la glyptique, ni à la peinture murale, ni au bas-relief … Mais pourquoi s’embarrasser de processus aussi complexes ? Les pistes de restitution de ces processus peuvent-elles nous amener à comprendre dans quels contextes, pour quelles raisons et dans quel but ceux-ci ont été mis en œuvre ? 1. Quelques considérations sur la déconstruction Certes, comme les orthostates assyriens, la frise du Parthénon présente inévitablement un raccord entre deux plaques sculptées et les métopes limitent le champ à deux personnages : mais ces césures ne disloquent pas une figure comme lorsqu’un pied ou un bras constitue à lui seul une minuscule pièce d’incrustation ou lorsqu’une infime partie de corne en relief se retrouve isolée sur une brique. Le terme de déconstruction, d’ailleurs, est-il vraiment adapté aux procédés appliqués à l’image syro-mésopotamienne ? Oui dans la mesure où il s’agit, comme ce qu’a voulu retrouver le cubisme, d’un art conceptuel qui fait un usage primordial de la forme géométrique : « Le cubisme n’est pas une semence ou un art en gestation, mais un stade de formes primaires, et ces formes réalisées ont le droit de vivre leur propre existence »6 ; cet art conceptuel veut représenter simultanément plusieurs facettes d’un objet – par exemple par le procédé, bien connu des Égyptiens également, de la rotation qui montre le visage de profil mais l’œil de face etc. : « Les méditations nouvelles de Picasso, de Derain et d’un autre peintre, Georges Braque, aboutirent au véritable cubisme qui fut avant tout l’art de peindre des ensembles nouveaux avec des éléments empruntés non à la réalité de vision, mais à la réalité de conception »7. De ce fait, l’image échappe dans une certaine mesure à l’instantanéité de la vision unilatérale instaurée par la perspective dite optique mise en vigueur à partir de la Renaissance. Ceci dit, il s’agit plutôt, pour ce qui nous occupe, d’un fractionnement de la figure telle qu’elle a été conçue selon les conventions de son époque, fractionnement opéré, comme nous le verrons ci-dessous, selon des règles très différentes s’il s’agit des incrustations de coquille ou des reliefs moulés sur briques : ce fractionnement n’affecte en rien un style conforme à celui que l’on perçoit sur les autres supports iconographiques (l’Étendard d’Ur et la stèle des Vautours par exemple). De ce fait, on peut sans doute dire déjà que cette technique du fractionnement n’obéit pas, comme le cubisme en son temps, à des prétentions artistiques

Picasso, cité dans Leymarie 1971, 42. Apollinaire, cité par Leymarie 1971, 219.

6

7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

643

révolutionnaires. C’est donc ailleurs qu’il faut aller chercher les raisons d’être de cette iconographie « éclatée ». D’ores et déjà, on peut annoncer une différence fondamentale entre les deux types d’images considérés : les pièces d’incrustation de coquille sont découpées en suivant le contour de la figure divisée en plusieurs composantes, alors que— cela va de soi—c’est le module de la brique qui préside au découpage des reliefs architecturaux, que ceux-ci soient ou non couverts de glaçure. 2. Modes de découpage de la figure 2.1 Panneaux d’incrustations en coquille N’abusons pas du terme de « mosaïque »8, qui évoque par trop les galets noirs et blancs des pavements gréco-romains ou les tesselles bleues et or des églises byzantines : leur forme individuelle est totalement indépendante de celle de la figure à composer. Le terme de « puzzle » conviendrait mieux9 ; mais outre qu’il est anachronique, il ne rend pas compte du caractère fondamentalement structural du découpage de l’image. En effet, que la ligne de jonction d’une pièce à l’autre soit rectiligne, anguleuse ou curviligne, elle respecte généralement soit la structure anatomique (qu’il s’agisse d’une représentation humaine ou animale), soit celle d’un vêtement (ceinture, bas de jupe…), soit une ligne de construction qui suit la direction d’un accessoire (césure le long d’un bâton, par exemple) (Fig. 1)10. L’on s’aperçoit alors que ces principes généraux, desquels théoriquement pourrait résulter un schème unique pour chaque type de figure, se déclinent en de multiples variantes : ainsi deux des dignitaires à la hache de l’« Étendard » de Mari montrent-ils la même découpe du haut du buste, suivant le manche de la hache, alors que, sur un troisième, cette pièce inclut le bras gauche plié qui tient l’arme (Fig. 2) ; de même si l’arrière-train des taureaux du temple de Ninhursag à el-Obeid et les trois pattes qui lui sont associées obéissent à un schéma de découpe constant (excepté le troisième à partir de la droite, auquel une pièce est ajoutée), il n’en va pas de même de l’avant-train (Fig. 3). Cela signifie que les pièces ne sont pas aussi systématiquement interchangeables qu’il pourrait paraître au premier abord11. Rappelons que, au-delà de ces principes structuraux, la découpe peut scinder en deux pièces distinctes un élément iconographique cohérent, comme la hampe d’une javeline, la main du militaire sur le bras du prisonnier (Kish)12 ou, séparé Parrot 1935, 132 ; 1956, 136. Muller 2016. 10 Abréviations dans les légendes des figures : MAM = Mission archéologique de Mari (sauf indication contraire, A. Parrot). Infographie : MB = Mélody Boulissière ; AN = Annelise Nemorin 11 Margueron 2004, 287–295, en particulier 290–291 ; 2014, 286 ; Muller 2016, 249. 12 Langdon 1924, pl. XXXVI–3. 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

644

B. Muller

de la paume, le pouce du soldat sur la nuque du vaincu (Mari)13 : ceci constitue un indice syntaxique autorisant l’identification de pièces isolées (Fig. 4a–d)14. La tâche de l’archéologue est évidemment facilitée lorsque, comme à Ebla, chaque pièce—de pierre cette fois, comme certaines des incrustations de Kish—constitue un ou deux personnages complets ou que la chaîne syntaxique est plus développée qu’usuellement (Fig. 4e). Le nombre de pièces constitutives d’une figure varie d’une à sept à Mari, d’une à six ou sept à el-Obeid, d’une à sept, semble-t-il, à Kish. 2.2 Reliefs moulés sur briques Ici, la conception du découpage peut paraître plus simple. Il est communément admis15 que le module des briques, ou plus exactement de leur tranche, servait de grille préparatoire16 à l’ébauche de la figure—taureau, dragon, lion en ce qui concerne la porte d’Ishtar, la Voie processionnelle et la façade de la salle du Trône du palais de Babylone—modelée d’abord à la main comme prototype à partir duquel étaient fabriqués autant de moules que nécessaire à la constitution de la figure totale ; ce nombre, d’ailleurs peut paraître impressionnant : W. Andrae a compté environ 350 moules différents pour les reliefs à glaçure, étant donné que chacune des trois figures zoomorphes (dragon-mushhushu, taureau, lion de deux sortes) existe dans les deux directions, droite et gauche (43 briques à relief pour un dragon, 40 pour un taureau, 46 au moins pour un lion). Du fait de la nature de l’objet—monumentalité, intégration dans l’architecture, procédés de mise en œuvre—, l’élaboration de la figure dans sa globalité et de la composition dans son ensemble apparaît, pour l’archéologue, plus facile, à comprendre et à restituer que dans le cas précédent17 : en effet, l’état de conservation des monuments permet de restituer les rythmes des pleins (figures) et des vides (fond) par répétition à l’identique ; quant aux proportions des figures ellesmêmes, on peut les soumettre à des grilles orthogonales et rhomboïdales18 ou, plus simplement, à la construction géométrique à partir de la diagonale rabattue d’un

Parrot 1969, 204, n. 2.

13

Muller 2016, 251–252. Koldewey 1970, 20, 23 ; 1990, 38–40 ; Fischer 2005, 43 ; Azarpay 1995, 2513. 16 Les Égyptiens avaient mis au point des grilles à base de carreaux pour exécuter à plus grande échelle objets, bas-reliefs ou peintures, cf. par exemple Gunter 1995, 1541 ou Goyon et al. 2004, 84–85. 17 Par exemple il n’ existe pas moins de cinq versions de restitutions de l’ « Étendard » de Mari : Parrot 1953, fig. 70 ; 1935, pl. XXXVIII–2 ; 1956, pl. LVI, qui correspond à la présentation du Louvre jusqu’ en 2013 ; nouvelle présentation (thématique) cf. Cluzan / Butterlin (éds) 2014, 220–222, nos 89–91 ; Calmeyer 1967, 164–165, fig. 6. 18 Fischer 2005. De telles grilles, bien connues pour l’ Égypte, ne sont pas formellement attestées pour la Mésopotamie, où c’ est la brique qui joue le rôle d’ unité modulaire, cf. Azarpay 1995, 2513. 14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

645

carré (A√2)19 (Figs 5–6) : cela montre en tout cas la cohérence de la conception de ces figures, dont le découpage n’est que secondaire. En effet, la brique moulée était sans doute apparue comme le procédé le plus solide pour intégrer, en cohésion avec le mur de briques crues, un relief en terre20. Mais auparavant, il convient d’insister sur le fait que le découpage ne se fait pas au hasard, et que lui aussi peut connaître des variantes selon les lieux et les époques21. R. Koldewey22 remarque à juste titre que jamais un joint de briques—et à plus forte raison une intersection de joints—ne vient couper une partie essentielle, comme l’œil du dragon par exemple : cela peut sembler aller de soi, mais cela justifie aussi que certaines extrémités (queue, cornes) se répartissent sur deux ou trois briques, dans une segmentation qui, infinitésimale, contraint à multiplier les moules de briques (cf. en particulier Figs 5a, 6b). Technique favorisant certes une reproduction à l’identique, théoriquement infinie (575 êtres zoomorphes répertoriés sur la porte d’Ishtar de Babylone23), sans pour autant que les schémas soient figés : à chacune des trois étapes de construction de ladite porte par Nabuchodonosor, était refait, si l’on en croit les variantes perceptibles, un nouveau modèle pour chaque type d’animal, dont d’ailleurs la double version (passant respectivement à gauche et à droite) n’était pas un décalque parfait l’une de l’autre (cf. Figs 5b et 6b par exemple) ; par ailleurs, les restitutions de telles figures proposées par K. Kaniuth24 à partir de deux briques à reliefs glaçurés provenant de Borsippa montre là aussi que, si celles-ci peuvent prendre place dans le schéma contemporain de Babylone ou, plus récent, de Suse, il n’y a pas de décalque exact de l’un à l’autre de ces modèles. En tout cas, la cohérence du schéma préétabli se laisse aisément percevoir dans les tentatives d’intégration des profils zoomorphes dans les bases modulaires A√2 pour les taureaux et les dragons et A√3 pour les lions (Figs 5–7). Que ce soit sur une échelle colossale ou miniature, sur une découpe selon le contour de la figure (coquille) ou selon une grille orthonormée (brique), se décèle l’imbrication de ces deux aspects contradictoires : répétition à l’identique et variantes. Si l’homogénéité de la figure se laisse plus aisément saisir pour les reliefs sur briques, par l’observation de tracés modulaires (A√2 et A√3), il est vraisemblable que les tailleurs de coquille s’aidaient aussi de sortes de cartons préparatoires ; ils étaient en outre guidés par les limites de leur matière même,

C. Fischer (2005, 43) mentionne le procédé sans s’y attarder ; celui-ci est connu également à des époques bien antérieures, en architecture et en peinture murale (cf. Margueron 2004, 477 et fig. 455, 508–509 et fig. 497). 20 Muller sous presse. 21 Ainsi, dans les temples de Karaindash à Uruk et d’Inshushinnak à Suse, les figures sontelles, beaucoup plus simplement, constituées d’ une largeur de briques empilées. 22 Koldewey 1970, 23. 23 En comptant les trois niveaux, cf. Koldewey 1913, 42, repris dans Marzahn 1993, 26. 24 Kaniuth 2013, en particulier 68–70, figs 10–12. 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

646

B. Muller

c’est-à-dire les dimensions de la coquille : ainsi par exemple, les pièces de nacre de l’« Étendard » de Mari n’excèdent pas 7 cm dans leur plus grande dimension (la Pinctada radiata est plus petite que la margaritifera), ce qui a une incidence sur la taille globale des figures et sur le nombre de pièces qui les constituent ; la coquille non nacrée (et non identifiée) de la frise de taureaux du temple de Ninhursag d’el-Obeid autorise des pièces qui atteignent 9 cm. Le nombre de pièces d’incrustation n’est généralement guère supérieur à sept25, alors que les animaux mythiques de Babylone sont constitués d’une quarantaine de briques : la contrainte métrique, ici, c’est surtout l’épaisseur de la brique (8 cm), qui oblige à répartir la hauteur des taureaux et des dragons sur 12 assises26, les éléments adventices (oreille, corne) débordant sur une 13e assise (cf. Fig. 5c). 3. Modes d’assemblage de la figure 3.1 Panneaux d’incrustations en coquille Du produit fini ne nous est parvenu dans son intégralité que l’Étendard d’Ur ; el-Obeid, Mari, Kish ou Ebla ont fourni, parmi les fragments épars, quelques éléments en connexion qui autorisent des restitutions plus ou moins hypothétiques27. Excepté à el-Obeid et au moins partiellement à Kish (décor supposé intégré au mur), les données archéologiques plaident en faveur de compositions en tableaux ou en frises, fixées sur les panneaux de bois à l’aide de bitume, étant entendu que les matériaux utilisés étaient composites, puisqu’à la coquille, réservée aux éléments figuratifs, s’associait, pour le fond, le schiste ou le lapis-lazuli, les bordures ou les cadres pouvant en outre comprendre des pierres blanches et rouges28. Entre les éléments figuratifs en coquille, de couleur claire, constitués le plus souvent de plusieurs pièces, viennent s’insérer les éléments sombres du fond, découpés géométriquement de façon irrégulière. Il pouvait donc y avoir un certain jeu (minimal) dans l’ajustement des pièces entre elles, du fait de la forme approximative des pièces constituant le fond et du fait d’une certaine marge d’interchangeabilité des pièces pour la constitution d’une figure. Cependant, pour à la fois permettre une adhérence maximale à la couche de bitume dans laquelle s’enfonçait l’épaisseur des pièces et limiter la largeur des joints, la tranche des pièces, aussi bien figuratives que de bordures et, à un moindre degré, de fond, était taillée en biseau : c’est du moins l’observation sans précédent que j’ai pu effectuer au musée du Louvre, sur les pièces de l’« Étendard » de Mari démontées de Sans compter les rênes (3 pièces) et le passe-guides (3 pièces ?) pour les chars de l’Étendard d’Ur. 26 Koldewey 1970, 20. 27 Cf. par exemple Aruz (éd.) 2003, nos 46 (el-Obeid), 48–51 (Kish), 52 (Étendard d’Ur), 97 (Mari), 115 (Ebla). 28 A Ebla, et à Kish pour au moins une des compositions, la pierre est utilisée aussi pour les figures. 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

647

leur support de présentation originel en vue de l’exposition Voués à Ishtar (Paris, IMA, janvier-mai 2014)29 (Figs 8a–b). Même l’identification, à Mari, d’ateliers de taille et de gravure de la coquille dans le pseudo-Palais de Ville II (niveaux P–2 et P–1)30 n’a pas permis pour le moment de définir précisément la répartition des opérations successives requises pour la confection de tels panneaux : ce qui est sûr en tout cas, c’est que la chaîne opératoire commençait par la fabrication sur place des micro-outils en silex, et les différents types de pièces étaient fabriqués en série à l’avance, puisqu’un tel stock31 a été recueilli sur le sol de l’Espace 4 de P–2, vraisemblablement tombé depuis l’étage, stock auquel il manquait certaines séries qui auraient permis la restitution d’un ou plusieurs panneaux. On ne sait pas si certains artisans étaient spécialisés dans certains types de figures, ou dans la découpe de la forme extérieure alors que d’autres s’occupaient des détails. On ne sait pas non plus si les préposés à la recomposition étaient les mêmes que ceux qui façonnaient les pièces. Même pour le IIe millénaire, les textes mariotes sont peu diserts sur les artisans32. Et il serait imprudent d’extrapoler sur un travail de précision presque assimilable à celui de la bijouterie (même s’il requérait plusieurs types de spécialistes) l’organisation à grande échelle que l’on peut pressentir dans l’élaboration des constructions en briques à reliefs. 3.2 Reliefs moulés sur briques En effet, les observations conduites par la Mission allemande à Babylone laissent deviner une suite d’opérations de haute technicité dont l’ampleur requérait certainement plusieurs ateliers simultanés. Au niveau des instances de conception et de décision, tout devait être prévu à l’avance. En effet, le nombre de briques d’une catégorie de relief était certainement, au moins approximativement, prévu en tenant compte des ratés, outre le fait que même la taille initiale de la matrice et des moules était calculée en fonction du phénomène de rétraction de l’argile à la cuisson33. Les étapes préparatoires à la pose de la glaçure, puis au montage de la maçonnerie, étaient soigneusement programmées : ainsi, les couleurs étaient-elle ébauchées sur pièces de façon à accélérer le travail des émailleurs, qui devaient travailler vite pour des raisons de consistance de leur matériau ; on imagine difficilement une autre organisation que « à la chaîne », un type d’ouvriers spécifique

Toute ma gratitude va à S. Cluzan, conservateur du Patrimoine au département des Antiquités orientales, et à ses collaborateurs, pour m’avoir facilité l’accès à ce matériel. 30 Coqueugniot 1993, 229–234 ; Margueron 2004, 290–292 ; Margueron 2014, en particulier 284–288 ; Muller 2014, 290–291. 31 Plus de 150 pièces figuratives en nacre, plus de 200 éléments de bordures en nacre et plus de 100 en pierre rose, sans compter plus de 300 pièces de schiste pour le fond. 32 Sasson 1990, 21–22. 33 Andrae in Koldewey 1990, 346. 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

648

B. Muller

se consacrant sans doute au marquage des briques sur leurs faces et leurs tranches latérales (en glaçure de moindre qualité)34, destinées à guider les maçons pour une disposition correcte des briques à relief dans la recomposition finale. Le problème des joints, cause de rupture de l’image, se pose encore avec plus d’acuité que pour les incrustations : les Babyloniens n’avaient pas encore, comme le feront les Achéménides, inventé la brique de plan légèrement trapézoïdal35, qui permettait de limiter la largeur de ceux-ci en façade tout en ménageant vers l’arrière des interstices plus larges, propices à la cohésion de l’ensemble36 (Fig. 8c). Et plus encore que pour les incrustations, ce morcellement et cette recomposition servent à une répétition à l’identique de l’image : de façon exacte et flagrante dans le cas du moulage, moins contraignante dans le cas de la coquille, mais toujours comme si la réalisation de celle-ci devait être préservée d’une exécution immédiate et spontanée au profit d’un système lourd et complexe de mise en œuvre nécessité par une technicité à facettes multiples que ne pouvait pas posséder un seul individu, en tout cas au niveau des exécutants. C’est-à-dire que réaliser certains types d’image (dont on peut exclure les rares graffiti, terres cuites estampées, etc.) n’est pas à la portée de n’importe qui, mais réservé aux castes royales et sacerdotales. 4. Exécution des détails Cet aspect, secondaire pour notre propos de départ, vient alimenter les points communs entre les deux modes d’exécution d’images recomposées qui nous occupent. En ce qui concerne la glaçure, il y a déjà été fait allusion, et il n’est pas nécessaire d’entrer dans les détails de la technique du cloisonné que les Achéménides ont portée à leur sommet dans leurs reliefs architecturaux, allant jusqu’à différencier la température de fusion du fil de verre séparant les champs colorés —autrement dit, les contours—, mais que les Babyloniens avaient ébauchée avec une perfection moindre—qui d’ailleurs, selon les fouilleurs allemands, contribue à donner plus de vie aux figures37. Mais il peut être intéressant de noter, en ce qui concerne les reliefs non glaçurés, les finitions à la main du rang supérieur de taureaux38 : ceci dénote un souci de perfection remarquable, ainsi qu’un dynamisme à toute épreuve par rapport à un travail colossal à accomplir. En ce qui concerne la coquille, où n’entre pas de procédé de travail mécanique répétitif comme pour le moulage, je voudrais insister sur la précision du trait de la gravure des détails, exceptionnellement avec repentir ou raté et ajouter, par

Koldewey 1970, 29 ; Andrae in Koldewey 1990, 346–347. Et pourtant Andrae (in Koldewey 1990, 347) évoque cette possibilité. 36 Daucé in Perrot (éd.) 2010, 329–331. 37 Koldewey 1970, 31. 38 Koldewey 1970, 20–21. 34 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

649

rapport à leur remplissage de bitume, que celui-ci requérait les compétences d’un autre type de technicien puisqu’il s’agissait de porter ce matériau adhésif à la bonne température pour lui donner la fluidité adéquate : c’est pourquoi il m’apparaît que cette étape était probablement aussi réalisée « à la chaîne », car il fallait enlever rapidement les bavures qui ne manquaient pas d’entacher la surface de la pièce de coquille. En outre, en ce qui concerne l’aspect de ces images, il ne faut pas manquer d’évoquer la dimension volumétrique, ou en tout cas d’épaisseur, conférée par les éléments en champlevé comme le moyeu des roues de char par exemple ou les chevelures et les barbes, même si le remplissage de bitume effaçait le creux de ces dernières39 : comme pour les briques, le puzzle est en trois dimensions ; pour être complète, l’image ne se devait-elle pas (même si ce n’était pas systématique) d’exister en volume ? Enfin, là aussi la couleur—limitée au rouge dans l’état actuel des connaissances—, venait souvent ajouter sa touche de vie. 5. Conclusion Aussi bien que leurs voisins égéens, anatoliens ou iraniens, les Mésopotamiens connaissaient la sculpture, en ronde bosse ou en relief, la peinture murale ou la terre cuite, modelée ou moulée, arts visuels mettant en œuvre des représentations requérant davantage de continuité dans une exécution qui ne nécessite qu’un nombre limité d’acteurs. Mais, étrangement, ils semblent les seuls, du moins à une telle échelle, à s’être donné le mal de réaliser des images à partir de la juxtaposition de parties constitutives répondant les unes aux parties structurales des schèmes de l’objet représenté, les autres à une grille étrangère à ces derniers, le format de la brique, grille avec laquelle néanmoins ces schèmes devaient se trouver en harmonie : c’est ainsi que les archers perses de la frise du palais de Darius se conforment à un module de 1,45 m, soit les 4/5e de la hauteur grandeur nature, et que la hauteur de leur visage correspond exactement à l’épaisseur de la brique (8,5 cm)40. Tracés régulateurs et codes de proportions se révèlent en particulier dans la statuaire, mais aussi la peinture murale et, bien sûr, dans les reliefs sur briques : l’art antique, on le sait bien, ne devait rien à l’improvisation41. Il semble tout de même que cette codification atteint son summum dans les images dont il est question ici, puisqu’on leur ajoute des contraintes extrinsèques. Plus encore, la mise en œuvre est répartie et échelonnée comme si on voulait la compliquer à plaisir. Or précisément, si l’on suit les réflexions de J. Sasson à propos des termes employés dans les textes de Mari42, l’artisan n’est-il pas avant tout un haut technicien—qui, au contraire des architectes égyptiens ou des peintres de vases grecs, reste anonyme ?

Muller 2016. Azarpay 1995, 2513, 2515. 41 Cf. Gates 1990, 32, 35 ; Winter 1995, en particulier 2570–2571. 42 Sasson 1990. 39 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

650

B. Muller

De surcroît, si, comme on peut le supposer, le morcellement de l’image s’accompagne d’un morcellement dans l’exécution, il n’y a pas, dans ces techniques de découpe de coquille ou de relief sur brique, de démiurge, ou du moins d’artiste (comme en ronde-bosse), qui puisse revendiquer ces œuvres. Et pourtant cellesci témoignent encore aujourd’hui de leur perfection, qui était justement l’objectif suprême à atteindre. Quelle philosophie ou quelle politique avait pu présider à ces façons de faire ? Rendre l’image infalsifiable alors même qu’elle était répétitive ? En faire une prérogative telle que seuls les personnages en possession des moyens matériels et humains requis pouvaient en être les dépositaires parce que les créateurs ? Autrement dit, toute cette complexité des chaînes opératoires, dont même les ateliers de taille et de gravure de coquille de Mari laissent deviner l’envergure, ne traduit-elle pas la maîtrise et la puissance qui caractérise le souverain des civilisations proche-orientales ? Deux points communs caractérisent encore les panneaux de nacre et les façades aux reliefs glaçurés : d’une part l’éclat, le brillant, qualité primordiale dans l’esthétique mésopotamienne et qui renvoie au lapis-lazuli de l’Étendard d’Ur et à son substitut, la glaçure bleue, de la porte d’Ishtar de Babylone43 ;  d’autre part une recherche du volume, si minime soit-il, qui refuse de réduire les images à une simple surface, tout en les incorporant, en les ancrant solidement dans leur support. Ainsi morcelée et recomposée, l’image, par essence reflet du monde céleste, loin de se prétendre un effet artistique en soi, suppose une série de moyens techniques garantissant toute la présence et la pérennité qu’elle se doit de contenir. Bibliographie André-Salvini, B. (éd.), 2008 : Babylone, Catalogue de l’exposition « Babylone », 14 mars–2 juin 2008, Paris. Paris. Aruz, J. (éd.), 2003 : Art of the First Cities, The third millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New York. Azarpay, G., 1995 : Proportions in Ancient Near Eastern Art. Dans J.M. Sasson (éd.) : Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York. Pp. 2507–2520. Calmeyer, P., 1967 : Zur Rekonstruktion der „Standarte“ von Mari. Dans J.R. Kupper (éd.) : La civilisation de Mari, XVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale organisée par le groupe François Thureau-Dangin (Liège, 4–8 juillet 1966) (Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège CLXXII). Paris. Pp. 161–169. Cassin, E., 1968 : La splendeur divine : introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne. Paris. Cluzan, S. / Butterlin, P. (éds), 2014 : Voués à Ishtar. Syrie, janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari, Exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe 23 janvier–4

Cassin 1968 (plus particulièrement p. 115) ; Winter 1995, 2572–2575 ; Muller 2014, 294 ; sous presse.

43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

651

mai 2014 (Guides archéologiques de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient 11). Beyrouth. Coqueugniot, E., 1993 : Un atelier spécialisé dans le palais de Mari. M.A.R.I. 7 : 205–250. Fischer, C., 2005 : Harmony in motion : The Snake Dragon of Babylon. Orient-Express 2005/2 : 42–45. Gates, M.-H., 1990 : Artisans and Art in Old Babylonian Mari. Dans A. Gunter (éd.) : Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington. Pp. 29–37. Goyon, J.-Cl. et al., 2004 : La construction pharaonique, du Moyen Empire à l’époque gréco-romaine. Contextes et principes technologiques. Paris. Gunter, A.C. (éd.), 1990 : Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington. Gunter, A.C. 1995 : Material, Technology, and Techniques in Artistic Production. Dans J. Sasson (éd.) : Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. New York. Pp. 1539–1551. Kaniuth, K., 2013 : Spätbabylonische Glasurziegelreliefs aus Borsippa. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 145 : 53–82. Koldewey, R., 1913 : Das wieder erstehende Babylon. Leipzig. –– 1969 : Die Königsburgen von Babylon. Osnabrück. –– 1970 : Das Ischtar-Tor in Babylon (Ausgrabungen der Orient-Gesellschaft in Babylon II). Osnabrück. –– 1990 : Das wieder erstehende Babylon (5e éd., révisée et augmentée par B. Hrouda). Munich. Langdon, S., 1924 : Excavations at Kish, Vol. I. Paris. Leymarie, J., 1971 : Picasso. Métamorphoses et unité. Genève. Margueron, J.-Cl., 2004 : Mari, métropole de l’Euphrate, au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. Paris. –– 2014 : Mari Ville II : palais ou temple-manufacture ? Actes du colloque international Mari, ni Est, ni Ouest ?, Damas 19–21 octobre 2010 (Syria Supplément 2). Pp. 265–289. Marzahn, J., 1993 : La porte d’Ishtar de Babylone. Mainz. Muller, B., 2014 : Les éléments d’incrustation en coquille : situation, matériau, considérations techniques et esthétiques. Dans S. Cluzan / P. Butterlin (éds) : Voués à Ishtar. Syrie, janvier 1934, André Parrot découvre Mari, Exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe 23 janvier–4 mai 2014 (Guides archéologiques de l’Institut français du Proche-Orient 11). Beyrouth. Pp. 285–294. –– 2016 : Panneaux d’incrustation en coquille de Mari, Ville II : implications des matériaux et des techniques. Dans O. Kaelin / H.-P. Mathys (éds) : Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 9–13 June 2014, University of Basel, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 243–256. –– sous presse : Les antécédents orientaux des stucs architecturaux, Actes du colloque international Stucs d’Orient, Nanterre 2013 et 2014 (Syria Supplément). sous presse. Orthmann, W. (éd.), 1975 : Der alte Orient. Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, Band 14. Berlin. Parrot, A., 1935 : Les fouilles de Mari, première campagne (hiver 1933–34). Syria © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

652

B. Muller

XVI : 1–28 et 117–140. –– 1953 : Mari : documentation photographique de la Mission Archéologique de Mari (Collection des Ides photographiques 7). Neuchâtel. –– 1956 : Mission archéologique de Mari, Vol. I : Le Temple d’Ishtar (BAH LXV). Paris. –– 1969 : Les fouilles de Mari. Dix-septième campagne (automne 1968). Syria XLVI : 191–208. Perrot, J. (éd.), 2010 : Le palais de Darius à Suse, une résidence royale sur la route de Persépolis à Babylone. Paris. Sasson, J., 1990 : Artisans… Artists : Documentary Perspectives from Mari. Dans A. Gunter (éd.) : Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East. Washington. Pp. 21–27. Winter, I.J., 1995 : Aesthetics in Ancient Mesopotamian Art. Dans J. Sasson (éd) : Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Vol. IV. New York. Pp. 2569–2580.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

a

c

653

b

d

Fig. 1. Mari, pièces d’incrustation en coquille, types de découpe (Ville II, env. 2500–2250 av. J.-C.). a) Jupe : découpe droite au bas de la ceinture (M. 2867, h. 4,6  cm) ou échancrée suivant le coude plié (M. 2825, h. 4  cm). Temple de Shamash (© MAM) ; b) Partie supérieure de guerrier à découpe rectiligne à la base, partiellement le long du manche de bâton (M. 2324, h. 4,6 cm). Temple de Ninni-zaza (© MAM) ; c) Partie supérieure de guerrier à découpe rectiligne à la base, indépendante du tracé d’un élément iconographique (M. 2588, h. 3,4 cm). Temple de Ninni-zaza (© MAM et infographie MB).

Fig. 2a. Mari, « Étendard » du temple d’Ishtar (Louvre AO 17572/AO 19820), coquille nacrée (Ville II, env. 2500–2250 av. J.-C.). a)  Restitution de P. Calmeyer (Calmeyer 1967, dépliant pp. 164–165, fig. 6). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

654

B. Muller

b

c

d

Fig. 2b–d. Mari, « Étendard » du temple d’Ishtar (Louvre AO 17572/AO 19820), coquille nacrée (Ville II, env. 2500–2250 av. J.-C.). b), c), d) Découpes de dignitaires à la hache (infographie MB), respectivement M. 472 (h. 11 cm), M. 473 (h. 10,8 cm) et M. 474 (h. 10,4 cm).

Fig. 3.

El-Obeid, frise de taureaux en coquille (h. totale 22 cm). Temple de Ninhursag (DA III–B, env. 2400–2250 av. J.-C.). a) Restitution, L. 85 cm (d’après Aruz [éd.] 2003, n° 46–a) ; b)  Dessin des découpes d’après le cliché précédent (infographie AN). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

a

c

655

b

d

e Fig. 4. Indices syntaxiques contraignants pour l’association de pièces. a) Mari, pseudoPalais de Ville II (env. 2500–2250)  : association guerrier/prisonnier (M. 4785, h. env. 7,5  cm) retrouvée in situ au niveau P–1, passage 52/49, avec ici l’ajout des jambes du prisonnier M. 4793. Coquille nacrée ; b) Découpes des pièces précédentes (infographie MB d’après Orthmann [éd.] 1975, fig. 93–a) ; c) Mari, schème semblable de soldat M. 4813 provenant de P–1, salle 52 (h. 7,6  cm), complété (infographie MB et AN) ; d) Kish, palais A, DA II (env. 2650–2550 av. J.-C.), incrustations de calcaire blanc sur fond d’ardoise (h. env. 24 cm) : dignitaire tenant par le bras son prisonnier nu ligoté (Langdon 1924, pl. XXXVI–3) ; e) Mari, temple de Shamash (Ville II, env. 2500–2250 av. J.-C.), incrustations de coquille M. 2850 et M. 2918 (L. 10,6  cm)  : deux sacrificateurs maîtrisant un bélier (© MAM, cf. Margueron 2004, fig. 246). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

656

B. Muller

a

b

c Fig. 5. Base modulaire A√2 à partir d’une hauteur de 12 assises de briques. Babylone, porte d’Ishtar, première phase (début du VIe s.), briques à relief sans glaçure (dim. approx. : h. 1,04 m ; l. 1,48 m). a) Taureau passant à droite (d’après Orthmann [éd.] 1975, fig. 252) ; b) Taureau passant à gauche (d’après Koldewey 1970, pl. 13) ; c) Dragon passant à gauche (d’après Koldewey 1970, pl. 16). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

657

a

b

c Fig. 6. Base modulaire A√2 à partir d’une hauteur de 12 assises de briques. Babylone, porte d’Ishtar, troisième phase (début du VIe s.), briques à relief glaçurées (h. env. 1,04 m). a) Taureau jaune passant à droite, l. env. 1,45 m (d’après Koldewey 1970, pl. 12). En tiretés, essai non probant de construction de la base modulaire à partir d’une hauteur de 13 assises de briques au lieu de 12 ; b) Taureau blanc passant à gauche, l. env. 1,35 m (d’après Koldewey 1970, pl. 11) ; c) Dragon jaune passant à droite, l. env. 1,65 m (d’après André-Salvini [éd.] 2008, n° 136). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

658

B. Muller

a

b

c Fig. 7. Base modulaire A√3 à partir d’une hauteur de 10 assises de briques : lions. Babylone, briques à relief glaçurées (début du VIe s.). a) Voie processionnelle, troisième phase, lion passant à gauche  ; h. env. 0,83 m  ; l. env. 1,98 m (d’après Koldewey 1990, 39, fig. 16) ; b) Façade de la salle du Trône, lion passant à droite  ; h. env. 1,04 m, l. env. 1,48 m (d’après Koldewey 1969, pl. 38) ; c) Le même avec la base modulaire A√2 construite à partir d’une hauteur de 12 assises de briques, qui ne correspond pas à un découpage aussi cohérent de la figure. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Iconographie mésopotamienne : images morcelées et recomposées

a

659

b

c

d Fig. 8. Procédés tendant à rétrécir la pièce d’incrustation ou la brique vers l’arrière pour assurer l’efficacité des joints en limitant leur largeur du côté visible. a), b) Revers de pièces d’incrustation en coquille nacrée, respectivement M. 400 (h. 4 cm) et M. 472 (h. pied 2 cm) à tranches biseautées. Mari, Étendard, temple d’Ishtar (© B. Muller) ; c)  Baguettes de pierre rouge à tranches biseautées intégrées au cadre de l’« Étendard » de Mari (Louvre, © B. Muller) ; d) Schéma de mise en œuvre de briques achéménides en forme de « coin » (Daucé in Perrot [éd.] 2010, 329, fig. 353). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King: A Note on Slabs B–13 and B–23 in the Throne Room of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud Davide Nadali

“Poi d’un tratto m’accorsi che il mio buon Re dimenticava una cosa importantissima: che eravamo in un mondo di immagini, tutto alla dipendenza di cose vere, di cose reali, di persone (anche ammettendo quei pezzi come persone) che un momento o l’altro s’erano viste nello specchio. Candidamente esposi queste osservazioni al mio Re. Il quale alzò le spalle, e rispose: – Oramai posso dirti un’altra cosa: che anche tutta questa faccenda delle immagini riflesse, te l’ho detta, così, perché con voi gente di là m’è parso opportuno fingere di credere che la verità stia come dite voi. – E invece come sta? – Sta, che le persone vere, le persone reali, siamo proprio solamente noi, noi di qua. Siete voi, che non siete altro che delle immagini, delle apparenze senza sostanza. Il mondo siamo noi.” (from: M. Bontempelli, La scacchiera allo specchio, Palermo, 1981).

Assyrian palaces can be rightly considered the container of royal images, the Assyrian king being represented in several roles and attitudes related to the sphere of religion and politics (indeed, the two aspects are often interwoven). Palaces do not in fact function as simple royal residences (the seat of the king), but they are a conceptual visual elaboration of architecture, images and texts representing the quality of Assyrian rulership (the seat of kingship):1 starting from the 9th century BC, with the reign of Assurnasirpal II, each Assyrian king promoted (with different solutions and projects) either the construction of a new residence or the rehabilitation and refurbishment of already existing palaces (as for example Esarhaddon did in Nimrud with the palace of Tiglath-Pileser III and the military arsenal of Shalmaneser III). As a result, old palaces with their own set of reliefs and new buildings hosting new figurative programmes display the nature of the Assyrian kingship, keep the memory of a common Assyrian past and therefore work for the foundation of the future of the Assyrian power: in particular, it seems

1

Winter 1993. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

662

D. Nadali

clear how the power and value of the Assyrian kingship is not only based on the on-going activities of the living king, but is also deeply influenced by the actions of the previous Assyrian kings. The past is always in front of the living king and images and texts in the old palaces actually represent not only a symbolic but a properly physical connection to that past.2 In this respect, as modern analysts, we are dealing with a multiplicity of images of the Assyrian king(s), both synchronically and diachronically: Assyrian reliefs have been largely studied and categorized, but only recently has new research tried to contextualize the reliefs in their own place to define the space of influence and action of the content they express, taking texts and architecture into account. The replication of Assyrian images, particularly of the image of the king, does not immediately imply the creation of exact copies: although similarity of styles, attires and attitudes can be easily recognised both in the same palace and in other Assyrian royal residences, the real examination of all details and context can reveal whether Assyrian artists really wanted to replicate an image or, on the contrary to differentiate the prototype by changing and adding features according to the final placement of the image. It is however true that rules can be recognised in Assyrian art pointing to the existence of a canon of proportions and look:3 the repetitiveness of specific images actually found their particular meaning within the palace, as it might be argued for the human-headed colossi at the main entrances, the figures of genies and the so-called sacred tree. On the other hand, according to the ontological status of images in the Assyrian culture, image itself is not just a replication (mimesis) of the reality: it is “différance rather than a plenitude of identity or a copy of the real.”4 The scenes carved on slabs B–23 and B–13 in the throne room of the NorthWest Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud actually introduce a variation on the theme of replication of images, the image of the Assyrian king and the winged genies in this precise context: both slabs follow a symmetrical arrangement, with the representation of the doubled image of the Assyrian king, followed by two winded genies, at the side of the sacred tree in the centre, the winged disk representing either Shamash or Assur on the top (Figs 1–2).5 Many interpretations have been so far presented on the meaning of this representation and on the fact that such scenes are represented twice in the throne room of Assurnasirpal II (Fig. 3), behind the throne on the east side of the room (B–23) and opposite of the large central gate e (B–13).6 In particular, the debate focused on the significance of the

2 3 4

5 6

Liverani 2004; 2010; Brown 2010, 37. Gillmann 2010; Nadali 2012, 586–587, 592–593. Bahrani 2003, 206. See also Nadali 2012, 3. On the concept of mimesis, see Nadali 2006, 318 and fn. 9. Russell 1998, 710. Irene Winter first pointed out how the two slabs are the “organizing pivots” of the room (1981, 10; 1983, 31 and fn. 44). See also Dolce 1997, 147, figs 3–6. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

663

sacred tree,7 seen as a symbol of Assyrian kingship (the tree is another shape of the Assyrian king),8 as a symbol expressing abundance and fertility,9 as an exoteric and complex symbol of Assyrian religion,10 or as a reference to the water environment of the god Ea.11 In this analysis, I will not deal with the presentation of a new interpretation of the scene as specifically related to the sacred tree only: rather, what is much more striking and interesting is the arrangement of the figure on the slabs, the position of the slabs in the throne room and, therefore, how the two slabs affect the room, on the one hand (as already stated by Irene Winter),12 and the king, both the physical body and his representation (ṣalmu), on the other. In the end, the close examination of slabs B–23 and B–13 will disclose that not only does the image of the king undergo a duplication, but the same holds true for the two winged genies: moreover, looking at the set of slabs (B–14–12) on the southern long wall of the throne room (opposite the central wider gate e), the image of the king is even quadrupled. What was the intention of the artists and scholars in building such a complex image? Does the doubling of images automatically imply likeness? So, can we finally infer that all royal images on slab B–23 and the group of slabs B–14–12 represent Assurnasirpal II? In the past it has been suggested that the two royal figures on slab B–23 (which is much more well-preserved than B–13) are not a mirror-image of Assurnasirpal II, but they might be identified with Adad-Nirari II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, Assurnasirpal’s grand-father and father, respectively:13 indeed, it seems to me that the idea so far suggested by Brentjes cannot be so simply excluded and that it probably contributes to explaining the choice of this design and pattern.14

In general see Giovino 2007 with previous bibliography. Matthiae 1989, 372; Richardson 1999–2001. 9 Porter 1993; Winter 2003; Collins 2006. 10 Parpola 1993. 11 Giovino 2007, 9–20; Ataç 2010a, 167, 170; 2010b, 128. Again on the possibility that the so-called sacred tree might be related to the Absu of god Ea, see the suggestive deconstruction of the perspective of the image of the tree and the surrounding waves representing the water as presented by Della Casa 2012, 134, fig. 7. 12 See fn. 5. 13 The hypothesis was first forwarded by Brentjes (1994, 54–55, 64). Brown (2010, 26–27) also follows this idea. See also Russell 1998, 711; Ataç 2010b, 126–127. Roaf (2008, 212) and Kertai (2015, 31 and fn. 82) reject this possibility. Watanabe thinks it is Assurnasirpal II who appears twice (2004, 106). Finally, see Watanabe (2014, 362–363) for an evaluation of the possibility of the representation of two kings (following Brentjes and Brown) or, at least, of two aspects of the Assyrian kingship (following Ataç). 14 Explanations advanced by Roaf (2008, 212), arguing that differences between the two royal figures are due to the expertise and involvement of different craftsmen, are not satisfactory. In particular, it seems clear that Assyrian artists were so precise and well trained when they had to deal with the representation of the Assyrian king, showing a 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

664

D. Nadali

In this respect, the doubling of the image of the Assyrian king(s) acquires a deeper meaning in the context of the throne room: in the Assyrian palaces, the throne room actually represents the boundary between the outer courtyard and the inner open spaces where other suites of rooms (with similar uses or completely different functions) were arranged. As widely accepted, the throne room was the only real public space together with the preceding large courtyard: although the type of audience admitted and the dynamics of access are not yet definitely clear and shared among scholars, the throne room was the place of the manifestation of the king, on the one hand, and the kingship, on the other. In fact, in the throne room the physical body of the Assyrian king was present when receiving foreigners, ambassadors and high magnates; at the same time, the represented body of the Assyrian king(s) on the walls of the room acted on their own as the exaltation of the royal figure and the foundation of the Assyrian royal power. The interaction between the two spheres precisely defines the qualities of kingship: the body in the flesh and the represented body of the Assyrian king encounter in the throne room and the slabs B–23 and B–13 summarizes and emphasizes this bound with a consequent cross-referenced relationship between the images of the king(s) and the king in person and his image(s). Indeed, on both sides, we are dealing with the official body of the king: moreover, the represented official body overcomes time and outlives the physical body. In this respect, not only Assurnasirpal II can look at the represent bodies (ṣalmu) of his grand-father and father, but later kings can again look at both Assurnasirpal’s grand-father and father and of course Assurnasirpal himself establishing a direct link of kin(g)ship with the past. The choice of a symmetrical composition of slabs B–23 and B–13 precisely affects time since no narrative is implied:15 unlike the other reliefs of the room (representing the hunt and war actions of the Assyrian king), slabs B–23 and B–13 do not tell a story, but they just present and show a fact.16 As a consequence, it

high degree of standardization of shapes, proportions and occurrence of attributes (see Brown [2010, 10, 12, 27–27] on the analysis of the royal figures in room G and H of the East Suite of the North-West Palace). This is also confirmed by the considerations of Aker (2007) on the different degrees of craftsmanship and results of the execution in Assurbanipal’s hunt reliefs of room C in the North Palace at Nineveh, precisely pointing to a clear different treatment of the image of the king. If it is absolutely true that different levels of workmanship and, therefore, of care in the making of the reliefs existed, this did not affect the image of the king at all: controversies on the creation of the royal image (SAA XIII 34) precisely show how Assyrian scholars paid attention to the execution of even the smallest details; the image of the king could not be misunderstood (Nadali 2012, 587). 15 On symmetry in Assyrian art, see Albenda 1992; 1998, 12. On the use of symmetry in relation to royal figures as a possible derivation from Egypt and Syria, see Ataç 2010a, 169–173; 2010b, 141–143; Matthiae 1989 and Pinnock 2015, 114. 16 Watanabe (2004, 106) so far suggested that if the scene is another example of a “continuous style” narrative it might imply that the image wants to express the movement of © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

665

might be inferred that no time is implied (neither the narrated time nor the time of narration), as the scene is not the result of the telling of a temporal sequence of facts:17 if the two royal figures really represent Adad-Nirari II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, time is anyhow involved since it actually becomes the topic of the scene. The symmetrical arrangement does not tell a story, but it is the story of Time since the two past kings are reframed in the present (time of Assurnasirpal II) and found the future of the Assyrian kingship.18 However, despite the symmetrical arrangement and the repetition of the same characters (tree, winged disk, king, and winged genies), slabs B–23 and B–13 are not completely identical: not only few details are different, but the position of the slab in the room can convey a different meaning, if the general context of the adjacent slabs is also taken into consideration. Slab B–23 (that is really well preserved) was originally set behind the throne dais on the eastern wall of the room (Fig. 1):19 being Assurnasirpal II sitting on the throne, he completely covered the sacred tree behind with a voluntary overlapping. The two royal figures, the genies and the winged disk were thus alternately caring for the sacred tree or the physical person of the king, when the latter was taking his place in the throne during official receptions. The niche was then flanked on both sides by other two winged genies with bucket and purifier in their hands. As already stated, the two figures are not identical in attributes, attire and gestures:20 moreover, except for the two daggers, both kings do not hold the typical war weapon (the bow and arrow), while they both have in their left hand the sceptre, royal symbol of power. The deity in the winged disk above the tree faces left and holds a ring in the left hand: these details could then suggest that the god might be identified with Shamash.21 Again, there are no references to war and Shamash seems to act more as the judge of heaven and underworld rather than the god supporting the king in his battles.22

the king, as well as of the winged genies, around the tree. Nadali 2006, 238–239. 18 See Nadali 2010, 183–184. Slabs B–23 and B–13 fall within what Irene Winter defines “transcended time:” “the implicit message, articulated through composition, is that the absolute in non-linear, is not itself subject to Time […]. Symmetry and a highly constructed, absolutist space is employed to indicate the divine/transcendent atemporal universe of the sacred” (1996, 329–332; emphasis mine). According to Ataç (2010a, 164, 171–172), the presence of the winged disk above the tree would stand for the future. 19 See the reconstruction as proposed by Paley (2010, fig. 9.9). 20 See Ataç (2010b, 126–127) for a close examination of the differences: in particular, the king on the left also wears armbands with ram protomes on both arms, while the king of the right does not. According to Ataç’s classification, the king of the left would be more earthbound, while the king on the right (with the much more visible divine symbol on the chest) would be more celestial (2010b, 127). 21 As on the most famous representation on the Stele of Hammurabi (Feldman 2010, 152). 22 In Assurnasirpal II’ texts of the Annals (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.1) and the so-called 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

666

D. Nadali

Slab B–13 (that is much worn) was placed in a niche in front on the large central gate of the throne room (Fig. 2):23 although fragmentary, it seems again that the two figures are not identical (different attire, attributes and gestures). The deity in the winged disk faces left and holds a bow in the left hand.24 Together with the daggers at the waist of the kings, the bow in the hand of the deity is the only weapon of the scene: this detail could indicate that the god might be identified with the national Assyrian deity, Assur. It has been supposed that a throne dais (made of wood?) could have be placed in front of the niche of slab B–13 on the occasion of special events, when people could enter the throne room from the central entrance and the king could directly look to the outer courtyard:25 again, the seated king on the throne would have covered the representation of the tree just behind him; as for slab B–23, the two royal figures and the winged genies would have temporarily pointed to and protected the physical body of the king. Differently from slab B–23, the niche opposite the central door is framed between two specular images of the Assyrian king holding the long staff, the sword at the waist, and followed by two eunuchs holding the royal bow and quiver:26 the reliefs occupy the full height of the slab, while the scene carved in the niche is smaller, as it exactly happened with the two larger genies at the side of slab B–23.27 In correspondence of slabs B–12–14, opposite the central gate of the throne room, four figures of the Assyrian king(s) are represented: following the identification of the two royal images on slab B–23 with Adad-Nirari II and Tukulti-Ninurta II, who are the larger images of the Assyrian king at the side of the niche (slabs B–12 and B–14)? Despite the poor state of preservation, Brown suggests that there are enough details to infer that the two larger images outside the niche can be identified as the ṣalmu of Assurnasirpal II:28 in this particular context, the image of Assurnasirpal II, the king who promoted the construction of the North-West Palace and is the protagonist of the reliefs, is looking, symmetrically, at his grand-father and father at the side of the sacred tree. A direct link with the past is thus created: the living king is commemorating his predecessors establishing a connection with his past and kinship, as it is reminded in the titulary of his inscriptions. In this atemporal dimension (slabs B–12–14 are placed after the passage to

Nimrud Monolith (Grayson 1991, A.0.101.17), Shamash is the god who granted the king with the “sceptre for the shepherding of the people.” 23 Dolce 1997, 147, figs 3–4; Russell 1998, 705–708, pls III–IV; Di Paolo 2003, 531. 24 On the different orientation of the two deities in the winged disk on the two slabs, see Brown 2010, 28. 25 Russell 1998, 710. 26 Ataç 2010b, 121–122; Portuese 2014, 13–14. 27 Russell 1998, 708. 28 Brown 2010, 27. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

667

the retiring room F and between the narrative reliefs of the hunt and war), we also attend a temporary suspension of both hunt and war: the two Assurnasirpal are in fact represented in the hieratic attitude with the long staff, having delivered the weapons of war (the bow and arrows) to the attendants.29 The same attitude occurs in room C, G and S: the king is always with the long staff and flanked by eunuchs; conversely, when the king is represented in his warrior attitude (with the bow and arrows) he is always flanked by winged genies, as in rooms H and N for example.30 In this respect, it is interesting to note that both images are often associated, either sharing the same room (room G) or being placed at the extremities of a symbolic axis, as it happens in rooms G and N.31 What about the presence of the bow in the hand of the god Assur in the winged disk? In the analysis of the scene carved on Broken Obelisk of Assurbelkala (Fig. 4), Capomacchia and Rivaroli suggested that the representation of the bow in the hand protruding from the disk does not portray the moment of delivery of the weapon to the king, but rather the contrary: the king gives back the weapon to the god after the battle is over and in fact he is represented while holding two prisoners on a leash as the result of his military success.32 Can we infer the same for the scene on slab B–13? In this group of slabs the war is suspended: not only do the larger images of Assurnasirpal II on slabs B–12 and B–14 not hold the bow and arrows, but the bow has now temporarily gone back in the hands of the god. The king with the staff is thus the representation of a hieratic and peaceful aspect of Assyrian royal power: as said, he always occurs in peaceful context, accompanied by human attendants, while the heroic figure of the warrior king (with the bow and arrows) is accompanied by divine genies. The alternation of both images in the spaces of the North-West Palace points to a specific meaning of the sectors of the royal residence, where the Assyrian kingship is differently inflected.33 The combination of both aspects in the throne room is particularly efficient: the emphasis on the peaceful attitude of the Assyrian king is even more strengthened by the position within the room, in the two focal spots that also imply the physical presence of the king seated on the throne. According to the paintings from Til Barsip, the king on the throne had the long staff in his hand while receiving foreigners, while bow and arrows were delivered to one of his attendants:34 thus, the king appears in a benevolent connotation. It is interesting that the same attitude is also represented on the Banquet Ste-

Portuese 2014, 15. Also in later time, bow and arrows are associated with the idea of triumph in war and hunt (Russell 1998, 695–686). 30 Russell 1998, 686. 31 Dolce 1997, 146, 149–150; Russell 1998, 699. 32 Capomacchia / Rivaroli 2014, 180–181. 33 See the analysis by Russell 1998 and the considerations by Brown 2010 on the East Suite of the North-West Palace of Nimrud. 34 Albenda 2005, pls 23 and 25. 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

668

D. Nadali

le, placed in the recessed room EA, just outside the eastern gate c of the throne room:35 Assurnasirpal II holds the long staff, faces the symbols of gods Shamash and Sin, while the more belligerent deities are behind him.36 Due to the content of the inscription, celebrating the reconstruction of the Nimrud and the inauguration of the palace, the peaceful attitude of the king, just at the spot from where visitors left the room, is the visual counterpart of the text when it states that, after the ten-days banqueting, Assurnasirpal sends all invited people back “to their lands in peace and joy.”37 The presence of this image inside the throne room, the benevolent gesture of Assurnasirpal II on the Banquet Stele, as well as the physical presence of the king with the long staff when seated on the throne, convey new interesting meaning to a combined and complex system of communication through words (texts) and images: in particular, the past, but sometimes still frequent, idea of frightening intimidation of the content of Assurnasirpal’s throne room must be completely changed and recalibrated, rejecting the too simplistic explanation and reading of Assyrian imperial art through the lens of the precepts of propaganda. The throne room of Assurnasirpal of course shows images of war: but the final message conveyed by pictures and text (the Standard Inscription as compared, for example, to the texts of the Annals and the Kurkh Monolith) is not at all frightening and intimidating:38 as rightly said, Porter speaks of “calculated frightfulness.”39 The Standard Inscription is definitely less violent than the Annals of the Temple of Ninurta: images of war, destruction and deportation and killing of enemies are somewhat mitigated by the presence of the Assyrian king as a benevolent shepherd able to forgive and spare violence for those who willingly accept the Assyrian power, cooperate and submit peacefully to the Assyrian ruler. The image of the sacred tree represents the dimension of Assyrian kingship in the past, present and future in its positive aspects of abundance and growth: the atemporal dimension paradoxically functions as a temporal window connecting the past (Adad-Nirari II and Tutulti-Ninurta II) to the present (Assurnasirpal II) and irredeemably to the future. Moreover, it is interesting that the image of the past and the present chosen to be handed down does not concern war and Russell 1998, fig. 2. See the detailed analysis by Portuese (2014) who also points out that Assurnasirpal II, on the Banquet Stele, does not properly grasp the long staff (his hand is in fact open): he suggests that the open hand could indeed be a variation of the usual gesture of the ubāna tarāṣu in front of the gods to stress the benevolent attitude of the king, in the specific context of the stele in relation to the content of the text and the representation of the divine symbols. 37 Grayson 1991, A.0.101.30. 38 For the content of the inscription carved on the Kurkh Monolith, see Porter 2003, 86–88. For the particular relationships and differences between the Annals and the Standard Inscription in targeting different audiences and, thus, having opposite aims, see Porter 2010. 39 Porter 2003, 97. 35 36

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

669

violence: the Assyrian kings used war to stabilize and consolidate their power, but the final message they conveyed in public mostly convinced and persuaded people (who were however well aware of the possible destiny they could run into should they refuse the friendly persuasion of the Assyrian king).40 The image carved on slabs B–12–14 might rightly be considered an example of metapicture: the king Assurnasirpal is represented while commemorating his ancestors, a situation that really occurred in the throne rooms with Assurnasirpal in the flesh looking at the sacred tree image. Assurnasirpal II acts as a viewer: on the side of images, his ṣalmu commemorates the ṣalmu of his predecessors; as physical person, he commemorates both his predecessors and himself, materialized in the ṣalmu. The doubling of the image of the king at the side of the tree scene recalls the later arrangement of the statues of Esarhaddon and his sons in the Temple of Sin in Harran: the experts (SAA X 13) finally place the statues of the king on the right and left side of the Moon god. Does the scene carved on slabs B–12–14 reproduce the representation of a similar monument/group of statues? Despite the similarity of the central scene, the context of slabs B–23 and B–13 is different: the former is framed between two large winged genies, while the latter stands between two royal images. The difference must not be casual and it might be the result of self-referential choices of the artists in the arrangement and conceptualization of the room.41 The reason probably depends on the presence of the throne dais, a fixed element on the eastern side on the room (B–23),42 and a temporary feature on the southern wall (B–13). Moreover, it is interesting that the image of the king with the long staff occurs both on the slabs opposite the central entrance (that was probably used only on special occasions) and on the Banquet Stele by the gate that was used to leave the room: entrance and exit were thus marked by the benevolent image of the king. Can we infer that this was an exceptional condition that was purposely designed for special visitors? In fact, normal visitors entered the throne room from the western gate d: there, on the outer façade of the room, foreigners bringing gifts (slabs D–4–9) advance to the left towards the image of the king (D–2) represented in his warrior attitude (holding the bow and arrows).43 Normal visitors could perceive the benevolent and peaceful attitude of the Assyrian king only after the journey across the throne room and the encounter with the king with the staff (his ṣalmu and his person in the flesh seated on the throne), after the friendly persuasion successfully reached its aim.

In this respect, see the analysis by Porter (2003, 57–79) of the verbal and visual contents of Esarhaddon’s steles from Til Barsip and Sam’al. 41 Ataç 2006; 2010a, 160. 42 Therefore the winged genies were intended to protect the king, not the sacred tree: the two genies on slab B–23 follows the two images of the king; the two genies on slabs B–22 and B–24 both protected the central scene of the tree and the king seated on the throne. 43 Paley / Sobolewski 1992, pl. 4. 40

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

670

D. Nadali

Bibliography Aker, J., 2007: Workmanship as Ideological Tool in the Monumental Hunt Reliefs of Assurbanipal. In J. Cheng / M.H. Feldman (eds): Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context. Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students (CHANE 26). Leiden. Pp. 229–263. Albenda, P., 1992: Symmetry in the Art of the Assyrian Empire. In D. Charpin / F. Joannès (eds): La circulation des biens, des personnages et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancient. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 9–10 jullet 1991). Paris. Pp. 237–309. –– 1998: Monumental Art of the Assyrian Empire: Dynamics of Composition Styles (MANE 3/1). Malibu. –– 2005: Ornamental Wall Painting in the Art of the Assyrian Empire (CM 28). Leiden. Ataç, M.-A., 2006: Visual Formula and Meaning in Neo-Assyrian Relief Sculpture. The Art Bulletin 88: 69–101. –– 2010a: “Time and Eternity” in the Northwest Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Nimrud. In A. Cohen / S.E. Kangas (eds): Assyrian Reliefs from the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II. A Cultural Biography. Hanover / New York. Pp. 159–180. –– 2010b: The Mythology of Kingship in Neo-Assyrian Art. Cambridge. Bahrani, Z., 2003: The Graven Image. Representation in Babylonia and Assyria. Philadelphia. Brentjes, B., 1994: Selbstverherrlichung oder Legitimitätsanspruch? Gedanken zu dem Thronrelief von Nimrud-Kalaḫ. AoF 21: 50–64. Brown, B., 2010: Kingship and Ancestral Cult in the Northwest Palace at Nimrud. JANER 10/1: 1–53. Capomacchia, A.M.G. / Rivaroli, M., 2014: Peace and War: A Ritual Question. In H. Neumann et al. (eds): Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006 (AOAT 401). Münster. Pp. 171–187. Collins, P., 2006: Trees and Gender in Assyrian Art. Iraq 68: 99–107. Della Casa, R., 2012: Consideraciones sobre los relieves del “árbol sagrado” asirio en el Palacio Noroeste de Aššurnasirpal II (Nimrud). Antiguo Oriente 10: 125–143. Di Paolo, S., 2003: All’udienza regale: Funzione e gerarchia degli ingressi nel progetto figurativo della Sala del Trono di Assurnasirpal II a Nimrud. CMAO 9: 518–544. Dolce, R., 1997: Dualità e realtà virtuale nel Palazzo Nord-Ovest di Assurnasirpal II a Nimrud. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studi in memoria di Henri Frankfort (1897–1954) presentati alla scuola romana di Archeologia Orientale (CMAO 7). Roma. Pp. 141–162. Feldman, M.H., 2010: Spatial Perspective, Social Relations, and the Stele of Hammurabi. In S.R. Steadman / J.C. Ross (eds): Agency and Identity in the Ancient Near East. New Paths Forward. London / Oakville. Pp. 148–165. Gillmann, N., 2010: Rois et genies: quelques exemples d’application du canon dans l’art néo-assyrien. Syria 87: 69–92. Giovino, M., 2007: The Assyrian Sacred Tree: A History of Interpretations (OBO © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

671

230). Göttingen / Fribourg. Grayson, A.K., 1991: Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114– 859 BC) (RIMA 2). Toronto. Kertai, D., 2015: The Architecture of Late Assyrian Royal Palaces. Oxford. Liverani, M., 2004: Assyria in the Ninth Century: Continuity or Change? In G. Frame (ed.): From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson. Leiden. Pp. 297–317. –– 2010: Parole di bronzo, di pietra, d’argilla. Scienze dell’Antichità 16: 27–62. Matthiae, P., 1989: Old Syrian Ancestors of Some Neo-Assyrian Figurative Symbols of Kingship. In L. de Meyer / E. Haerinck (eds): Archaeologia Iranica et Orientalis: Miscellanea in Honorem Louis Vanden Berghe. Gent. Pp. 367–391. Meuszyński, J., 1981: Die Rekonstruktion der Reliefdarstellungen und ihrer Anordnung im Nordwestpalast von Kalḫu (Nimrūd) (BaF 2). Mainz am Rhein. Nadali, D., 2006: Percezione dello spazio e scansione del tempo. Studio della composizione narrative del rilievo assiro di VII secolo a.C. (CMAO 12). Roma. –– 2010: L’immagine del re e la retorica della geometria. Riflessioni sulla Bildgliederung dei rilievi della Sala del Trono di Assurnasirpal II. In R. Dolce (ed.): Quale Oriente? Omaggio a un Maestro. Studi di arte e archeologia del Vicino Oriente antico in memoria di Anton Moortgat a trenta anni dalla sua scomparsa. Palermo. Pp. 179–198. –– 2012: Interpretations and Translations, Performativity and Embodied Simulation. Reflections on Assyrian Images. In G.B. Lanfranchi et al. (eds): Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Wiesbaden. Pp. 583–595. Paley, S.M., 2010: The Northwest Palace in the Digital Age. In A. Cohen / S.E. Kangas (eds): Assyrian Reliefs from the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II. A Cultural Biography. Hanover / New York. Pp. 215–226. Paley, S.M. / Sobolewski, R.P., 1992: The Reconstruction of the Relief Representations and Their Positions in the Northwest-Palace at Kalḫu (Nimrūd) III (BaF 14). Mainz am Rhein. Parpola, S., 1993: The Assyrian Sacred Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy. JNES 52: 161–208. Pinnock, F., 2015: From Ebla to Guzana: The Image of Power in Syria between the Bronze and Iron Ages. Studia Eblaitica 1: 109–129. Porter, B.N., 1993: Sacred Trees, Date Palms, and the Royal Persona of Ashurnasirpal II. JNES 52: 129–139. –– 2003: Trees, Kings, and Politics. Studies in Assyrian Iconography (OBO 197). Göttingen. –– 2010: Ancient Writers, Modern Readers, and King Ashurnasirpal’s Political Problems: An Exploration of the Possibility of Reading Ancient Texts. In H. Liss and M. Oeming (eds): Literary Construction of Identity in the Ancient World. Proceedings of the Conference Literary Fiction and the Construction of Identity in Ancient Literatures: Options and Limits of Modern Literary Approaches in the Exegesis of Ancient Texts, Heidelberg, July 10–13, 2006. Winona Lake. Pp. 103–120. Portuese, L., 2014: Alcune ipotesi sulla ‘Stele del Banchetto’ di Assurnasirpal II. Studi Classici e Orientali 60: 9–20. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

672

D. Nadali

Richardson, S., 1999–2001: An Assyrian Garden of Ancestors: Room I, Northwest Palace, Kalhu. SAAB 13: 145–216. Roaf, M., 2008: The Décor of the Throne Room of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal. In J.E. Curtis et al. (eds): New Light on Nimrud. Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference, 11th–13th March 2002. London. Pp. 209–213. Russell, J.M., 1998: The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art. AJA 102/4: 655–715. Strommenger, E., 1962: Fünf Jahrtausende Mesopotamien. Die Kunst von den Anfängen um 5000 v. Chr. bis zu Alexander dem Großen, München. Watanabe, C.E., 2004: The “Continuous Style” in the Narrative Scheme of Assurbanipal’s Reliefs. In D. Collon / A. George (eds): Nineveh. Papers of the 49th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Part One (Iraq 66). London. Pp. 103–114. –– 2014: Styles of Pictorial Narratives in Assurbanipal’s Reliefs. In B.A. Brown / M.H. Feldman (eds): Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. Boston / Berlin. Pp. 345–367. Winter, I.J., 1981: Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs. Studies in Visual Communication 7/2: 2–38. –– 1983: The Program of the Throneroom of Aššurnasirpal II. In P. Harper / H. Pittman (eds): Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilikinson. New York. Pp. 15–32. –– 1993: ‘Seat of Kingship’/‘A Wonder to Behold’: The Palace as Construct in the Ancient Near East. Ars Orientalis 23: 27–55. –– 1996: Fixed, Transcended and Recurrent Time in the Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. In K. Vatsyayan (ed.): Concepts of Time: Ancient and Modern. New Delhi. Pp. 325–338. –– 2003: Ornament and the ‘Rhetoric of Abundance’ in Assyria. Eretz-Israel 27: 252–264.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

673

Fig. 1. Drawing of slabs B–24–22 from the throne room of the North-West Palace of Assurnasirpal II in Nimrud (after Meuszyński 1981, pl. 1).

Fig. 2. Drawing of slabs B–14–12 from the throne room of the North-West Palace of Assurnasirpal II in Nimrud (after Meuszyński 1981, pl. 2).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 3. Plan of the throne room of the North-West Palace of Assurnasirpal II in Nimrud with the positioning of slabs B–23 and B–13 (elaboration of the author; plan after Meuszyński 1981, Plan 3).

674 D. Nadali

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Doubling of the Image of the King

675

Fig. 4. Detail of the Broken Obelisk of Assurbelkala from Nineveh, The British Museum BM 118898 (after Strommenger 1962, pl. 188 unten).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho Lorenzo Nigro

1. John Garstang and the Excavation of the “Hyksos Palace” (1933–1934)1 During his fourth season of excavations at Tell es-Sultan, in 1933, John Garstang was engaged in uncovering the heavy burnt remains of a major building extending on the summit and on the eastern slope of the Spring Hill (Fig. 1). He named such building the “Hyksos Palace”2 because of its date, and several finds pointing to a certain relationship with Egypt,3 also revealed by retrievals from the tombs he was excavating in the nearby necropolis.4 Beside the palace itself, which consisted of a rectangular building with two courtyards, a monumental entrance with a porch towards the southern side of the hill (Fig. 2), a number of rooms added to the palace were labeled “Palace store-rooms” by Garstang.5 Here, due to the steep slope, even structural stratigraphy was difficult to be established and scholars admitted an uncertainty on the attribution of different rooms to phases ranging from Sultan IVb (MB II) to Sultan V (LB).6 This is made more evident from the great amount of finds reported by Garstang from layers related to these “Palace store-rooms,” which include a number of LB I and II ceramic shapes, later on attributed to what was called the “Middle Building.”7

I wish to deeply thank Dr Sophie Cluzan who very kindly allowed me to publish the vase which is the object of the present article nowadays kept in the Réserve des Antiquités Orientales of the Musée du Louvre (AO 17151). 2 Garstang 1933, 41; 1934, 100–101, pl. XV: nos 80–81; Garstang / Garstang 1948, 99–101. 3 Nigro 2009a, 374; 2018. 4 Garstang / Garstang 1948, 97–100 5 Garstang 1934, 101, 118–130, pls XV–XVI, XL.a, XLI–XLII; Garstang / Garstang 1948, 99–101. 6 Marchetti 2003, 312–314. For a comprehensive periodization of Tell es-Sultan, see: Nigro 2016, tab. 1. 7 Garstang 1934, 100–102, 105–106, 108–116, pls XIII–XIV, XXXI–XXXVII; Bienkowski 1986, 71, 90, 101–102, 112–122, figs 55–56, 59–60; Nigro 1996, 52–55, fig. 8:2; Marchetti 2003, 316–317. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

678

L. Nigro

Actually, the Palace was erected at least in late Period Sultan IVa (MB IB), and successively expanded northwards on the summit of the hill.8 The group of rooms on the eastern slope, called “Palace store-rooms” were added at the beginning of Period VIc (MB III, 1650–1550 BC), when a major reconstruction of the city fortification system, with the third rampart supported internally by the so-called “Cyclopean Wall,”9 made more precious the space inside the city and necessary to exploit it completely. The “Palace store-rooms” were, thus, erected on a series of terraces, obliterating an area which was previously exploited to bury officials and members of the ruling class/family,10 being aside or underneath the Palace and in between it and the Spring at the very core of the city. The intermingled rooms were used as warehouse and subsidiary spaces of the Palace itself, possibly in relation with some administrative functions. Two lanes climbed the hill from the City-Gate to the south-east, and from the spring to the east, respectively leading to the Palace main entrance and to the secondary entrance flanked by the stables (Fig. 3). 2. The Finding Spot of the Dove Rhyton and the Other Cult Vases Roughly at the south-east corner of the palace, outside it, a group of two parallel rooms yielded a great amount of material, namely pottery vessels and burnt furniture. In Room 73, along with several jars, bowls, and other commodities, a special vase was found by Garstang: “upon a raised niche of brick construction of sort abutting against the Palace wall”11 (Fig. 4). This niche was connected with nearby Room 68, which was interpreted as a sacristy or a subsidiary room used to store cult vessels and paraphernalia. Within the room, according to Garstang, also two more cult vessels were found: a “very large libation bowl”12 (Fig. 5, Pl. XXV.17); a tall jug with a red painted triangles and meanders decoration (Fig. 5, Pl. XXV.20), with a prominent ridge at the mid of the body, red-slipped and burnished surface, and a high surmounting molded handle.13 Up the middle of the handle a plastic snake characterized by incised circles was attached with its tail curled around the bottom and its mouth open on the vase rim. Moreover, a third cult vase, a rhyton in shape of a ibex (or a gazelle?), was retrieved in Room 40.14

Marchetti 2003, 306; Nigro et al. 2011, 199–200. Fiaccavento / Montanari / Ripepi 2013. 10 Nigro 2009a. 11 Garstang 1934, 126–127, pl. XXVI; Garstang / Garstang 1948, 100–103, pl. IIIa. 12 Garstang 1934, 125, pl. XXV:17. 13 Gartsang 1934, 125, pls XXV:20, XLIII:4. 14 Garstang 1934, 129, pls XXII:21, XLIV:b 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

679

3. The Dove Rhyton The vessel, labeled “bird-vase” by Gartstang,15 actually is a rhyton obtained modeling in the shape of a dove the typical MB II–III pedestal goblet with a small carinated bowl on the back of the bird (Fig. 6a–b). The vase16 is 21.7 cm long and 17.7 cm high. The pedestal is 6.5 cm high. The fabric is fine and the upper surface is coated with a buff burnished slip applied with a stick. The body of the bird is also decorated by incisions. The cup on the back, with a rim diameter of 4.5 cm, is supported by a high hollow column. Between it and the dove’s back a double-coil arch handle, now missing, was inserted (Fig. 7). The tail of the bird is carefully rendered with radiant strokes, and a fan-profile (Fig. 8), while its wings are modeled in the shape of abutting horizontal winglets; diagonal incised hatching represents feathers (Fig. 9). Zoomorphic details are carefully depicted: the eyes are rendered by two concentric circles, while the ears are a couple of very small holes. At the middle of the neck a shallow button suggests a very interesting peculiarity (Fig 10). Turtle doves, as other Columbidae (doves and pigeons), are characterized by a peculiar physiology and anatomy, connected with their reproductive behavior, that is the ability to secrete “crop milk” from special cells that line the bird’s crop. Crop milk is a soft lumpy substance that resembles ricotta cheese, containing concentrated quantities of proteins and fat to abundantly feed just-born chicks. The plastic bump on the bird’s neck in the pottery kernos might thus suggest the feeding nature of the animal, its nourishing attitude and—by extent—may symbolize fecundity. In the case of the kernos, with a meta-citation represented by the vessels itself, it might be used to offer milk or a nourishing beverage during rites. It fits very well a religious context connected with Ishtar, one of the major goddess of the Levant, especially linked to the dove, as an enlightening study by Frances Pinnock about some distinguished plastically decorated ritual vases found in Ebla convincingly suggested.17 In her study, Pinnock noticed the presence of collars on some doves’ necks. They might be interpreted as ornament attributed to the sacred birds’ of the goddess, recalling the special symbol of fertility visible on the neck of these animals when they are nourishing their children. 4. Comparisons at Jericho and Ebla The dove rhyton from the “Palace store-rooms” at Tell es-Sultan, ancient Jericho, has two major comparisons, one found in Tomb B3 of the Jericho necropolis by K.M. Kenyon,18 and the other at Ebla, in the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, a Garstang 1934, 127, pl. XXVI:8. I examined the rhyton (AO 17151) in the Réserve du Dept. des Antiquités Orientales of the Louvre in October 2014 thanks to the kind hospitality of Dr. Bèatrice Andrée Salvini. 17 Pinnock 2000, 126–127. For a further detailed study see: Pinnock 2014. 18 Kenyon 1960, B3.85, fig. 162; Kenyon / Holland 1982, 442, fig. 188:5. A similar 15 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

680

L. Nigro

royal hypogeum excavated by P. Matthiae and his team of Sapienza University of Rome in 1978.19 4.1 The Dove Rhyton from Tomb B3 of Jericho Necropolis The rhyton found in Tomb B3 is very similar to the “Palace store-rooms” specimen, especially if one considers the shape of the vessel and its ritual use. It is also obtained modifying the classical Jerichoan pedestal goblet of MB II–III, but is made with a fabric coarser than the palace specimen. The neck of the dove is unnaturally vertical and the handle arches over the back from the back of the head. The cup on the back is not supported by any column, but has exactly the same shape of that on the palace rhyton. Two snakes are attached on the vase: one is curled on the neck and distends along the top of the head, while the other climbs upon the cup with the mouth open to drink (Fig. 11a–b). 4.2 The Dove Kernos from the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats (the King of Ebla, Immeya) Among the rich funerary set of the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats, a royal hypogeum excavated at Tell Mardikh, ancient Ebla, underneath the Western Palace, i.e. the Palace of the Prince Heir, a distinguished cult vessel was found: a kernos surmounted by a bird-shaped vase and four cups. Even though the vase is a kernos, which thus presuppose a slightly different ritual use (mixing different [?] liquids before libation), the bird exhibits the same physiognomy of the Jerichoan rhyton, with the only difference that the eyes are made by means of buttons (Fig. 12). Its identification with a dove seems plausible, also because it shows the same shallow crop on the front neck. What makes the two plastic vessels very similar is the fine fabric and the buff highly burnished slip of their surfaces. The kernos was found in one of the hypogea of the king’s tomb (TM.78.Q.IC), where possibly a burial ritual was performed including libations before the tomb closure. The date of this tomb is around 1700 BC, very consistent with the Jerichoan specimen.

specimen was also found in Qatna (du Mesnil du Buisson 1935, 120, fig. 200i). Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae (eds) 1995, 496, n. 444; Nigro 2003, 358–359, fig. 25; 2009b, 220–222, pl. XXVII, fig. 4:17; 2009c, 166–167. Frances Pinnock, who this paper is dedicated, was the draughtsperson who realized the plan of the tomb with the finds in their spot.

19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

681

5. The Dove, Ishtar, the Kings of Ebla and the Lords of Jericho/Ruha The connection of the (turtle) dove with Ishtar has been already well argued.20 The dove rhyton of Jericho and Ebla were both found in a palatial/royal context, and even if Garstang hypothesized that the bird-vase found in Room 73 may have belonged to a sacred place, there is no direct evidence about this. Conversely, the temple at Jericho was on the other side of the Palace, as recent investigations by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition demonstrated.21 Was there any connection between the dove rhyton/kernos and the kingship? This is suggested by the finding spot of these vases at Ebla and Jericho. The role of Ishtar in respect of the kings of Ebla is renowned (starting from the inscription on the bust of Ibbit-Lim),22 while we have no information about the lords of Jericho. This might be hint at by the kernos found in Room 73 of the “Palace store-rooms,” as well as by a clay figurine also found by Garstang in the nearby.23 Bibliography Archi, A. / Matthiae, P., 1995: Statua frammentaria del re Ibbit-Lim (TM.68.G.61). In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / G. Scandone Matthiae (eds): Ebla alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Roma. P. 408. Bienkowski, P., 1986: Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster. Fiaccavento, C. / Montanari, D. / Ripepi, G. 2013: MB III Rampart & Cyclopean Wall of Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. ScAnt 19/2–3: 58–61. Garstang, J., 1933: Jericho: City and Necropolis. 4. Tombs of MBAII. 5. Tombs of MBAII and LBAI. 6. The Palace Area. LAAA 20: 3–42. –– 1934: Jericho: City and Necropolis (Fourth Report). LAAA 21: 99–136. Garstang, J. / Garstang, J.B.E., 1948: The Story of Jericho. London. Gelb, I., 1984: The Inscription of Jibbiṭ-Lîm, King of Ebla. SO 55: 213–229. Kenyon, K.M., 1960: Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 1. The Tombs Excavated in 1952–1954. London. Kenyon, K.M. / Holland, T.A., 1982: Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 4. The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds. London. Marchetti, N., 2003: A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of Its Stratigraphy. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – Euroconference, Haindorf 2nd of May – 7th of May 2001. Wien. Pp. 295–321. Matthiae, P., 2010: Ebla. La città del trono. Roma.

Pinnock 2000; 2014. Nigro 2016, 15. 22 Pettinato 1970; Pettinato / Matthiae 1972; Gelb 1984; Archi / Matthiae 1995; Matthiae 2010, 230–231; 2013, 36–38, 42, fig. 1.3. 23 Garstang 1934, pl. XLIII:3. 20 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

682

L. Nigro

–– 2013: A Long Journey. Fifty Years of Research on the Bronze Age at Tell Mardikh/Ebla. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and Its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek. Pp. 35–48. Matthiae, P. / Pinnock, F. / Scandone Matthiae G. (eds) 1995: Ebla alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza». Roma. Mesnil du Buisson, R. Comte du, 1935: Le site archéologique de Mishrifé-Qaṭna (Collection de textes et documents d’Orient I). Paris. Nigro, L., 1996: Le residenze palestinesi del Bronzo Tardo - I modelli planimetrici e strutturali. CMAO VI: 1–69. –– 2003: The Smith and the King of Ebla. Tell el Yahudiyeh Ware, Metallic Wares and the Ceramic Chronology of Middle Bronze Syria. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 – EuroConference, Haindorf 2nd of May–7th of May 2001 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie, Band XXIX). Wien. Pp. 345–363. –– 2009a: The Built Tombs on the Spring Hill and The Palace of the Lords of Jericho (‘dmr Rha) in the Middle Bronze Age. In J.D. Schloen (ed.): Exploring the longue durée. Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager. Winona Lake, In. Pp. 361–376. –– 2009b: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla VIII. I corredi vascolari delle Tombe Reali di Ebla e la cronologia ceramica della Siria interna nel Bronzo Medio. Roma. –– 2009c: The Eighteenth Century BC Princes of Byblos and Ebla and the Chronology of the Middle Bronze Age. In A.-M. Maïla-Afeiche (ed.): Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium – Beirut 2008 (BAAL Hors-Série VI), Beyrouth. Pp. 159–175. –– 2016: Tell es-Sultan 2015. A Pilot Project for Archaeology in Palestine. NEA 79.1: 4–17. –– 2018: Hotepibra at Jericho. Interconnections between Egypt and Syria-Palestine during the 13th Dinasty. In A. Vacca / S. Pizzimenti / M.G. Micale (eds): A Oriente del Delta Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae (CMAO XVIII). Roma. Pp. 439–448. Nigro, L. et al. 2011: The Early Bronze Age Palace and Fortifications at Tell es-Sultan/Jericho. The 6th–7th Seasons (2010–2011) by Rome “La Sapienza” University and the Palestinian MOTA-DACH. ScAnt 17: 571–597. Pettinato, G., 1970: Inscription de Ibbit-Lim, Roi de Ebla. AAAS 20: 73–76. Pettinato, G. / Matthiae, P., 1972: Il torso di Ibbit-Lim, re di Ebla. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria. Rapporto preliminare delle campagne 1967–1968 (Tell Mardikh). Roma. Pp. 1–38. Pinnock, F., 2000: The Doves of the Goddess. Elements of the Cult of Ishtar at Ebla in the Middle Bronze Age. Levant 32/1: 121–128. — 2014: Of Pots and Doves. Some Possible Evidence for Popular Cults in the Ebla Palaces in MB II. In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April – 4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. I. Wiesbaden. Pp. 667–679. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fig. 1. Plan of the “Hyksos Palace” of MB II–III (1800–1650–1550 BC) on the eastern flank of the Spring Hill, and the nearby Temple P after the excavations by the Italian-Palestinian Expedition.

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

683

684

L. Nigro

Fig. 2. View of the Spring Hill from the road during Garstang’s excavations of “Hyksos Palace” in 1933 (courtesy PEF, London).

Fig. 3. Garstang’s excavations of “Palace store-rooms” in 1933; in the background the Spring of ‘Ain es-Sultan and the Jericho Oasis (courtesy PEF, London).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

685

Fig. 4. Destruction layer in “Palace store-rooms” during J. Garstang’s excavations in 1933 (courtesy PEF, London).

Fig. 5. The libation bowl and the jug labeled “snake-vase” by Garstang (1934, pl. XXV.17 and XXV.20) from Room 68 (drawing by the author after Garstang 1934, pl. XXV). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

686

L. Nigro

Fig. 6a–b. Side view and three-quarter profile view of the dove rhyton from Room 73 (photos by the author; Musée du Louvre, AO 17151). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

687

Fig. 7. Drawing of the dove rhyton (drawing by the author, Musée du Louvre, AO 17151).

Fig. 8. Particular of the tail of the bird with a fan-profile and radiant strokes (photo by the author). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

688

L. Nigro

Fig. 9. Detail of a wing of the bird with diagonal incised hatching represents feathers (photo by the author).

Fig. 10. Detail of the dove’s neck with clearly visible the bird’s crop (photo by the author).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Turtle Dove Rhyton from the “Hyksos Palace” at Tell es-Sultan

689

Fig. 11a–b. The dove rhyton from Tomb B3 of Jericho necropolis (photo by the author; drawing after Kenyon 1960, fig. 162).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

690

L. Nigro

Fig. 12. Dove kernos from the Tomb of the Lord of the Goats at Ebla dating to Period Mardikh IIIB1, MB IIA, 1750–1700 BC (after Nigro 2009, fig. 25).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the Middle Bronze I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin Valentina Oselini*

1. Definition of MB I and II in Central Iraq and the Archaeological Background of the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin This contribution proposes a re-examination of the MB ceramic assemblage in central Iraq (Fig. 1). I will focus on the distinctive morphological and functional charcteristics of the MB I and II pottery from the whole Diyala region.1 More specifically, I will consider materials resulting from the archaeological excavations carried out in the Lower and Middle Diyala basin by Iraqi and international expeditions and I will take the ceramic phases of Tell Yelkhi, in the Hamrin, as reference.

I would like to express my deep gratitude and to dedicate this short contribution based on my PhD thesis to prof. Frances Pinnock, who is always able to transmit to me her enthusiasm, as well as her methodological approach in doing research. Her contributions on ceramic studies, especially on Eblaite and Syrian pottery, represent a fundamental reference also for repertoires belonging to different geographical areas. This contribution is inspired by Pinnock 2005 (methodology and typology) and Pinnock 2014 (analysis and conclusions). Moreover, I would warmly thank her for her advices and for the stimulating discussions we usually have. 1 The traditional nomenclature of Mesopotamian periodization is based on historical terminology (Isin-Larsa, Old Babylonian, Kassite, etc.) and relating it to the analysis of material culture could be inexact. In general, MB refers to the first centuries of the 2nd millennium BC (ca. 2000–1600 BC), and LB to the second half of the 2nd millennium BC (ca. 1600–1200 / 1180 BC). According to Matthiae, the MB in Mesopotamia corresponds to the development of the territorial states (Isin, Larsa, Eshnunna, Babylon and High Mesopotamia) (Matthiae 2005, 68). The inner subdivision of the MB here proposed for the Diyala Region is based on the parallelism with the Syrian periodization, MB I corresponds to ca. 2000–1800 BC, and MB II to ca. 1800–1600 BC (Matthiae 1995, 133–135). More specifically, when considering the historical events involving the Diyala Region during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, the MB I is the period comprised between the independence of Eshnunna from the Ur III control and Hammurabi of Babylon (2000–1790 BC according to the Middle Chronology), and the MB II is the period comprised between the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-Iluna in the Diyala and the fall of Babylon (1790–1595 BC according to the Middle Chronology) (Fig. 2). *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

692

V. Oselini

According to Adams’ survey, the Diyala Region was occupied by several small towns and villages during the MB I and II, and the excavations in the Lower Diyala Basin and in the Hamrin seem to confirm this picture (Fig. 3). During the MB I, the city of Eshnunna represented the most relevant political entity of the region, as it governed a wide territory—including the sites located in the Hamrin basin. After the fall of Eshnunna following the expansion of Hammurabi of Babylon, during MB II, the Lower and the Middle Diyala regions were probably part of the Babylonian kingdom, the main outpost of which was Dur Samsuiluna, modern Khafajah, Mound B.2 Ceramic materials from the Lower Diyala mostly come from Tell Asmar, Khafajah and Ishchali, excavated in the 30s by the Oriental Institute of Chicago, the University Museum of Philadelphia, and the American School of Oriental Research, and published by P. Delougaz in 1952. Thanks to Mustafa and al-Gailani’s preliminary reports and to Ayoub’s comprehensive analysis of the 2nd millennium BC pottery, several ceramic specimens from Tell Dhiba’i levels I–V are known (MB I and II).3 Ayoub also published more than 80 shapes from Tell Harmal strata I–IV whereas some others from strata II–III are known thanks to the preliminary reports of the Iraqi-German expedition.4 The most significant corpus of ceramic specimens dated to the 2nd millennium BC from the Diyala Region comes from the Hamrin basin. This area was archaeologically investigated between the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s by different international expeditions under the coordination of the Directorate of Antiquities of Iraq for the Hamrin Dam Project. 14 sites revealed traces of occupation dating to the MB I, of which 11 were occupied during the MB II, and only 7 sites continue to be settled during the LB. Among them, Tell Yelkhi is unique in covering the entire period considered within this study, and the only one whose archaeological remains were well preserved throughout the whole sequence. Preliminary reports of excavations and specific analyses regarding pottery provide sufficient data to define the ceramic horizon of MB I and II within this region. The corpus from Tell Yelkhi is the largest and best accessible; moreover, it is associated to stratified contexts and identified architectonical structures dated from the beginning to the middle of the 2nd millennium BC without any interruptions of occupation.5 Among the sites in the Hamrin, the majority of published data about the archaeological settings dated to the MB belongs to Tell Halawa and Keith Genj.

Adams 1965, 46–52. Mustafa 1949, pls IV, V; Al-Gailani 1965, pls 1–3; Ayoub 1982. 4 Hussein / Miglus 1998, 45, fig. 8; 1999, 111, fig. 8. 5 Untill now the principal publication about the stratigraphy of Tell Yelkhi is Bergamini 1984; about the pottery assemblage of the same site see Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003, 4–8; Bergamini 1984, 224. 2 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

693

The ceramic assemblages from these two contexts are quite abundant.6 Several pottery specimens from the smallest and functionally differentiated sites are also available, e.g. from Tell Oweissat, which has been interpreted as a probable domestic settlement,7 and from the necropolis of Tell Hassan, though the latter only in pictures and not in drawings.8 Not much is accessible, neither from the other main settlements in the Hamrin (such as Tell Suleimah, Tell es Sib, Tell Haddad), nor from the smaller ones (such as Tell Ababrah), and the only specimens available were published by Yaseen in his comparative analysis on the Tell Halawa repertoire.9 Some sites occupied during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC were used as necropolis during the MB, and pottery belonging to grave goods represents the only evidence for the assemblages of this period. These are the two vessels from Grave 7 at Tell Razuk, ten specimens from Keith Qasim, and six from Abu Husaini; moreover, the grave goods from Tell Songur A and B have been published by the Japanese Archaeological Expedition to Hamrin.10 Even today, a comprehensive examination of the ceramic assemblage of this region does not exist, as more attention has been given to southern Mesopotamian findings.11 Furthermore, the archaeological setting and the organization of central Mesopotamia non-urban space have only been analysed by Adams in the 50s, by taking the diagnostic materials of the sites settled in the Lower Diyala as references to identify the sites occupied in the Isin Larsa and Old Babylonian periods. This review of the MB pottery from the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin offers an opportunity to expand our understanding of the 2nd millennium BC central Mesopotamian ceramic horizon and to distinguish different ceramic phases. 2. Studies on Central Iraq Ceramic Horizon One of the earliest studies aiming at reconstructing the chronology of ancient Mesopotamia based on ceramic materials was realised by the team of the Oriental Institute of Chicago, which excavated in the southern Diyala region. Delougaz dated the ceramic types to the early 2nd millennium BC, based on the association of vessels with other materials, such as tablets and seals or sealings belonging to the strata of the main buildings at Tell Asmar, Khafajah and Ishchali.12 In 1982, Ayoub published a comprehensive analysis of the 2nd millennium pottery belonging to the stratified sequences available, dated from the Ur III to the

Yaseen 1995; Wilson Briggs / Heim / Meighan 1984. Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1982. 8 Fiorina 2007a, 84–102. 9 Yaseen 1995, pls 112–149. 10 Gibson 1981, 80, pl. 100; Fiorina 2007b, 153–159; Fiorina 2007a, 69–78; Kamada / Ohtsu 1988, 137–149; Matsumoto / Yahoyama 1989, 295–296; 1995, 9–13. 11 Ayoub 1982; Armstrong / Gasche 2014. 12 Delougaz 1952. 6 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

694

V. Oselini

Kassite period. It was the first time that pottery assemblages from different sites spread across the whole of Mesopotamia had been related together. More recently, the Mesopotamian pottery assemblage of the 2nd millennium BC has been studied by Armstrong and Gasche, with the aim of proposing a new chronology for the 2nd millennium BC. Since 1998, they have identified three different phases: the first dating from the beginning of the 2nd millennium to the 16th century BC; the second ranging from the 14th century to the 13th century BC and the third, and most recent, spanning from the 12th to the 11th century BC. They have traced the evolution of Babylonian pottery and pottery technology through the 2nd millennium BC, identifying the markers of each phase. Armstrong and Gasche’s project on the 2nd millennium BC pottery can be considered the first analysis of archaeological materials from the Babylonian area.13 The ceramic horizon of the Hamrin and Upper Diyala regions is known only in the preliminary reports of each excavation. A comprehensive examination of the ceramic assemblage, linking morphological, technological and archaeometric analyses, does not yet exist. Excavations in the Hamrin Valley were carried out at the end of the 70s by different archaeological expeditions from different international institutions. The pottery of Tell Yelkhi has been studied and published by Bergamini, Gabutti and Valtz in 2002–2003, though the final archaeological report has not yet been published. 3. The Key-Site of Tell Yelkhi and the Definition of its Ceramic Phases In order to analyse the pottery assemblage in a regional perspective, it is necessary to first define the ceramic phases and to recognize the local and non-local shapes. For this reason, a fresh classification of the ceramic corpus of Tell Yelkhi, considering the whole repertoire dated to the 2nd millennium BC, has been provided. According to the excavators, the MB at Tell Yelkhi spans the Isin-Larsa Period to the Old Babylonian Period, corresponding to Levels VIb– IV and Level III respectively.14 This site is representative of a peripheral area and could not be politically predominant within a great area as a capital city. Tell Yelkhi was probably an administrative centre within the Hamrin during the 2nd millennium BC, but its archaeological relevance is due to its well-known

The key sites considered in their study encompass the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plain (Umm al-Hafriat, Nippur, Isin, Larsa, Uruk, Lagash), the northern alluvial plain (Dilbat and Tell ed Der), the Diyala Basin (Hamrin: Yelkhi, Zubeidi, Imlihiyeh and Kesaran), the Middle Euphrates (Harradum) and the Susiana plain (Susa). They defined the ceramic sequence using the stratigraphy of Tell ed Der and Nippur as reference. They chose these two sites as key sites and they used the published archaeological reports of the other excavations to establish parallels (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 7–12). 14 Bergamini 1984, 229–241. 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

695

long sequence and the availability of a large stratified pottery repertoire. These elements allow researchers to use Tell Yelkhi as a guide-site to define the ceramic phases of the 2nd millennium BC in central Mesopotamia, which yet remain not very evident. The corpus considered (out of 1584 vessels and potsherds, 1348 samples) has been subdivided among functional classes, categories, and types.15 The pottery assemblage has been divided among the following functional classes and categories: table ware (bowls with simple profile, bowls with articulated profile, bowls on stand, plates, beakers, goblets), small and medium-size containers (flasks and jars), large containers (pithoi), vessels used in production processes (casseroles, colanders, vats and cooking pots), standing functional vessels (stands and lids), special function vessels (miniaturistics, pixies, lamps). Types have been defined considering common attributes in a hierarchical order: the profile (simple or articulated), the body shape (cone, cylinder, sphere, ellipsoid and ovoid), and the characterization of rims and bases. The varieties of a type are defined based on minor changes in some morphological features, but not so significant as to create a new type. In total, 380 types and variants have been defined. As for the stratigraphic provenance, the subdivision in levels proposed by Italian archaeologists for Tell Yelkhi is here mantained.16 Through the statistical-combinatory analysis of pottery types represented in the stratified contexts, it has been possible to define a relative chronological sequence, distinguishing groups of types belonging to the different levels, and highlighting recurrent typological associations common to two or more contexts.17 As a result, the pottery assemblage of Tell Yelkhi belonging to Levels VIb–I can be subdivided in three main ceramic phases: – the first phase, also the earliest, includes types from Levels VIb–a and Vc–a, comprising 78 types in total; – the second phase consists of 70 types from Levels IVb–a and IIIb–a; – the third phase consists of 40 types belonging to Levels II–I, and corresponds to the last period of occupation of the site. This analysis mainly consists of the pottery published by A. Gabutti and E. Valtz respectively for the Isin Larsa - Old Babylonian and the Kassite contexts (Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003, 89–319). Some other unpublished potsherds from Tell Yelkhi nowadays stored in Centro Ricerche Archeologiche e Scavi per il Medio Oriente e l’Asia (Turin) have been included. The 1584 vessels and potsherds considered here do not correspond to the whole pottery assemblage that has been collected during the archaeological excavations (Bergamini and Cellerino personal communications). The reworked version of Gabutti and Valtz’s typology is intended to establish a sequence and to identify the ceramic phases. 16 Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003. 17 For the definition of a type-series see Orton / Tyers / Vince 1993, 78; for the definition of functional classes, types and varieties see Rice 1987, 283–285 and Peroni 1998, 14. About this methodology see also Vacca 2014, 56. 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

696

V. Oselini

The LB archaeological levels dated to the MB correspond to the first and second ceramic phase, and this paper concentrates on the characterisation of the most significant features of pottery types belonging to these two ceramic clusters. Phase 1 at Tell Yelkhi is characterised by a wide variety of types in comparison to the two latest phases. Most of the materials considered belongs to Level V, with some from Level VI. The diagnostic ceramic assemblage of Phase 1 consists of conical bowls with thin walls, bowls with carinated rims, rounded carinated bowls, cylindrical and S-shaped beakers with flat bases, ovoid or crushed ovoid flasks with flat bases and thin and flaring necks, ovoid jars with high necks and thickened protruding rims or flaring and moulded rims, and decorated pithoi with short necks and thickened rims. Moreover, the most particular diagnostic type is the grey ware cylindrical pyx decorated with incised geometric and naturalistic motifs on the outer surface (Fig. 4). The ceramic assemblage of Phase 2 is abundant and articulated and is characterised by the introduction of new categories that were previously absent, or nearly absent. The new categories are plates, goblets and vats, in contrast with bowls and beakers that were common in the previous phase but missing in this group. The presence of painted decoration, although rare, can also be considered an element of innovation (Fig. 5).18 4. The Chronology of Phases 1 and 2 at Tell Yelkhi and the Definition of the MB I and II Ceramic Horizon of the Diyala Region The relation with better known stratified vessels allow us to date more precisely some diagnostic types. The best chronological reference that can be used to date the MB pottery assemblage from Tell Yelkhi derives from the joint analysis on the 2nd millennium BC Mesopotamian pottery proposed by Armstrong and Gasche in 2014.19 This project involves ceramic assemblages from different Mesopotamian sites located in the southern and northern alluvial plains, considering also the Lower Diyala and the Hamrin as peripheral areas. The final remarks of this analysis define the ceramic phases of the 2nd millennium BC in Mesopotamia and the diagnostic types from Tell Yelkhi with which they can be compared. Several diagnostic types of Phase 1 at Tell Yelkhi find parallels with other Mesopotamian contexts. Bowls with slightly incurved walls and thickened rims, flattened on the top, can be compared with some shapes from Tell ed Der and al-Hiba, dated to the Isin-Larsa Period by Armstrong and Gasche.20 Bowls with

The complete catalogue of types clustered in Phase 1 and 2 is developed in the author’s PhD thesis. Any reference to the MB pottery assemblage of Tell Yelkhi belongs to Gabutti analysis in Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003, 87–102, pls 25–140. 19 Armstrong / Gasche 2014. 20 Tell ed Der: Area A, Phases IIc, IIa, Ii; al-Hiba: Area B. All these shapes belong to type 10F1&2 of Armstrong and Gasche typology (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 17). 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

697

carinated rims are one of the most common types, found all over Mesopotamia from Susa to Nippur and in the Lower Diyala, and are often associated with the end of the 3rd millennium BC.21 It is not uncommon to find some examples dated to the 2nd millennium BC outside of Tell Yelkhi, such as at Nippur, Larsa, Susa and Tell ed Der.22 The medium or long term preservation jars from Tell Yelkhi can be compared with similar shapes from Ur, Larsa and Tell ed Der, also dated to the earlier phase of the Isin-Larsa Period.23 Among the categories dated to the last phase of the period, the cylindrical beakers with flat bases are one of the most significant and diagnostic types of Phase 1 at Tell Yelkhi, and are common at Tell ed Der and Larsa as well.24 The low carinated beakers have been found at Tell ed Der and Nippur, and are also dated to the last phase of the Isin-Larsa Period.25 The grey ware cylindrical pyx seems widespread in southern Mesopotamia and at Susa, and can be considered as a ceramic marker for whole MB I.26 Although it is very common and easily recognisable because of its characteristic fabric colour and decorations, this type of vessel represents a shape which is numerically underrepresented. Some of the types belonging to Tell Yelkhi Levels IV and III can be considered new introductions of the MB II, in accordance with the main trend of Mesopotamian pottery of the Old Babylonian Period, spread also in the Middle Euphrates Region and at Susa.27 Bowls with incurved walls and simple rims are diagnostic of Phase 2 at Tell Yelkhi and can be compared with type 10A1 and 10B1/2 of Armstrong and Gasche. The earliest specimens are generally deeper than the

Susa: Area B, level VII (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 34:40; Gasche 1973, pl. 7:8– 11); Nippur, sounding WF (McMahon 2006, pl. 60.); Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, pl. 150.B.151.210). 22 See type 20E1 of Armstrong and Gasche typology (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 36, pls 33–34). 23 Grave goods from Ur and Larsa represent the best parallelism for jars (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 109.1–2; Woolley / Mallowan 1976, pl. 110.99), same as Tell Ed Der: Area A, Phase IIc (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 110:6, 8). 24 Tell ed Der: Area A, Phase Ig; Larsa: sounding VIII of Jean Louis Huot, level 3. All these beakers are dated to the middle of 18th century BC by Armstrong and Gasche, according to the New Low Chronology (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 54.10–11). 25 Tell ed Der: Area A, Phases Ii and Ie; Nippur: Area TB, level II2 and Area TA, levels X– XI (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 53:11–13; McCown / Haines / Hansen 1967, pl. 89:2; pl. 95:5–7). 26 Telloh (Parrot 1948, 292–293); Umma and Nippur: Area TB, level IV1 (McCown / Haines / Hansen 1967, pl. 92:12); Tell ed Der, Area A, phase IIa and Susa (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 75). See also Kepinski 2013, 155. 27 Armstrong and Gasche subdivided the Old Babylonian Period in two phases: Early and Late, respectively dated to the 17th century BC and to the 16th century BC according to the New Low Chronology. 21

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

698

V. Oselini

later ones, dated respectively to the Early and Late Old Babylonian Period.28 Plates and goblets represent the main new categories of Tell Yelkhi assemblage in the MB II. Plates with incurved walls and thickened rims, flattened on the top, and plates with flaring walls with thickened, inner bevelled rims, are comparable with similar shapes common in the southern and central Mesopotamian area and in the Middle Euphrates region during the first centuries of the MB II (dated to the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-Iluna of Babylon).29 The goblets dated to the beginning of the MB II include a unique vessel from Tell Yelkhi characterised by an ellipsoidal body, short neck and flaring rim, with a small conical base. They are widespread in southern Mesopotamian contexts, at Isin, Nippur, Larsa, Warka and al-Hiba.30 Typical of the whole, and especially of the later part of, MB II are the goblets with ellipsoidal body and out-flaring rim; the goblets with globular bodies, cylindrical necks and out-flaring rims; the goblets with ovoid bodies, high cylindrical necks and out-flaring rims with high narrow bases. These shapes, corresponding to the types 170A1-B1-C of Armstrong and Gasche, have been found at Nippur, Haradum and Tell ed Der.31 One of the most significant new introductions of the MB is the piriform flask with a flat base and narrow cylindrical neck, which can be plain or decorated with black painted geometric motives. This type was found at Tell Yelkhi Level IV and it is dated to the period of the reign of Hammurabi and Samsu-Iluna by Armstrong and Gasche. It occurs at Tell ed Der, Nippur, and Mari.32 Among containers, the big jars with inner stepped rims, decorated with horizontal incised lines and applied ropes, are diagnostic of Phase 2 at Tell Yelkhi and dated to the beginning to the MB II based on the comparisons with type 60A of Armstrong and Gasche, which includes specimens from Tell ed Der, Nippur, Warka and Haradum.33 The cooking pots with globular bodies and thickened rims can also be dated to the

Tell ed Der: Area A, Phases Ic and Ia; Area E, Phases IIId–e and IIIb (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 10.8–18). Nippur: Area WB, level IV; Larsa (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 11:10–14, 16, 17) and Susa, Area A, stratum XIII (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 12:13; Gasche 1973, pl. 1:13) Nippur: Area WB, stratum IV5; Tell ed Der: Area B, phases Ib–d; Haradum, levels 3C–B–A (Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 13:8–10; pl. 14:10; Kepinski-Lecomte 1992, fig. 113). 29 Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 16–17. 30 Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 57:12–15; pl. 58:1–4; Parrot 1968, 15:19; Van Ess 1988, figs 35–37. 31 Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pls 85–86. For Harradum see Kepinski-Lecomte 1992, figs 118:10; 120:9. 32 For the debate about the chronology of painted and plain flasks see Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002-2003, 6; Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 11, 12, 50. For the comparisons with Tell ed Der see Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 77:4, 7, 9, 12, 13; with Nippur see Gibson et al. 1978, 53-106; pl. 60.4b and McCown / Haines / Hansen 1967, pl. 91:15–16; with Mari see Parrot 1959, pl. 90:766, 785 and Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl.78:2, 5, 8–9. 33 Van Ess 1988, fig. 21:142; Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 51. 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

699

beginning of the MB II based on the comparison with type 50A proposed by Armstrong and Gasche.34 The comparison with the Mesopotamian pottery from the 2nd millennium BC allows us to establish a more accurate chronology for Tell Yelkhi, which can be referred to the absolute chronology, although it is not uniformly defined.35 The sites located in the Lower (Tell Harmal, Tell al Dhiba’i, Tell Asmar, Ishchali) and Middle Diyala Region (Tell Yelkhi, Tell Halawa, Tell Suleimah, Tell Oweissat, Tell Keith Genj) represent the main contexts in order to define the Middle Bronze Age ceramic horizon in the region. The MB I in historical terminology refers to the Isin-Larsa period, and the materials belonging to Levels VI and V of the Tell Yelkhi stratigraphic sequence are characterised by a strong homogeneity at the regional level.36 Cylindrical and low carinated beakers can be considered one of the main elements of homogeneity, very common at Tell Yelkhi: they were widespread in the whole region, at Tell Halawa, Tell es Sib, Tell Oweissat, Keith Genj and Tell Suleimah37 in the Hamrin and at Tell Asmar and Khafajah in the Lower Diyala (Fig. 4:1–4).38 Among the short and mid-term preservation ware, the small globular jars have been found at Tell Harmal, Tell Dhiba’i, Tell Halawa, and Tell Suleimah (Fig. 4:6).39 The small jars with an S-shaped profile (not more than 1.5 litres) are typical within the assemblage belonging to the Levels VI and V at Tell Yelkhi, and are representative of Phase IV at Ishchali (the third architectonical phase of the Kititum temple), of the levels dated to Ipiq Adad I and Ibal-pi-El I at Tell Asmar, at Tell Dhiba’i, Tell Halawa, Tell Oweissat and within the good-graves of Keith Qasim (Fig. 4.7–8).40 The medium size jars with globular or elliptic bodies represent the

Armstrong / Gasche 2014, pl. 49.10–14. The debate about the absolute chronology of the 2nd millennium BC is still open, and the Middle Chronology, which dates the fall of Babylon to 1595 BC, is conventionally accepted as explained in Hunger / Pruzsinsky (eds) 2004 and Pruzsinsky 2009, 17). Nevertheless, a team headed by Gasche elaborated the New Low Chronology which moves the Isin Larsa and Old Babylonian periods 93 years later (Gasche et al. 1998; Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 3–6). 36 Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003, 97–101. 37 For Tell Halawa see Yaseen 1995, pls 56:2–4, 63:52; for Tell es Sib see Yaseen 1995, pl. 114:338; for Tell Oweissat see Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, figs 15–17; for Keith Genj see Wilson Brigg / Heim / Meighan 1984, pl. V:6–8; for Tell Suleimah see Yaseen 1995, pl. 114:342. 38 Types B.237.200 (Khafajah, Mound C), B.237.100 and B.237.300 (Tell Asmar); see Delougaz 1952. 39 Tell Harmal (Ayoub 1982, typ. 29c.3); Tell Dhiba’i (Mustafa 1949, pl. V:36); Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pls 76:118–123, 85:184–189, 86:190–191, 193–194), and Tell Suleimah (Yaseen 1995, pl. 120:376). 40 Ishchali (Delougaz 1952, B.647.240), Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, B.787.320b), Tell Dhiba’i (Mustafa 1949, pl. V.:28; Ayoub 1982, typ 24.1), Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pls 34 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

700

V. Oselini

last group of shapes shared between Middle and Lower Diyala of this category (Fig. 4:9–11).41 The Diyala Region is also characterised by the presence of the grey ware decorated pyxes, which are common in Mesopotamian and Elamite productions of MB I (Fig. 4:12). The occurrence of this type at Tell Yelkhi, Tell Halawa, Tell Asmar and within a grave good from Tell Songor B shows that the Diyala Region was involved in the wide cultural phenomenon which interested the Mesopotamian area during the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. The pottery types belonging to table ware, big containers and vessels used in production processes seem widespread within the small region of the Hamrin, with the exception of some specimens from Tell Asmar and Ishchali. The bowls with carinated rims represent the unique type equally shared between the Hamrin (Tell Yelkhi and Keith Genj) and the Lower Diyala (Tell Dhiba’i, levels II–I and Tell Asmar, Bilalama strata) (Fig. 4:5).42 Of the vessels used in production processes, only the truncated ovoid-shape vats with protruding rims and convex pierced bases are common at Tell Yelkhi, Tell Oweissat, Keith Genj and Tell Asmar (strata dated to the reign of Ipiq Adad II) (Fig. 4:13).43 The historical phase following the fall of Eshnunna and the period of predominance of the kings of the 1st Dynasty of Babylon in the Diyala region are extremely hard to define from an archaeological point of view.44 New archaeological activities in eastern and northern Iraq, especially in Iraqi Kurdistan, are fundamental to expand our understanding of the MB II in the eastern peripheral area of Mesopotamia. Tell Yelkhi once again reveals the best stratigraphic and pottery sequence dated to this period, corresponding to Levels IV and III.45 Even in this period, it is still possible to identify the Diyala region as a uniform cultural basin. The diffusion of pottery types belonging to the categories of beakers, goblets, flasks, and jars reveals that the Hamrin was still strongly linked to the Lower Diyala region in this period. Nevertheless, the spread of bowls and vats seems to define the smallest ceramic province of the Hamrin. The most typical shape of this period is the low carinated beaker with a flaring rim and disk or ring base (Fig. 5:6). It can be considered an element of continuity with the low carinated beaker of the MB I, although the presence of 81:155–163, 82:164–169), Tell Oweissat (Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, fig. 20) and Keith Qasim (Fiorina 2007b, figs 3:b, 14:c). 41 They have been found at Tell Harmal in Levels IV and II (Ayoub 1982, typ 10.3, 15.1, 44.1, 91.1), at Tell Dhiba’i (Mustafa 1949, pl. V:22) and at Ishchali (Delougaz 1952, B.506.270) in the Lower Diyala; at Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pls 79:138–145; 84:176– 182), and as grave good at Keith Qasim (Fiorina 2007b, 15:1) in the Hamrin. 42 Keith Genj (Wilson Brigg / Heim / Meighan 1984, pl. VIII.6); Tell Dhiba’i (Ayoub 1982, typ 6.4); Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, B.151.210). 43 Tell Oweissat (Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, fig. 7); Keith Genj (Wilson Brigg / Heim / Meighan 1984, pl. VII:3) and Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, D.044.510). 44 Adams 1965, 52; 2009, 5. 45 Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002–2003, 97–101; Armstrong / Gasche 2014, 11–12. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

701

incised or painted decoration is a new feature.46 The S-shape goblets with short or high necks and out-flaring rims are widespread at Tell Harmal and Ishchali, as at Tell Yelkhi, Tell Suleimah and Tell es Sib (Fig. 5:7–8).47 Small jars with ovoid bodies and high cylindrical necks with simple rims have mostly been found within the archaeological contexts located in the Hamrin (Tell Yelkhi, Tell Halawa, Tell Oweissat, Tell Suleimah and Tell es Sib), but they are known in the Lower Diyala as well (Dhiba’i) (Fig. 5:11).48 Some features related to the shape of neck of medium size jars represent a character widespread in the Middle and in the Lower Diyala region and it is applied to different shapes of body; globular or elliptic at Tell Yelkhi, more prolonged at Tell Asmar, Ishchali and Tell Harmal (Fig. 5:10, 12).49 Two very particular shapes have been found at Tell Yelkhi and find parallels directly with the southern Mesopotamian specimens i.e. from Tell ed Der, Nippur and Warka. They are the inner stepped rim jar with horizontal ropes on the shoulders (Fig. 5:13) and the ovoid flask with a cylindrical neck, also characterized by geometric painted motifs on the body (Fig. 5:9). Bowls and vats are mainly diffused within the small region of the Hamrin characterising the more limited ceramic province. The types belonging to these categories are mostly found within singular contexts, such as at Tell Yelkhi, or find parallels in neighbouring sites. Vats with ovoid bodies and elliptic bodies with protruding rims seem typical of the Hamrin basin, and have been found at Tell Halawa, Keith Genj and Ahmed al Mugir, levels V and IV (Fig. 5:14–16).50

Tell Harmal level III (Ayoub 1982, typ. 33.13), Dhiba’i level III (Mustafa 1949, pl. IV:7), Ishchali level IV (Delougaz 1952, B.247.200) and from the surface of Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, B.236.200c) in the Lower Diyala. This shape is also widespread in the Hamrin, at Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pls 57:14, 63:50), at Tell Oweissat (Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, fig. 13), at Keith Genj (Wilson Brigg / Heim / Meighan 1984, pl. V:2), at Tell Suleimah (Yaseen 1995, pl. 116:356) and finally at Tell Haddad (Yaseen 1995, pl. 116:357). 47 S-shaped short necks goblets have been found at Tell Harmal, levels II and III (Ayoub 1982, typs 42.2, 43. 1–2), at Ishchali (Delougaz 1952, B.226.270a/b, B.176.720) in the Lower Diyala. At Tell Suleimah (Yaseen 1995, pl. 115:347, 351, 352) and Tell es Sib (Yaseen 1995, pl. 115:350, 354) in the Hamrin. High neck goblets have been found at Tell Dhiba’i level III (Mustafa 1949, pl. IV:14) and at Keith Qasim (Fiorina 2007b, fig. 14.c). 48 Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pl. 78.130–137), Tell Oweissat (Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, fig. 19); Tell Suleimah (Yaseen 1995, pls 121:383, 122:391) and Tell es Sib (Yaseen 1995, pl. 122:96); Dhiba’i (Ayoub 1982, typ. 43a. 5). 49 Tell Asmar, Ishchali (Delougaz 1952, C.220.340a, C.228.340b) and Tell Harmal (Ayoub 1982, typ. 28.1). Some shapes of the same types have been found at Tell Halawa as well (Yaseen 1995, pls 70:93, 90:226–227, 229). 50 Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pls 88:215, 102:286) Keith Genj (Wilson Brigg / Heim / Meighan 1984, pl. V:5–6) and Ahmed al Mugir (Gibson 1981, pl. 112:34–36). 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

702

V. Oselini

Bowls follow the main trend of vats, in fact they reflect local features, widespread at Tell Yelkhi, Tell Halawa, Tell Oweissat and Ahmed al Mugir. Bowls with incurved and thick walls, simple rounded rims and flat bases, bowls with thickened and inner bevelled rims with ring bases, or with protruding thickened rims, represent the main types of bowls widespread in the Hamrin (Fig. 5:1–3).51 The tripod bowls also represent a diagnostic feature of the MB II in the Middle Diyala basin (Fig. 5:4‒5).52 Among the bowls, two types from Tell Yelkhi find parallels with the Mesopotamian repertoire and they seem to be atypical of the other sites in the Hamrin: these are the bowls with incurved walls and thinned rims, sometimes characterised by a black painted band on the inner and outer surfaces and flat or ring bases. Observing how pottery types were distributed in the Lower and Middle Diyala during the MB, several points of contact have been highlighted, and a wide cultural region can be identified. Nevertheless, some categories linked with the daily use and productive function reflect a local common tradition. Moreover, during the MB II, contacts between the Lower and the Middle Diyala become less frequent, although they increase between the Hamrin and southern Mesopotamia. 5. Conclusions Although Tell Yelkhi was not a capital city in the Middle Diyala region during the MB, the long archaeological sequence and the abundant pottery materials available from this site make it the most relevant source for the definition of the MB ceramic horizon in the Lower-Middle Diyala region. The more characteristic specimens from Levels VI and V, which are dated to the Isin Larsa period, here called MB I, have been compared with the other materials belonging to different sites dated to the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC in the Hamrin and in the Lower Diyala. The correspondence between these two sets seems high and it reveals the presence of a wide ceramic region with many common shapes, especially belonging to beakers, flasks and jars, and to some other vessels such as the pyxes. Levels IV and III at Tell Yelkhi represent the Old Babylonian period, dated to the period of dominance of Hammurabi and Samsu-Iluna in the Hamrin, here called MB II. During this phase, again, the similarities between the Middle and Lower Diyala pottery assemblages is high. Nevertheless, it is possible to observe that some shapes are common between the Hamrin and the Mesopotamian area. The introduction of new shapes and the disappearance of older shapes are representative of an external influence, cultural or political, and also of the transformation of traditions over time.

Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pl. 106. 298, 300); Tell Oweissat (Jakob-Rost / Wartke / Wesarg 1983, fig. 12); Ahmed al Mugir (Gibson 1981, pl. 111.11–13). 52 Tell Halawa (Yaseen 1995, pl. 107. 302–305). 51

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

703

The comparison with external contexts can place Tell Yelkhi in a larger, complex, cultural system. However, during the whole MB, most types belonging to table ware, big containers and vessels used in production processes were widespread within the smallest region of the Hamrin, probably representing a delimited ceramic province. Bibliography Adams, R.McC., 1965: Land Behind Baghdad. A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. Chicago. –– 2009: Old Babylonian Networks of Urban Notables. CDLJ 7: 1–14. Al-Gailani, L., 1965: Tell edh Dhiba’i. Sumer 21: 33–40. Armstrong, J.A. / Gasche, H., 2014: Mesopotamian Pottery. A Guide to the Babylonian Tradition in the Second Millennium BC (MHEM VI). Ghent. Ayoub, S., 1982: Die Keramik in Mesopotamien und in den Nachbargebieten. Von der Ur III–Zeit bis zum Ende der kassitischen Periode (MVS 2). Mittenwald. Bergamini, G., 1984: The Excavations in Tell Yelkhi. Sumer 40: 224–244. Bergamini, G. / Gabutti, A. / Valtz, E., 2002–2003: La ceramica di Tell Yelkhi (Mesopotamia 37–38). Firenze. Delougaz, P., 1952: Pottery from the Diyala Region (OIP 63). Chicago. Fiorina, P., 2007a: L’area di Tell Yelkhi: le sepolture. Mesopotamia 42: 1–115. –– 2007b: Kheit Qasim: les tombes de la fin du III jusqu’à la fin du II millénaire a.C. Mesopotamia 42: 152–165. Gasche, H., 1973: La poterie Elamite du deuxième millénaire a.C., (MDAI 47). Leiden - Paris. Gasche, H. et al., 1998: Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second Millennium Chronology (a Joint Ghent-Chicago-Harvard Project) (MHEM II). Ghent. Gibson, McG. (ed.), 1981: Uch Tepe I. Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat (Hamrin Report 10). Copenhagen. Gibson, McG. et al., 1978: Excavations at Nippur. Twelfth Season (OIC 23). Chicago. Hunger, H. / Pruzsinsky, R. (eds) 2004: Mesopotamian Dark Age Revisited, Proceedings of an International Conference of SCIEM 2000 (Vienna 8th–9th November 2002) (CChEM 6). Vienna. Hussein, L.M. / Miglus, P., 1998: Tell Harmal. Die Frühjahrskampagne 1997. BaM 29: 35–46. –– 1999: Tall Harmal – Die Herbstkampagne 1998. BaM 30: 101–113. Jakob-Rost, L. / Wartke, R.B. / Wesarg, B., 1983: Tell Oweissat. Sumer 39: 103– 136. Kamada, H. / Ohtsu, T., 1988: Report in the Excavations at Songor A. Isin-Larsa and Islamic Graves. Al-Rafidan 91: 135–172. Kepinski, C., 2013: De Yelkhi à Harrȃdum. Aux marges des royaumes Mésopotamiens et des territoires nomades. In A. Invernizzi (ed.): Mνημειον, Scritti in memoria di Paolo Fiorina. Alessandria. Pp. 153–162. Kepinski-Lecomte, C., 1992: Haradum I. Une ville nouvelle sur le Moyen-Euphrate, Vol. I. Paris. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

704

V. Oselini

Matsumoto, K. / Yahoyama, S., 1989: Report on the Excavations at Tell Songor B. The Graves. Al-Rafidan 10: 245–298. –– 1995: Excavations at Tell Songor A. Al-Rafidan 16: 1–274. Matthiae, P., 1995: Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Torino. –– 2005: Prima lezione di archeologia orientale. Roma. McCown, D.E. / Haines, R.C. / Hansen, D.P., 1967: Nippur I. Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings (OIP 78). Chicago. McMahon, A., 2006: Nippur V. The Early Dynastic To Akkadian Transition: The Area WF Sounding At Nippur (OIP 129). Chicago. Mustafa, M.A., 1949: Soundings at Tell Al Dhiba’i. Sumer 5: 173–198. Orton, C. / Tyers, P. / Vince, A., 1993: Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge. Parrot, A., 1948: Tello. Vigint campagnes de fouilles (1877–1933). Paris. –– 1959: Mission Archéologique de Mari II. Le Palais: Documents et Monuments (BAH 70). Paris. –– 1968: Les fouilles de Larsa. Syria 45: 205–239. Peroni, R., 1998: Classificazione tipologica, seriazione cronologica, distribuzione geografica. Aquileia Nostra 49: 10–28. Pinnock, F., 2005: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla VII. La ceramica del Palazzo Settentrionale del Bronzo Medio II. Roma. –– 2014: The Ceramic Horizon of Middle Bronze I–II in North Inner Syria: The Case of Ebla. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Perisan/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference, May 15th–17th 2013. Galatina. Pp. 227–247. Pruzsinsky, R., 2009: Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues (CChEM 22). Vienna. Rice, P., 1987: Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. Chicago / London. Vacca, A., 2014: Tell Tuqan IC Pottery Sequence from Area P South. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference, May 15th–17th 2013 Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 45–84. Van Ess, M., 1988: Keramik von der Akkad- bis zum Ende der Altbabylonischen Zeit aus den Planquadraten N XV und XVI und aus dem Sîn-kāšid Palast in Uruk-Warka. BaM 19: 321–442. Wilson Briggs, K. / Heim, S. / Meighan, M., 1984: Preliminary Report in the Excavations at Tell Genj. Sumer 40: 160–185. Woolley, L. / Mallowan, M., 1976: The Old Babylonian Period (UE 7). London / Philadelphia. Yaseen, G.T., 1995: The Old Babylonian Pottery from the Hamrin. Tell Halawa (Edubba 4). London.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

705

Fig. 1. Map of Mesopotamia showing the geographical areas considered and some of the main archaeological sites of the 2nd millennium BC.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

706

V. Oselini

Fig. 2. Chronological table of the 2nd millennium BC periodization. The New Low Chronology have been proposed by Gasche et al. 1998 and used in Armstrong / Gasche 2014.

Fig. 3. Distribution of sites in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin during the Middle Bronze Age. Stars mark sites with published pottery repertoires; squares represent sites known only from preliminary reports. Map drawn by the author on the basis of Google Earth. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Ceramic Horizon of the MB I–II in the Lower and Middle Diyala Basin

707

Fig. 4. Selection of the most common types of vessel in the Hamrin during the MB I. All the specimens represented come from Tell Yelkhi, redrawn by the author after Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002-2003. “G_02-03:7, 60” means the figure number 7 of the table 60 published by A. Gabutti in Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 20022003. 1) G_02-03:7, 60; 2) G_02-03:20, 60; 3) G_02-03:19, 61; 4) G_02-03:15, 61; 5) G_02-03:5, 39; 6) G_02-03:4, 72; 7) G_02-03:4, 93; 8) G_02-03:6, 84; 9) G_02-03:3, 88; 10) G_02-03:1, 85; 11) G_02-03:5, 91; 12) G_02-03:1, 134; 13) G_02-03:11, 50. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

708

V. Oselini

Fig. 5. Selection of the most common types of vessel in the Hamrin during the MB II. All the specimens represented come from Tell Yelkhi, redrawn by the author after Bergamini / Gabutti / Valtz 2002-2003. 1) G_02-03:22, 29; 2) G_02-03:3, 26; 3) G_02-03:10, 34; 4) G_02-03:1, 30; 5) G_02-03:15, 35; 6) G_02-03:5, 62; 7) G_0203:16, 67; 8) G_02-03:14, 70; 9) G_02-03:14, 74; 10) G_02-03:2, 108; 11) G_0203:1, 76; 12) G_02-03:8, 96; 13) G_02-03:1, 122; 14) G_02-03:1, 49; 15) G_0203:8, 53; 16) G_02-03:3, 52. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria: New Insights from the Decorated Terracotta Basin from Tall Bazi and the Funerary Talisman from Ebla Adelheid Otto

Thanks to the numerous excavations in Syria, which were carried out there for 50 years until they had to be abruptly stopped in 2010,1 the originality of Syrian culture, the country’s traditions and also its imagery and iconography are being increasingly understood. In this short note, dedicated to Frances Pinnock as a token of friendship, I will outline one of the typical motives on the basis of two selected objects with figural decorations from Tall Bazi and Ebla: drinking by means of drinking tubes. 1. The Decorated Basin from the Temple at Tall Bazi A large temple in antis rises on the peak of the citadel of Tall Bazi.2 It was erected in the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), but only the former vestibule, transformed into a room, was used as sacred area during its last phase in Late Bronze Age I (LBA).3 In the middle of the 14th century it fell victim to a violent destruction. The temple seems to have been looted first and then all that had been left was hacked into as little pieces as possible and finally set fire to. In the debris we found remains of the inventory, amongst which were dozens of fragments of a rectangular terracotta basin with figural decorations (Fig. 1). We could easily distinguish the fragments of the basin from the thousands of potsherds we recovered from the temple and had restored by our helpers from the village of Banat, since they did not show any curvature, were handmade and were strikingly thick (approx. 2–2.5 cm). The condition of the fragments of this thick-walled basin, which basically should have been very stable, proves that the basin was purposefully destroyed, as

We express our gratitude to the staff of the Syrian Antiquities Board and the German Research Society (DFG) for their support of the excavations at Tall Bazi. I further thank Ursula Seidl, Michael Roaf and Berthold Einwag for comments on this paper. 2 For Tall Bazi see Einwag / Otto 2010; Sallaberger / Einwag / Otto 2006. 3 For the building history, use and equipment of the temple see Otto / Einwag 2007; Einwag / Otto 2012; Otto 2013. For Middle Bronze Age residential houses in Tall Bazi see Szelag 2012. 1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

710

A. Otto

well as many other objects in the temple. Due to their scattering in the debris, the fragments have taken on different colours (Fig. 2). Parts of the basin were found scattered on an area of approx. 4 × 5 m (Fig. 3). Some of the pieces are entirely missing because several pits from the Roman period dug down to below the floor of the temple destroyed parts of the LBA deposits. During our last campaign in Tall Bazi in September 2010 we succeeded in reconstructing the basin partially. It was 28 cm broad and 20 cm high. Its length cannot be definitely reconstructed for want of exactly joining parts, but on account of the slight curvature of the walls and the incised and attached decorations (Figs 4–7) we presume it to have been 55 cm long. Its bottom is flat and the four walls are almost vertical, but flare outwards at the corners towards the top.4 Only the basin‘s front side was decorated, and not its side and rear walls (Figs 4, 6). Close to the right hand and left hand edges, two identical moulded female figurines were attached.5 The women are represented frontally, they are nude, support their breasts with both hands and wear caps that are adorned with medallions in the middle. Furthermore, they wear jewellery at their ears, necks and wrists: two necklaces, triple ear rings and triple bracelets. To the left of the woman on the right hand side there is a coarse decorative appliqué made from various thin sausage-shaped rolls of clay. From a vertical stem five curved lengths of clay bend to the left. On the right hand side, three such curved pieces are preserved; on account of symmetry, we assume that originally there were five on this side too. This object seems to represent a tree or other plant.6 To the left of the tree are the remains of another curving roll of clay. Like all the appliqués on the vessel, including the female figurines, it was obviously applied once the clay of the basin had already dried out: this is why it has partly come off. It probably continued on another fragment on which there is a further curving piece and three incised lines. The coil is probably continued on another fragment on which there is a further curving piece and three incised lines. Since two similar incised lines can be found on part of the upper rim on the front side, we can reconstruct here an incised decoration that might have had the form of a star. The curved appliqué probably represents a snake—a quite frequent motif on

The edges had been applied separately. The left edge, which can be seen in Fig. 2, had already come off again at the time the photography of Fig. 4 was taken. 5 There is evidence of similar female figurines, which were formed from a mould and attached to terracotta objects, from other places in the Euphrates valley and beyond. In Emar, Ekalte and Hammam et-Turkman they mainly decorate so-called house or tower models and jars (Muller 2002, figs 47, 54, 64, 94; Czichon / Werner 1998, nos 24, 25, 4083–4084, 4086). 6 Comparable stylized and incised plants or trees can be found on contemporary house models or tower models, e.g. from nearby Tall Sweyhat and Emar (Muller 2002, figs 55, 126). Trees consisting of applied coils are found on a jar from a Late Bronze age house at Tall Munbaqa: Czichon / Werner 2008, no. 7832. 4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

711

contemporary house models and terracotta basins.7 Some enigmatic remains of a decoration are found approximately in the middle of the front side of the basin (Fig. 5). Several traces of clay appliqués were difficult to understand until the surface of the basin was carefully studied. Reddish and whitish discolorations show exactly where appliqués of clay had been attached. The lower two pieces, set at right angles to each other, seem to have been a leg and a horizontal bar of a seat. The upper pieces consist of an S-shaped element with two grooves which is placed on top of a straight element. This is clearly a raised arm with a hand holding a stick-like object. The discolorations can be reconstructed as the original position of an ovoid head and the torso of a person sitting on a stool. A separate appliqué, which has the same thickness as the raised arm and consists of a similar roll of clay, we also assign to this figure and interpret it as the left arm resting on the figure’s lap (Fig. 6). Since the object which is held in front of the figure’s head ends near its mouth, it seems likely that this is a drinking tube, with the help of which the sitting figure is drinking. But is there any evidence for this from the period of this basin, i.e. the Late Bronze Age, presumably the 15th or 14th century BC? Ritual drinking using drinking tubes from a vessel placed in a stand is frequently depicted in the Early Dynastic and Akkadian Periods all over Mesopotamia, mainly on seals, but also on votive plaques and other media.8 Afterwards, it disappears from the repertoire of motives in Southern Mesopotamia, but not in Northern Mesopotamia and Syria, as has already been pointed out by F. Pinnock.9 There is evidence of this motive on Syrian and Mittanian seals from the early 2nd millennium until the end of the LBA. It is very common on cylinder seals of the Old Syrian Popular Style, on which usually a single sitting figure is depicted drinking from a vessel with a long drinking tube.10 Frequently, other persons, animals or hybrid creatures are associated. Often an altar with curved bull’s legs, with horizontal objects piled on it, which are interpreted as loaves of bread, is placed next to the vessel (Fig. 8a). On the seals in Syrian Colony Style and on

E.g. a contemporary house model from Tall Hadidi (Muller 2002, fig. 91) and a terracotta basin from Tall Munbaqa: Czichon / Werner 2008, no. 8685. Snakes as appliqués on objects, which were apparently used during rituals in temples, are already frequent during the 3rd millennium, on basins, house models and stands from Assur, the Diyala region, Tall Chuera and other sites (von der Osten-Sacken 2009). 8 Seidl 2009–11; for depictions on seals e.g. Selz 1983, figs 9–12, 113–136, 489–521; for a votive plaque from Nippur: Boese 1971, N3. 9 Pinnock 1994. It seems that not only the motif but also the habit of drinking through tubes continued mainly in North Mesopotamia and Syria, as is attested by the regional distribution of bronze filter tips in the 2nd millennium. 10 Porter 2001, nos 1–19, 24, 29, 30, 35–40, 49, 52, 55–56, 58–61, 72, 74, 80, 82–91, 93–105, 112–115, 117–121. Provenience cylinder seals come from Tall Judaidah, Çatal Höyük, Alalakh, Ras Shamra, Byblos, Gezer and Tell Baghouz. 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

712

A. Otto

Classical Syrian seals, this scene is less frequently depicted (Fig. 8b).11 Syrian and Mittanian seals from the 17th to the 14th century continue to show the motive of a seated figure, drinking with a long drinking tube. Good examples are attested from Emar (Fig. 8c), Ugarit (Figs 8d–e) and the art market (Figs 8f–h). In some depictions, a nude woman is shown standing opposite the drinking person (Figs 8f–g). Also seals of an extremely schematic style, manufactured only with a drill and a cutting wheel, show this motive. Of special interest is seal BM 103237, which is made of goethite (Fig. 8h). It belongs to a group of seals that were probably manufactured in the region around Tall Bazi, Karkemish and Emar, where goethite can be found in the mountain range bordering the Euphrates valley.12 The seals of this group are the best proof that the motive of ritual drinking with a drinking tube was a common pictorial motive also in the region of Tall Bazi in the Late Bronze Age. Beyond that, this motive was not only a traditional pictorial topos, but the depiction refers to the actual custom of consuming beer with drinking tubes at Tall Bazi on special occasions.13 This is attested by filter tips from perforated bronze metal sheets. Five such filter tips were found in Room A of the temple. Since in the domestic area of Tall Bazi usually not more than one filter tip was found in each house, we argued that drinking through tubes was correlated with ritual feasting, while everyday drinking was out of beakers or bowls.14 How the nude woman, the treelike object, the snake and the star were related to this ritual feasting, however, still eludes our understanding. 2. The Decorated Talisman from the Tomb of the “Lord of the Goats” at Ebla Two rich tombs from the 18th/17th century BC were found in Ebla in Area Q. In the so-called Hypogeum Q.78.C, the “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats,” two unique objects from hippopotamus ivory were found in 1978. P. Matthiae calls the more intact one, TM.78.Q.455, the bone funerary talisman of king Immeya and dates it to around 1750–1700 BC.15 Being only 5.5 cm high, the central scene between the upper and lower framing border is not much larger than a cylinder seal impression, and this may explain the rather careless execution of many details. More than twelve human figures and several animals and hybrid creatures had been For some impressions of Syrian Colony Style seals on Karum Kanish II tablets see Teissier 1994, nos 517–520. A Classical Syrian seal (Moortgat 1940, no. 526) exhibits a sitting person in a flounced garment, who drinks from a vessel with a drinking tube together with a standing person. Some Classical Syrian seals feature sitting persons holding a small vessel from which a drinking tube leads into a big vessel: Otto 2000, nos 158 (from Tell Ahmar/Til Barsip), 162–163. 12 Otto 2008. 13 Zarnkow et al. 2006. 14 Otto 2012. 15 Matthiae 1977, 182–183; 2013, pls 172–173; Archi / Matthiae 1978. A new extensive treatment of the talisman was done by Polcaro 2015. 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

713

attached to the flat surface on either side of the object by means of bronze nails. The main protagonist of the complex scene is the male figure on the far left, to judge from his sitting position and from the direction of the four upright men approaching him. The man is wearing a fur-cloak and is holding a crook in his right hand. He raises his left hand, makes a fist, but does not hold anything in it. In front of him there is an elaborate table with bull’s legs, on which three disc-shaped objects are piled. Not all figures and objects, which had been originally attached, have been preserved, but they must have been fixed where bronze nails are protruding. Therefore it is necessary to reconstruct an object in front of the sitting person. Comparable scenes on cylinder seals of Old Syrian Popular Style (cf. note 10) depict only a large jar and sometimes the ball-staff between the sitting person and the table. The position of the figure’s left hand is also strange. Usually, a raised left hand holds something—greeting or adoration is done with the right hand—either a weapon or a vessel or a drinking tube. It cannot be a weapon, since the figure is holding one already in its right hand. Neither can it be a vessel, for in that case the palm would be depicted open with fingers and thumb. In our opinion the only possible reconstruction is a vessel from which the sitting person is drinking with a drinking tube held in his left hand (Fig. 9).16 This reconstruction of the scene resembles those on numerous seals from the same region and period (e.g. Figs 8a–b). Also many of these seals, e.g. those impressed on the Kültepe tablets, show the position of the drinking tube floating above the hand and not being held by it. This reconstruction is even more probable in the light of a recently published fragment of a basalt stele, very probably from Ebla, which shows a seated male drinking from a large jar with a tube, in front of a similar altar loaded with bread.17 3. Conclusions Ritual feasting was an important pictorial motif in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia not only in the Early Bronze Age but also throughout the Middle and Late Bronze Ages. Drinking beer with the help of a drinking tube was often depicted as part of these events. The reconstruction of the deliberately smashed basin from the temple at Tall Bazi contributes another example of this scene within Syrian and North Mesopotamian art. Drinking beer with a tube is here also reconstruct The raised fist is unfortunately never described in detail. It would be interesting to know whether it was pierced. If not, the drinking tube might have been fixed above or behind the hand. The representation of a drinking tube floating above a hand is a frequent motive on seals, e.g. figs 8b, 8e. We reconstructed the vessel on the talisman analogically to the big vessel beside the nude woman. 17 Matthiae 2011, 770–771, fig. 29. I am very grateful to Paolo Matthiae, who pointed this important piece out to me, when I had already finished this note and sent it to him for publication. It is highly probable that this fragment, which was brought to the museum of Idlib, originated from Ebla. 16

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

714

A. Otto

ed for the central figure of the talisman of Ebla. Interestingly, nude women and snakes accompany the drinking scene in both instances, without their interpretation being self-evident. The contexts, however, clearly show that an important act of ritual drinking is depicted in each case: the decorated terracotta basin from Tall Bazi must originally have been placed near the main altar of the temple and the talisman was a piece of grave furniture for a member of the royal family. Whether the depictions of drinking with the help of a cup, an alabastron-like bottle or a tube represent different personalities or different rituals or were just a caprice of the craftsman, remains to be thoroughly examined.18 Bibliography Amiet, P., 1992: Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 10). Paris. Archi, A. / Matthiae, P., 1978: Una coppa d’argeno con inscrizione cuneiforme dalla “Tomba del Signore die Capridi.” SEb I: 191–193. Beyer, D., 2001: Emar IV. Les sceaux (OBO SA 20). Fribourg / Göttingen. Boese, J., 1971: Altmesopotamische Weihplatten (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6). Berlin / New York. Czichon, R. / Werner, P., 1998: Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte – 1: Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (WVDOG 97). Saarbrücken. –– 2008: Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte – 4: Die bronzezeitliche Keramik (WVDOG 118). Wiesbaden. Einwag, B./ Otto, A., 2010: Excavations at Tall Bazi 2008. Chronique Archéologique en Syrie IV: 171–174. –– 2012: Die Torlöwen an Tempel 1 von Tall Bazi und ihre Stellung in der Reihe steinerner Löwenorthostaten. In H. Baker / K. Kaniuth / A. Otto (eds): Stories of long ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (AOAT 397). Münster. Pp. 91–115. Matthews, D.M., 1990: Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C. (OBO SA 8). Fribourg / Göttingen. Matthiae, P., 1977: Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Torino. –– 2011: Fouilles à Tell Mardikh-Ébla en 2009–2010: Les débuts de l’exploration de la citadelle paléosyrienne, CRAIBL 153/2: 735–773. –– 2013: Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010 (edited by Frances Pinnock). Wiesbaden. Matthiae, P. / Pinnock, F. / Scandone Matthiae, G. (eds), 1995: Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Milano. Moortgat, A., 1940: Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Berlin. Muller, B., 2002: Les «maquettes architecturales» du Proche-Orient ancien (BAH 160). Beyrouth. Osten-Sacken, E., von der, 2009: Schlange. C. In der Bildkunst. RlA 12: 219–222.

Frances Pinnock (1994, 22; 2006, 500) considered the different drinking vessels as marking

18

the living and the deified dead king respectively. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

715

Otto, A., 2000: Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (UAVA 8). Berlin / New York. –– 2008: Ein echtes „Šekel von Kargamiš“ und die Einordnung einer nordsyrischen Siegelgruppe. In D. Bonatz et al. (eds): Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften ad honorem Hartmut Kühne. Wiesbaden. Pp. 82–89. –– 2012: Defining and Transgressing the Boundaries between Ritual Commensality and Daily Commensal Practices: the Case of Late Bronze Age Tall Bazi. In S. Pollock (ed.): Between Feasts and Daily Meals. Toward an Archaeology of Commensal Spaces (eTopoi Special Vol. 2). Berlin. Pp. 179–195. –– 2013: Gotteshaus und Allerheiligstes in Syrien und Nordmesopotamien während des 2. Jts. v. Chr. In K. Kaniuth et al. (eds): Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden. Pp. 355–383. Otto, A. / Einwag, B., 2007: Ein Tempel hoch über dem Euphrattal. Antike Welt 4/2007: 39–46. Pinnock, F., 1994: Considerations on the “Banquet Theme” in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies (HANES 6). Padova. Pp. 15–26. –– 2006: Paying Homage to the King: Protocol and Ritual in Old Syrian Art. In F. Baffi et al. (eds): ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma. Pp. 487–509. Polcaro, A., 2015: The Bone Talisman and the Ideology of Ancestors in Old Syrian Ebla: Tradition and Innovation in the Royal Funerary Ritual Iconography. Studia Eblaitica 1: 179–204. Porter, B.A., 2001: Popular Style Cylinder Seals, Ph.D. Columbia University. Sallaberger, W. / Einwag, B. / Otto, A., 2006: Schenkungen von Mittani-Königen an die Einwohner von Baṣīru. Die zwei Urkunden aus Tall Bazi am Mittleren Euphrat. ZA 96: 69–104. Seidl, U., 2009–11: Saugrohr. B. In der Archäologie. RlA 12: 94–96. Selz, G., 1983: Die Bankettszene: Entwicklung eines „überzeitlichen“ Bildmotivs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Akkadzeit (FAOS 11). Wiesbaden. Szelag, D., 2012: Tall Bazi in der Mittleren Bronzezeit: Die Untersuchungen am Nordhang. MDOG 144: 133–160. Teissier, B., 1994: Sealings and Seals on Texts from Kültepe Karum Level 2. Leiden. Xella, P., 1984: Les dieux et leurs temples. Histoire et archéologie 83: 48–52. Zarnkow, M. et al., 2006: Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen zum altorientalischen Bierbrauen in der Siedlung von Tall Bazi/Nordsyrien vor rund 3200 Jahren. Technikgeschichte 73: 3–25.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

716

A. Otto

Fig. 1. One of the appliqués of the female figurines of the basin in the debris on the temple floor in Tall Bazi.

Fig. 2. The fragments of the thick-walled terracotta basin, which had been deliberately smashed.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

717

Fig. 3. Schematic plan of Room A of the temple in Tall Bazi with the find spots of the fragments of the terracotta basin near the altar.

Fig. 4. The fragments of the decorated front side of the terracotta basin.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

718

A. Otto Fig. 5. Detail of the central sitting person.

Fig. 6. Reconstruction of the terracotta basin according to Adelheid Otto (drawing M. Lerchl).

Fig. 7. The rectangular basin seen from above (l: approx. 55 cm; w: 28 cm; h: 20 cm). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

719

Fig. 8a. Cylinder seal Rosen 1953 (Porter 2001, no. 93).

Fig. 8b. Cylinder seal impression on a tablet from Karum Kanish II (Teissier 1994, no. 517).

Fig. 8c. Cylinder seal impression E 47 on an Emar tablet of Syro-Hittite type (Beyer 2001, 230).

Fig. 8d. Cylinder seal R.S. 29.116 from Ugarit (Amiet 1992, no. 54). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

720

A. Otto

Fig. 8e. Cylinder seal R.S. 17.024 from Ugarit (Amiet 1992, no. 56).

Fig. 8f. Cylinder seal BM 89855 (Matthews 1990, no. 537).

Fig. 8g. Cylinder seal BM 89819 (Courtesy The Trustees of the British Museum, drawing M. Lerchl).

Fig. 8h. Cylinder seal BM 103237 from Goethit (Courtesy The Trustees of the British Museum, drawing M. Lerchl). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Ritual Drinking in Syria

721

Fig. 9. The funerary talisman from the “Tomb of the Lord of the Goats” at Ebla; detail of the far left hand end (combined after Matthiae et al. 1995, 529 and Xella 1984, 52) showing the possible original scene with the addition of a vessel and drinking tube.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars: An Offshoot of the Canaanite Tradition or of Late Bronze Age Connections with Anatolia? Tatiana Pedrazzi

This paper offers a brief overview of the historical questions posed by the occurrence in Syria, towards the end of the Late Bronze age, of a singular type of container: the one-handled fusiform (or spindle-shaped) jar. This peculiar type of jar has a limited, but significant distribution in coastal and inland Syria, mainly dating to the 13th century BC. Its general shape recalls on the one hand the socalled Canaanite storage and commercial jars, and, on the other, the Anatolian one-handled spindle jars found in the Hittite capital, Hattuša, as well as elsewhere in the Central and Eastern Anatolian region, during the Late Bronze Age. There is a need to clarify the precise extent of these morphological similarities, and whether they may be indicative of broader historical connections, for example in terms of economic relations between the Syrian kingdoms and the Hittite empire, or between coastal and inland Syria, towards the end of the Late Bronze Age (henceforth LBA). 1. The Political and Economic Scenario in Coastal and Inland Syria during the Late Bronze Age: Trade Networks and Commercial Containers During the LBA, the political scene throughout the Levant was dominated by a military and political struggle between the Egyptian and Hittite powers. In the 13th century, the area became politically more stable, particularly in the aftermath of the famous battle that took place at Qadesh, in Syria, around the year 1278 BC, between Ramses II and the Hittite king Muwatalli. Soon after this contest, Ramses II and Hattusili III, successor of Muwatalli, came to an agreement defining the territorial limits of the two empires, thus inaugurating a period of overall stability and equilibrium. In the Levantine region, the political and economic system based on the citystate was at its peak. Maritime trade was highly developed, and the Levantine coast enjoyed close commercial ties with Cyprus, Egypt and the Aegean basin. The Uluburun shipwreck, dated to the end of the 14th century BC,1 is perhaps one 1

The shipwreck is conventionally dated to the Amarna period or thereabouts, given that © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

724

T. Pedrazzi

of the most valuable contexts contributing to our understanding of long-distance trade and gift exchange in the LBA. The ship was probably en route to the Aegean, after a stop in Cyprus, as suggested by some of the contents of its cargo.2 These well-known LBA economic relationships are documented by many texts of the period as well as by the material culture; trade links are also borne out by the distribution of the so-called Canaanite commercial jars along the Levantine coast, in Cyprus and all around the central Mediterranean (especially at the Aegean sites). However, the term “Canaanite jar” is broad and at risk of being over-used, given that it generically denotes a jar with two handles, rounded or angular shoulders, and a more or less tapered lower body. In contrast, one of the key material indicators of the LB II maritime trade is a specific morphological type of storage jar, with a special kind of angular or carinated shoulder, tapered body and “pivot” base (Fig. 1). These morphological characteristics clearly fit well with the need to load containers of liquid onto a ship. Indeed, this particular type of jar occurs all around the Eastern Mediterranean harbours, also being attested in the Mycenaean world.3 These jars’ suitability for maritime transport is given by their distinctive tapered bottom, equipped with a narrow protruding “pivot” base that was convenient for turning or rotating the containers, as well as for stacking them in the ship’s hold. The positioning of the two handles at opposite sides of the thickened angular shoulder made these containers even easier to handle. The Uluburun wreck contained a large number of storage vessels of this kind, specifically at least 149 Canaanite jars with angular shoulders. Its cargo also included other storage containers, such as nine huge Cypriot pithoi, filled with oil, pomegranates, and Cypriot tableware. The Canaanite angular-shoulder jars display the same morphology as those found in a storehouse at Minet el-Beidha, the main port of Ugarit. Similarly, the closest matches for the 24 anchors found on the shipwreck also come from the Levant (Ugarit, Byblos, the Syro-Palestinian coast, and Kition, on Cyprus).4 The Uluburun ship is highly likely to have been bound for the Aegean. The diffusion of the so-called Canaanite jars during the LB period at the coastal sites of the Levant and in Cyprus, as well as their use in maritime trade as borne out by shipwrecks, are considered clear indications of the adoption of shared units it features Late Helladic and Late Minoan IIIA2 pottery (contemporary to Akhenaten), as well as a Nefertiti scarab: see Bachhuber 2006, 347. Attempts have also been made to confirm the dating via radiocarbon and dendrochronological analyses: Pulak 1996, 12–13, but without obtaining conclusive results, as reflected in M. Bietak’s claim that “there is no evidence for an independent date of this shipwreck. We are still forced to use the artefacts from the ship as a way of dating” (Bietak 2004, 222). 2 Bachhuber (2006) examined the hypothesis of a diplomatic voyage: essentially the idea is that “individuals of Aegean origin may have been representing the interests of a Mycenaean palace” (Bachhuber 2006, 299). 3 Pedrazzi 2007, types 5–4, 75–77. 4 Bachhuber 2006, 347. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

725

of measurement for the traded commodities, in the context of growing trade connections. The displacement of amphorae along the Levantine coast, as well as towards Cyprus or the Aegean, is also confirmed by the written sources; for example, a shipment of jars containing oil from Ugarit to Tyre is mentioned in an Ugaritic letter that refers to a quantity of 50 jars (RS. 34.167).5 2. One-Handled Fusiform Jars from Tell Afis and Tell Kazel (Syria) As outlined above, throughout the LBA, the angular-shouldered “Canaanite” jar, with a tapered body and pivot base (Fig. 1) was widely used along the entire Levantine coast, but this type has not been found in the inland regions, where different types of container appear to have been employed for storage and transport purposes. At inland Syrian sites, such as Tell Afis6 in the Jazr plain, the containers used for storage were mainly the big ovoid pithoi, with a wide mouth, no handles, and a disc base, found in the LBA levels (Phases VII–Vb).7 During the LB II period, these pithoi were marked on the shoulder or belly with distinctive pre-firing signs, such as arrows, M-shapes or triangles.8 Such large storage pithoi remained in use during the Early Iron Age (Phase IV in Area E4 at Tell Afis), although the Iron Age pots were no longer marked with pre-firing signs. The practice of marking storage containers has therefore been interpreted as likely meeting some unknown need to monitor the stockpiling and distribution of foodstuffs, perhaps in the context of Hittite domination in Northern Syria during the LB II. Short-distance transport and domestic storage tasks were carried out at Tell Afis using narrow-necked ovoid jars with a single handle placed on the neck.9 This type of household jar normally featured an outwardly folding rim, and a narrow cylindrical neck. As illustrated by Fabrizio Venturi in his typological study of the pottery from Afis Phase Vb in Area E4, this type is commonly found at most of the leading LBA Syrian and Anatolian sites, such as, for example, Tille Höyuk and Lidar Höyuk (where it is also attested in the Early Iron age).10 In addition to the large pithos and the small to medium-sized narrow-necked jar, both fulfilling storage and transport functions, another type of container is documented at Tell Afis in the LB II period: the “krater-jar;” this pot, about Vidal 2005, 295; the letter—RS 34.167—contains a request for 50 jars of oil, 30 silver shekels and one copper talent to be sent from Ugarit to Tyre. 6 Excavations at the site have been directed by Stefania Mazzoni, with the collaboration of Serena Maria Cecchini. Research in Area E4 has been undertaken by Fabrizio Venturi, and—for a few years—Sector E4a (at the northern limit of Area E4) was excavated by Tatiana Pedrazzi. 7 Venturi 2007, figs 52 and 55; 2010, 3. 8 Archi / Venturi 2013, fig. 6:c–f. 9 Venturi 2007, fig. 50 (common ware jars). 10 See Venturi 2007, 101–102, figs 11–12, and 263, with references. 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

726

T. Pedrazzi

60–80 cm high, has a very wide mouth, and straight sides, resulting in a more or less carinated body, with a narrow base (Fig. 4:c–d).11 This shape is characteristic of the LBA assemblage at Tell Afis, given that it is mainly documented in Phase Vb, with some prototypes in the preceding phases, while it completely disappears in subsequent strata, that is to say, in Phase IV, dated to the Early Iron Age. In Building F dated to Phase VII, a relatively complete sample of krater-jar is documented; the rim is folded-over and everted.12 The majority of specimens of this form come from the Phase Vb residencies (absolutely dated with a high degree of probability to the 13th century BC); two complete samples exhibiting lower carination were recovered from Room A7 (in Building A), whilst at least two further fragmentary krater-jars (one with a less carinated profile) were found in Room B1 of the contemporary Building B.13 Within this general framework of LBA storage and/or transport pottery at Tell Afis, characterized (as just outlined) by the presence of large pithoi, small domestic jars and krater-jars, a surprisingly find was made in Area E4a, on the Western slope of the acropolis, consisting of an almost completely restorable specimen of a markedly different type of jar.14 This type—never documented before at Tell Afis in close-to-complete form—was first discovered during the 2002 campaign, in June.15 This container (inventory number TA.02.E.244/1) has an ovoid-fusiform body and a sloping shoulder, with a cylindrical neck and tapering bottom, which likely ended in a narrow base (but the base itself is missing from this jar); the container also features a single vertical handle, similar in shape to the typical two handles of the “Canaanite” jars, but placed differently, specifically between the neck and the upper part of the shoulder (see Fig. 2:c).16 The clay is reddish-yellow in colour, with a grey core and a greyish interior zone.17 Because the rim and base are missing, it is not possible to compute the full dimensions of the vessel, but only to note that the preserved height is about 60 cm: this means that the jar is taller than the documented average height (about 30–40 cm) of the narrow-necked domestic jars/jugs common in the LBA

Pedrazzi 2007, 181–182 (type 29–1); Venturi 2010, 3, fig. 10:10–12 (Phase Vb of the LB II). 12 Venturi 2010, fig. 6:10 (a krater-jar from Phase VII). 13 Venturi 2007, fig. 53:5–6 (from Room A7), fig. 55:10–11 (from room B1). The krater-jar is also attested at Tell Kazel, in coastal Syria, and at some inland sites, such as Tell Fray, where one of the published open-mouthed pithoi has been tentatively classified as such (see Venturi 2007, fig. 7:6), and Arslantepe/Malatya, but in Stratum III ascribed to the Neo-Hittite period (Venturi 2007, fig. 13:4). 14 The jar was found in Area E4a, where the research was conducted under the supervision of T. Pedrazzi during the 2000–2002 and 2008 seasons. 15 I am particularly grateful to Fabrizio Venturi for his constant scientific and practical suggestions during the digging seasons at Tell Afis. 16 Pedrazzi 2007, 95–96, fig. 3.45. 17 Munsell colours: 7.5YR7/6 (outside); 7.5YR5/1 (inside); 7.5YR5/1 (core). 11

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

727

contexts at Tell Afis. Therefore, the general morphology of this container, as well as its size, prompts us to seek parallels among the so-called Canaanite jars, on the one hand, and among Anatolian one-handled elongated fusiform jars, on the other. In the same years, F. Venturi unearthed other specimens of this jar type in Area E4b (Fig. 3). One fragmentary jar and the bottom of another come from Building B (Room B1), while two other similar vessels were found in a pit to the south of this building, all contexts dated to the LB II (Phase Vb in Tell Afis Area E4). In relation to the first of these specimens, only the shoulder and part of the belly remain; the body tapers towards the bottom (therefore a narrow base is assumed); unfortunately, the base, neck and handle are missing, although it is possible to conjecture that the handle may have run from the shoulder to the neck, given the position of what remains of the joint. With regard to the second fragmentary sample from Room B1 in Building B, only the lower part of the body is preserved. Two almost completely restorable fusiform jars were found in Pit 9502, to the south of Building B;18 the larger one is very similar in shape to the specimen from Area E4a, especially the shoulder; the smaller one, in contrast, has a more ovoid profile. A further vessel from Tell Afis, very similar in profile to the jar found in Area E4a, was discovered in Area N, on the Eastern slope of the acropolis;19 both this Area N jar and that found in Area E4a display slightly wider shoulders than the other samples of the same type. The one-handled jar, similarly to the krater-jars mentioned above, is not documented at Tell Afis after the end of the LB II; it therefore appears to represent a good marker for the latter part of the LB II period, given that the majority of preserved specimens come from Phase Vb only. In any case, as F. Venturi has pointed out, after the destruction of the Phase Vb residences at Tell Afis, “both krater jars and fusiform jars definitively disappeared.”20 This change in the pottery production could be interpreted (as will be discussed in the conclusions of this paper) in light of the economic, political, and social shift that took place at the end of the Late Bronze age, when severe disruption also struck the Northern Levant, with the collapse of the Hittite empire and the possible arrival of new human groups (possibly immigrants?) to the Levantine coastal area. Coming now to coastal Syria, a one-handled fusiform jar, similar (though not wholly identical) to the Afis specimen, was discovered in August of the 2002 season at Tell Kazel, south of the modern city of Tartous, by an archaeological team working under my supervision as part of the excavations directed by Leila Badre of the American University of Beirut.21 The jar (inventory number

Venturi 2015, 79, fig. 6:17–18. Archi / Venturi 2012, fig. 6:7, a vessel from Area N1, Phase VIIb corresponding to Phase Vb of Area E4. 20 Archi / Venturi 2013, 218. 21 My warmest thanks go to Leila Badre for giving me the opportunity to dig in Area II 18 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

728

T. Pedrazzi

TK02 6468.1) has an ovoid but elongated and slender body, with a sloping shoulder and narrow base; the rim is missing, but a single vertical loop handle is preserved, placed between the neck and the upper part of the shoulder (see Fig. 2:a).22 The clay is reddish in colour, both on the outside and inside of the vessel,23 with some basalt grits and organic temper. These characteristics of the ware suggest that it was locally produced, possibly at Tell Kazel itself. The preserved height (minus the rim) is about 80 cm. This jar comes from a context dating to the LB II (Level 5b) in the southern sector of Area II, on the Kazel mound, where a large quantity of fragments and complete samples of the “traditional” Canaanite jars—with two opposite handles and a more or less carinated shoulder—have been uncovered over the years (Fig. 5:a–c). This container was found lying in a pit dug in Courtyard 8 of Building B, in the southern part of Area II. In the same courtyard, we found a pithos of the Cypriot type, sunk into the floor of the paved court, and some Late Cypriot II imports in a deep silo in the adjacent Room 7 of the same building.24 Therefore, the other material remains (especially the pottery), which are stratigraphically related to our fusiform jar in that they came from the same building and level, quite clearly suggest a LB II date for this context. In fact, the LBA storage and transport pottery at Tell Kazel, as well as along the entire Mediterranean coast of the Northern Levant, mainly comprises well-known types belonging to the wider class of Canaanite storage jars, displaying an ovoid or sometimes conical body, and two opposite vertical loop handles on the shoulder. Morphology varies considerably from one type to another, especially in terms of the degree of carination of the shoulder: this mainly depends on the designated purpose and use of the vessels, given that a distinctly carinated or even angular shoulder is undoubtedly appropriate for containers destined to be used in maritime transport. Specifically, a strengthened and reinforced shoulder helps to prevent damage due to the shocks during shipping. In coastal Syria, similarly to the inner region, the containers used for medium and/or long-term storage of foodstuffs were mainly large pithoi, but in the pottery assemblages of the coastal sites these huge pithoi sometimes bear two handles, a feature that is not attested in the inland areas. In fact, these “handled pithoi” resemble contemporary Cypriot models, with tall and wide cylindrical necks, and with or without a grooved decoration on the shoul-

at Tell Kazel and permission to publish this unique jar in my book, along with the other “Canaanite” storage containers recovered at the site (see Pedrazzi 2007). Friendly thanks also to Emmanuelle Capet, for her suggestions during the excavation. 22 For the first publication, see Pedrazzi 2007, 96, fig. 3.45:b. See also Chiti / Pedrazzi 2014, fig. 6:4. 23 Munsell colour 2.5YR5/6. 24 Chiti / Pedrazzi 2014, 71. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

729

der (horizontal and/or wavy lines). Some of the pithoi found in the Northern Coastal Levant were actually produced in Cyprus, coming directly from the island; other specimens appear to be imitations or local adaptations of the original model.25 At Tell Kazel, just as we have shown for Tell Afis, the so-called krater-jar is likely to have been used during the LB II for storage purposes; the average height documented is 50–60 cm. These pots have been found in domestic units in Areas II and IV (Fig. 4:a–b).26 It is interesting to note that, while in Tell Afis the krater-jar completely disappears at the very start of the Iron Age, by contrast, in Tell Kazel it is also attested in Level 5, Area II, a level dated by E. Capet to the first stages of the Early Iron Age. In any case, it must also be pointed out that at least the first sub-level of Level 5 (i.e., Level 5b), in Building B (in the southern part of Area II), has been recently dated to the LB II, due to the presence in a plastered court in the same context of a pithos that is morphologically related to LB II Cypriot pithoi, together with a fusiform jar and some Late Cypriot II imports in the adjacent room (same level).27 Either way, we may conclude that this sort of hybrid form between the true krater and the storage jar or pithos was in use during the final part of the Late Bronze age, and perhaps in the very first stage of the Early Iron age. The one-handled fusiform jar went out of use at the end of the Late Bronze age at both Tell Afis and Tell Kazel: consequently, the production and diffusion of this unique shape likely depended on the economic and social framework of Late Bronze Syria. 3. The Diffusion of One-Handled Fusiform Jars in LBA Syria and Anatolia The almost complete specimens of single-handled fusiform jar found at Tell Afis and Tell Kazel display striking parallels with pottery found at other Syrian and Anatolian sites. 3.1 Amuq Valley At Tell Atchana, site of the ancient city-state of Alalakh, in the Amuq valley (Turkey), a completely preserved jar, with a slightly flexed outward folded rim, and a At Tell Kazel, a pithos with two vertical handles and a horizontal decoration on the shoulder was uncovered in Area IV, Lev. 5 (Badre et al. 1999–2000, pl. 42:1 on the CD; inventory number TK99.264, context number 5380); pithoi of the same type are attested at Ugarit (Yon et al. 1983, fig. 13:b), and Beirut (Badre 1998, fig. 1:4). Similar specimens may be found in Cyprus, at Maa-Palaeokastro and Kition, respectively: Karageorghis / Demas 1988, CLXXXIV:494; Karageorghis et al. 1985, pl. LXI:1112. 26 For example: Capet 2003, fig. 25:c, fig. 43:i from Lev. 6 and 5 in Area II; Badre / Gubel 1999–2000, fig. 37:m, k, j. 27 See Chiti / Pedrazzi 2014, 73 (for the stratigraphical correspondence between Area II– Level 6, and Area II (Southern sector–Level 5b). 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

730

T. Pedrazzi

narrow, pointed base, was unearthed in Level II of Woolley’s excavations, and is therefore dated to Late Bronze IIB.28 This unique jar is very similar in shape to the Tell Kazel specimen, with an identical base and body profile, and a quasi-identical neck and handle (Fig. 2:b). The slightly rounded shoulder closely recalls the Tell Kazel vessel. Recently published new excavations at the site (years 2003–2004 under the direction of K.A. Yener), have also documented a different—though related—type of ovoid jug (inventory number A03-R1760), found in an LBA plastered tomb (burial 03–3017); while the elongated profile, tall cylindrical neck, and single vertical handle are all reminiscent of the basic morphology of the fusiform jars under discussion, the Tell Atchana jug has a distinctive ring base.29 The definite morphological similarities between the fusiform one-handled jar and the ovoid elongated jug (which is smaller) justify us in assuming that the elongated jug might be at least one of the morphological types related to the fusiform jar. It should be noted that the jug would appear to have been mainly used in the domestic context for the short-distance transport of liquids, both within individual houses and from one residential area to another one. On the contrary, the fusiform jar seems to have fulfilled a medium or even long-distance transport function, in other words a commercial function, given its size and reinforced narrow base, suitable for enduring mechanical stress (resulting from moving, pivoting, and stacking the vessel). 3.2 Northern Inner Syria At Emar in Northern Inner Syria, the modern Tell Meskene (Syria), near the great bend in the mid-Euphrates, a complete specimen of fusiform jar dated to LB II was uncovered in Area A (locus 28), during French salvage excavations in the years 1972–1976. The general shape, in this case, is very similar to the example from Tell Afis, especially with respect to the slanted shoulder (Fig. 2:d).30 As the destruction of the site probably occurred in the year 1187 BC, the fusiform jar is dated to the 13th century. At Emar, the LBA ceramic assemblage mainly comprises common local wares; among other types of vessel, of particular note are medium-sized jugs (ovoid in shape) with round or flat bases, domestic jars without handles, large pithoi for the storage of foodstuffs, and vats with large openings and straight sides, probably used to mix and prepare cereals.31 Few commercial jars have been found at Emar, prompting the excavators to suggest that “goods traded to and from Emar were not shipped in commercial jars,” but more likely in baskets or skin containers.32

Woolley 1955, pl. CXI:39. Yener / Yazicioğlu 2010, 221. 30 Caubet 1982, fig. 31. 31 Caubet 2014, 78, pl. 2. 32 Caubet 2014, 74. 28 29

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

731

The one-handled fusiform vessel is therefore an even more unusual example of a container likely to have been used for commercial purposes, a supposition based on its transport-friendly shape. Finally, only one specimen recovered East of the Euphrates, at Tell Sabi Abyad, has been likened to the one-handled fusiform vessel.33 However, my own opinion is that this jar does not represent the true “fusiform” type. Specifically, it displays a different shape to the “spindle” morphology under investigation here. The handle is very similar to that of the fusiform jar, but the belly is more rounded, and the base protruding and narrow. Though it has been described as a “probably imported” shape in the Tell Sabi Abyad repertoire, that is to say, one that comes from elsewhere, in my view, this jar does not represent an example of the Syrian one-handled fusiform jar. 3.3 South-Eastern Anatolia The fusiform jar has been also identified along the Upper Euphrates, at Tille Höyük (Turkey), in the so-called Burnt Level, which suffered serious destruction in the late 12th century BC.34 The vessel, not completely restorable, has a preserved height of only about 45 cm, given that both rim and base are lacking. Oddly enough, with regard to shoulder shape, this vessel from Tille Höyük is more similar to the specimens from Tell Kazel and Alalakh, in the coastal area, than to those from the nearer sites of Afis and Emar.35 3.4 Cilicia Gözlu Kule/Tarsus (Turkey), near the Pamuk river, occupied a strategic location along the Mediterranean-Central Anatolian route. The local LBA pottery is quite representative of Anatolian drab ware. Storage needs were catered for by the straight-sided pithoi with everted rim, supplemented with Canaanite jars featuring a slightly carinated shoulder and button base, a type very similar to the typical Syrian LB II coastal jar documented at Tell Kazel (see Fig. 5:a–c), Ugarit, and Ras Ibn Hani, as well as at Cypriot sites such as Maa Palaeokastro and Kition.36 A fusiform one-handled jar is also documented at Tarsus, again in an LBA context. This vessel is particularly elongated and slim, and is therefore a little different from the fusiform jars at Tell Kazel and Tell Afis. The jar from Tarsus represents a sort of “connection point,” morphologically speaking, between the Syrian fusi-

Duistermaat 2007, fig. IV:89 and V:26. Summers 1993, fig. 54:2;Venturi 2007, fig. 11:10. 35 It should be noted, however, that at least one of the Afis specimens (the smaller jar from the pit south of Building B) has an ovoid shape similar to the vessels from Tell Kazel and Alalakh. 36 Pedrazzi 2007, 66–68 (type 4–2, from the LB II). 33 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

732

T. Pedrazzi

form one-handled jar and the Anatolian spindle jugs. Elongated or spindle jugs are also part of the LBA assemblage at Kinet Höyük, where the storage/transport function was fulfilled by the double-handled Canaanite jars.37 4. The Origin of the One-Handled Fusiform Jar As discussed above, the fusiform one-handled jar is found in inland and coastal Syria, as well as in South-Eastern Anatolia, along the Euphrates river. The sample from Tarsus, in Cilicia, might be interpreted as a sort of morphological bridge between the fusiform jar and the Anatolian spindle jugs or jars. Indeed, the origin of the fusiform one-handled jar may be plausibly traced back to the Central Anatolian LB II pottery tradition, as some vessels from Hattusha indicate quite clearly.38 While the type of pottery from Hattusha classified as “Große Krüge”39 does not completely match the Syrian fusiform jar type, Hittite spindle jars were very common during the LBA, and therefore the spindle shape could easily have influenced the production of the Syrian fusiform jars. As Ulf-Dietrich Schoop recently pointed out, “large jars with a strong handle stretching from the narrow neck down to the vessel shoulder seem to have been among the favourite storage facilities in Hittite households.”40 Fabrizio Venturi, in his study of materials from Tell Afis, suggested that only some distinctive samples from the Oberstadt of Hattusha seem to resemble the Syrian jar morphology more closely; in particular, a jar with a narrow reinforced base (unfortunately the rim is missing).41 Compared to the Anatolian spindle jars/jugs, the Syrian fusiform jar has a more marked shoulder, a reinforced base, and a more robust and thicker handle: all these morpho-functional features indicate a transport or even commercial function for this vessel. Such characteristics (emphasized shoulder, thickened base, stronger handle) are quite clearly borrowed from the Canaanite jar model, which, however, featured two opposite handles. The Anatolian specimens, moreover, are often characterized by a narrower and taller neck, although the position of the single handle is very similar (Fig. 6).42 As F. Venturi recently noted, “the most distinctive morphological elements of the Tell Afis specimens, such as the large ovoid shape, the pointed base and the short neck, correspond in the Central Anatolian plateau to the later development Gates 2013, fig. 5 (for the elongated jugs) and fig. 7:5 (Canaanite jar of Syrian type). Müller-Karpe 1988, pl. 3:K2b.2. 39 Müller-Karpe 1988, pl. 50. 40 Schoop 2011, 253. 41 Venturi 2007, fig. 86:16. 42 Schoop 2009, fig. 13:1; Schoop 2011, fig. 4:3. 37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

733

of the shape at the end of the Hittite New Kingdom.”43 This means that the Syrian fusiform jars may have been mainly morphologically influenced by the later one-handled spindle jars of the Anatolian plateau, which incidentally may have also fulfilled a similar function (storage and probably transport). Thus, while the Anatolian spindle jar (or “Große Krüge”), especially the later versions of this shape, may be reasonably viewed as inspiring the production of a “spindle” or fusiform jar in Northern Syria, it would ultimately appear that this “Syrian” fusiform type developed from a combination of Anatolian and coastal Canaanite pottery traditions. 5. Concluding Remarks In conclusion, coming back to the core issue of the origin of fusiform one-handled jars, and the question of the historical significance of their diffusion, a few final remarks are in order. A first observation is that, quite clearly, the shape is a “hybrid” created by adopting some of the features of Anatolian spindle jars/jugs, on the one hand, and others from Canaanite commercial jars, on the other. Therefore, it is appropriate to situate this “shape development process” within a LBA economic and political framework characterized by Hittite interest in Northern Syria. Moreover, the morphological characteristics of this jar type appear to have been designed for the medium/long-distance transport of foodstuffs, mainly liquids. Another aspect to be taken into account is the fact that the fusiform one-handled jar is not very widespread. There are only a small number of recorded samples in the LBA contexts of Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia, and none at all, as far as I am aware, in the other neighbouring countries, that is to say, first and foremost, in Central and Southern Coastal Levant, or in Cyprus, where, on the contrary, the Canaanite “Syrian-type” jars (with two handles and a slight carination of the shoulder) were popular during the final stages of the LBA. The connection with the Anatolian repertoire, it should be mentioned in passing, is not limited to the spindle vessels, but is also confirmed, for example, by the diffusion of the above-mentioned krater-jar in Anatolia.44 Returning then to the key question of the historical meaning of the development and use of the unique type of fusiform jar under discussion here, it should be kept in mind that during the 13th century BC, Northern Syria was of great strategic interest to the Hittite empire, and was therefore connected to the Anatolian seat of power in various economic and political ways. Some centres—such as for example Emar on the mid-Euphrates—played a truly strategic role in maintaining control of the Euphrates and the route to Aleppo. It should be noted—as other scholars have clearly pointed out—that “the 43 44

Venturi 2015, 80. Archi / Venturi 2013. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

734

T. Pedrazzi

correlation between Hittite expansion and the diffusion of their material culture inside the empire’s borders is an issue still subject to debate.”45 Nonetheless, it is clear that areas on the outskirts of the empire may have interacted with the central Hittite power by adapting certain local pottery traditions in line with new stimuli emanating from the Anatolian world. Some novel shapes, therefore, resulted from the sharing of pottery-shape traditions, yielding unusual vessels employed for usual functions—in this particular case, the transport of liquids—albeit more than likely for some more specific purpose that is difficult to reconstruct. In this regard, it may be significant that fusiform jars have mainly been discovered in élite contexts such as official (or at least well-planned) LBA residences, both at Tell Afis in Area E4, and Tell Kazel in Area II. A further pertinent observation is that some “hybrid” shapes, including the one-handled fusiform jars, disappeared after the end of the LBA, that is to say, in historical terms, after the fall of the Hittite empire. Other types of vessel continued to be produced during the subsequent Early Iron Age. The disappearance of the fusiform jars after the destruction or abandonment of the major Syrian and South-Anatolian sites at the end of the LB II could imply that the form was dependent on the LBA political framework, or more specifically on factors linked to Hittite imperial policy. As a result, it makes sense to suggest that the transportation of commodities in Syrian one-handled fusiform jars issued from a combining of Anatolian and Canaanite traditions, producing a form only used during the LBA and more precisely in the 13th century, probably for specific target groups (families or even individuals belonging to the local élite. These elongated transport vessels were liked only used in the trade of particular foodstuffs, in highly limited and specific circumstances, which we cannot at present identify more exactly. Bibliography Archi, A., / Venturi, F., 2012: Hittites at Tell Afis (Syria). Orientalia 81: 1–31. –– 2013: Tell Afis in the Thirteen Century B.C.E. Under the Rule of the Hittites. NEA 76: 214–222. Bachhuber, Ch., 2006: Aegean Interest on the Uluburun Ship. AJA 110: 345–363. Badre, L., 1998: Late Bronze and Iron Age Imported Pottery from the Archaeological Excavations of Urban Beirut. In V. Karageorghis / N. Stampolidis (eds): Eastern Mediterranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th–6th cent. B.C., Proceedings of the International Symposium, organized by the University of Crete, Rethymnon, and the Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia. Athens. Pp. 73–85. Badre, L. / Gubel, E., 1999–2000: Tell Kazel. Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993–1998. Third Preliminary Report. Berytus 44: 123–202. Badre, L., et al., 1999–2000: Tell Kazel (Syria), Excavations of the AUB Museum Venturi 2013.

45

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

735

1993–1998, Catalogue and Illustrations of the Temple Material. Berytus 44: CD Color Supplement. Bietak, M., 2004: Review of A Test of Time. Oxbow Books, Oxford, 1999, (24 cm, XXXIII, 494), by W. Manning. Biblioteca Orientalis LXI: 200–222. Capet, E., 2003: Tell Kazel (Syrie). Rapport préliminaire sur les 9e–17e campagnes de fouilles (1993–2001) du Musée de l’Université américaine de Beyrouth, Chantier II. Berytus 47: 63–121. Caubet, A., 1982: La céramique. In D. Beyer (ed.): Meskéné-Emar, dix ans de travaux 1972–1982. Paris. Pp. 71–86. –– 2014: Late Bronze Age Ceramics from Emar. In M. Luciani / A. Hausleiter (eds): Recent Trends in the Study of Late Bronze Age Ceramics in Syria-Mesopotamia and Neighbouring Regions, Proceedings of the International Workshop in Berlin, 2–5 November 2006. Rahden. Pp. 71–83. Chiti, B. / Pedrazzi, T., 2014: Tell Kazel (Syria), Area II. New Evidence from a Late Bronze/Iron Age Quarter. In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw. Wiesbaden. Pp. 67–84. Duistermaat, K., 2007: The Pots and Potters of Assyria: Technology and Organization of Production, Ceramics Sequence and Vessel Function at Late Bronze Age Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria, (Doctoral Thesis). Leiden. Gates, M.-H., 2013: From Late Bronze to Iron Age on Syria’s Northwest Frontier: Cilicia and the Amuq. In S. Mazzoni / S. Soldi (eds): Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis. Proceedings of the International Meeting Percorsi di Archeologia Siriana Giornate di studio Pisa 27–28 Novembre 2006 Gipsoteca di Arte Antica - S. Paolo all’Orto. Pisa. Pp. 95–116. Karageorghis, V., / Demas, M., 1988: Excavations at Maa Palaeokastro, 1979– 1986. I–III. Nicosia. Karageorghis, V., et al., 1985: Excavations at Kition, V. The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Areas I and II. Part I. Nicosia. Müller-Karpe, A., 1988: Hethitische Töpferei der Oberstadt von Hattuša, Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis spätgrossreichszeitlicher Keramik und Töpferbetriebe unter Zugrundelegung der Grabungsergebnisse von 1978–82 in Bogazköy. Marburg-Lahn. Pedrazzi, T., 2007: Le giare da conservazione e trasporto: Uno studio archeologico dell’economia del Levante fra Bronzo Tardo II e Ferro I (ca. 1400–900 a.C.). Pisa. –– 2010: Globalization versus Regionalism: LB II/Iron I Transition in Coastal Syria from the Storage Jars Point of View. In F. Venturi (ed.): Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age. Papers Presented in the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavations in Tell Afis. Bologna 15th November 2007. Bologna. Pp. 53–64. Pulak, C., 1996: Dendrochronological Dating of the Uluburun Shipwreck. The INA Quarterly 23: 12–13. Schoop, U.-D., 2009: Indications of Structural Change in the Hittite Pottery Inventory at Boğazköy-Hattuša. In: F. Pecchioli Daddi / G. Torri / C. Corti (eds): © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

736

T. Pedrazzi

Central-North Anatolia in the Hittite Period: New Perspectives in Light of Recent Research Acts of the International. Conference Held at the University of Florence (7–9 February 2007). Roma. Pp. 145–167. –– 2011: Hittite Pottery: A Summary. In H. Genz / D.P. Mielke (eds): Insights into Hittite History and Archaeology. Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA. Pp. 241–273. Summers, G., 1993: Tille Hüyük 4. The Late Bronze and Iron Age Transition (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 15). Ankara. Venturi, F., 2000: Tell Afis et la “dark Age” (les niveaux de le fin du Bronze Récent II et de l’âge du Fer I). In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome May 18th–23th 1998. Roma. Pp. 1715–1722. –– 2007: La Siria nell’età delle trasformazioni (XIII–X sec. a.C.). Nuovi contributi dallo scavo di Tell Afis. Bologna. –– 2010: Cultural Breakdown or Evolution? The Impact of Changes in 12th B.C. Tell Afis. In F. Venturi (ed.): Societies in Transition. Evolutionary Processes in the Northern Levant between Late Bronze Age II and Early Iron Age, Papers Presented on the Occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the New Excavation in Tell Afis, Bologna, 15th November 2007. Bologna 2010. Pp. 1–27. –– 2013: The Transition from Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age at Tell Afis, Syria (phases VII–III). In K.A. Yener (ed.): Across the Border: Late BronzeIron Age Relations between Syria and Anatolia. Proceedings of a Symposium held at the Research Center of Anatolian Studies, Koç University, Istanbul, May 31–June 1, 2010 (ANES Supplement Series 42). Leuven. Pp. 227–262. –– 2015: Storage Jars and Household Storage Methods in Tell Afis between Late Bronze Age II and Iron Age II. In P. Ciafardoni / D. Giannessi (eds): From the Treasures of Syria. Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stefania Mazzoni (Pihans CXXVI). Leiden. Pp. 75–108. Vidal, J., 2005: Beirut and Ugarit in the 13th Century BCE. SMEA 47: 291–298. Woolley, L., 1955: Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London XVIII). Oxford. Yener K.A. / Yazicioğlu, G.B., 2010: Appendix B. Small Finds Catalogue. In K.A. Yener (ed.): Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons. Istanbul. Pp. 215–283. Yon, M. et al., 1983: Fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ougarit 1981–1983 (41, 42 et 43 campagnes). Syria LX: 201–224.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

737

Fig. 1. LBA jars: a) from Megiddo; b) from Lachish; c) from the sea along the southern Levantine coast (type 5–4, Pedrazzi 2007, fig. 3.24:d–i).

Fig. 2. One-handled fusiform jars (Pedrazzi 2010, fig. 6): a) from Tell Kazel (Area II); b) from Alalakh (Woolley 1955, pl. CXI:39); c) from Tell Afis (Area E4a); d. from Emar (Caubet 1982, fig. 31). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

738

T. Pedrazzi

Fig. 3. One-handled fusiform jars from Tell Afis, Area E4b (Venturi 2013, fig. 8:2–3).

Fig. 4. Krater-jars from Tell Kazel and Tell Afis (type 29–1, Pedrazzi 2007, fig. 3.133): a) Capet 2003, fig. 25:c; b) Badre / Gubel 1999–2000, fig. 37:m; c) Venturi 2000, fig. 6:2; d) Venturi 2000, fig. 6:3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars

Fig. 5. LBA jars from Tell Kazel (type 4–2, Pedrazzi 2007, fig. 3.17:d–f).

Fig. 6. The Anatolian elongated jar/jug of the LBA (Schoop 2011, fig. 4:3). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

739

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age in the Northern Levant (ca. 2000–1900 BC): The Pottery from the EE Midden at Tell Mardikh-Ebla, Syria Luca Peyronel*

1. In Search of Early 2nd Millennium Ebla: The EE Midden on the Eastern Rampart A comprehensive investigation of Ebla’s fortification system was launched in 1995 with the discovery of a large defensive complex in the middle of the western rampart.1 Excavations of large sectors, especially of the western, northern and eastern ramparts—investigated between 1995 and 2000—brought to light the Western Fort, the Northern Fort, the large bastion flanking the not-yet excavated “Aleppo” Gate, the North-East City Gate (the so-called “Steppe Gate”), and the East-North-East Fortress (Area EE).2 The latter was identified due to the emergence of stone walls on the uppermost part of the eastern rampart, clearly indicating the presence of a defensive building. This structure (named Fortress EE or Fortress East-North-East) is a bastion that has been badly damaged in modern times. However, one half of the general plan has been identified, including part of the eastern rooms (L.7764, L.7775), the eastern rear wall (M.7766) and the eastern face of the central pillar of the staircase (M.7750), showing that the building was a variation on a common design of Eblaic fortress (Fig. 1). It was probably composed of two pairs of non-communicating rooms and an entrance with a vestibule and a staircase on the southern side, with a main axis running south-north.3 It is a great pleasure to contribute this piece on Middle Bronze pottery to a volume dedicated to my friend and colleague Frances Pinnock, who published several seminal studies on Old Syrian material culture. She untiringly filed and described every single pottery sherd discovered during fieldwork at Ebla, and the many, many hours spent together at Tell Mardikh discussing pottery and chronology constitute for me not only a fundamental intellectual enrichment but also a most pleasant and unforgettable personal memory. I hope that in the not too distant future it will once more be possible to do this again in our beloved Syria. 1 Matthiae 1998, 572–588; 2000, 580–600; Peyronel 2000; 2007; 2014–2015. 2 Matthiae 2001. 3 Matthiae 2000, 589–591; Peyronel 2014–2015, 198–200. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

742

L. Peyronel

In Area EE five chronological phases were identified: the first (Phase 1) relates to the rampart construction at the very beginning of the Middle Bronze I (MB I); the second is represented by a large dump several meters in diameter (Phase 2), formed by accumulation of ashy layers full of organic materials, pottery and small objects, dating to the 20th century BC, or MB IA (= Mardikh IIIA1, ca. 2000/1950–1900 BC). During MB IB and MB IIA (ca. 1850–1700 BC) a first defensive structure was built and used (Phase 3), and immediately after its abandonment it was replaced by Fortress EE (Phase 4), surely destroyed by fire at the end of MB IIB (ca. 1650/1600 BC), as were the majority of Ebla’s buildings. The fortified buildings of Phases 3 and 4 were founded to the south partly over ashy layers, which are the fills of a large midden, located at the southern limit of the excavated area.4 Its original size is not known. However, gray ashy earth visible on the surface to the south in a slightly lowered area outside the excavation limit, suggests that it was at least 30 m long and 20–25 m wide. The midden was excavated over 30 sqm, and is more than 1.6 m thick in the sounding at the south-west corner (Fig. 2). The multiple layers composing the midden are the result of dumping activity over a relatively short time, since the pottery is absolutely homogeneous. Thousands of large pottery fragments, several clay figurines and objects, small bronze implements, and an impressive quantity of animal bones and plant remains have been retrieved from the excavated portion of the midden. The materials were collected through wet sieving of all the sediment and flotation of selected samples. During the 2004 campaign, a microstratigraphic excavation of seven layers in a 2 × 2 m test sounding enabled detection of depositional and post-depositional processes in the midden: five stratigraphic units were sheet-like layers, ca. 10–15 cm thick, resulting from distinct accumulations of discarded refuse and related burning events in situ (they consist of a lower brown-reddish clay sediment and a thin upper gray ashy deposit with clear signs of alteration by fire), while two are pit fills containing abundant potsherds, tannur fragments, and animal and plant remains.5 The overall stratigraphic sequence of the midden thus shows dumping activities with deliberate burning of the refuse at various intervals, together with the digging of pits in the dump. Animal bones and plant remains are abundant, contributing to our understanding of the environment and economic basis of the first phase of the new Middle Bronze Age urban settlement. A sample of more than 7000 animal bones has been studied by C. Minniti (University of Salento), showing a predominance of sheep and goat (88%), followed by cattle (10%). Other domestic species are equids, pig, and dog, attested by few bones, while hare, roe deer, and several unidentified bird and fish remains were also collected.

4 5

Peyronel 2008, 178–179. Caracuta / Fiorentino 2014, 488–489, figs 3–4. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

743

Archaeobotanical analysis of the Stratigraphic Units (SU) excavated in 2004 led to the identification of 1515 plant remains in a sub-sample of ca. 35 litres of sediment subjected to flotation (out of a total of 184 litres of wet-sieved sediment): 661 wood tissue fragments (especially Olea europaea, but also wild cherry, Pistacia species, and different type of oak, deciduous, semi-deciduous and evergreen) and 854 seed/fruit remains of annuals.6 Six and two-row barley dominate the carpological assemblage, followed by naked and hulled wheat; olive stones are also common, while grape pips, lentils and bitter vetch are attested by a few remains. The great variety of wood charcoal remains (thirteen different tree species) in the midden is quite different from primary contexts, such as the domestic quarter in Area B East7 and might be the result of different types of discarded material, such as fuel from hearths and tannurs, or pieces of carpentry/furniture. Seed and fruit remains show a diversified distribution in the midden layers: barley and other cereals occur in high percentages in the pit fills, while weeds together with a lower quantity of edible seeds/fruits predominate in the sheet-like deposits: it has been suggested that the former contexts represent material from the cleaning of floors and hearths, while in the latter the presence of weeds might be the result of burning garbage together with wild plants (bushes and brushwood). The occurrence of weeds like Polygonum sp., Galium sp. and Cyperus sp., which flourished in spring and summer, suggests that the midden deposits were burned during these seasons.8 The great quantity of pottery fragments retrieved in the midden are mostly from vessels of Simple Ware and Kitchen Ware pots, with a few sherds of large pithoi, thus confirming the interpretation of the dump as consisting of discarded rubbish from living areas, and not from abandoned buildings or ruined structures. Several clay figurines were also found in the pit (15 specimens), showing “transitional” features which link them to EB IV traditions, but also showing new traits which developed in the mature Old Syrian clay production.9 Two types of female figurine heads gave the most reliable chronological indication: the first has perforated ears and rectangular head-top and the second unperforated ears and pastilles around the face (Fig. 3).10 Other objects found in the pit are clay pendants and beads, glass-paste beads, three fragmentary sealings with unreadable seal impressions, whetstones and other small stone tools. The presence of several bronze points for chisels, burins, drills, and a pair of complete large pincers is puzzling, since the tools are very well preserved and it seems unlikely that they would have been deliberately discarded in the midden (Fig. 4).

Caracuta / Fiorentino 2014, 489–490, figs 5–6. Caracuta / Fiorentino 2013, 404–406, tab. 24.2. 8 Caracuta / Fiorentino 2014, 493–494. 9 Marchetti 2001, 32–39, 64–66, 92–97, 122–123. 10 Marchetti 2001, 32–33, type F11T1 and F11T3b. 6 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

744

L. Peyronel

The chronology proposed on the basis of the pottery typology (see infra) and other finds (such as clay figurines) points to use of the midden during the 20th century BC, probably shortly after the construction of the defensive rampart. Three AMS radiocarbon dates processed at the CEDAD Lab of the University of Salento confirm the timespan: two were obtained from burnt wood samples of Olea europaea (LTL 395A; 3545 ± 45 BP; calibrated 1980–1740 BC) and Quercus (LTL 791A; 3757 ± 45 BP; calibrated 2300–2020 BC) and one from a caryopsis of barley, giving the most reliable date for the midden, with a calibrated range of 2140-1910 BC (LTL 386A; 3652 ± 35 BP).11 2. Defining Time: The MB IA Pottery Horizon of the EE Midden The pottery retrieved in the midden is dated to the Middle Bronze IA (ca. 2000/1950–1900 BC). The ceramic assemblage of the EE Midden is therefore quite important for defining the pottery horizon of the beginning of the 2nd millennium at Ebla (Mardikh IIIA1), by means of a typology of material that is probably from unexcavated Lower Town settlement areas, which integrates that from the Archaic Palace (phases II–III), the first occupation of the Square of the Cisterns in Area P South, and the Western rampart burials.12 The quantitative and typological evaluation of the pottery from the midden is based on a sample of more than 2500 sherds, collected and processed during the 1999 and 2004 seasons. The predominant pottery is related to a wide range of types of Simple (2000 sherds, 80%) and Kitchen Ware (257 sherds, 10%), while Preservation Ware is less frequent (176 sherds, 7%), as is usual in this kind of secondary context. Few sherds belong to specialized productions, such as miniature vessels and painted pottery, and some EB IVB fragments may be considered residual. Discarded refuse dumped in the garbage area might have come from the living areas of domestic quarters, and the low percentage of big storage jars reflects their longer usage and durability. It also means that the broken vessels that accumulated in the midden came from activity areas, and were not the result of cleaning out rubbish from abandoned structures. The evaluation of fragments’ dimensions and surface alteration shows a high percentage of large pieces (in several cases with almost complete profiles) and the presence of post-depositional alteration due to burning events attested in situ in the midden, probably indicating that the vessels were discarded soon after they broke. Moreover, the lack of signs indicating prolonged exposure to water indicates that the material did not come from emptying out wells. Simple Ware is represented by 75% of the MB IA rims (267 fragments), followed by Kitchen Ware (68 fragments, 19%). Big storage jars are attested by only 9 rim fragments. Few residual EB IVA–B sherds were recognized (62 pieces): 23

Fiorentino et al. 2008, tab. 2. Nigro 2002a, tab. 7; see infra.

11

12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

745

bell-shaped bases of painted caliciform beakers, some of which had been partially reworked, 18 rims of various other vessels, and 20 body fragments. The high percentage of goblet bases suggests that they were deliberately reused during the MB IA, possibly as lids or some kind of tool. Simple Ware is characterized by several different fabrics of whitish or green-yellowish clay with gray and black mineral grits (1264 body-sherds, more than 40 kg), while reddish-brown fabrics with predominant limestone grits are very rare (128 body-sherds, ca. 3.5 kg). The great variety of open and closed forms of small and medium-sized vessels shows that pottery manufacture was not standardized with mass-production of few recurrent types, unlike in the following MB IB period. Vessels were usually fired at medium-high temperatures, wheel-made and exhibit a variety of surface treatments, including washing, slipping and smoothing. Regular, well-executed decoration consisting of horizontal and weaving combed incisions is present on a limited range of forms, such as ovoidal and biconical craters and jars. In all the exemplars of biconical craters with combed horizontal and wavy decoration the upper part of the flat rims is also comb-decorated. The majority of the bases are flat or disc-shaped with the bottom smoothed or with slight concentric circular signs. A few specimens of ring-bases are present; these might be related to Gublite-type bowls. String-cut bases are not attested; their introduction might date to the beginning of the MB IB in relation to the appearance of mass-produced bowls with sharp carination, which are the hallmark of that period.13 The most common open form is a deep bowl characterized by thick walls, slight carination and vertical simple or thickened rim (21 exemplars), which is the most diagnostic type of the very beginning of MB IA (Fig. 5:1–3). Another recurrent type, which seems to be a development of the previous one, is a larger and shallower bowl, with a more evident carination and a rounded, slightly everted rim (18 exemplars) (Fig. 5:4). Both types might be considered as early versions of the classic carinated cup of the following phase. Hemispherical or deep bowls with simple, slightly inturned or thickened rims, often with an external groove (Fig. 5:5–7) show a morphology possibly developed from the deep bowls of the final EB IVB period.14 They seems to be quite common in MB IA (31 rims in the EE Midden), disappearing during the following period. A small jar with thin walls, middle carination and a short, thickened, out-turned rim, the so-called “Gublite bowl,” is very well represented in the assemblage (21 exemplars) (Fig. 5:8). It is a hallmark of the MB IA, but according to Nigro15 it might not have been introduced at the very beginning of the period and also remained in use during the MB IB, and was then progressively replaced by the

Nigro 2009, 345–346. D’Andrea 2018: 228, fig. 10:15–19. 15 Nigro 2009, 304. 13 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

746

L. Peyronel

grooved-rim necked jar.16 Some exemplars of small jars either with rounded body or sharp middle carination and corrugated or grooved vertical or slightly flaring rim (‘proto-collared bowl’) (Fig. 5:9–10) show that this type was attested in the EE Midden, and is thus an important piece of evidence for the relative chronology of the assemblage. Deep and wide craters or jars with wide mouth, biconical body, and expanded triangular rim are fairly numerous (18 exemplars). They are decorated by combings in a quite standardized pattern: the upper part of the rim is covered by combed lines, the upper part of the body bears a decoration consisting of two bands of horizontal lines with a wavy band in the middle (or rarely two bands of wavy combed lines), and a series of oblique incisions marking the middle carination (Fig. 6:2–3). A single specimen has also a series of parallel vertical rows of short incisions between the rim and the combed decoration (Fig. 6:1) Another very common type is an ovoidal or globular jar with out-turned expanded rim with a decoration on the shoulder, consisting of two horizontal bands of combed lines (21 exemplars) (Fig. 6:4–6). The wavy combed pattern is not present on the identified specimens of this vessel type. Medium-large jars with thick rounded or pointed rim and a ridged/collared short neck constitute a very distinctive closed form (23 exemplars). Three main sub-types of rim/neck can be singled out: expanded round and out-flaring rim with a slightly ridged neck, thick rounded rim with a marked ridge (usually with combed horizontal lines on the shoulder), and rounded rim and ridge (Fig. 7:1–2). Ovoid jars with pronounced double everted rim and a narrow neck belong to several sub-types (in some cases with combed horizontal decoration on the shoulder), suggesting that the shape was introduced during MB IA, becoming a well-defined and standardized vessel in the following period (Fig. 7:3–4). Medium-sized ovoidal jars/jugs with narrow mouth, rounded out-swollen rim and pronounced shoulder marked by grooves are also fairly common (Fig. 7:5–6). Bigger containers are represented by a jar without shoulder and with thickened round and everted rim (Fig. 7:7) Painted Simple Ware. The pottery horizon of the beginning of the 2nd millennium in Inner Syria is marked by the almost complete disappearance of a painted local production, which was on the contrary the hallmark of the previous caliciform pottery tradition.17 In the material from the EE Midden only two carinated bowls with inner red-slip decoration (Fig. 8:1) attest a class of painted ware probably imitating productions of the coastal region (Lebanon and Northern Palestine), where a distinctive type of large bowl with profiled rim with inner red-slip and burnishing is found.18 A globular jar with round out-turned rim has painted on the shoulder a frieze of pairs of hatched triangles joined at the apex, alternating with

The so-called “collared bowl:” Nigro 2002a, 105; 2002b, 305; 2009, 343–345. D’Andrea 2018a; 2018b. 18 Nigro 2007, 379–381, figs 7–8. 16 17

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

747

double vertical lines (Fig. 8:2). The painting is orange-brown over a cream slip and the fine pale brown fabric is highly fired. These features identify the vessel as belonging to a local production that is scarcely documented and therefore cannot be well defined.19 Miniaturistic Ware. A specific production of miniature vessels imitating the main open forms of Simple Ware is documented by six exemplars, which increase the scanty corpus of this period retrieved in other contexts. Five specimens of a slightly carinated bowl are present, and one of a bowl with simple rim on a solid hand-made foot with concave base (Fig. 8:3–4). Kitchen Ware is represented by dark gray or brown fabrics with predominant quartz/limestone sand temper, fired at low temperature. Most of the sherds probably come from various types of cooking pots. These vessels are usually roughly finished without any surface treatment (180 body-sherds), while 11 fragments are burnished on the outer side, showing that in a few cases the pot was more carefully manufactured, with the use of polishing/burnishing. Two main types of cooking pot can be singled out: a globular pot with large mouth, short neck and out-turned rim (with rim profile ranging from square and everted to round and slightly everted) attested with 31 exemplars and a cooking pot with a smaller maximum diameter, characterized by an expanded rim usually with knobs at the lip (19 exemplars, Fig. 8:5). The presence of a variety of rims and profiles, as well as the occurrence of other types (pots with vertical rim or pointed rim) contrasts with the more standardized production of cooking pots with globular body and square everted rim that spread during the following MB IB and especially during the MB II. The scarce presence of open forms of Kitchen Ware (only a few rims) might be due to a later introduction of this class at very end of MB IA or MB IB. It is interesting that open dishes, large bowls and platters are without surface treatment, while in the following MB IB burnishing became the rule for this kind of open forms of Kitchen Ware. Preservation Ware is scarcely represented in the EE Midden assemblage; only nine rims can be assigned to big jars. They appear to be strongly dependent on the previous EB IVB productions, such as the jars without neck and with round thickened rim (Fig. 8:7), continuing the hole-mouth tradition, and the jar with vertical grooved rim (Fig. 8:6) and the jar with elongated and pointed and everted rim in a reddish fabric.20 3. Tradition and Innovation in the Pottery Repertoire of Ebla at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age The large amount of pottery from the EE Midden allows for the building of a detailed typology of open and closed shapes dating from MB IA, which integrates

Nigro 2009, 312–317. D’Andrea 2018a, 227; 2018b, 7, fig. 11:3–6.

19 20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

748

L. Peyronel

that elaborated on the base of material from other sectors of the site, and contributes to a more comprehensive description of the pottery horizon of that period, which is still poorly known from well-stratified primary contexts. The first chrono-typology of the MB pottery from Ebla was outlined by P. Matthiae, and distinguished between the main types of the MB I (ca. 2000–1800 BC) and MB II (ca. 1800–1600 BC) periods.21 The first phase (MB I) might be roughly equivalent to Hama H5–3, where however the very beginning of the period seems lacking.22 The MB I pottery horizon was initially identified on the basis of very little material, mostly found in small soundings (especially below the Western Palace in the Lower Town and Temple D on the Acropolis) and secondary contexts. The widespread well-preserved MB II phase at Ebla and the limited exposure of stratified MB I contexts prevented the elaboration of a detailed typology of the MB I ceramic repertoire until the 1990s. The identification and excavation between 1991 and 1995 of two ritual wells (favissae F.5327 and F.5238) in the so-called Square of the Cisterns in Ishtar’s Sacred Area allowed for the identification of the main diagnostic types of the MB IB pottery horizon, as well as the MB I–II transitional phase.23 However, the outline of MB IA pottery still remained elusive until 1993–1994 when the Archaic Palace, a huge palace building founded at the end of the EB IVB, was excavated. The palace is located immediately to the north of the Northern Palace (and it also extended below it), which is well dated to the last phase of MB II by a large amount of pottery vessels in situ on the floors and in the destruction layer that marked the violent end of the town.24 Three main building phases have been identified based on floor sequences and structural additions and changes.25 The material collected from the different floor levels firmly date the architectural sequence to the late EB IVB (Archaic Palace phase I; ca. 2150–2000 BC), early MB IA (Archaic Palace phase II; ca. 2000–1950 BC), and late MB IA (Archaic Palace phase III; ca. 1950–1900 BC). After the end of the MB IA the palace was abandoned, probably in the aftermath of an earthquake and MB IB–IIA domestic buildings and craft structures were built over it; a large refuse pit (F.5861) which cut the previous levels was excavated in the western part. In the same period a new palace building was founded to the south, probably remaining in use for a short period (ca. 1900–1850/1800 BC), since it was then completely covered by the Northern Palace built during the late MB IB—and in turn destroyed at the

Matthiae 1977, 207–220; see also Pinnock 2007. For a discussion on the MB Hama sequence see Nigro 2009, 289–293; see also Al-Maqdissi 1997. 23 Marchetti / Nigro 1997; 1999. 24 Pinnock 2005. 25 Matthiae 1995, 659–674; 2006. 21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

749

end of the MB IIB (ca. 1850/1800–1650/1600 BC).26 The excavation of Area T in the Lower Town West during the 1993 season revealed a domestic quarter in use during the EB IVB, with a series of overlapping floors cut by some burials with pottery dating to the beginning of MB I.27 The definition of the MB IA ceramic horizon on the basis of stratified pottery from the Archaic Palace phases II–III and Area T28 allowed for a more precise chronological attribution of the burials found along the inner slope of the western rampart (Areas V, Z, AA), which can be dated to the MB IA and IB.29 In particular D.6922 includes bowls with gentle carination, Gublite bowls and biconical craters with combed decoration and can be reliably dated to the MB IA. To the same period is also dated the funerary assemblage of burial D.16 on the Acropolis slope, where most of the burials are dated to the MB IB.30 Finally, the first occupation of the Square of the Cisterns (Area P South) characterized by bothroi and votive pits, can be assigned to the MB IA.31 The diagnostic types defining the MB IA pottery horizon are slightly carinated bowls, the “Gublite bowls,” the “proto-collared bowls,” the craters with expanded rim and combed decoration, and the jars with collared rim, although with the exception of the first type, all the others continued in use, and were joined by new forms such as the collared bowls and the bowls with sharp carination, also in the pottery horizon of the following period, albeit progressively decreasing in percentage.32 The introduction of the ovoidal jar with double rim might be ascribed to a late MB IA phase, as suggested by its occurrence in Archaic Palace phase III; it then became the most common closed shape during the MB IB. The paucity of open forms with surface burnishing is a characteristic feature of MB IA Kitchen Ware, which is dominated by a large variety of globular cooking pots. Specialized productions are also absent, and especially the Black-Burnished Ware with its Syrian bottles, which may be considered a diagnostic element of the later MB IB period.33 The new pottery tradition of MB IA is marked by several changes in the technological and manufacture features, such as the use of combed decoration and the almost complete disappearance of painted pottery, the widespread coating of vessels with slips and the surface treatment with smoothing. However, some traits of continuity with the final EB IVB pottery might be envisaged in storage jars (hole-mouth types, jars with grooved rims) and also some open shapes (deep

The so-called Intermediate Palace; Matthiae 1995, 675–676; Nigro 2009, 336–337. Matthiae 1993, 634–637. 28 Nigro 2002a, 101–104; 2002b, 298–303; 2009, 296–320. 29 Baffi 2000; Polcaro 2014–2015. 30 Baffi 1988. 31 Marchetti / Nigro 1997, 5–6. 32 Nigro 2009, 320–366. 33 Nigro 2009, 354–357; see also Nigro 2003. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

750

L. Peyronel

hemispherical bowls) might have developed from the caliciform repertoire.34 The predominant employment of whitish-greenish clays with mineral temper seems to be a feature related to EB IVB tradition, although petrographic and mineralogical characterization through archaeometric analyses—currently in progress —is necessary in order to specify pottery groups verifying their chronological distribution.35 The pottery analysis of the EE Midden, in comparison with the above-mentioned stratified or sealed contexts, suggests that the excavated refuse dump deposit was formed during a short period, probably during the second half of the MB IA (ca. 1950–1900 BC), since the material is homogeneous and does not display any evident morphological development. The contemporary presence of Gublite bowls, bowls with gentle carination, and proto-collared rim bowls, as well as the high number of ovoid jars with double everted rim, indicate a probable chronological range in the central/late phase of MB IA, and possibly also continuing into the very beginning of the MB IB. A 14C dating from a caryopsis of barley has given the most reliable short-term result of 3652 +/- 35 BP (2140–1910 cal. BC).36 Notwithstanding the limits of this secondary context, the pottery of the EE Midden is very important for a better definition of this period since it is the largest MB IA assemblage at Ebla and it derived from domestic quarters and working areas of the town that are virtually unexplored. Moreover, it constitutes one of the few well-dated pottery groups from the beginning of the 2nd millennium in the whole North Inner Syria. No stratified MB IA levels have been identified in the Matkh region or at Tell Tuqan, where the earliest contexts are dated to the MB IB or MB IB–IIA transition.37 In the Jazr region the excavation at Tell Afis has enabled the identification of a transitional EB–MB phase preceding an MB I occupation with a pottery manufacture workshop in Area E3.38 An MB IA phase is documented at Ansari (Level V) in the Aleppo region.39 As mentioned above, at Hama the first MB phase40 can be dated to the second half of the 20th century BC, and the material from Tombs VI and III and Silos 10, 12, 13 and 16 are of late MB IA–early MB IB date.41 D’Andrea 2018b, 15–16. See Ballirano et al. 2014 for a first evaluation of some EB IVB samples. 36 LTL386A from a sample associated with SU TM.99.EE.624. Another dating (LTL395A) from a charcoal sample associated with the same SU has given a result of 3545 ± 45 BP (1980–1740 cal. BC). 37 Burials in Area N, platform in Area L South; Peyronel 2006; Ascalone 2014. 38 Felli / Merluzzi 2008; Felli / Mazzoni 2013. The presence of a “transitional” phase has been suggested also at Mishirifé-Qatna, Nebi Mend and Mastuma: D’Andrea 2018b, 23–24. In contrast, a phase in which a mixing of typical EB IVB and MB IA shapes coexisted is not documented in so far at Ebla. 39 Suleiman / Gritsenko 1987; Nigro 2009, 300–301. 40 H5; Fugmann 1958, fig. 109. 41 Nigro 2009, 299–300. 34 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

751

The affirmation of the Old Syrian culture (and the related question of the Amorite phenomenon) and the regeneration and redefinition of urban societies during the Middle Bronze I call for a detailed multi-factorial analysis of the period encompassing the end of the 3rd and the early 2nd millennium in Inner Syria, which takes into account socio-economic processes, technological transformation, environmental change and historical events. The available data are still insufficient as a basis for a wide-ranging and satisfactory reconstruction, and different explanations have been proposed.42 From a minimalist perspective, a first step might be a re-assessment of relative regional sequences based on key sites where controlled stratigraphic excavations allow a precise definition of material culture development. Ebla is certainly one of the few urban centers where such an analysis would be possible, thanks to the long-lasting excavations conducted there and the variety of contexts investigated.43 In this picture, the evidence from the EE Midden makes a significant contribution towards a better understanding of that crucial period, with data reflecting the urban landscape and natural environment of Ebla at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. Bibliography Al-Maqdissi, M., 1997: Stratigraphie et maisons à Hamah. Le cas du Bronze Moyen. In C. Castel / M. Al-Maqdissi / F. Villeneuve (eds): Les maisons dans la Syrie antique du IIIe millénaire aux débuts de l’Islam. Pratiques et représentations de l’espace domestique (BAH 150). Beyrouth. Pp. 135–150. Ascalone, E., 2014: The Long Life of the Dead. Middle Bronze IB Necropolis at Tell Tuqan, Syria. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013 Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 189–225. Baffi Guardata, F., 1988: Les sépultures d’Ebla à l’âge du Bronze Moyen. In H. Hauptmann / H. Waetzoldt (eds): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft aus Ebla. Akten der Internationale Tagung 4.–7. November 1986. Heidelberg. Pp. 3–20. –– 2000: Les tombes du Bronze Moyen dans le secteur des fortifications à Ebla. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome. Pp. 55–78. Ballirano, P. et al. 2014: A Combined Use of Optical Microscopy, X-Ray Powder Diffraction and Micro-Raman Spectroscopy for the Characterization of Ancient Ceramic from Ebla (Syria). Ceramics International 40: 16409–16419. Burke, A., 2014: Entanglement, the Amorite Koinè, and Amorite Cultures in the Levant. Aram 26: 355–372. Caracuta, V. / Fiorentino, G., 2013: Forests Near and Far. An Anthracological Perspective on Ebla. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape: E.g. Porter 2007; Schwartz 2007; Mazzoni 2013; Weiss 2013; Burke 2014. Pinnock 2009.

42 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

752

L. Peyronel

Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek. Pp. 403–412. –– 2014: Garbage Disposal in the Middle Bronze Age in Tell Mardikh-Ebla (NW Syria). Using Plant Remains to Investigate Midden Formation Processes. In F. Baffi, F. / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013 Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 485–506. D’Andrea, M., 2018a: The Early Bronze Age IVB Pottery of Ebla. Stratigraphy, Chronology, Typology and Style. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / M. D’Andrea (eds): Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th‒17th December 2014. Wiesbaden. Pp. 222–255. –– 2018b: The Early Bronze IVB Pottery from Tell Mardikh/Ebla. Chrono-Typological and Technological Data for Framing the Site within the Regional Context, Levant, DOI: doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2018.1449374 Felli, C. / Mazzoni, S., 2007: Bridging the Third/Second Millennium Divide: The Ebla and Afis Evidence. In C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés humaines et changements climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5–8 déc. 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19). Istanbul. Pp. 205–224. Felli, C. / Merluzzi, E., 2008: EB–MB Afis: A Single Cultural Tradition between Two Phases? In H. Kühne / R.M. Czichon / F.J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 97–110. Fiorentino, G. et al., 2008: Third Millennium B.C. Climate Change in Syria Highlighted by Carbon Stable Isotope Analysis of 14C-AMS Dated Plant Remains from Ebla. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology. Palaeoecology 266: 51–58. Fugmann, E., 1958: Hama: Fouilles et Recherches 1931–38. L’architecture des Périodes pré-hellénistiques (Nationalmuseets skrifter. Større beretninger 4). Copenhague. Marchetti, N., 2001: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla V. La coroplastica eblaita e siriana nel Bronzo Medio. Campagne 1964–1980. Roma. Marchetti, N. / Nigro, L., 1997: Cultic Activities in the Sacred Area of Ishtar at Ebla during the Old Syrian Period: The Favissae F.5327 and F.5238. JCS 49: 1–44. –– 1999: The favissa F.5238 in the Sacred Area of Ishtar and the Transition from the Middle Bronze I to the Middle Bronze II at Ebla. In K. Van Lerberghe / G. Voet (eds): Languages and Cultures in Contact. At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm (OLA 96). Leuven. Pp. 245–287. Matthiae, P., 1977: Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Milano. –– 1995: Fouilles à Ebla en 1993–1994: les palais de la ville basse Nord. CRAIBL: 651–681. –– 1998: Les fortifications de l’Ébla paléo-syrienne: fouilles à Tell Mardikh, 1995–1997. CRAIBL: 555–586. –– 2000: Nouvelles fouilles à Ébla (1998–1999): Forts et palais de l’enceinte urbaine. CRAIBL: 567–610. –– 2001: A Preliminary Note on the MB I–II Fortifications System at Ebla. DaM 13: 29–51. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

753

–– 2006: The Archaic Palace at Ebla: A Royal Building between Early Bronze Age IVB and Middle Bronze Age I. In S. Gitin / J. E. Wright / J. P. Dessel (eds): Confronting the Past. Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 85–103. Mazzoni, S., 2013: Tell Afis and the Early-Middle Bronze Age Transition. In S. Mazzoni / S. Soldi (eds): Syrian Archaeology in Perspective. Celebrating 20 Years of Excavations at Tell Afis. Proceedings of the International Meeting Percorsi di Archeologia Siriana, Pisa, 28–29 Novembre 2006. Pisa. Pp. 31–80. Nigro, L., 2000: Coordinating the MB I Pottery Horizon of Syria and Palestine. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome. Pp. 1187–1212. –– 2002a: The Middle Bronze Age Pottery Horizon of Northern Inner Syria on the Basis of the Stratified Assemblages of Ebla and Hama. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / C. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie I. La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 97–128. –– 2002b: The MB Pottery Horizon of Tell Mardikh/Ancient Ebla in a Chronological Perspective. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material Vienna, 24th–26th of January 2001. Wien. Pp. 297–328. –– 2003: The Smith and the King of Ebla. Tell el Yahudiyeh Ware, Metallic Wares and the Ceramic Chronology of Middle Bronze Syria. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, II: Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000 EuroConference, Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001. Wien. Pp. 345–363. –– 2007: Towards a Unified Chronology of Syria and Palestine. The Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the International Colloquium “From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine” (Rome 29th November–1st December 2001). Rome. Pp. 365–389. –– 2009: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla VIII. I corredi vascolari delle Tombe Reali di Ebla e la cronologia ceramica della Siria interna nel Bronzo Medio. Roma. Peyronel, L., 2000: Middle Bronze II Fortress V at Tell Mardikh-Ebla (Syria). Preliminary Analysis of Architectural Contexts and Archaeological Materials. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998. Rome. Pp. 1353–1377. –– 2006: La campagna del 1993: Area L Sud. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Ricerche archeologiche nella regione del Maath (Siria). Galatina. Pp. 177–231. –– 2007: Late Old Syrian Fortifications and Middle Syrian Re-Occupation of the Western Rampart at Tell Mardikh-Ebla. Problems of Relative Chronology and Stratigraphic Sequence. In M. Bietak / E. Czerny (eds): The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000–2nd EuroConference Vienna, 28th of May– 1st of June 2003. Wien. Pp. 403–422. –– 2008: Domestic Quarters, Refuse Pits, and Working Areas. Reconstructing Hu© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

754

L. Peyronel

man Landscape and Environment at Tell Mardikh-Ebla during the Old Syrian Period. In H. Kühne / R. M. Czichon / F. J. Kreppner (eds): Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 29 March–3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 177–189. –– 2014–2015: Defensive Buildings at Ebla (Syria) during the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000–1600 BC), AAAS LVII–LVIII: 191–203. Pinnock, F., 2005: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla VI. La ceramica del Palazzo Settentrionale del Bronzo Medio II. Rome. –– 2007: Middle Bronze Ceramic Horizon at Ebla. Typology and Chronology. In: P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the International Colloquium ‘From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine’ (Rome 29th November–1st December 2001). Rome. Pp. 457–472. –– 2009: EBIVB–MBI in Northern Syria. Crisis and Change of a Mature Urban Civilisation. In P.J. Parr (ed.): Proceedings of the International Meeting “The Levant in Transition - The Intermediate Early Bronze Age. A Four-Day International Conference,” London 19–22 April 2004. London. Pp. 69–79. –– 2014: The Ceramic Horizon of Middle Bronze I–II in North Inner Syria: The Case of Ebla. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives. Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period. Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013 Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 227–246. Polcaro, A., 2014–2015: The Middle Bronze Age Cemetery of Eblaite Royal Artisans: A Re-analysis of the Area G South of Tell Mardikh, AAAS LVII–LVIII: 205–215. Porter, A., 2007: You Say Potato, I Say … Typology, Chronology and the Origin of the Amorites, in C. Kuzucuoğlu / C. Marro (eds): Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en haute-Mésopotamie? (Varia Anatolica 19). Istanbul. Pp. 69–115. Schwartz, G.M., 2007: The Early-Middle Bronze Transition Evidence from Umm el-Marra and Western Syria. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the International Colloquium “From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine” (Rome 29th November–1st December 2001). Rome. Pp. 511–529. Suleiman, A. / Gritsenko, A., 1987: Landmarks of the Ancient City of Ansari (Yamhad). Syria 64: 231–243. Weiss, H., 2013: Altered Trajectories: The Intermediate Bronze Age in Syria and Lebanon 2200–1900 BCE. In M. Steiner / A. Killebrew (eds): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford. Pp. 367–387.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

Fig. 1. Area EE. Schematic plan of MB I‒II phases (© MAIS).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

755

756

L. Peyronel

Fig. 2. Midden EE from the west (© MAIS).

Fig. 3. Clay figurines from Midden EE. MB IA (© MAIS).

Fig. 4. Bronze pincers from Midden EE. MB IA (© MAIS).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

1. TM.99.EE.624/1

757

2. TM.99.EE.624/4

3. TM.99.EE.624/8

4. TM.99.EE.624/16

5. TM.99.EE.621/26

6. TM.99.EE.621/31

7. TM.99.EE.621/35

10. TM.99.EE.624/26 8. TM.99.EE.621/8

9. TM.99.EE.624/25

Fig. 5. Pottery from Midden EE. Simple Ware. MB IA (© MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

758

L. Peyronel

1. TM.99.EE.626/13

2. TM.99.EE.626/10

3. TM.99.EE.626/17

4. TM.99.EE.626/22

5. TM.99.EE.626/23 6. TM.99.EE.626/25

Fig. 6. Pottery from Midden EE. Simple Ware with combed decoration, MB IA (© MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Beginning of the MBA in the Northern Levant

1. TM.99.EE.627/26

2. TM.99.EE.627/28

3. TM.99.EE.627/8 4. TM.99.EE.627/10

5. TM.99.EE.627/1

6. TM.99.EE.627/3

7. TM.99.EE.627/15

Fig. 7. Pottery from Midden EE. Simple Ware, MB IA (© MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

759

760

L. Peyronel

1. TM.99.EE.626/4

2. TM.99.EE.631/7

3. TM.99.EE.631/1

4. TM.99.EE.631/4

5. TM.99.EE.630/17

6. TM.99.EE.631/21

7. 99.EE.631/22

Fig. 8. Pottery from Midden EE. Simple Painted Ware (1‒2), Miniaturistic vessels (3‒4), Kitchen Ware (5), Preservation Ware (6‒7), MB IA (© MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky: The Role of the Scorpion in the Ploughing Scenes on Akkadian Glyptic Sara Pizzimenti*

1. Introduction Represented in different scenes, such as series of animals,1 presentation scenes2 as well as scenes connected to fertility,3 the scorpion is one of the fixed elements of the ploughing scenes of the Akkadian glyptic. Nowadays, 27 species of Scorpion can be identified in the Near East, with 75 (sub-)species,4 mostly of the Buthidae family (dangerous for humans), as well as some species of Scorpionidae.5 A sort of classification of the Scorpion can be thus found at the end of the 14th tablet of the series ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu, where the scorpion is placed among insects (particularly ants) and lizards:6 360 (me-ir)mir 361 ([pi-r]iga)gìr 362 (gi-ir)gír 363 gír-tab 364 gír-tab-kur-ra 365 gír-tab-babbar

zuqaqīpu zuqaqīpu zuqaqīpu zuqaqīpu zuqaqīpu šadî zuqaqīpu peṣû

scorpion scorpion scorpion scorpion mountain scorpion white scorpion

I would like to express my deep gratitude and to dedicate this short contribution to prof. Frances Pinnock. I will always thank her for her advices, her support and for giving me the possibility to work together. 1 See for example the seals NBC 1493 (Buchanan 1981, 190, no. 492), and AO.15480 (Parrot 1954, 7, no.19, pl. II:19). 2 See for example the seal As. 32.821 (Frankfort 1955, pl. 54:577). 3 See for example the scorpion and the entwined serpents as in Delaporte 1920, 2, T23, pl. 2: 9a–b, or the seal from Tell Asmar in which the scorpion is represented under a bed on which a male and a female characters are involved in a sexual act (As. 32.934, Frankfort 1934, 49, fig. 42). 4 Gilbert 2002, 41. 5 Pientka-Hinz 2009, 576–577. For further data about the scorpion in the Near East see Farzanpay / Pretzmann 1974; Kinzelbach 1985; Schmidt 2000. 6 Landsberger 1934, 28–29, 136–137; 1962, 39–40; Pientka-Hinz 2009, 577. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

762

S. Pizzimenti

366 gír-tab-ge6 zuqaqīpu ṣalmu black scorpion 367 gír-tab-sa5 zuqaqīpu sāmu red scorpion 368 gír-tab-gùn-gùn-nu zuqaqīpu burrumu multicolored scorpion 369 gír-tab-sig7-sig7 zuqaqīpu arqu yellow scorpion 370 gír-tab-ri-ri-ga zuqaqīpu muttaprišu flying scorpion 371 um-me-da-gír-tab ārītu zuqaqīpi keeper of the scorpions ummi zuqaqīpi mother of the scorpions7

Nonetheless, this distinction among different species seems to be completely absent in the representation on the scorpion in ancient Mesopotamian art. Although stylistic variation occurs, the scorpion is always depicted from above, with an emphasis on the pincer and the tail, which represent its important visual identifiers. The Sumerian word for scorpion, in fact, seems to be linked to the dangerous and poisonous characteristic of its tail. The Sumerian name for scorpion is ĝír, or ĝìr—since the Old Babylonian period ĝír-tab—whose meaning is “dagger (and) spike,”8 “double edged sword,” or “burning sword,” while the Akkadian name is zuqaqīpu.9 The scorpion is one of the most represented animals in Mesopotamian art. It appears first in the 6th millennium BC on the Samarra pottery,10 and in several fragments of Ubaid pottery found at Eridu.11 Representations of the scorpion during the Jemdet Nasr period is testified by findings from Fara and Tell Asmar,12 while its presence on the decoration of cylinder seals starts since the 4th millennium BC, as shown by a stamp seal found in the Stratum X at Tepe Gawra13 and by several seal impressions found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur.14 The site of Tello/ ancient Girsu, in southern Mesopotamia, is the one where representations of the scorpion are most attested, often together with the entwined serpents, symbol of fertility,15 and occupy the central part of the scene.16 This association indicates one of the main meaning and value of the scorpion: the fertility. This value continues Galter 2007, 654. Krebernik 1984, 44. 9 For an analysis of the Mesopotamian terminology for “scorpion” see Pientka-Hinz 2009, 577. 10 See for example the Samarran pottery with radiating designs combining long-haired women and scorpions (Oates / Oates 1976, 148). 11 Herzfeld 1930, figs 2, 5, 31, pls I:2, 3, III, IV, V:4, 5. 12 Schmidt 1931, 214, pl. XXIV: 5 13 Bache 1933, 27; Mallowan 1935, pl. IX: 606. 14 Legrain, 1936, pl. 2: no. 20, pl. 3: no. 42, pl. 10: no. 214, pl. 11, no. 217. 15 For an analysis of the entwined serpents as symbol of fertility see van Buren 1935. 16 See for example Delaporte 1920, 2, T23, pl. 2:9a-b. 7 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

763

during the Early Dynastic period, as testified by a seal from Tell Asmar in which the scorpion is represented under a bed on which a male and a female characters are involved in a sexual act.17 During the following Akkadian period, the scorpion continues to be represented on glyptic, both in a naturalistic as in a schematic way, as part of series of animals (Fig.1a), together with the entwined serpents (Fig. 1b), following previous traditions, or, for the first time, in presentation (Fig. 1c), in contest (Fig. 1d), and in ploughing scenes (Figs 2, 3). 2. Analysis Ploughing scenes appear on nine Akkadian cylinder seals,18 six of which come from the antiquarian market, while the remaining three have been recovered in archaeological excavations, such as Susa (Fig. 2c) and Tell Asmar.19 In three seals20 the ploughing scene is the only scene depicted, with no other elements added, while the seal 212 of the Pierpont Morgan library21 is too fragmentary to reconstruct its entire decoration. However, in this seal the ploughing activity is related to a female goddess holding stalks of grain in her hands, as well as stalks of grain seem to come out from her shoulders, showing a natural connection between the ploughing scene represented and the following harvest as well as fertility of the cultivated soil. The remaining five seals (Figs 2, 3) present the ploughing scene topped by symbols. The ploughing scene represented, more or less elaborated, allows the identification of two types. Type 1 – Ploughing scene with human characters (Fig. 2) Represented on three seals, this scene is characterized by the representation of a ploughing activity performed by human beings. On the seal NBC 5990 (Fig. 2a) three naked male characters, all facing right, are involved in the ploughing activity: two of them control the seed-plough, while the third one, with a whip in his right hand, commands the oxen which drag it. In the upper part of the seal, three birds fly above the animal, while a crescent and a scorpion are represented on the left. In addition, in the seal BN 7 (Fig. 2b) two male figures control the plough, dragged by two oxen, while other two figures control them. They are all facing right and wear a short skirt. Two stars, a crescent and a scorpion are represented in the upper part of the seal. Finally, the seal S.405 from Susa, kept in

As. 32.934 (Frankfort 1934, 49, fig. 42). Boehmer 1965, 191, no. cat. 1678–1684a. 19 Boehmer 1965, pl. LX:713–714. 20 Boehmer 1965, pl. LX:713, 715, cat. no. 1684. 21 Porada 1947, cat. no. 212. 17 18

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

764

S. Pizzimenti

the Louvre Museum (Fig. 2c), presents a simplified plough scene. Only one oxen, facing right, is represented, while behind it a male character is standing and facing right. Although the plough is not represented, the position of the arms of the male character let us assume he is using a tool, probably a plough. Two trees frame the scene, while a scorpion is represented in the upper part of the seal, immediately above the back of the oxen. Type 2 – Ploughing scene with deities and semi-deities controlling the plough (Fig. 3) This type is represented on two seals. In the seal from Tell Asmar Diyala 654 (Fig. 3a) two bearded deities dressed in flounced robe, with a single-horn tiara, both facing right are represented. The first deity on the left controls the plough, which is dragged by a oxen, while a second one, whose right arm ends as a scorpion, helps him. Being the “scorpion-arm” raised, the scorpion also appears to be in the sky—the upper part of the scene—where a crescent and a eight pointed star are placed. Furthermore, a long snake crosses the vault of heaven. A seal from the Erlenmeyer Collection (Fig. 3b) is the most complex ploughing scene represented on Akkadian glyptic. Two deities—one male and one female—are carrying on the ploughing activity. While the male deity is controlling the plough, the female one is helping him, with the action of seeding, as well as controlling the animal that is dragging the plough: a lion. While no sure hypothesis can be proposed regarding the male deity,22 the female one can be surely identified with Ishtar, as indicated by the long loose hair as well as by the rays coming out from her shoulders.23 Furthermore, the lion is the symbol and attribute of Ishtar.24 A bull, on whose back is represented a lightning, symbol of the storm-god,25 is represented above the lion, together with a flying bird. In front of the divine couple a male attendant, who is making a libation, is represented. A female attendant, smaller in size, is depicted above the plough. Behind the male god, in the upper part of the seal, a scorpion is represented.

During the Akkadian period the god Anu is considered as the partner of the goddess Ishtar (Nigro 1997, 360). It is thus possible to suppose that the male deity represented on the seal, together with Ishtar, might be the god Anu. 23 The representation of the goddess Ishtar involved in a ploughing activity is directly related to the Akkadian program of identifying the Sumerian Inanna with the Akkadian Ishtar. The Akkadian iconography of Ishtar in fact is the figurative expression of the syncretism with Inanna, in which Ishtar, usually depicted as a warrior goddess, is represented with features and in activities related to the Sumerian Inanna (Nigro 1997, 357–361). At this regard, the seal BM129479, kept in the British Museum, carries in its decoration the representation of both the deities (Collon 1982, pl. XXXI:213) 24 Inanna, Sumerian correspondent of Ishtar, for example, is called “lion of heaven:” “Inanna, the great storm, the lion of heaven” (Heimpel 1968, 315, 36:55); “Inanna, the lion of heaven, shining, your powers are exalted” (Heimpel 1968, 315–316, 36:56). 25 For an analysis of the symbol of the lightning see van Buren 1945, 67 and Pizzimenti 2017, 13–14. 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

765

3. Interpretation All the ploughing scenes of the Akkadian glyptic present elements in common. With the exception of S.405 (Fig. 2c), where the scene can be considered an “abbreviated” one, there are always at least two figures involved: the first one controlling the plough and the second controlling the animals. When the seeding-plough is represented, the figure which controls the animal also controls the seeding-part of the plough. Therefore, the ploughing activity is always represented in a realistic way. Another quite constant element is the presence of astral symbols in the upper part of the scene, where stars or the crescent are quite always represented, but the scorpion is always represented. While the stars and the crescent, because of their features, as well as because of their placement in the upper part of the scene,26 can be immediately considered as representation of astral bodies,27 the scorpion is, on the other hand, the representation of an animal. However, the scorpion itself can have, in its representation, an astral value, here reinforced by its constant position in the upper part of the scene: the sky. A Scorpion constellation (mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu), in fact, is present in the MUL.APIN,28 the first astronomical compendium,29 which makes possible to sup-

Symbols with a clear astronomical value, such as the star and the crescent, occupy a quite constant position in the upper part of the scene in which they are represented, which should correspond to the sky, the real place the correspondent heavenly bodies occupy in the real world, considering that the Mesopotamians always started, in their artistic representation, from a “direct view” (Pizzimenti 2014, 152–153). 27 The crescent can be considered the representation of the Moon, as well as the astral correspondent of the god Nanna/Sin. It appears in Mesopotamian visual imagery from the prehistoric times onward (Black / Green 1992, 54). Its first appearance on glyptic can be found in seals from Fara: see for example the seals VA 8605 (Heinrich 1931, pl. 58:c) and VA 8725 (Heinrich 1931, pl. 47:b). For an analysis of the symbol of the crescent see van Buren 1945, 60–64; Seidl 1989, 97–98; Collon 1992, 19–37; Black / Green 1992, 54; Stop 1992, 245–247; Pizzimenti 2013, 267–268; 2017, 9–10.The eight pointed star is the visual representation of the planet Venus and the astral correspondent of the goddess Inanna/Ishtar. The correspondence between the Inanna/Ishtar and the eight pointed star dates back at least to the 3rd millennium BC (Brown 2000, 55). In the Cylinder A of Gudea, in fact, is written “the (star-)disk, symbol of Ininna, he set up” (Thureau Dangin 1907, 104 ff.), while clear textual evidence of the connection between Inanna/Ishtar and the planet Venus (ddili-bat) dates back to the Ur III period (Brown 2000, 67), when she is called “Lady of the Morning” and “Lady of the Evening” (Kramer / Wolkstein 1983, 103). One of the main characteristic of Venus is its cyclic nature in being periodically the first star visible in the nocturnal sky or the last visible star in the morning. For an analysis of the cycle of Venus see Pizzimenti 2014. 28 Hunger / Pingree 1989, 138. 29 The main core of the MUL.APIN seems to belong to the end of the 3rd millennium BC, and precisely to 2048 BC, as E. Weidner (1915) and then V.S. Tuman (1992) demonstrated, though B.E. Shaefer (2007) suggests that the epoch for the observations 26

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

766

S. Pizzimenti

pose that the scorpion represented in the upper part of the ploughing scene could be the visual representation of the Mesopotamian Scorpion constellation (mulGÍR. TAB/zuqaqīpu), corresponding to the actual constellation of Scorpio, together with part of the Libra and Ophiuchus constellations.30 On the other hand, agriculture and all the related activities, such as ploughing, depend on the seasons: the year began in late summer, when the field which has lain fallow the previous year31 needed to be prepared by breaking up the soil and irrigating it to soften the ground; then follows the sowing.32 The stars and the orientation to them is thus one of the way used to regulate the agricultural activities, as testified by the so-called “Farmer’s Instruction,” didactic texts about the grain cultivations:33 38 u4 mul an-na šu im-ma-ab-du7-a-ta 39 10-àm á gud a-šà zi-zi-i-da-šè igi-zu nam-ba-e-gíd-i “Once the sky constellations are right, do not be reluctant to take the oxen force to the field many times.”34

Comparing the ploughing scenes and this short instruction regarding the ploughing activities, it is possible to assume a connection between the mulGÍR. TAB/zuqaqīpu constellation and the “right constellation time.” However, in order to better understand this connection, it is necessary to individuate the time during which the mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu constellation was visible at the Mesopotamia latitude during the Akkadian period. 3.1 The mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu Constellation and the Calendar The calendars used in Mesopotamia were a combination of lunar and solar calendar. where the Moon achieved dominance over the Sun as a determiner of the year. However, the superiority of the Moon is evident, being the year measured is 1370 +/- 100 BC. Weidner 1957–58; Koch 1995-96, 158–162; Galter 2007, 656; CAD Z, 165. 31 A system of alternate-year fallowing of winter crops is attested at least since the Early Dynastic period in Southern Mesopotamia (Yamamoto 1980; Jacobsen 1982, 72). However, Maekawa argued that this practice can be attested at Girsu during the Shulgi and Amar-Suen periods (Maekawa 1984, 74). 32 Postgate 1994, 167 ff. 33 Dated to the 18th–17th cent. BC (Civil 1994, 4), the Farmer’s Istructions describes, in chronological order, the proper way to cultivate cereal crops, specifically barley, from the flood season through tilling and sowing until the end of the harvest, covering an entire agricultural year (Civil 1994, 1). For a study about the scorpion and its related Mesopotamian constellation see Zernecke 2008. 34 Civil 1994, 1–5, 30–31. 30

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

767

by complete lunar cycles. The months themselves were based on the lunar cycle, with a length that could vary between 29 and 30 days, composing a year of around 354 days. The solar part of the calendar can, on the other hand, be perceived in the religious festivals, during which seasonal phenomenon were celebrated. Finally, in addition to the lunar cycle and the seasonal cycle the equinoxes cycles has to be added, together with the concept of two six months periods defined by the equinoxes. The rainy season started around September, with sporadic flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates river starting from November, but it was during the months of April and May that the main flooding are registered. In the mid-3rd millennium BC the so-called “Early Semitic Calendar,” attested in Northern and Central Mesopotamia, presents several names of the months related to agricultural activities, for which the Equinoxes were extremely. The spring equinox, in fact, identified the beginning of the spring season, and so the beginning of the year, while the autumn equinox indicated the end of the summer and the beginning of the raining season. Because of the so-called precession of the equinoxes, over centuries the precise date of the equinoxes changed. More precisely, during the Akkadian period the Spring equinox happened on the 9th of April, while the Autumn equinox happened on the 12th of October. Making a reconstruction of the sky of central Mesopotamia from the 2350 to the 2200 ca. BC it is possible to notice that in the middle of the month of September the mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu constellation was visible just at the sunset, disappearing few moments after the sunset happened. More precisely in 2250 BC, the heliacal setting35 of Antares (α Scorpii), the most luminous star of the Scorpio constellation, happened on the 1st of September, after which the constellation started a darkness phase. The fist new appearance of the mulGÍR.TAB/ zuqaqīpu constellation happened at the end of October/beginning of November. More precisely, in 2250 BC the heliacal rising36 of Antares Antares (α Scorpii), happened on the 28th of October, just 16 days after the equinox, indicating the end of the summer and the consequent beginning of the raining season. 3.2 The Agricultural Cycle In the 3rd millennium BC the agricultural cycle in the 3rd millennium BC Mesopotamia was composed by four main phases: 1. acquisition and retooling of the equipment; 2. preparation of the fields in advance for the seeding; 3. seeding; 4. harvest.

The heliacal setting is the last visible setting of a star in the evening twilight. On the following evening, the star will pass below the horizon while there is still too much sunlight for it to be seen. 36 The heliacal rising of a star is the moment of its first visibility above the eastern horizon for a brief moment just before the sunrise, after a period of time during which it had not been visible. 35

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

768

S. Pizzimenti

Looking at the agricultural activities related to the name of the months, it is possible to notice that the 4th month—corresponding to July—, named itišu-nunum, which means “seed-sowing”37, was the time to start preparing the fields for seeding, and the plow was used in this process. On the other hand the 8th month—October—was named iti gišapin-du8-a, “the month the seed-plow is let go,” indicating the end of ploughing and seeding activities before the beginning of the raining season. The Sumerian composition “Disputation between the Plow and the Hoe” gives new hints about the plowing activities, proving in a certain way this range of time. In this disputation between hoe and plow, the hoe reproaches to the plow: “My full term is 12 months. Your period of service is but 4 months. The time you’re hidden away is 8 months.”38 This line seems thus to reflect agricultural practices in which the plow is use 4 months—probably from the 4th to the 7th— with the 8th month during which the plow was hung from a beam and stored away until next year.39 3.3 The Scorpion Constellation and the Ploughing Activity One of the main and most important moments in the observation of the stars is their first apparition in the sky after a period of darkness, during which it was not visible for a period of time. It is thus called heliacal rising the moment of first apparition of the star in the sky at the sunrise, after the period of darkness. The mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu is a constellation with a darkness fase corresponding to the end of the summer season and an heliacal rising which happened just after the autumn equinox and corresponding to the beginning of the raining season, the end of the ploughing activities. In a certain way, it is possible to suppose a strong relationship between the Scorpion constellation and the agricultural activities. The preparation of the fields started in the 4th month—July—during which the Scorpion constellation was well visible in the sky, although it passed the day of major visibility. The first part of the ploughing activity had thus to happened while in the sky the Scorpion constellation had to be well visible. However, its heliacal setting, which happened in September, the 7th month, should let the farmers aware that the raining season was approaching and that it was necessary to hurry up in let the fields prepared. The heliacal rising of the most visible star of the mul GÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu constellation, the actual Antares (α Scorpii), corresponding to the Lisi-star,40 which happened in the 8th month, announcing the beginning of

Cohen 1993, 96. Vanstiphout 1984, vv. 104–108. 39 “Once you have taken down your sacred plow, which was hanging from a beam, your master carpenter must tighten (its) bonds (The Song of the Plowing Ox [Civil 1976, vv. 124–125]). 40 The identification of Antares with the Lisi-star can be found in the MUL.APIN I ii30: 37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

769

the raining season, should be the last possible time for the farmers to perform the ploughing of the fields. In the MUL.APIN II iii 35-37 it is in fact written: DIŠ u4-um dLi9-si4 IGI.LÁ 3 u4-me mu-ši-ta LÚ NIGIN É-šú NAM.LÚ.U18.LU GU4 UDU.NITÁ ANŠE li-de-ek-ki NU ina-al u ana dLi9-si4 lik-ru-ub KI NIGÍN É-šú uš-tak-lal

“On the day the Lisi-star becomes visible, a man should wake up at night all that is around his house, people, cattle, sheep, donkeys, and he must not sleep; he should pray to the Lisi-god, then he and all that is around his house will experience success.” 4. Conclusions The scorpion is one of the most represented animals in Mesopotamian art. Since its first appearance in the 6th millennium BC, it is strongly related to fertility, as testified by its depiction in association with the entwined serpents and sexual scenes. During the Akkadian period, the scorpion makes its first appearance in the ploughing scenes on cylinder seals, where it is always represented in the upper part of the composition, as the visual representation of the Mesopotamian Scorpion constellation (mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu). Taking into consideration the Mesopotamian agricultural cycle and the appearance of the Scorpion constellation in the sky at the end of the 3rd millennium BC, it can be noticed a relationship between them. The mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu constellation, in fact, is well visible in the sky when the preparation of the fields starts, while its heliacal setting - its last visible setting in the evening twilight - let the farmers aware that the raining season is approaching and that it is necessary to hurry up in let the fields prepared. It is thus possible to assume that the representation of the symbol of the scorpion in the ploughing scenes on Akkadian glyptic is the representation of the Mesopotamian Scorpion constellation (mulGÍR.TAB/zuqaqīpu) at its heliacal setting, when, after having crossed the entire nocturnal sky during its visible period, it has accomplished its mission to fertilize the fields before completely disappearing below the horizon.

“The breast of the scorpion:” Lisi, Nabû (Hunger / Pingree 1989, 38). Hunger and Pingree indicate thus that the Lisi-star is the α Scorpii (=Antares) (Hunger / Pingree 1989, 138). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

770

S. Pizzimenti

Bibliography Bache, C., 1933: Work of the Baghdad School. BASOR 51: 20–26. Black, J. / Green, A., 1992: Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. London. Boehmer, R.M., 1965: Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit. Berlin. Brown, D., 2000: Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology (CM 18). Gröningen. Buchanan, B., 1981: Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven / London. Civil, M., 1976: The Song of the Plowing Oxen. In B.L. Eichler / J.W. Heimerdinger / Å.W. Sjöberg (eds): Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in honor of Samuel Noah Kramer (AOAT 25). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pp. 85–95. –– 1994: The Farmer’s Instructions. A Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula Orientalis Suppl. 5). Barcelona. Cohen, M., 1993: The Cultic Calendar of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda. Collon, D., 1982: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum: Cylinder Seals II: Akkadian, Post Akkadian, Ur III Periods. London. –– 1992: The Near Eastern moon God. In D.J.W. Meijer (ed.): Natural Phenomena: Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East. Amsterdam. Pp. 19–37 Delaporte, L., 1920: Catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachet et pierre gravées du Musée du Louvre. I. – Fouilles et missions. Paris. Farzanpay, R. / Pretzmann, G., 1974: Ergebnisse einiger Sammelreisen nach Vorderasien, 4.Teil. Skorpione aus Iran. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 78: 215–217. Frankfort, H., 1934: Iraq Excavation of the Oriental Institute 1932/33: Third Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition (OIC 17). Chicago. –– 1955: Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region (OIP 72). Chicago. Galter, H.D., 2007: Der Skorpion und die Königin zur Tiersymbolik bei den Assyrern. Journal for Semitics 16/3: 646–671. Gilbert, A.S., 2002: The Native Fauna of the Ancient Near East. In B.J. Collins (ed.): A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (HdO 64). Leiden / Boston / Köln: 3–78. Heimpel, W., 1968: A Catalogue of Near Eastern Venus Deities (Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 4.3). Malibu. Heinrich, E., 1931: Fara: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Fara und Abu Halab in 1902/1903. Berlin. Herzfeld, E., 1930: Die vorgeschichtlichen Töpferein von Samarra (Ausgrabungen von Samarra V). Berlin. Hunger, H. / Pingree, D., 1989: MUL.APIN. An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform (AfO, Beih. 24). Horn. Jacobsen, Th., 1982: Salinity and Irrigation: Agriculture in Antiquity (Diyala Basin Archaeological Project: Report on Essential Results 1957–58 (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 14). Malibu. Kinzelbach, R., 1985: Vorderer Orient: Skorpione (Arachnida: Scorpiones). TAVO: Karte A VI 14.2. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

771

Koch, J., 1995-96: MUL.APIN II i 68–71. AfO 42/43: 155–162. Krebernik, M., 1984: Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla: Untersuchungen zur ältesten Keilschriftlichen Beschwörungsliteratur (Textes und Studien zur Orientalistik 2). Hideshein. Landsberger, B. (ed.), 1934: Die Fauna des alten Mesopotamien nach der 14. Tafel der Serie ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu (AbhLeipzig 42/6). Leipzig. –– 1962: The Fauna of Ancient Mesopotamia. 2nd Part. ḪAR.RA = ḫubullu Tablets XIV and XVIII (MSL 8/2). Rome. Legrain, L., 1936: Archaic Seal-Impressions (UE III). Oxford. Maekawa, K., 1984: Cereal Cultivation in the Ur III Period. Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 73–96. Mallowan, M.E.L., 1935: Excavation at Tell Arpachiyah, 1933. Iraq 2: 1–178. Nigro, L., 1997: Legittimazione e consenso: iconologia, religione e politica nelle stele di Sargon di Akkad. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Studi Romani in memoria di Henri Frankfort (1897–1954) presentati dalla scuola romana di Archeologia Orientale (CMAO 7). Rome. Pp. 351–392. Oates, S.D. / Oates, J., 1976: The Rise of Civilization (The Making of the Past). Oxford. Parrot, A., 1954: Glyptique mésopotamienne fouilles de Lagash (Tello) et de Larsa (Senkereh) (1931–1933). Paris. Pientka-Hinz, R., 2009: Skorpion. RlA 12: 576–580. Pizzimenti, S., 2013: The Other Face of the Moon. Some Hints on the Visual Representation of the Moon on the III Millennium BC Mesopotamian Glyptic. In L. Feliu et al. (eds): Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26–30 July 2010. Winona Lake. Pp. 265–272. –– 2014: The Astral Family in Kassite Kudurru Reliefs. Iconographical and Iconological Study of Sîn, Šamaš and Ištar Astral Representations. In L. Marti (ed.): La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, symbolismes, et images Proceedings of the 55th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Paris 6–9 July 2009. Winona Lake. Pp. 151–161. –– 2017: Simboli e associazioni astrali nella glittica mesopotamica del Bronzo Tardo (BAR IS 2841). Oxford. Porada, E., 1947: Mesopotamian Art in Cylinder Seals of the Pierpont Morgan Library. New York. Postgate, J.N., 1992: Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London / New York. Schaefer, B.E., 2007: The Latitude and Epoch of the Origin of the Astronomical Lore in MUL.APIN. BASOR 38: 157. Schmidt, E., 1931: Excavation at Fara. MJ XXII: 158–230. Schmidt, G., 2000: Giftige und gefährliche Spinnentiere. Magdeburg. Seidl, U., 1989: Die babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs. Symbole mesopotamischer Gottheiten (OBO 87). Freiburg. Stol, M., 1992: The Moon as Seen by the Babylonians. In D.J.W. Meijer (ed.): Natural Phenomena. Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East. Amsterdam. Pp. 245–277. Thureau-Dangin, F., 1907: Die sumerischen und akkadischen Königsinschriften © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

772

S. Pizzimenti

(Vorderasiatische Bibliothek I). Leipzig. Tuman, V.S., 1992: Astronomical Dating of MUL.APIN Tablets. In D. Charpin / F. Joannés (eds): La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans la Proche-Orient ancien, XXXVIII R.A.I. Paris. 401. van Buren, E.D., 1935–36: Entwined Serpents. AfO 10: 53–65. –– 1945: Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (AnOr 23). Rome. Vanstiphout, H.L.J., 1984: On the Sumerian Disputation between the Hoe and the Plough. Aula Orientalis 2: 239–251. Weidner, E., 1915: Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie (Assyriologische Bibliotek 23). Leipzig. ––1957-58: mulgír-tab/zuqaqīpu. AfO 18: 393–394. Yamamoto, Sh., 1980: The Agricultural Year in pre-sargonic Girsu-Lagash (II). Acta Sumerologica 2: 169–187. Zernecke, A.E., 2008: Warum sitzt der Skorpion unter dem Bett? Überlegungen zur Deutung eines altorientalischen Fruchtbarkeitssymbols. ZDPV 124/1: 107–127.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Fertility from the Sky

773

Fig. 1. The scorpion in Akkadian glyptic: a) series of animals (Buchanan 1981, 191, no. 492) ; b) the scorpion and the entwined serpents (Boehmer 1965, pl. LV: 664); c) presentation scene (Frankfort 1955, pl. 54:577); d) contest scene (Porada 1947, pl. XXII:143E).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

774

S. Pizzimenti

Fig. 2. The scorpion in ploughing scenes with human characters: (a) Boehmer 1965, pl. LX: 712; b) Boehmer 1965, pl. LX: 711; c) Delaporte 1920, pl. 30:1[S.405]).

Fig. 3. The scorpion in ploughing scenes with deities and semi-deities: (a) Boehmer 1965, pl. LX:714; b) Boehmer 1965, pl. LX:715a).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents: An Iconographic and Contextual Analysis of the Cultic Vessels with Serpent Figurines in the 4th–3rd Millennium BC Transjordan Andrea Polcaro*

1. Introduction Vessel decorations with attached figurines is a trait of pottery manufacture widespread in the ancient Near East. Humans, animals and symbols with ideological meaning have been attached to cultic and prestigious vessels, usually linked to the rich life of the elites, the netherworld or the sacred activities of the temples. A clay figurine attached to a pottery vessel, in particular if it was recovered in a sacred area or in a ritual context, cannot be related only to a trend of the moment with a mere decorative purpose. The symbolic value of the figurine must be taken into account also if it is not clearly a religious image as a semi-divine figure or a deity abstract symbol. In fact, in the ancient Near East, also animals could be related with deities and religious concepts.1 Frances Pinnock, to which this essay is dedicated, in her work about the figurines of small birds on Middle Bronze Age II Ebla jars,2 has analyzed not only the typological characteristics of the pottery and its archaeological context, but also the potential meaning of these figurines. In her analysis, the study of the contexts and of the shapes gives information about the use of the vessels, as containers for oils, unguents or, perhaps later, sacred water for the elites of the Old Syrian city. The comparison of the animal symbol with

I want to thank Frances Pinnock for the scientific suggestions and conversations we had that have enriched my academic path, since my first archaeological experience on the field in Syria at Tell Mardikh/Ebla, in 1998. Her researches and publications, which she constantly shared with the pupils of the Roman school of Near Eastern archaeology, have given me precious incentives and methodological suggestions for my studies and my following archaeological expeditions in Jordan. 1 In Mesopotamia and in the Near East in general divine iconographies are often represented by animals, providing a clear identification of the deitys’ nature and characteristics. Moreover in the literary texts animal names are used in figurative forms as symbolic agents. The sense of fear, admiration and awe on human perceptions caused by a specific animal creates the ideological link between the natural being and the supernatural forces, connecting an animal to his divine mirror (see Watanabe 2002, 22–28). 2 Pinnock 2011. *

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

776

A. Polcaro

its use in other sectors of the Old Syrian art and with the contemporary literature gave to the scholar the possibility to interpret the connection between the animal represented and a specific religious sphere, connected with the main goddess of the Old Syrian Ebla. In this article, following the same methodology, I will take into account a particular animal figurine, the snake, attached to pottery vessels in the Southern Levant. In this area, including Palestine and Transjordan, from the Late Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, for more than one millennium, this kind of pottery decoration appears on jars located only in sacred areas and temples, or in public areas connected with cult and power. Their function appears to be disconnected from a simple domestic context, and must be related to the religious activities of the proto-urban elites of the Southern Levant, testifying a strong ritual tradition and continuity of cultural customs in the area. 2. Analysis of Archaeological Contexts The earlier data on this kind of pottery decorations in Southern Levant come from the Late Chalcolithic (4500–3800 BC).3 In Tuleilat al-Ghassul, one of the main sites for this period,4 located north east of the Dead Sea, sherds showing sinuous figurines connected clearly to serpents have been recovered in the main sanctuary area of the settlement (Area E) and in some areas of the domestic units (Tell 3).5 The typologies of representation of the serpents show a main difference in the animal skin, which could be spotted or striped. Even if no entire vessel with this decoration has been found, a concentration of these sherds near the two main temples (Temple A and Building B), inside the temenos of the sanctuary, could suggest that these vessels have been used during ritual activities. Between the two main sacred buildings, inside the open area delimited by the temenos, there is also a circular altar connected through a paved road to Temple A (Fig. 1a). The open-air altar, typical of the Levantine religious tradition, and the large courtyard surrounded by the sacred precinct, seems to indicate the need for an outside space for communal wide participation of be-

The duration of the last chronological phase of the Chalcolithic Period, called Ghassulian in the Southern Levant, still remain a matter of debate between scholars, in particular for the cultural regional diversities between geographical areas in the following transitional period of the Early Bronze Age I (see Braun / Roux 2013). In any case, the C14 calibrated date from the layers of abandonment of the sacred area of Tuleilat al Ghassul, the main site of the period, is 3800 BC (Seaton 2008). 4 The site was excavated by many archaeological missions. The sacred area was discovered and excavated first by an expedition of the British Institute of Archaeology of Jerusalem and by the University of Sidney, under the direction of J.B. Hennessy (1977) and then by another expedition of the University of Sidney directed by S.J. Bourke (1997). 5 See Seaton 2008, 48; tav. 83a:260. 3

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

777

lievers to the public cults.6 The site of Ghassul was extremely important during the Late Chalcolithic in the region: differently from other sites with isolated sanctuaries used by semi-nomadic populations, this settlement had a wide agricultural landscape, an extended permanent settlement and, moreover, a sector of the village where particular houses with impressive ritual paintings have been discovered.7 These domestic units document the presence of a well-established elite, probably ruling through a religious ideology the entire community. Another Late Chalcolithic/Ghassulian site where figurines of serpents attached to vessels have been discovered is Abu Hamid, a site located along the middle Jordan Valley, west of Ajlun.8 The sherds come from a multi cellular building complex probably with domestic function, although the presence of platform, hearth, installations and traces of wall paintings in some rooms could point also to private cults or sacred area inside the houses.9 In the following period, Early Bronze Age I (3500–3000 BC), the same kind of pottery decoration, with clay serpent figurines, mostly attached to large jars, has been discovered in the site of Jebel al-Mutawwaq,10 a settlement and megalithic necropolis located along the Middle Wadi az-Zarqa Valley, one of the most important permanent water course in Jordan. Here, this kind of decoration has been discovered only on the vessels coming from the Temple of the Serpents, the main sanctuary of the settlement.11 The sanctuary is located in one of the most visible and higher points of the southern slope of Jebel al-Mutawwaq. It is composed by a main oval building (Building 76), oriented north-south, five small independent rooms with an entrance corridor on the west (Rooms 1–5) and another rectangular structure to the north, labeled Building 75. All the structures are encircled by a temenos, delimiting an open courtyard as in Tuleilat al-Ghassul (Fig. 1b). Differently from the Chalcolithic site, in Jebel al-Mutawwaq the architectonical feature in the courtyard indicating the use of the open area of the sanctuary as a ritual place is not an altar, but a standing stone or menhir, located in the northern side. All the sherds with serpents come

Cult in the Late Chalcolithic Period in Southern Levant was clearly still organized by some important members of the communities and it was the fulcrum of the sedentarization and urban development process of the following periods (for a general view about the Chalcolithic Period in Southern Levant see Bourke 2001 and Rowan / Golden 2009). 7 See Cameron 1981 and for a recent analysis Drabsch 2015, 50–68. 8 The site was excavated between the 1986 and the 1992 by Yarmouk University, the IFPO and CNRS with the cooperation of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan (Dollfus / Kafafi 1993, 241–262. 9 Dollfus / Kafafi 1993, 244–245 10 The site of Jebel al-Mutawwaq was first surveyed in the 1980s and then excavated from 1989 to 2011 by J.A. Fernandez Tresguerres-Velasco. A new joint Spanish-Italian archaeological project of Perugia University and the Pontificia Facultad San Esteban of Salamanca, started in 2012 (see Muniz / Polcaro 2014). 11 Fernandez-Tresguerres 2005. 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

778

A. Polcaro

from Building 76: this structure has been built following the natural slope of the mountain, using the natural bedrock as floor. The high northern part of the building was probably roofed, as seems to be indicated by a deep hole in the bedrock perhaps used to sustain a wooden pillar. In this covered area a stone slab used as an altar was located, near which one almost complete jar with serpents has been recovered. The lower southern part of Building 76 was probably un-roofed, looking to the lower Wadi az-Zarqa Valley, well visible from this point of the structure. It is not clear what kind of rituals were performed inside Building 76, but some large flint scrapers, discovered near a stone flat slab from Building 75, indicates that the place for animal sacrifices was located in a different area of the sanctuary.12 It is remarkable that in the access corridor of the five small rooms complex (Room 1), another kind of decoration has been discovered on a jug, characterized by short snake-like figurines, more similar to small worms, with striped skin.13 However, this kind of pottery decoration is more widespread in the sanctuary area and sherds with this kind of motives have been discovered in other buildings of the sacred precinct as well, like in Building 76. In order to understand the complexity of the EB I society, Jebel al-Mutawwaq is extremely important, because the site has a complete village encircled by a stone fence and an extended dolmen necropolis, clearly connected to the settlement and quite well preserved, which is extremely rare in Jordan. The excavation campaigns at the site have preliminary showed at least two chronological phases of expansion of the EB I village, with the dolmen field and the sanctuary operating first as a periodical attraction of the semi-nomads pastoral communities following the Wadi az-Zarqa River and then as the fulcrum of the sedentarization of these groups. The rituals performed in the Temple of the Serpents, the most visible building from the river valley, and the funerary ceremonials performed in the megalithic necropolis had evidently a function in strengthening social ties, probably until the abandonment of site in EB II (3000–2600 BC). Differently from the old ideas about EB I, the excavation at Jebel al-Mutawwaq, as other recent studies on this topic, have demonstrated that there was not a break in social evolution, but a continuous evolution of the sedentarized communities toward a complete urbanization, reached at least in

These tools, probably used to kill animals and work skins, have been recovered in the western room of Building 75. In the eastern room, a large hearth covered by 70 cm of accumulated ash deposits, testifies a place to prepare large ritual meals inside the sanctuary. The other small rooms complex (Rooms 1–5) also show functional differences between the spaces: e.g. Room 2 had a possible bench made of a basalt stone, and Room 3 had a roughly circular artificial cist, lined with thin stone slabs (see Polcaro et al. 2014, 5–7). 13 The jug, handmade, with a flat base and a loop handle, is clearly dated to the EB I (Polcaro et al. 2014, fig. 5). 12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

779

Jordan between the EB II and EB III. In the following periods, after the establishment of fully urbanized societies, and in particular in the Early Bronze Age III (2600–2300 BC), the serpent decorations on pottery are attested in Jordan at two main sites: Khirbet al-Batrawy, in the Upper Wadi az-Zarqa Valley, not distant from Jebel al-Mutawwaq, and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, along the Wadi Yarmouk Valley, in the north of the country. At Khirbet al-Batrawy a complete jar with a serpent figurine attached on the shoulder has been recovered in a room containing numerous vessels and precious objects (L.1040), part of a large public building.14 The secondary position of the object gives us no information about its primary function, but sherds with serpents and snake-like decorations have been recovered also in another important EB III site, Khirbet ez-Zeraqon,15 in three groups located on the acropolis and the lower city. Here the association of these vessels with the rituals performed in the settlement is testified by the spatial analysis of the findings:16 in the lower city a cooking pot with a serpent decoration on the shoulder has been recovered in a room probably used for the domestic cult (Building B1.3). On the acropolis, in the sacred area and in the palace complex, many bowls with snake-like decorations have been discovered, very similar to the ones discovered in Jebel al-Mutawwaq (Fig. 1c). Therefore, at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon these kind of pottery decoration seems to be linked to the cults performed in the public temples, in the domestic sacred spaces and in the main public building of the settlement, symbol of a full urbanized elite, the palace. Another site in southern Jordan near the Dead Sea where serpent figurines attached to vessels have been discovered in layers dated to the EB III is Bab edh-Dhra.17 The site has a long period of occupation from EB I to EB IV, a large necropolis and a fortified settlement. Here this kind of pottery decoration has been discovered on bowls in Area XVI, Stratum II (Fig. 1d), inside a building used for ritual activities.18

Khirbet al-Batraway was excavated since 2005 by an archaeological mission from Rome Sapienza University directed by L. Nigro; in this fortified settlement, along its western sector, a public building with many rooms used for different functions has been uncovered (Nigro / Sala 2012; Nigro 2013). 15 The site of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon was excavated between the 1984 and the 1994 by the University of Tübingen and Yarmouk University, under the direction of S. Mittmann and M.M. Ibrahim (Mittmann 1994). The pottery of Khirbet ez-Zeraqon was published by H. Genz (2002). 16 Ajlouny / Douglas / Khrisat 2011. 17 The site was excavated by the American Center of Oriental Research in two main archaeological expeditions, the first directed by P. Lapp mostly in the large necropolis of shaft tombs and charnel houses (Rast / Schaub 1989) and the second, that uncovered the EB II–III fortified site, directed by W.E. Rast and R.Th. Schaub (2003). 18 Inside the same plastered building stone vessels and a carved basalt stone have been also discovered in Stratum II (Rast / Schaub 2003, fig 10.39), documenting cult activities 14

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

780

A. Polcaro

Context analysis of the findings demonstrates also that, in Early Bronze Age III Transjordan, the ritual performed through these vessels by the cult attendants maintains its characteristic since the Chalcolithic Period, and becomes in the following centuries central in the religious beliefs at the base of the ideological power of the urban elites. 3. Pottery Typologies and Decoration Details In the previous paragraph two main kinds of serpent decoration have been mentioned. The main difference between these two different kinds of decoration is the shape of the animal represented: in the first one, the serpent has a spotted skin with incised circular holes (Type A), in the second one has a striped skin with incised parallel lines (Type B). From EB I the first type seems to have a longer body, with a clearly recognizable head, while the second type has a shorter body and, sometimes, without a clearly recognizable head. Moreover, in the Early Bronze Age, these two decorations are attached to different pottery shapes: Type A on storage ware, Type B on table ware. Apparently, there is no such clear division in the Late Chalcolithic Period, when serpent decorations on pottery first appeared in Southern Levant. In fact, in the Late Chalcolithic, the sherds from Ghassul pertain to both the typologies, but it is generally impossible to understand the original shape of the vessels (Fig. 2a). However, in a case from Area E, a Type A serpent figurines attached to a hole-mouth jar (Fig. 2b). At Abu Hamid, sherds of both the typologies of serpents are clearly represented.19 A sherd, with Type B decoration, comes from a large storage jar, with loop handles and a serpent figurine attached to the shoulder; the animal is long and rises from the handle toward the rim (not recovered), and the skin of the serpent is decorated with parallel lines (Fig. 2c). Type A serpent figurines attached to vessels are attested in Abu Hamid by a second, unfortunately small, sherd recovered in the same area (Fig. 2d). The almost complete jar of Jebel al-Mutawwaq dated to EB I is a large handmade storage jar, with a wide mouth, slight everted rim, ledge handles and flat base (Fig. 3a). The shoulders of the vessel are decorated with two long Type A serpents, starting from the handles rising toward the rim: the serpent head is depicted as it wants to drink from the jar. The same jar also has an incised stylized tree decoration on the shoulder. In the sanctuary area at Jebel al-Mutawwaq, several sherds of Type B serpent decoration have been recovered, and it is impossible to reconstruct the complete shape of the vessels, except for the complete one discovered in Room 1: this is a handmade jug, with flat base and loop handle (Fig. 3b). Three snake-like figurines, with striped skin and apparently no heads, are attached on the side of the jug, rising from the middle of the vessel toward the rim. The jug is also painted in the lower half of the body with red vertical and horizontal

(Rast / Schaub 2003, 286–296). Dollfus / Kafafi 1993, 248–249.

19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

781

wavy lines, in an unfinished pattern. An example of a Type A serpent figurine is attached to the vessel from Khirbet al-Batrawy, dated to the EB III. It is a piriform storage jar, wheel-made, with short neck, everted rim and ledge handles (fig. 4a). Also in this case, the figurine of the serpent is attached on the external side of the shoulder, rising from the handle toward the mouth of the jar, even if the serpent on this vessel, shorter compared to the one from Jebel al-Mutawwaq, does not reach the rim. The Type A serpent figurine from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, discovered in Building B1.3, is attached to the outside shoulder of a globular cooking pot with round base (Fig. 4b). In this case, the serpent is very similar in size to the one of Khirbet al-Batrawy, the skin is spotted and the animal “climbs” the vessel from the middle half toward the rim. On the contrary, in Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, Type B serpent figurines have been recovered in the sacred area only on cups with pointed rims, attached on the external surface near the mouth (Fig. 5a). For the Early Bronze Age, this clear division in the representation of the serpents and in the shapes of the vessels between the two identified typologies is recognizable only in the area of central and northern Jordan, from the Wadi azZarqa to the Wadi Yarmouk. In fact, in Southern Jordan, during EB III, a third typology (Type C) seems to be present, completely different and not included in the same scheme: the serpent figurines from Bab edh-Dhra Area XVI have sinuous bodies and recognizable heads, but skins are plain, not spotted or striped (Fig. 5b). The figurines are attached inside some bowls, with the tail toward the base and the head toward the inverted rim, as the animal is about to come out from the vessel. The difference in the kinds of decoration and in the types of vessels between Southern and Northern Jordan in EB III, could be explained in a general panorama of cultural diversities between these two geographical areas, visible also in the pottery manufacture. In any case, the nature of the beverage or food contained in this vessels have to be different: the cup from Zeraqon with the Type B serpent decorations has been probably used to drink a liquid beverage, as well as the jug from Mutawwaq, that has the same type of decoration, must have been used to pour a liquid. The bowls from Bab edh-Dhra with the Type C serpent decorations have inverted rims, and could have contained a more dense aliment, like a soup or a sort of “liquid bread.” The jar with the Type A serpent decoration from Mutawwaq is clearly made of storage ware and its wide mouth could be related to the process of fermentation of a liquid beverage, like beer. Conversely, the jar from Batrawy seems to be a container for a more refined beverage, like wine or a more purified beer, because of the narrow neck and the pointed base that could be useful to maintain the sediment of the beverage at the base of the vessel, during transportation. It is no possible to exclude that these vessels could have contained also other kind of liquids or beverages like oil or water: de Miroschedji, in particular for the Ghassul sherds, affirms that the serpents were attached to jars probably used as water containers.20

de Miroschedji 1993, 215.

20

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

782

A. Polcaro

On the contrary, the cooking pot from Zeraqon has clearly a different function: to prepare beverage or food, perhaps the same stored and consumed inside the other vessels with Types A and B decorations. Due to the spatial analysis of the serpent figurines, in particular for the Early Bronze Age, and also for the special ideological meaning of these decorations, my personal opinion is that their use for water is probably unrealistic. On the contrary, it is more probable that there was a link with a ritual food or beverages, with particular characteristic connected in some way to the meanings of the symbol of the serpent in the religious sphere. 4. Serpents in Southern Levantine Art In order to try to delineate a hypothesis about the meaning of the serpent figurines attached to vessels used in cultic contexts in Jordan from the Chalcolithic to EB III, it could be useful to extend the analysis to the iconography of the serpent in the art of the whole region of Southern Levant. In the Late Chalcolithic, in the western region of the Southern Levant, there is a case of one figurine of a serpent on a clay ossuary, the typical method of preservation of human bones in this period (Fig. 6). The ossuary has been discovered in a cave of Ben Shemen: the funerary clay box has an elongated pointed shape, on one side a Type B serpent figurine is attached, with the skin marked by parallel line, very similar to the jug discovered in Room 1 of the temple area of Jebel al-Mutawwaq. The body of the serpent is long, turning around the object, and ends with a large open mouth, corresponding to the vessel’s opening. J. Perrot identified the animal with a serpent and suggested the possible interpretation of the ossuary shape as a granary or silos, of which this animal is a natural protector.21 It is important in this case the link of the symbol of the serpent with the ideology of death, because the animal is represented on a funerary object, which had the purpose of containing the dead for the eternity. This example confirms that in the 4th millennium BC Southern Levant the symbol of the serpent was connected to the main concepts of fertility, death and rebirth, as in the most part of the ancient world. It is natural to associate these concepts with this chthonic animal, which periodically regerates, changing skin. Moreover, the animal itself in the ossuary of Ben Shemen is the passage through which the remains of the dead and his soul reach their final destination, implying the transformation from a status to another, from life to death. On the seals of the EB II–III Southern Levant, in some cases the figure of a snake is recognizable, like in one example from Tell el-Farah North.22 The serpent is always represented alone, without any connection with other figures or ritual scenes. In the typology of representation of the serpent on

Perrot 1967, 49. Ben-Tor 1978, 12, fig 11:75, pl. 11:75.

21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

783

the EB III seals from Southern Levant, the body is long and sinuous, with the head clearly identifiable and the body running from the bottom to the top (Fig. 7). This characteristic of the direction of the movement of the serpent is noteworthy: in fact, like in the figurines attached to vessels, the animal goes always from the bottom to the top, as if he was coming out from the ground toward the light. The concept behind this choice of representation is not without importance: it could be easily related to the ideological meaning of this animal, connected to the rebirth, renovation and alternation between life and death. 5. Comparisons with Mesopotamia It is interesting to look at comparisons with Mesopotamia, where particular vessels with serpent figurines have been also discovered. Concerning the shape of the figurines, the examples from Mesopotamia pertain to Type A, with well identifiable spotted skin, tail and head. The position of the figurines is on the outside shoulder of the vessel, as they rise toward the rim to drink from the mouth (Fig. 8). The typologies of vessels differs from the Southern Levant, in particular for the high presence of spouted bowls and small jars.23 The chronological and geographical extension of these vessels in Mesopotamia is very wide: these kind of decoration on vessels is known from the Ubaid Period (5th millennium BC) to the Old Babylonian Period (second half of the 2nd millennium BC), from the northern area of the Diyala to the southern region of Sumer.24 A recent analysis of P. Quenet of snake decorations in Mesopotamia starting from the second half of the 3nd millennium BC shows a wider range of pottery shapes from the 2nd millennium BC, including also large basins, jars and bowls.25 Moreover, the majority of vessels on which serpent decorations appear are found in religious contexts.26 In Mesopotamia the serpent is linked to two deities in particular: Dumuzi and Ningishzida.27 Both are netherworld gods, linked to death and rebirth, as the myths concerning the love between Inanna and Dumuzi suggests. Both of these deities are linked to Geshtinanna, the goddess of wine and grapes; in fact Dumuzi is her brother and Ningishzida her husband.28 Moreover, D.K. McDonald suggests that Mesopotamian vessels with serpent figurines contained a particular beverage, called in Akkadian muš.giš.geštin (literally “the wine-serpent”).29 This kind of beverag McDonald 1994, fig. 1. McDonald 1994. 25 Quenet 2013: fig. 5. 26 Quenet 2013. 27 In the myth of the Inanna Descent, Dumuzi was turned into a snake by the Sun God Utu / Shamash, in order to escape to the Ereshkigal’s demons (Bottéro / Kramer 1992, 287–346). Ningishzida is often represented as a serpent himself, in particular as a horned viper (cerastes cerastes), typical of the landscape of the region (Black / Green 1992, 168). 28 Black / Green 1992, 138–140. 29 McDonald 1994, 25. 23 24

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

784

A. Polcaro

es is attested in the cuneiform sources as a health potion, linking magically the renovation proprieties of the serpent with the curative ones of the wine and was obtained boiling the skin or other parts of snakes in wine. The same beverage is attested also in ancient Greece and Rome during the classical periods, with the same purpose as a healing drink.30 The Akkadian magical literature highlights the main ideological concept behind the symbol of the serpent in the series šumma alu, where the prophecies related to the presence of a snake in the house are all connected with changes of status (e.g. “that man and wife will divorce”).31 6. Conclusion Finally, summarizing the data from Jordan it is evident that since the Chalcolithic Period clay figurines of serpents were attached to particular vessels in two well defined types of representation: the first one is with spotted skin (Type A), the second one with striped skin (Type B). These two typologies of representation continue in the following periods, when the southern Levantine societies evolved from villages to towns in EB III. However, from EB I these two groups start to be related to different pottery shapes: the spotted one to storage ware, like jars, or cooking ware, like pots, the striped one to consumption and table ware, like bowls, cups or jugs. It could be evocative to suggest a difference in the serpent species that these types represent: actually, in Jordan, there are many species of snakes, and the main characteristic to distinguish some of them is the color and design of the skin, the length of the body and the shape of the head (Fig. 9). Typical of the humid landscape and water springs, so common along the Jordan Valley and its wadis, like the Wadi az-Zarqa or Wadi Yarmouk, is the Natrix tessellata, or Dice Snake, characterized by the elongate head and the skin signed by small regular dark dots.32 Usually this animal drinks from and hunts in fresh water, and perhaps it could be related to the first type of serpent figurines. In the central and northern Transjordanian Highlands, in the semi-arid landscape characterized by seasonal water sources and in the forest areas, all suitable for the urban development in the Bronze Age, there are also species of serpents with banded or striped skin, shorter body and smaller head (in general less recognizable from the body), like the Eirenis coronella, or Crowned Dwarf Snake, the Eirenis coronelloides (very common in the Zarqa area) and the Eirenis lineomaculata, or Striped Dwarf Snakes.33 Serpents with striped skin are also common in the near eastern deserts and more arid lands, like the Platyceps rogersi or the Platyceps sinai (Sinai Banded Snake).34 Finally, in the wide panorama of the Jordanian snakes there are also

McDonald 1994, 26. Geller 2000, 4. 32 Amr / Disi 2011, 213–215. 33 Amr / Disi 2011, 197–203. 34 Amr / Disi 2011, 221–223. 30 31

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

785

serpents with their heads not much distinguishable from the body, more similar to worms in appearance, like the Typhlops vermicularis, or Worm Snake, typical of the northern very rainy and hilly region of Irbid.35 Apart from the problem of the serpent species represented, it possible that in the Southern Levant a healing beverage similar to the Mesopotamian muš.giš. geštin was consumed inside the vessels with figurine of serpents.36 In this case, the different typologies might be related to different phases of the production, storage and consumption of this beverage. A more complex task is the interpretation of the choice of the serpent species as related to different kinds of beverages made with the skins of different serpents, or to the will to accentuate different ideological aspects of the serpent symbol, changing the type of representation.37 In any case, the spatial distribution of these vessels inside the settlements from the Chalcolithic Period to the Early Bronze Age, clearly connects the beverage or the food consumed and stored in these containers with cult and the religious sphere. It seems that their use was widespread from the Chalcolithic to EB III, but it was always linked to the settlement elites and the public cults they performed. Moreover, if the hypothesis of the muš.giš.geštin will be proved in future studies and archaeometric analyses, it could suggest a strong link of the public cult, managed by the proto- and urban elites, with healing rites and perhaps medical knowledge, which could have been carried on and developed inside the main sanctuaries of the Southern Levant. Bibliography Ajlouny, F. / Douglas, K. / Khrisat, B., 2011: Spatial Distribution of the Early Bronze Age Figurative Pieces from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon and its Religious Aspects. ANES 48: 88–125.

Amr / Disi 2011, 186–187. Wine, as well as oil, is a typical product of the Southern Levant. Grapes in particular appeared since the end of the Neolithic Period, probably imported from Anatolia (one of the earliest evidence of wine production is in the Zagros Mountains, Iran, in the 5th Millennium BC. This region and Anatolia are the areas where wine production originated; farmed grapes have been imported between the 5th and 4th millennia in the Jordan Valley (McGovern / Flemming / Katz 1996; Zohary 1995). In the Early Bronze Age, wine production became very important in the Southern Levant thanks to the exportation toward Egypt since the Old Kingdom. This is proved by the discovery of 700 jars containing at least 4,500 liters of wine in the tomb of King Scorpion I, Dynasty 0, at Abydos, dated to 3150 BC (McGovern 1998). The typology of the jars confirm that the wine was imported from Levantine settlements, testifying that, in the EB I–II commercial trades, wine exportation must have been one of the main economic activities organized by the urban elites of Southern Levant communities. 37 E.g. related to the daily or nocturnal lifestyle of the snake or to his attitudes, like hunting or nesting. 35 36

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

786

A. Polcaro

Amr, Z.S. / Disi, A.M., 2011: Systematics, Distribution and Ecology of the Snakes of Jordan. Vertebrate Zoology 61/2: 179–266. Ben-Tor, A., 1978: Cylinder Seals of Third-Millennium Palestine (BASOR, Supplement Series 22). Cambridge. Black, J / Green, A., 1992: Gods, Demons and Symbol of Ancient Mesopotamia. London. Bottéro, J. / Kramer, S.N., 1992: Uomini e dei della Mesopotamia. Torino. Bourke, S.J., 1997: The Urbanization Process in the South Jordan Valley: Renewed Excavations at Teleilat al-Ghassul 1994/1995. SHAJ VI: 249–259. ––2001: The Chalcolithic Period. In B. MacDonald et al. (eds): The Archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield. Pp. 107–162. Braun, E. / Roux, V., 2013: The Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age I Transition in Southern Levant: Determining Continuity and Discontinuity or “Mind the Gap.” Paléorient 39/1: 15–22. Cameron, D.O., 1981: The Ghassulian Wall Paintings. London. Dollfus, G. / Kafafi, Z., 1993: Recent Researches at Abu Hamid. ADAJ 37: 241– 262. Drabsch, B., 2015: The Mysterious Wall Paintings of Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan, in Context (Monographs of the Sydney University Teleilat Ghassul Project 3). Oxford. Fernandez-Tresguerres, J.A., 2005: El “Templo de las Serpientes”: Un santuario del Bronce Antiguo I en el poblado de Jebel al-Mutawwaq (Jordania). ISIMU 8: 9–34. Geller, M.J. 2000: The Survival of Babylonian Wissenschaft in Later Tradition. In S. Aro / R.M. Whiting (eds): The Heirs of Assyria. Proceedings of the Opening Symposium of the Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project. Held in Tvärminne, Finland, October 8–11, 1998. Helsinki. Pp. 1–6. Genz, H., 2002: Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Khirbetez-Zeraqon (ADPV 27/2). Wiesbaden. Hennessy, J.B., 1977: Teleilat Ghassul: An Interim Report, Sydney. McDonald, D.K., 1994: The Serpent as Healer: Theriac and Ancient Near Eastern Pottery. Source Notes in the History of Art Vol. XIII/4: 21–27. McGovern, P.E. / Flemming, S.J. / Katz, S.H. (eds), 1996: The Origins and Ancient History of Wine. Philadelphia. McGovern, P.E., 1998: Wine for Eternity. Archaeology 51/4: 28–34. de Miroschedji, P., 1993: Cult and Religion in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age. In A. Biran / J. Aviram (eds): Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990. Jerusalem. Pp. 208–220. Mittmann, S., 1994: Hirbetez-Zeraqon: Eine Stadt der frühen Bronzezeit in Nordjordanien. Archäologie in Deutschland 2: 10–15. Mallon, A.S.J. / Koeppel, R.S.J. / Neuville, R., 1934: Teleilat Ghassul I. Compte rendu des fouilles de l’Institut Biblique Pontifical 1929–1932. Roma. Muniz, J. / Polcaro, A., 2014: The Early Bronze Age I Site and Necropolis of Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Jordan. The Ancient Near East Today Vol. II., No. 10. Nigro, L., 2013: Urban Origins in the Upper Wadi az-Zarqa, Jordan: the City of Khirbet al-Batrawy in the Third Millennium BC. SHAJ XI: 489–506. Nigro, L. / Sala, M., 2012: Preliminary Report on the Seventh Season of Excava© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

787

tion by “La Sapienza” University of Rome at Khirbet al-Batrawi, Upper Wadi az-Zarqa. ADAJ 56: 45–53. Perrot, J., 1967: Les Ossuaires de Ben Shemen. EI 8: 46–49. Pinnock, F., 2011: Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla, IX. Le giarette con decorazione applicata del Bronzo Medio II. Roma. Polcaro, A., et al. 2014: Dolmen 317 and Its Hidden Burial: An Early Bronze Age I Megalithic Tomb from Jebel al-Mutawwaq (Jordan). BASOR 372: 1–17. Rast, W.E. / Schaub, R.T., 1989: Bab edh-Dhra: Excavations in the Cemetery, Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–1967) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plains, Jordan 1). Winona Lake. –– 2003: Bab edh-Dhra: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plains, Jordan 2). Winona Lake. Rowan, Y.M. / Golden, J., 2009: The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant, A Synthetic Review. JWP 22: 1–92. Seaton, P., 2000: Aspects of New Research at the Chalcolithic Sanctuary Precint at Teleilat Ghassul. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th–23rd 1998, Vol. II. Rome. Pp. 1503–1513. –– 2008: Chalcolitic Cult and Risk Management at Teleilat Ghassul. The Area E Sanctuary (BAR International Series 1864). Oxford. Watanabe, C.E., 2000: Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia. A Contextual Approach. Wien. Zohary, D., 1995: The Domestication of the Grapevine Vinifera L. in the Near East. Food and Nutrition in History and Anthropology 11: 23–30.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

788

A. Polcaro

Fig. 1. Temples and sacred areas cited in the text: a) Tuleilat al-Ghassul (after Seaton 2000, fig. 1); b) Jebel al-Mutawwaq (after Polcaro et al. 2015, fig. 4); c) Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (after Genz 2002, fig. 2); Bab edh-Dhra, Area XVI (after Rast / Schaub 2003, fig. 10.33).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

789

Fig. 2. Late Chalcolithic sherds with serpents figurines: a) sherds from different areas of Tuleilat al-Ghassul (after Mallon / Koeppel / Neuville 1934, fig. 61); b) sherd from a holemouth jar from Tuleilat al-Ghassul (after Seaton 2008, Pl. 83.A:e); c) sherd from a loop-handled jar from Abu Hamid (after Dollfus / Kafafi 1993, fig. 2:10); d) sherd with Type B decoration from Abu Hamid (after Dollfus / Kafafi 1993, fig. 2:11). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

790

A. Polcaro

Fig. 3 EB I vessels with serpents figurines: a) ledge handled preservation jar from Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Type A decoration (after Polcaro et al. 2014, fig. 7); b) small jug from Jebel al-Mutawwaq, Type B decoration (after Polcaro et al. 2014, fig. 5).

Fig. 4. Early Bronze Age III vessels with serpents figurines: a) jar from Khirbet alBatrawy (after Nigro / Sala 2012, fig. 5); b) cooking pot from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (after Genz 2002, pl. 90:1). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

791

Fig. 5. EB III vessels with serpent figurines: a) cup from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (after Genz 2002, pl. 14:4); bowl from Bab edh-Dhra (after Rast / Schaub 2003, fig. 11.13:1).

Fig. 6. Ossuary from Ben Shemen (after Perrot 1967, pl. XIII). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

792

A. Polcaro

Fig. 7. Examples of serpent motif on Early Bronze Age seals from the Southern Levant (after Ben-Tor 1978, fig. 11:75; 16:6-8).

Fig. 8. Mesopotamian sherds with serpent figurines (after McDonald 1994, fig.1).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

On Pots and Serpents

793

Fig. 9. Examples of snakes from Jordan: a) Natrix tessellata (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 63); b) Eirenis coronella (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 42); c) Eirenis coronelloides (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 44); d) Eirenis lineomaculata (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 49); e) Platyceps sinai (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 74); f) Typhlops vermicularis (after Amr / Disi 2011, fig. 19).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic: A Seal from Chatal Höyük in the Amuq Marina Pucci

Excavations at the site of Chatal Höyük, located in the modern province of Hatay, Turkey, were carried out by the archaeological team from the Oriental Institute Chicago in the 1930s; first under the directorship of McEwan, and then Braidwood.1 The author of this paper has carried out recent work2 on the reanalysis and publication of the archaeological material from the site, reconsidering the original documentation and objects, which are preserved at the Oriental Institute in Chicago and at the archaeological Museum in Antioch. The material culture and the stratigraphy from the site demonstrate a continuous sequence of occupation between the 15th and the 6th century BC, characterized specifically in the Iron Age by domestic architecture, which occupied the whole extent of the acropolis. Among the 87 cylinder seals found at Chatal, 34 were found out of archeological context, either in dumped earth or on the surface, while the others belong to well stratified contexts. This article will deal with one seal from Chatal, which has been chosen not for its particular archaeological context, rather because it presents a very rare iconography: it has similarities with very few cylinder seals, and gives the opportunity to discuss the use and meaning of this specific scene during the Iron Age. 1. Archaeological Context of the Seal The seal (OIM inv. N. A17424, field number b-1148) was found on November 22nd 1934, during the third excavation campaign at the site. It was discovered while opening a new area (Area IVd), which occupied a 20 by 20 m extent in squares K4 and L4. Excavation in this area began on that day and continued until April 3rd 1935, in an attempt to investigate the vertical sequence on the southern slope and connect this area to the east-west trench, which crossed the southern portion of the mound. The results were quite disappointing and activity in the area was dismissed, once it became clear that the connections to the stratigraphy in 1 2

McEwan 1937; Braidwood / Braidwood 1960; Haines 1971. Pucci 2010. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

796

M. Pucci

the trench were not possible, and that the architecture brought to light had again a domestic character. Haines points out four architectural levels dated to the phase O period and two dated to phase N period.3 However in square K4, where the seal was found, the stratigraphic accumulation was limited to the upper two building levels, both ascribed to phase O. The seal was found in the fill in the uppermost deposit in square K4, thus unrelated to any architectural remains: thus this deposit was formed after the abandonment of the occupation in this area (the seal is in a tertiary context). A stone spindle whorl (A41526), three beads (carnelian A54145, glass, A54157, and stone A54140), a scaraboid stamp seal (A17436) and a large fragment of a hole-mouth cooking pot (A134701) with strap handle were selected from the same deposit, suggesting an apparently uniform Iron Age III context. 2. Description of the Seal and of the Image The seal (Figs 1–2) is a complete cylinder with a diameter of 11 mm and a height of 30 mm, with a perforation lengthwise 4 mm in diameter. The material is a dark grey, matt stone, which was employed very frequently in the local production of stone artefacts (not only seals, but also spindle whorls, mace heads and working tools). An unfinished cylinder seal (A17359) made of the same stone and found in a dump in square P–4 may support a local provenience for this specific stone, and its use in local seal production.4 The scene is carved in a field bordered on the top and on the bottom by a double hatched band: the upper one remains almost complete, while the bottom one is in part erased by the addition of the pictures in the central field. The scene represents one standing figure facing right in front of a large structure, against which a ladder is leant. The human figure raises his left hand towards the structure: the hand seems to be represented in profile, simplified and empty. His right arm is stretched behind the body, and seems to grasp with an oversized open hand, a vertical fringed staff which reaches the soil. The right eye and the protruding nose of the figure are clearly recognizable; his hair reaches the back of the neck up to his shoulder. He seems to wear a hat, apparently slightly squared with two bands; and he wears a belted robe which covers the left shoulder and reaches down to his ankles. A band of fringes on the chest, a horizontal band above the hem and a fringed hem characterize the robe. The figure wears a sword at his belt. The right foot is not clearly visible, probably because the stone is slightly chipped at this point; while his left foot is visible underneath the hem and points toward the right. He seems to put this foot on the lowest step of a ladder leant against the left tower of the structure, as if he was beginning to climb it. The

Haines 1971, pl. 20. Phase O is identified with Iron Age II and III. On a pure external and not chemical observation the stone has the same features as those belonging to the Chlorite, as described in Sax 2001, 26.

3 4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

797

ladder is slightly curved, and only five steps are depicted. The structure consists of four high towers symmetrical to an arched gate (the two central ones higher than the external ones). The towers have either simplified stepped merlons, or horned battlements,5 while the battlement or roof of the gate is missing. The surfaces of the towers and of the gate are modelled with rounded horizontal shapes. On top of the structure there are several symbols: a crescent located above the right tower, three wedges (two above the gate and a third on the second tower from the right) and a rhomb on the second tower from the left. 4. Style The double-vertically crosshatched borders (or ladder pattern), on the top and on the bottom of the image are extremely rare in the Iron Age cylinder seals. The few known borders are usually rendered with simple lines, notches in linear-style seals from Syria6 and chevrons on linear-style Assyrian seals.7 Although a tradition of seals’ borders with crosshatched triangles, lozenges, chevrons and guilloches was well-known in Late Bronze Age Mesopotamia,8 the specific motif employed in the seal from Chatal finds very few parallels and apparently in very different areas. The ladder pattern is employed on three seals in the Freiburg Bibel-und-Orient Museum: one was found in the excavations at Tell es-Safi (1368),9 one at Lachish10 and the provenance of the last one is generally given as Palestine.11 All three seals show a single ladder line, in one case (the one from Tell es-Safi) a second simple line separates the scene from the borders; in all of them

On battlement and merlons cf. Porada 1967. The borders of this seal could be also interpreted as a double notched band well attested in the Syrian Iron Age tradition (present also on Collon 2001a, n. 11), however, even though the image may be similar, the way of tracing the pattern on the seal is completely different. 7 Cf. Collon 2001a, 17. 8 Decorative borders seem to be well–attested in Cassite production, as Frankfort 1939, 189 emphasizes. The borders were rendered with small circles (Frankfort 1939, pl. 32a, c, g, i), as a guilloche (also in the Hittite seal Frankfort 1939, pl. 43) or with crosshatched triangles (cf. Klengel-Brandt 1997, fig. 9). Cassite seals use different types of borders (linear or crosshatched triangles, as in Matthews 1990, n. 196–223; wedges as in Vollenweider 1967, pl. 28:2) as well as a few Middle Assyrian ones (crosshatched triangles in Matthews 1990, n. 541, as well as 562 and 564 from Ugarit), and one example from Alalakh (Collon 1975, n. 95). Chevron borders are fairly common in the Neo-Assyrian linear style (Collon 2001a, 17; Moortgat 1988, 66g; Porada 1948, 610, 611, 640, 641). 9 Keel 1990, fig. 82. 10 Tufnell et al. 1953, pl. 45, 152. 11 Keel-Leu / Teissier 2004, n. 406. 5 6

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

798

M. Pucci

Egyptianizing elements are employed in the main scene.12 All three seals refer to a southern Levantine production from the Late Bronze IIb-Iron I period (1300-1100 BC). However, the relative paucity of comparisons and the differences in the main scene prevent us from assigning a pure southern Levantine provenience uniquely based on the presence of this pattern.13 During the Iron Age, only one Neo-Assyrian example14 shows borders made by a double ladder motif, framing a contest scene. These borders are also said to be “unusual in subject and rendering” for Neo-Assyrians seals: Porada suggests a possible Iranian origin for this borders’ type,15 comparing it with sealing coming from Iran.16 Thus, considering that similar patterns were also employed in Neo-Assyrian reliefs,17 it is necessary to leave open the question of the origins of these borders. The figures are not rendered in detail: the face of the figure and his long robe are marked by few traits. The carving uses linear details and is extremely simplified, thus it can be generally ascribed to the Assyrian linear style18 and to the Iron Age Neo-Assyrian cultural horizon. This dating and cultural horizon is also confirmed by the choice of the scene, which is known, in the way it is represented here, only during the Iron Age. However, specific peculiar elements, such as the borders, the rendering of the figure and the use of the wedge as a filling element are uncommon in Neo-Assyrian seals, and may support a provincial production based on Neo-Assyrian imagery. 5. Iconography and Comparisons The three elements that constitute the core of the scene are a single figure raising his hand; an architectural structure consisting of four towers with high crenellations and a central rounded gate; and a ladder located between them. This combination of elements recurs only on three published seals (Fig. 3: C1–3), where the representation of the towers varies but the syntax of the scene seems the same. Scholars have interpreted these scenes either as sieges,19 where the standing figure is holding a shield20 and consequently attacking the town; or more in general as a The same ladder pattern is employed in a stamp seal (Keel 1990, fig. 79), again with Egyptianizing motifs. 13 In Ugarit only one seal bears single ladder borders (cf. Schaeffer Cl. / A. Forrer 1983, 136, R.S. 24.44). 14 Porada 1948, 74, n. 626. 15 Porada 1948, 74. 16 Herzfeld 1938, 65. 17 E.g. in the rendering of the borders of the robe of Ashurnasirpal II on a relief at his palace at Nimrud cf. Collon 2001a, pl. XLIV. 18 As described in Collon 2001a; Feldman 2014, 85. 19 Buchanan 1966 for C3; Winter 2000, 64–65 for C1 and C3. 20 As Bleibtreu 1994 suggests for C1. 12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

799

symbol of conquest.21 Only Wiggermann suggests an interpretation as a ritual in front of a town/temple.22 In an attempt to make an overview on architectural and siege representations on seals, it was possible to identify four different iconographic groups. Figure 3 groups all representations on cylinder seals from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Iron Age, which depict a siege or what has been related to these scenes.23 Group A comprises scenes which, due to the presence of several elements (such as defenders of the town shooting at the Assyrian enemies), undoubtedly represent a siege. Group B collects seals showing a structure and a standing figure with neither signs of aggression nor symbols identifying the structure as religious (altars, sacred animals etc.). Group C comprises seals depicting a scene identical to Group B, with the only addition of a ladder leaning on the walls. Group D shows several examples of seals24 with representations of structures, which are characterized by religious symbols. Architectural structures in seals seem to be limited to three main types: ziqqurat, temples and town walls. While the features of the ziqqurat are highly indicative of the type of building, and refer to a specific scene of adoration well-attested in the Middle Assyrian period,25 representations of towered structures lacking any religious symbols have been interpreted either as temples or as town walls,26 although no features suggested its interpretation as temples. By contrast, in certain representations of temples (Group D), not only is the content represented (usually the altar as in Fig. 3: D1, D2, D6), but also additional elements: sacred animals (D1), symmetric winged gryphons (D3 and D5) or inscriptions (D2 and D4). The examples from the Neo-Assyrian period in particular (D5 and D6) show additional symbols and specific gestures in front of the altar (as in D6) or in front of the temple itself (D2). This leaves no doubt about the identification of the structure. Architectural representations in the remaining three groups (A–C) mirror a very different concept. In Group A, the structures represented are identified as town walls by the presence of archers on the top defending the town (A1–2, A5); or by archers in front of them (A4); or by enemy soldiers dismantling the town (A3). It seems possible to identify a specific standardization of town wall representations, with the exception of A3, where the scenery differs from the others, and which is the only one dated to the Middle Assyrian period. The standardized representation consists of two/four towers placed symmetrically on either side

Teissier 1984, 40 also for C1. Wiggermann 2006 for C2. 23 Group D has been inserted in these representations in order to show how temples were represented and it should not be considered exhaustive. 24 While groups A–C are exhaustive, this last group comprises only some examples. 25 Collon 1988, 74–76; Micale 2010. 26 Bleibtreu 1994 affirms that when the ladder is missing is not possible to distinguish a gate from a temple. Wiggerman (2006) infers the religious function from the scene. 21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

800

M. Pucci

of a single (or double as in A5) gate with an arched lintel.27 This schema of representation is the same as the one employed in Group B, and also Group C, to which the Chatal seal belongs. Comparing these representations with Neo-Assyrian reliefs and in particular with the representations of towns on the Balawat gates,28 it seems possible to point out a similar process of reduction/choice of the elements in representing a walled town (see Tab. 1). These include triangular or seamed battlements; landscape differentiation (especially A5 and C1); façade decoration of the towers; arched gates. The numbers of the towers and gates vary in the Balawat gates’ reliefs; however the most common combination for single walled towns consists of four towers and one gate, as in the seals. The gateless walls between the towers are extensively represented in the Balawat gates, and are completely absent in the seals. This is probably due to the limited space at disposal, which also reduces the number of towers in specific renderings as in B3 and B4. The town walls in the Balawat gates are represented in the same way, independent from the action which is taking place: attack, looting or tribute. This reinforces the idea that town representations were standardized in 9th century BC Assyrian production. The figures represented near the structure in Group C seem to be performing a similar gesture: one raised hand and one arm behind the body holding what seems to be a staff (only the figure in C4, the seal from Chatal, is not clear). By contrast, in the majority of the seals in Group B, the figure next to the structure raises both hands towards it,29 in a gesture similar to those performed in front of the temples in the seals D2, D5 and D6. As this second gesture has been undoubtedly interpreted as adoration/pray,30 it seemed possible to suggest a religious interpretation for both gestures of the scene, in which the standing figure was performing a ritual in front of a town. Neverheless, the difference in gestures may eventually suggest that the performance represented in seals B1–4 is different from the one in the other seals of the B group and obviously in those of the C group. By comparing them with Neo-Assyrian glyptic31 and the reliefs, it seems evident that the standardized way of rendering an adoration/pray gesture is with both arms stretched in front of the body towards the object of adoration. By contrast, a single raised hand and a second hand behind the body holding a staff appears in contest scenes

It seems likely that temples were always represented with a flat roof because they were shown in “section” rather than in front. 28 For Balawat cf. King 1915; Moortgat 1969. Winter 2000, 64–65 and Curtis / Tallis 2008 already emphasized this connection. 29 In B5, which is the only Middle Assyrian seal of group B, the figure stretches his right arm towards the structure and holds a staff in the left hand, while in B6 the figure has lowered arms along the body. 30 Two arms raised before the body is a typical adoration scene in both Neo-Assyrian seals and carvings. Cf. in general Herbordt 1994, 71–73. 31 Cf. Collon 2001a, pl. IX; Herbordt 1992, 75–78. 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic Band

City representation

801

Gesture

Action

I_3, lower Pl. III

On the left, soldier on a ladder with shield (?) On mountain, no tower is visible, in the left hand behind one gate, no crenellation him a standing figure with vertical shield

Attack

II_2, upper Pl. VIII

On mountain, single row, two gates, six towers, town is on fire, ribbon crenellation

Looting

II_3, lower Pl. IX

On mountain, single row, two gates, five towers, shields on the walls, town is on fire, ribbon crenellation

III.1, upper Pl. XIII

On mountain, by the sea, with high towers (five), two gates, triangular crenellation

Tribute

III.4, lower Pl. XVI

On hill, towers are high, two ga- Two figures approaching the ladder with tes, triangular crenellation city vertical elements is on fire

Attack

IV.2, lower Pl. XX

On hill with two registers of walls, Assyrians attacking with a ram, towns’ archers high tower, triangular crenelladefending tion,

Attack

IV.3, upper Pl. XXI

Flat, two rows of walls, gate is Soldiers on the ladder with shield or arches on the upper part, eight towers. in the hand Triangular crenellation

Attack

IV.3, lower Pl. XXI

Flat, two rows of walls, gate is on the upper part, five towers visible, concentric triangles for crenellation

Impalation

IV.6, lower Pl. XXIV

Flat, two rows of walls, gate is on the upper and lower part, triangles for crenellation

March, captives

V.1 upper Pl. XXV

On river and hill, high towers, two gates, double arch on gate, triangular crenellation

Tribute

V.2 lower Pl. XXVI

On river and hill, high towers, one gate, four towers, double arch on gate, triangular crenellation

Tribute

V.3, upper Pl. XXVII

On river, high towers, one gate, four towers, triangular crenellation

Tribute

One soldier is approaching the ladder the other behind him holds something vertical in front of him

Attack

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

802

M. Pucci Band

City representation

Gesture

Action

V.6, upper Pl. XXX

On river, high towers, two gates, triangular crenellation, double arch on gate

Camp

VI.1, lower Pl. XXXI

On river and hill, one gate, four towers triangular crenellation, high towers (damaged)

Tribute

VI.1, upper Pl. XXXI

On hill, likely one gate, four towers triangular crenellation, high towers (damaged)

Tribute

VI.3 upper Pl. XXXIII

On river and hill, two gates four towers, triangles

Tribute

VI.3 lower Pl. XXXIII

On river and hill, four towers one gate, tower are quite high

VII.1 lower Pl. XXXVII

On river and mountain, two rows of walls, three gates on both rows, crenellation on towers (5 per row) are rendered with double triangles, similar to the seal

Tribute

VII.3 upper, Pl. XXXIX

Two figures on both sides with fagots, On mountain, two rows of walls behind them a stanpossibly three entrances on both ding figure with rairows, crenellation are on towers sed hand, on the left and as band holding a shield on the right unclear

Attack

VIII.2 upper Pl. XLIV

On several mountains, three gates, single row triangular crenellation

Archers

Attack

VIII.2, lower Pl. XLIV

On several mountains, three gates, single row, triangular Zinne

Archers severed head

Punishment

VIII.5 lower Pl. XLVII

Flat, one row two gates (four towers), triangular

IX.2 lower Pl. XLIX

Flat, one gate, six towers, very high, triangles

None

Attack

IX.3 upper Pl. L

Flat, two gates, six towers, triangles

Archer and ram

Attack

IX.6 upper Pl. LIII

Flat, one gate four towers, trian- Climbing, raised hand gles, with shield

X.3 lower Pl. LVI

Flat, two rows, several opening one gate

XI.4, lower Pl. LXIII

Flat, two rows, four gates on both rows, eight towers, triangular Zinne

Tribute

XI.6 upper Pl. LXV

On river and hill, two rows, three gates on both rows, nine towers, triangular Zinne

Tribute

One standing figure on the left of the town, unclear

Tribute

Occupation

Impaling

Attack Punishment

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

803

Band

City representation

Gesture

Action

XII.1, lower Pl. LXVI

Flat, one row, possibly two gates, four towers, triangular crenellation

Chariot leaving

Surrender

XIII.2 upper Pl. LXXIII

Flat, double row of walls, one gate bottom, six towers

Standing figure with vertical element, archers, and chariot

Attack

XIII.4, upper Pl. LXXV

Flat, double row of walls, two ga- Ladder, climbing with tes on each row, triangular crea duck in the hand, nellation behind him archers

Attack

XIII.6 upper Pl. LXXVII

Flat, double row with interior scene with aged king. Two bottom gates, four towers, triangles

XIII.6 lower Pl. LXXVII

Hill, two gates, four towers, single triangles on towers

Archers

Attack/surrender Captives

Tab. 1. Representations of towns in the Balawat gates in relationship to the actions. First column lists the position of the representation (plate quotation refers to Curtis / Tallis 2008), second column lists iconographic features of town representation, third column the performers of the action, fourth column the main action represented.

on Neo-Assyrian seals32 and more rarely on the Assyrian reliefs. Moreover the single stretched arm is very frequent in representations of attack, especially in the Balawat gates. In fact, in the Balawat attack scenes one figure climbs the ladder, and a second standing figure behind him raises a hand towards the town holding a rectangular shield or a faggot. The former is to protect the archers behind him, and the latter is to burn the besieged city (cf. Tab. 1). His second hand is usually next to his body. Thus, comparing the gestures, seals B2 (?), B5, C1, C2 and C4 represent attacks, while only B1–4 mirror a ritual performance. However, seals B6 and C3, where both arms are kept near the body, may eventually suggest that the gesture might not be the determining factor to understand the scene. If it was a determining factor in the Late Bronze Age, it may have lost significance as time progressed. Long dress and headdress are equally employed in figures attacking the town and in those performing a rite in front of the temple (as evident in the Balawat gates and the seals of Group A). Therefore they do not seem to be indicative of the specific performance carried out in the B and C group seals. By contrast, the ladder, as Bleibtreu33 emphasizes and as the Balawat representations confirm (cf. Tab. 1), is an element extremely indicative of a siege and would not fit in a ritual performance.34 E.g. Herbordt 1992, pl. 5. Bleibtreu 1994. 34 We may stress that if the structure is interpreted as a temple, the ladder may just be a 32 33

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

804

M. Pucci

The filling elements in the seal from Chatal, such as the crescent and the rhomb, are extremely common in Neo-Assyrian glyptic,35 and fit well into the general Neo-Assyrian cultural horizon of the seal. The rhomb and the crescent are not specifically related to siege scenes; a rhomb is inserted only in B2 between the figure and the structure, while in C2 the crescent is located on top of one tower. The wedge by contrast, which recurs in this seal three times, seems to be more common in Neo-Assyrian linear-style faïence seals,36 while it is only employed in A2 as a filling element. In the Chatal seal the wedge is located in the same position as the other filling patterns, which is on top of the structure. This peculiarity may confirm Collon’s suggestion in interpreting it as a symbol for “arrows or some other type of weapon.”37 It would have been employed here to “replace” the archers on top of the structure itself, and consequently confirms its interpretation as a siege scene. Thus the iconographic elements, i.e. in particular the ladder, the gesture of the figure and (eventually) the wedge on top of the towers, point towards the interpretation of the scene as a siege scene, perfectly belonging to the C group in figure 3. 6. The Siege Scenes in Neo-Assyrian Glyptic Only one example (A3) of a siege scene in glyptic predates with certainty the Neo-Assyrian period: it differs in every iconographic element from the later representations on seals. Consequently, even if the subject was already known in Middle Assyrian glyptic, it was not canonized at the time.38 By contrast, adoration scenes in front of temples (Group D) were fairly common during the Middle-Assyrian and continued into the Neo-Assyrian period. The scene in the Middle-Assyrian seal (B5) shows several peculiarities, such as the presence of the rider and his specific gesture. Moreover, the flat roof is opposed to all other arched representations in the later seals and suggests the interpretation of the structure as a temple. Therefore B5 can be ascribed to the imagery of temple adoration (group D), rather than the imagery of siege scenes. They seem to have become standardized only during the Neo-Assyrian period (specifically the 9th means to climb the roof. However, on the one hand it is never depicted on temple representations, and on the other considering the limited space available, the elements chosen for the image are supposed to be typical for the scene and not accessorial. 35 Cf. Collon 2001a, 12–14). The rhomb is well-known already in Cassite seals and in general in the Late Bronze Age Mesopotamian production (Frankfort 1939, 30l, 33c, d, k; Matthews 1990, 74), while they were also used as pattern for the borders (Teissier 1984, no. 641). 36 Collon 2001a, 17. 37 Collon 2001a, 17. 38 Porada 1967, 2, affirms that the first representation of battlements and fortifications took place in the second half of the 2nd millennium on different media, such as vessels, stone bases etc. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

805

century BC) following a model. This was already evident in the siege representations on the Balawat gates, and to a lesser degree, on the Ashurnasirpal’s II reliefs at Nimrud.39 The simplification of the siege scenes was evident as early as the Balawat gates, where the limited space available forced a choice in the representative elements. Here the town walls were variously represented: with double or single enceinte; different battlements; different external decorations and different geographic settings (mountain, river, sea etc.). Moreover, the horizontal development of the frieze allowed the addition of several elements which composed the attacking army. In the seal representations, the choice of “representative” elements underwent a further selection. It allowed more selection in the seals of Group A, all of which included the defenders of the town. It progressed to a very simplified version which included only the town wall with the gate, and a single standing figure next to it. In some cases, the landscape, which is clearly visible in the representations of the Balawat gates, is depicted on the seals (C1). The external decoration of the walls is also present on the seals (B1–3); clearly showing a common imagery. It is, however, interesting to note that in this selection and simplification process, there was a progressive loss in the military character of the actions. In Group C this is retained only by the presence of the ladder; while in Group B it is completely lacking, and consequently less recognizable. If we then consider the provenience of the seals, it is possible to identify the majority of seals bearing clear scenes in the Assyrian core,40 made up of either sieges (Group A) or religious activities (Group D). By contrast, the context of the seals in Groups B and C is mostly unknown, because they are part of private collections. The exceptions are the seal presented here from the Amuq region, B5 from Sabi Abyad (see above on this specific seal) and eventually C3 which was bought in Aleppo. According to these data, we may suggest, as a working hypothesis, that Groups B and C are provincial interpretations of siege scenes which were better defined in the Neo-Assyrian production. Thus, while in the Neo-Assyrian production the features identifying the scenes clearly indicate the military character of the action, the selection process, possibly carried out outside Assyrian workshops, reduced the “aggressive” character of the scene. In the Group C seals the military elements were limited to the presence of the ladder, while in Group B they completely disappeared. Considering that the ladder was not a necessary element in the Group A representation, the specific selection of the elements was probably not based on the simple copy and observation of the sieges’ seals, but rather on an intentional

7th century BC representations of sieges on reliefs are much more detailed less simplified and were not used as models for the seals’ scenes (cf. in general Nadali 2005). 40 Group A, with the exception of A4 with an unknown provenience, group D except for D5 from Al–Mina. 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

806

M. Pucci

choice of the memes. This process may have brought a shift in the meaning of the military/siege Assyrian scenes: from celebrations of military power; to other kinds of performance, possibly ritual, in front of a gate. Bibliography Andrae, W., 1967: Die Jüngeren Ischtar-Tempel in Assur (WVDOG 58). Osnabrück. Bleibtreu, E. 1994, Festungsanlagen auf neuassyrischen Rollsiegeln und Siegelabrollungen. In N. Cholidis et al. (eds): Beschreiben und Deuten in der Archäologie des Alten Orients: Festschrift für Ruth Mayer-Opificius. Münster. Pp. 7–14. Braidwood, R.J. / Braidwood, L.S., 1960, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I (OIP 61). Chicago Buchanan, B., 1966: Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum, vol. 1 Cylinder Seals. Oxford. Collon, D., 1975: The Seal Impression from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (AOAT 27). Neukirchen. –– 1987: First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London. –– 1988: Some Cylinder Seals from Tell Mohammed Arab. Iraq 50: 59–77. –– 2001a: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals V. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods. London –– 2001b: How Seals Were Worn and Carried: The Archaeological and Iconographic Evidence. In W. Hallo / I.J. Winter (eds): Seals and Seal Impressions, Proceedings of the XLV Recontre Assyriologique Internationale. Bethesda. Pp. 15–30. Curtis, J.E. / Tallis, N., 2008: The Balawat Gates of Ashurnasirpal II. London. Delaporte, L., 1909, Catalogue du Musée Guimet, Cylindres Orientaux (Annales du Musée Guimet XXXIII). Paris. Feldman, M., 2014, Communities of Style: Portable Luxury Arts, Identity, and Collective Memory in the Iron Age Levant. Chicago. Fischer, C., 2004: A Goddess with Two Faces, A Story of Two Cultures. Orient-Express 2004: 102–105. Frankfort, H., 1939: Cylinder Seals. London. Haines, R.C., 1971: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch II: the Structural Remains of the Later Phases (OIP 95). Chicago. Herbordt, S., 1992: Neuassyrische Glyptik (SAAS 1). Helsinki. Herzfeld, E., 1938: Die Kunst des zweiten Jahrtausends in Vorderasien (AMI IX). Berlin. Keel, O., 1990: Nachträge zu “La glyptique de Tell Keisan.” In O. Keel / M. Shuval / Ch. Uehlinger (eds): Studien zu den Stemeplsiegeln aus Palästina/ Israel (OBO 100). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 298–321. Keel-Leu, H. / Teissier, B., 2004: Die vorderasiatischen Rollsiegel der Sammlungen “Bibel+Orient” der Universität Freiburg Schweiz (OBO 200). Göttingen. King, L.W., 1915: Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmanezer. King of Assyria BC 860–825. London. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

807

Klengel-Brandt, E. (ed). 1997: Mit Sieben Siegeln versehen: Das Siegel in Wirtschaft und Kunst des Alten Orients. Berlin. Matthews, D.M., 1990: Principles of Composition in Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Millennium B.C. (OBO Series Archaeologica 8). Fribourg / Göttingen. McEwan, C.W., 1937: The Syrian expedition of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. AJA 41: 8–13. Micale, M.G., 2010: Architettura e potere nella glittica medioassira: dallo spazio urbano allo spazio figurato. In R. Dolce (ed.): Quale Oriente? Omaggio a un maestro. Studi di arte e archeologia del vicino oriente in memoria di Anton Moortgat a 30 anni dalla sua scomparsa. Roma. Pp. 119–135. Moortgat, A., 1969: The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia. London. –– 1988: Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Berlin. Nadali, D., 2005: Assyrians to War: Positions, Patterns and Canons in the Tactics of the Assyrian Armies in the VII century B.C. In A. Di Ludovico / D. Nadali (eds): Studi in onore di Paolo Matthiae presentati in occasione del suo sessantacinquesimo compleanno (CMAO X). Roma. Pp. 167–207. Place, V., 1867: Ninive et l’Assyrie/1. Paris. Porada, E., 1948: Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections: The collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library (The Bollingen Series XIV). Washington. –– 1967: Battlements in the Military Architecture and in the Symbolism of the Ancient Near East. In D. Fraser / H. Hibbard / M.J. Lewine (eds): Essays in the History of Architecture Presented to Rudolf Wittkower. London. Pp. 1–12. Pucci, M., 2010: The Chatal Höyük Publication Project: a work in progress. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3–8 2006, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 567–580. Sax, M., 2001: The Seal Materials, Their Chronology and Sources. In D. Collon: Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. London. Pp. 18–34. Schaeffer, Cl. / Forrer, A., 1983: Corpus des cylindres-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d’Enkomi Alasia (Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations Synthese 13). Paris. Sotheby 1989: Antiquities from the Collection of the Late Madame Marion Schuster, Lausanne and by Descent the Property of Madame Mathilde de Goldschmidt Rothshild. London. Teissier, B., 1984: Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection. Berkeley / Los Angeles / London. Tufnell, O. et al., 1953: Lachish III. The Iron Age. London. Vollenweider, M.-L., 1967: Catalogue raisonné des sceaux cylindres at intailles. Genève. Wiggermann, F.A.M., 2006: The Seal of Ilī-padâ, Grand Vizier of the Middle Assyrian Empire. In P. Taylor (ed.): The Iconography of Cylinder Seals (Warburg Institute Colloquia 9). Warburg. Pp. 92–99. Winter, I.J., 2000: Le Palais Imaginaire: Scale and Meaning in the Iconography © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

808

M. Pucci

of Neo-Assyrian Cylinder Seals. In Ch. Uhlinger (ed.): Images as Media. Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE) (OBO 175). Fribourg / Göttingen. Pp. 51–88.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

Fig. 1. Picture of the seal A17424. Scale 1:1.

Fig. 2. Drawing of seal A17424. scale 1:1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

809

810

M. Pucci

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Representation of Military Attack on Neo-Assyrian Glyptic

811

Fig. 3. Seals representing towns or temples. A1a–b: Nineveh, Nabu temple, sealing on clay plaque, 9th cent. BC, 77 × 51 (a. Collon 1987, 752; b. Herbordt 1992, pl. 1,8). A2: Khorsabad, seal brown stone, 40 × 14 (Place 1867, pl.76 fig. 36a). A3: Assur, sealing, 13th cent. BC (Collon 1987, 750). A4: Schuster collection, seal, end of the 8th cent. BC, 44 × 18 (Sotheby 1987, 45 pg. 36). A5: Assur, sealing, 15x? (Bleibtreu 1994, fig. 7). B1: Musee Guimet stone seal 117, 9–8th cent. BC (Delaporte 1909, pl. 8 K7). B2: Pierpont collection, limestone seal, 9–8th cent. BC, 34 × 12 (Porada 1948: n.652). B3: Musee Guimet, stone seal, 8th cent. BC, 3.1 × 1.2 (Delaporte 1909, n.117). B4: Ashmolean, serpentine seal, 8th cent. (Buchanan 1966, 1553). B5: Sabi Abyad, sealing, 13th cent. BC, 40 × 35 (Wiggermann 2006, n. 142). B6: Ashmolean black marble seal (Buchanan 1966, n. 610). C1: Marcopoli collection, seal, 9–7th cent. BC, 39 × 14 (Teissier 1984, n.235). C2: Private, chalcedony seal, 8th cent. BC, 28 × 13 (Wiggermann 2006, 152). C3: Ashmolean Museum, gray green limestone seal (Buchanan 1966, n. 611). C4: Chatal Höyük, dark grey stone seal, 30 × 45. D1: Assur. sealing on tablet, 12th cent. BC (Andrae 1967, fig. 2). D2: Assur, sealing on tablet, 12th cent. BC (Andrae 1967, fig. 3). D3: Assur, sealing (Andrae 1935, fig. 8). D4: Assur, 13th cent. BC (Fischer 2004, fig. 1). D5: Al Mina, 9–8th cent. BC (Collon 1982, n. 120). D6: Unknown, sealing, Late Assyrian (Collon 2001b, n. 588).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization in EB IV at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan Suzanne Richard

It seems eminently appropriate to write an article on the Early Bronze IV period in honor of Frances Pinnock, the co-director of the Italian Expedition to Tell Mardikh, Syria. The discovery of Tell Mardikh (Ebla) was, arguably, the prime event that catapulted the Early Bronze IV (EB IV) period into the history books as a “second urbanism” in the northern Levant, and one that fostered renewed interest in the EB IV (Intermediate Bronze Age) of the southern Levant. Thanks to Professor Pinnock’s prolific writings over the years, the scholarly community enjoys a rich collection of articles on the cultural heritage of Syria, from architecture, to ritual, pottery, and varied art historical topics from the Early Bronze Age (EBA) and the Middle Bronze Age (MBA). In honor of this Festschrift, so richly deserved by Frances, I offer a view from the “south” of an extraordinary corpus of EB IV miniatures and miniaturized artifacts from Khirbat Iskandar, as a token of what has become a valued friendship as well as colleagueship in the Levantine EBA. 1. Introduction This article is a study of an eclectic assemblage of artifacts associated with the EB IV Phase B settlement at Khirbat Iskandar: miniatures and miniaturized/smallscale vessels and objects—often of uncharacteristic coarse ware and including a diversified cup collection.1 The theoretical approach toward uncovering the meaning and purpose of this diverse corpus will focus on the materiality of miniatures and of miniaturization. What social practices and symbolic world compel the fashioning of a miniaturized reflective image of the human-scale functional equipment of the day? Conversely, what role do miniatures play in legitimizing, signifying, or sanctioning social practices and beliefs? Although the article privileges the Iskandar corpus, the intent is to contextualize it “globally” into a network of interactivity of miniaturization in the EBA and MBA, looking for links to agency that would reveal common social and/or ritual practices and beliefs in the

This article is a more developed analysis of the corpus, first published in preliminary form as a presidential speech, see Richard 2013.

1

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

814

S. Richard

southern Levant, against a backdrop of cups, caliciform, and drinking practices to the “north.” One might think it unusual to find miniaturized artifacts in a period still referred to by some scholars as “pastoral-nomadic,” “intermediate,” or even, in the past, as a “dark age,” about 2500–2000/1950 BC in the higher chronology.2 Yet, given the presence of miniatures in virtually every other cultural period, the suggestion advanced here is that miniaturization in EB IV reflects more of the mounting evidence for continuity with antecedent EBA as well as succeeding MBA peoples. Given the exigencies faced following the eclipse of urban society and “city” life in EB III—including new influences (the “caliciform culture”) spreading across borders throughout Syro-Mesopotamia and the southern Levant—we will argue that the social practice of crafting these tiny objects is yet another manifestation of tradition with which the people sought to maintain their identity, kinship, and solidarity. With newer theoretical approaches in the study of miniaturization and newer methodologies for categorizing these diminutive artifacts, we hope to shed light on the significance of the Khirbat Iskandar corpus in a context of renewed efforts to reactivate town life on the “tell.” Although their true meaning and symbolism may remain elusive, there is no denying that a corpus of reduced-scale material culture implies alternate manufacturing and production processes, undoubtedly reflecting activities of a specialized and symbolic nature; that is to say, such a corpus does not suggest the typical functional activities with which one normally associates ceramic assemblages and their makers. Miniatures magically transcend time and space, intensifying meaning by a focus on form, not function.3 Due to miniaturism, the viewer feels physically enlarged, omnipotent, and empowered.4 Like the wonder of children at play in their microcosm of an adult/full-scale world, e.g., miniaturized table and chairs, tea service, etc., adults handling miniatures or miniaturized objects likewise feel a childlike amazement at tiny objects, which somehow imitate or model or serve as a remembrance or symbol of their full-scale world. It could be called a “fascination with the tiny.”5 Moreover, as most miniatures fit in the hand, the tactile relationship, in contrast to that of a full-scale vessel, allows for interconnectedness and a certain intimacy between the object and agent that must factor into its signification.6 There are also layers of association—the “dynamics of material culture meaning”—beyond simple recognition of links between miniature and full-scale object, involving, for example, both direct and indirect perception.7 In considering the materiality of miniatures, it is important to note that insights into

4 5 6 7 2 3

See Regev et al. 2012; Höflmayer 2014. See Knappett 2012. Bailey 2005, 33. Langin-Cooper 2015. Langin-Cooper 2015, 62. Knappett 2012, 87. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

815

a social world derive from the interactivity between humans and objects, interaction that can be termed a type of “engagement” or “entanglement.”8 In speaking about animal figurines, Meskell elaborates on a miniature’s ability to “materially embody the inhabitants’ preoccupations and concerns.”9 In fact, it is due to the unexpected reduced-scale image that miniatures serve to enhance or emphasize meaning; that is, when functionality is removed through, in this case, reduction in scale, then the “pragmatic qualities of the artifact are removed while the epistemic features are brought to the fore.”10 Scale is the critical attribute of miniatures. Scale “concentrates experience and memory” that can relate to distant places and times, as noted by Jones, who also emphasizes the role of the specialist craftsman in ritual and production.11 What is the purpose of fashioning miniatures? And, what do they signify to the individual or to the cultural group as a whole at Khirbat Iskandar? The goal here is to analyze the form/type and spatial distribution of the miniatures, as well as their affordances and associations, trusting that the patterning and, thus, the practice and meaning of miniaturism at Khirbat Iskandar, will emerge within the context of what must be a specialized intra-site network of objects and agents in the EB IV, Phase B settlement. Despite significant socio-economic and political change in the southern Levant, the archaeological remains at this rural EB IV site exemplify a revitalizing of life and traditions on the tell and a cultural landscape evincing strong ties with the advanced caliciform culture of Syria, marked especially by the hybrid character of the ceramic assemblage. Yet, it is a community in a decentralized sociopolitical milieu faced with the inexorable erosion of the floodplain near the site and a drying climate. Against this background, the article will analyze the 27 miniatures, most of which have affordances with drinking, storing, or pouring of liquids, and will argue that the assemblage as a whole represents specialized activities in a non-domestic context reflective of the inhabitants’ concerns, attitudes, and, surely, resilience. 2. The Site and the Phase B Settlement Khirbat Iskandar is one of the best exemplars of a multiphase, permanently established EB IV agricultural site in the southern Levant, where a prosperous community appears to have rekindled town life after the collapse of the preceding EB III urban settlement, including reuse and rebuilding of the fortifications.12 The Central Transjordanian Plateau site is strategically located at a major crossing point of the Wadi al-Wala, some 6–10 km north of Dhiban and the Wadi al-Mujib, along the

Renfrew 2004, 23 and Hodder 2012, respectively. Meskell 2015, 11. 10 Knappett 2011, 180. 11 Jones 2013, 369. 12 Richard 2016; Richard et al. 2013. 8 9

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

816

S. Richard

main north-south trade route, the ancient “King’s Highway” (Fig. 1). Given the number of newly founded EB IV settlement sites in the period, the presence of EB III and EB IV strata on the tell provides a window into the mounded sites that appear to have weathered and recovered from the dramatic events associated with the disintegration of the EB II–III urban system around mid-3rd millennium BC.13 Despite a changing climate and conditions impacting agriculture, like alternating drought and flash-flooding,14 the community revitalized a permanent settled lifeway of some complexity on the site. The evidence for sociocultural complexity in the EB IV is mounting in the number of walled settlement sites and numerous other datasets now known,15 prompting the suggestion that “rural complexity” has far more explanatory power for the permanent agrarian EB IV sedentary sites16 than does the “pastoral-nomadic” model, championed by Dever17, which, arguably, has explanatory value for the mostly semi-sedentary sites in the Negev. The EB IV Phase B settlement is located in Area B at the northwest corner of the mound. Phase B is separated from the later (EB IV) Phase A settlement by a collapse/destruction layer; it supersedes, and intrudes into, the underlying (EB III) Phase C destruction layer. The building complex—the milieu of most of the corpus—whose back wall is the northern fortification line of the Phase C outer wall, comprises (to date) six rooms and a courtyard (Fig. 2). A benchroom on the west opens up into a central room with an interesting array of features, including a well-made stone-lined bin and associated work platform with cup marks, a hearth and mortar, and a substantial stone platform; to the east is a third (the eastern) room. In the central room, there are pillar bases, but also a standing drum (with flat surface) equidistant between the entrance and a stone-lined pit in which lay an apparent offering of a hoof of a bovine in a decorative bowl; in association with the latter were two goat horn cores. We speculate that the drum, which was fashioned from a block of chert may have been an offering table, as it does not match the flat limestone pillar bases elsewhere in the room. The corner bin (plastered, along with the walls and surface) appears to be the focal point of much of the activity in the room, and it is immediately adjacent to the stepped entrance leading to an apparent courtyard (and corridor rooms to the east); it is likewise easily accessed by doorway to the benchroom. The presence (mostly in the benchroom and central room) of over 150 whole and/or reconstructed vessels thus far, half or more being storejars, is not suggestive of a domestic space. As work progresses through a corpus of 1200 or more

See Richard / Long 2010, and especially p. 278 for that sequence in Area C; and see Richard 2016; for EB III–IV settlement in Transjordan, see Palumbo 1990, 60. 14 Cordova 2007, 190; Cordova / Long 2010. 15 Note that the author has been writing about social complexity for many years (see Richard 1980; 1987). 16 Richard 2014. 17 Most recently, Dever 2014. 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

817

diagnostics, many of which are storejars, it is evident that the complex included storage facilities, a cogent factor to consider when attempting an interpretation of the miniatures and their context.18 Further to the west, seven artifacts in the corpus were found in a different complex exhibiting a constellation of features including, interestingly, an elongated stone-lined bin, various pillars and pillar bases, as well as an unusual stone platform to which was attached an incised pillar with flat slab/ offering table.19 The latter has certain affinities with the EB IV cult site at Bab adh-Dhra‘.20 For archaeologists, context is essential for proffering interpretation of material culture, but especially so for a specialized corpus, such as miniatures and smallscale artifacts. Semiotically, such vessels found in the tombs at Khirbat Iskandar seem, as elsewhere, obviously to have a ritual nature, as would a provenience in a sanctuary or temple, e.g., Nahariya,21 Cretan peak sanctuaries,22 cultic deposits,23 caves, lakes, and springs.24 But note that, as Kiernan stresses, even if in a cultic context, small-scale artifacts have inherent value as representations of ancient realia, such as, the miniature Roman weapons and tools that often inform on contemporary full-size objects and practices.25 For settlement sites, attribution to cultic or ritual activities is more tenuous in the absence of a known sanctuary or temple type—as found at Megiddo26—such as at the rural settlement of Khirbat Iskandar in the EB IV period. Miniatures at settlement sites have been interpreted variously as votives for protection of the city,27 as a domestic cult in Iberia,28 and, in later periods, miniatures of distinctive (biconical) shape, found in households in the Roman period, have been identified as containers for medical unguents.29 There is also an entire body of literature now highlighting the ignored agency of children and miniatures.30 The discovery of fingerprints on miniatures found in domestic contexts argues for activities of children, e.g., at Tell Nagila.31 Park has studied Inuit childhood activities connected with toy miniatures and has shown that miniatures can be used for ritual and for toys.32 Crawford makes a case for

For a study of the whole vessels, see provisionally Richard 2000. Richard et al. 2013. 20 Rast / Schaub 2003, fig. 12.1. 21 Naeh 2012. 22 Knappett 2012, 103; Tournavitou 2009. 23 Dothan / Ben-Tor 1983. 24 See Kleibrink 2000. 25 Kiernan 2015. 26 Ussishkin 2015. 27 For example, Leviah (Paz / Shoval 2012). 28 See Lopez-Bertran / Vives-Ferrándiz 2015. 29 See Hershkovitz 1986. 30 Sillar 1996; Baxter 2005; Crawford 2009; and bibliography cited in these articles. 31 Uziel / Avissar Lewis 2013, 290; see also Kamp 2001, 433ff. 32 Park 1998. 18 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

818

S. Richard

the biography of objects, arguing that “…all objects have and had the potential to be used by children as toys …”33 Interestingly, the criteria suggested for discerning a novice’s work, especially a child’s (e.g., small size, pinch pots, asymmetry, uneven vessel thickness, rough finish, small drying cracks),34 are similar to attributes of miniatures found in cultic contexts (and see below).35 The similarity of children’s toys and cultic/ritualistic objects does give one pause, as does their use in multiple activities. Nevertheless, relying heavily on context and parallels, we believe it unlikely that the Khirbat Iskandar corpus—discovered in the time-capsule of a destruction/collapse matrix—is a collection of toys and/or objects related to childhood activities. Thus, at Khirbat Iskandar, on the basis of the Phase B context, the aggregate being indicative of a public space with public functions, we will argue in this article that the Khirbat Iskandar miniatures connote social practices (possibly rituals) enacted with water and/or other liquids, the meaning of which we will consider against the background of a changing, unpredictable eco-environment and its attendant anxieties for the occupants. The high frequency of cups may suggest added symbolism and efficacy in praxis in the very imitation of elite drinking practices to the “north.” 3. Miniatures and Miniaturization Arguably, a reduction in size of any artifact suffices to qualify as miniaturization. For example, a series of different sized, but very similar looking squat jars at Khirbat Iskandar, all seem to be miniaturizations (or scaled-down versions) of full-sized vessels at the site.36 Such a continuum of miniaturization is not unusual in a site’s assemblage. However, when tracing the miniaturization process to miniatures, albeit the line between a small and a miniature vessel is fine, we encounter a distinctive social phenomenon in the use of “containers” that are hardly containers. In this article, the focus is on miniatures and/or miniaturized/small-scale artifacts that fall within a certain size range (ht: 1.6–10.3 cm). Although the metrics for miniaturization are fluid and relative, depending on the type, a rule of thumb for miniatures may be derived from the following select examples. At Nahariya, the size range for miniatures falls within 7.5 cm for height and diameter, although a continuum of miniaturization is extant at the site. Elsewhere one finds that miniature pithoi can be as large as 14.0 cm in ht., miniature figurines can range up to

Crawford 2009, 67. See Kamp 2001, 431; also Gagné 2014. 35 See Allen 2006 for miniatures in Egypt; see Naeh 2012 for the miniatures at Nahariya. 36 Compare, e.g., Richard 2000, fig. 3.2–3, 5–7 (pithoi and large storejars) and fig. 2:4–6, 8 (medium and small jars); and see Allen 2006, fig. 3, 7–9 for a similar phenomenon in Egyptian tombs. 33 34

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

819

15.5 cm in ht., and miniature shields range to 17.0 cm in ht.37 At Iskandar, except for three outliers, juglets with tall necks at 10.0–10.3 cm in ht. and a jar at 9.5 cm in ht., all the vessels fall within an 8.7 cm upper range, close to that determined at Nahariya. From the above, we may define a “true” miniature as a small-scale artifact, a miniaturization of a full-sized (canonical) version, which, most would agree, has some functionality as a container no matter how miniscule, as, for example, vessels with tiny inner space at Nahariya.38 There are, of course, other miniatures that are uniquely produced exclusively at that scale for various purposes. Several good examples would be the funnels (“leben-cups”) and string-pierced jars known from the EBA.39 In Crete, several examples of miniatures that are not scaled-down versions of anything are the Chamaizi pots at 5.5 cm in ht. and the miniscule “cupules,” at 1.0 cm in ht., thought to be tokens; elsewhere on Crete there are miniature (scaled-down) goblets that, given their abstract nature are also called tokens.40 The latter examples show “unique” miniatures to be a more fluid category in terms of function and/or relation to canonical forms.41 Generally speaking, these two categories resonate with art historical approaches that classify objects on a continuum from exact replica to more abstract, the latter of which can still represent more generally the perception of realia.42 We will have occasion to refer back to some of these ambiguities of interpretation when we discuss the Khirbat Iskandar miniatures corpus. In an effort to distinguish types of (true and unique) miniatures and to enhance this study of the materiality of miniatures, I have employed taxonomic criteria that comprise not only the usual classification of form, type, and manufacture, but also relational attributes; that is, to what degree do the miniatures imitate canonical (full-sized) versions, even though their affordances differ due to scale.43 Although most vessels in the Khirbat Iskandar corpus appear to be (more or less) faithful replicas (icons) of canonical versions, we will make a case for some unique examples as well. To enhance insight into nuanced relationships between icons and their canonical versions, there are additional cogent factors to consider, such as, frequency (popularity), fidelity (degree of faithfulness), distance (spatial/temporal relationship), and directionality (origin of influence), all of which inform on perception, whether direct or indirect, the latter transcending space and time.44 See respectively, Knappett 2012, 94; Langin-Cooper 2015, fig. 8; and Kiernan 2015, fig. 5. See Naeh 2012, 188. 39 See, conveniently, Dever 1973, figs 3:10–12 and 4:1–5. 40 For cupules, see Knappett 2012, figs 9–10; for scaled-down goblets, see pp. 97–98. 41 For an alternative schema in which there are: 1) “true” miniatures that are miniaturized and functional, 2) small-scale miniatures, and 3) models having no functional capability see Allen 2006, 20–22. 42 So Kiernan 2015, 56. 43 For key aspects of affordances, see Knappett 2004. 44 As per Knappett 2012, 92. 37 38

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

820

S. Richard

4. The Corpus The corpus of 27 items (two recent miniscule additions from the 2013 season) includes the following form classifications: jars (n=5), jugs/pitchers (n=2), “teapots” (n=3), cups (n=12), lamps (n=2), and miscellaneous (n=3): a bronze spearhead, a zoomorphic figurine, and a “crucible.” Leaving aside the last specialized group, the corpus (when compared with full-scale, functional vessels at Iskandar) appears to relate to liquids in some way; namely, those with affordances for storage, pouring, drinking, even lighting with olive oil—all indicators or signifiers of social customs being represented symbolically in reduced-scale modeling. It is apropos to note that similar full-sized vessel types related to liquids were identified in Palace G at Ebla, where they witness to new EB IV social customs connected with drinking.45 That the Iskandar miniatures corpus does not represent a typical domestic repertoire is clear from the absence of vessels for cooking, processing, dry storage (i.e., holemouths/wide-mouthed vessels) or serving of solids; viz., the most ubiquitous of EB IV domestic ceramic categories at the site, serving vessels such as platters and bowls, are noticeable by their absence. The discernment of a new form/size class at Iskandar persuaded us to refine the classification system previously published in Vol. 146 in order to distinguish miniatures as a class/type that is separate from small vessels in the EB IV period. Although the assemblage expresses fidelity to a greater or lesser degree to canonical forms, there is considerable variability. Whether the latter is a reflection of different makers or the “realia” of a diverse typology of forms or a purposeful attempt to heighten perception/meaning by an unexpected attribute of some individuality (an anomaly) or degree of abstractness is difficult to know; obviously, since no two are alike, the vessels do not evince mass-production. Spatially, canonical versions for the miniatures are found on site (proximity) and in the nearby cemeteries and/or at other sites (distance); parallels for the miniatures are spatially and often temporally at a distance. The miniatures affirm both continuity with EBA tradition and reflect the newer influences of the “caliciform” culture in their hybrid characteristics. Despite a number of factors to consider, it must be remembered, as mentioned earlier, that the most critical attribute that “concentrates experience and meaning” is scale itself. As for provenience, the breakdown is the following (see Fig. 2): benchroom (n=11), central room (n=4), courtyard (n=3), third/eastern room (n=1), corridor room (n=1) and, in the western complex (n=7). Discussion of the corpus follows Mazzoni has identified vessels functionally related to liquids, such as goblets, cups, and beakers for drinking; teapots, pitchers, and spouted jars as pouring vessels; and storage vessels with closed mouth, like the Syrian Bottles, as well as various types of probable oil jars (Mazzoni 1994, 249–53). Concerning the southern Levant, see Bunimovitz / Greenberg 2004. 46 Richard et al. (eds) 2010. 45

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

821

according to the form classification (above), and, for ease of reference, parallels to miniatures will be in the accompanying footnote. 4.1 Jars47 Of the five miniature jars, a frequency second only to cups, three from the benchroom (n. 222, n. 233, and n. 330; Fig. 3:1–3) are reduced-scale imitations comparable, more or less, to proximate squat storejars in the complex, as well as in the more distant tombs, thus, their fidelity and direction are apparent.48 Jar n. 222 is the only well-made example, an exact replica of a canonical form: red slip, classic straight and wavy band combing, knob, and wheel-finishing. This “upper-limit” example (ht. 9.5 cm) could be a small storejar, but comparative analysis suggests otherwise.49 Both n. 233 and n. 330, however, even though red-slipped and burnished in the EBA tradition, exhibit certain features that accentuate their distinctiveness; for example, neither has the expected wide, everted neck, both are coarsely made, and one exhibits an unusual profiled lug handle, not attested at Iskandar (an anomaly). The three miniaturized jars appear to replicate canonical storage jars for liquids, albeit not with the same functional capacity, due to scale. In contrast, the other two jars from the central room display characteristics of the “bottle” tradition (n. 319, n. 345; Fig. 3:4–5) and have canonical versions at a distance, both spatially and temporally (a good indicator of indirect perception). Globular miniature n. 319 has a pierced lug handle attached to the neck, while the slim n. 345 has a knob at the neck. At 4.20 and 7.5 cm in ht., respectively, these miniatures replicate tomb-specific (and thus ritually-related) equipment as represented by the globular southern Transjordanian type and the slimmer “milk bottles” so well-known from the Central Hills area.50 The Jericho example (fn. 50)

See EB IV miniature jars at Jebel Qa‘aqir (Dever 2014, fig. 2.93: 6 (T. C5); possibly at Hablet el-Amud (Sa‘ad 1964, pl. XXXV:15); Megiddo (Guy 1938, pls 10, 12, 18); Hazorea (Meyerhof 1989, pl. 10: 3:29 (twin-jars); Ma‘ayan Barukh (Amiran 1961, pl. 5: 4); Lachish (Tufnell 1958, pl. 66:446); Central Negev sites Nahal Boker and ‘En Ziq (Cohen 1999, figs 82:4, 103:1, 5–6, 147:1–2, possibly 3); Bab adh-Dhra‘ (Schaub / Rast 1989, figs 274:15–18, 281:9–10); Khirbat Iskandar (Richard et al. [eds] 2010, fig. 10.7: 1–2); Beth-Shean (Mazar 2006, fig. 5:6); Tell el-Jazari (see D’Andrea 2014, pl. XII:1. For EB III, note, e.g., at Yaqush (Esse 1992, 1504), at Zeraqon (Genz 2002, pls 39:2, 103:1) and Batrawy (Nigro 2012, 105 top). 48 For proximate examples, see Richard 2000, fig. 2, 4–6, 8; for the tombs, see Richard / Peterman 2010, fig. 12.1, passim. 49 The broad category of small jars (7–14 cm in ht.) in the tombs at Iskandar is being revised, given the typical range (12 cm in ht. or more) for small jars in the period, and see, conveniently, Dever 1973, fig. 4: 25–28. 50 For Transjordan, see Richard / Peterman 2010, fig. 12.1:13–14; for slim bottles, see, conveniently, Dever 1973, fig. 4:17–20, noting that the EB III example from Jericho T. D12 is an exact parallel for n. 345. 47

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

822

S. Richard

affirms continuity of an EBA ritual burial tradition, just as the bottle shape continues to be a cultic signifier into the MBA, e.g., at Nahariya and Tel Haror.51 Contextually, the find-spots near the bin in association with jug n. 313, lends credence to the positing of a ritual practice involving the pouring of liquids.52 4.2 Jugs/Pitchers53 The two small-scale jugs (n. 313 at an estimated 10 cm in ht., and n. 329 at 10.30 cm in ht.; Fig. 3:6–7) were found in the benchroom and central room, respectively. Both are narrow-necked, which is somewhat unusual at the site (and in the EB IV), but reminiscent of the popular EB II–III jug/juglet tradition.54 They, nevertheless, reflect fidelity and proximity to a few full-scale versions in the complex, underscoring the source of influence (directionality).55 Both have the classic EB IV squat form and strap handle and are faithful replicas, although n. 313 is undecorated, while n. 329 is red slipped and burnished and further decorated with two nipples opposite the handle. In the absence of figurines at the site, one is wont to suggest a pars pro toto regarding these distinctively placed plastic attachments.56 Even though these jugs are at the upper-end of the range for height, it is worth noting that almost all of the small jugs in the Iskandar tombs range from 15–20 cm. in ht. In light of jug n. 313’s location near the “bottles,” one may surmise a similar role awaited stored n. 329. That these scaled pouring vessels probably reflect ritual practices gains further support from their affinities with antecedent EBA and subsequent MBA miniature jugs known to have elite and/cultic affordances.57 Such

Naeh 2012, figs 5:5, 9; 6:1; Katz 2009, fig. 24, center right. See similar Roman miniatures in Tchekhanovets 2013, fig. 5.4:11–12, as well as a cup n. 13, both types used for ointments or perfumes, see p. 124. 53 See EB IV miniature jugs at: el-Husn (Harding and Isserlin 1953, fig. 1:13); Tiberias (Tzaferis 1968, fig. 5:9); Tell Amal (Feig 1991, fig. 5:14); Yavne’el (Liebowitz / Porath 1992, fig. 1:1); Jericho (Kenyon 1960, fig. 68, twin juglet; Kenyon / Holland 1983, fig. 67:10); HaGoshrim (Yeivin 1966, fig. 5:8); as well as the Iskandar tombs (Peterman / Richard 2010, fig. 10:1–2) 54 See, for example, trends in jugs at Bab adh-Dhra‘ (Rast / Schaub 2003, especially p. 491). 55 See Richard 2000, fig. 1:11 and 10 with wider neck; see also in the tombs, Peterman / Richard 2010, fig. 10.23:14. 56 Pairs of nipples are popular on jars at Khirbat Iskandar and Bab adh-Dhra‘(Peterman / Richard 2010, figs 10.7:2, 9, 12, 14, 10.13:8–9; Schaub / Rast 1989: figs 274:12–14, 18; 275: 4, 6 [teapots], 281:3). The presence of another pars pro toto artifact at Iskandar—a spout around which “goddess” arms encircle—was also found in Phase B in the third/ eastern room of the complex. 57 See miniature jugs at Batrawy (Nigro 2012, 105 top), Beth-Shan (Mazar / Zvi-Esudri / Cohen-Weinberger 2000, fig. 14:6; Zeraqon (Genz 2002, pls 136:10, 138:12); Yaqush (Esse 1993, p. 1504). For Egyptian miniature juglets in the Old Kingdom, see Allen 51 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

823

ties reinforce the view of inhabitants maintaining solidarity with ancestral traditions in a changing world, conceivably offering libations reflective of existential concerns as the climate continued to deteriorate. 4.3 Teapots58 In the benchroom, there were three small-scale miniaturized teapots ranging from 7.0–8.5 cm in ht. (n. 229, n. 235, and n. 309; Fig. 3:8–10). The teapots manifest faithfulness to a range of attributes characteristic of Iskandar vessels, such as red slip and burnished squat bodies, a variety of spouts, and typical decorations, such as band-combing, zigzag lines, and incision. The direction of influences and proximity to canonical pouring vessels on the site is evident59 with one notable exception: the plastic addition of handle/knob—a virtually universal phenomenon on site, as seen by complete vessels in the tombs. This “anomaly” aligns them with the Syrian handleless teapot tradition.60 In the ritual context of the tombs at Iskandar, except for three miniatures, all teapots (n=17) are medium to large size (15–21 cm in ht.) with large capacity to hold liquids. Symbolically, the smallscale vessels accentuate affordances and associations with the Syrian tradition of handleless pouring vessels (indirect perception) usually found in association with cups, another interface with distant elite drinking rituals and practices. 4.4 Cups61 Significantly, the most eclectic and diversified of the classifications, cups dominate the corpus in terms of frequency (n=12). Yet, their diversity—not to say the small-scale dimension of the form in the first place—makes classification by any one measure or rubric problematic. Hoping to make the case that the “whole

2004, for their continuation into the MBA, see, e.g., Nahariya (Naeh 2012, fig. 5:14). See miniature teapots at Jericho (Nigro 1999, fig. 4, 3/Pl. VI, with 3 unusual vertically pierced lugs); Ma’ayan Baruch (Amiran 1961, fig. 5:1); Bab adh-Dhra’ (Schaub / Rast 1989, fig. 282:4–5); Khirbat Iskandar (Peterman / Richard 2010, figs 10.8:1, 10.13: 11, 10.18: 1); Yavne’el (Liebowitz / Porath 1992, fig. 1:12). 59 Richard 2000, fig. 2:10–12 and many in the tombs. 60 For Syrian vessels see, conveniently, Dever 1980, fig. 5: second row, especially the fourth example; see the Syrian style painted teapots at Qedesh, alongside handmade varieties, some of which are good canonical examples for our teapots; Tadmor 1978, fig. 8, passim and fig.7, passim, although most with knobs. 61 See miniature cups at Megiddo (Guy 1938, pl. 10: 16); el-Hammeh (Wightman 1988, fig. 12:1–2; Azor (Yannai 2007, fig. 3:7); Khirbet Kirmil (Dever 1975, figs 5:23, 6:3, borderline miniatures); Jericho (Kenyon / Holland 1983, fig. 96:9); Bab adh-Dhra‘ (Schaub / Rast 1989, figs 275:11, 276:18–19, 282:13–14, the latter borderline); Khirbat Iskandar (Peterman / Richard 2010, figs 10.3:1–2); cup/bowl at Zeraqon (Genz 2002, pl. 58:8). 58

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

824

S. Richard

is greater than its constituent parts,” we believe that the cup assemblage, whose symbolism resonates with social practices associated with containers of liquids, represents a specialized sub-set of the miniatures corpus. Despite the wide-range of types, four shape categories accommodate the cup corpus: hemispherical (n=4), barrel (n=2), goblet (n=2), votive (n=4).62 Taken in order, the hemispherical category itself shows variability: a classic closed decorated cup, two very coarse and thick cups, and a bag-shaped beaker. One vessel—classic cup n. 308 (benchroom; Fig. 3:11)—shows exceptional fidelity to full-sized versions on site (band combing, wide flat base) and self-evident directionality and distance.63 At 5.0 cm in ht., it parallels a class of “small” cups in EB IV.64 Given the fact that full-sized cups are generally at least 6.0 cm in ht. (as at Bet Dagan, n. 12) and, for example, at Ebla,65 we consider the 5.0 cm cups in the period to be borderline, if not in fact, miniatures. In their unexpected lack of detail and/or anomalies of manufacture, fabric, and shape, coarse and thickened cups n. 223 (central room; 4.25 cm in ht.; Fig. 3:12) and n. 395 (third room; 3.0 cm in ht.; Fig. 3:13), apparently, were crafted to imitate in a very general way a simple hemispherical cup. The former is open,66 the latter (although not as thick) appears to be an extremely coarse variety of n. 308 (above). Originally mistaken for stone, the two are so uncharacteristic of the cup repertoire that one is persuaded to compare them with ground-stone objects, possibly mortars or stone cups in miniature (and see two close parallels in the Beer Resisim chalk cups, fn. 9).67 The last of the hemispherical category, n.1003 (courtyard; Fig. 3:14) is an extremely thick, coarse, and diminutive cup (1.7 cm in ht.). Vaguely reminiscent of simple cups (above), the “baggy” almost cylindrical shape is, however, atypical, at the site, suggesting that it may be a unique miniature.68

Note a similar range in a more classic cup assemblage (n=114) found in tombs at Bet Dagan (Yannai / Nagar 2014, 124–134, and note his small cups in fig. 3.6—all virtually 6.0 cm or more in ht.—which are but miniaturizations of the full-sized cups (see figs 3.2–3.5 and 3.7). 63 See Richard / Peterman 2010, fig. 12.6, 5 for the site, and fig. 12.4, 6 for the tombs; see also D’Angelo 2010, fig. 11.9: 1 64 See, conveniently, Dever 1973, fig. 4: 21–24. 65 At Ebla, miniature cups (goblets) tend to be 4.0 cm or less in ht. (Mazzoni 1994, fig. 1), whereas the full-sized goblets range from 6–14 cm in ht. (figs 2–3) to tall painted cups from 10–16 cm in ht. (figs 4–5)—a continuum of miniaturization is clear at the site. 66 See possible canonical versions in two open cups from Area C in Richard et al. (eds) 2010, pls 5:3; 19:10. 67 For example, see the stone cups/mortars at Hazorea (Mayerhof 1989, pl. 6, although provenience in some cases is questionable). 68 There are good examples of the cylindrical shape elsewhere, e.g., an extremely good canonical version can be found in the distant Jericho tombs (Nigro 1999, fig. 5:2, pl. VII); and for a similar shape at Iktanu, see Prag 1974, fig. 3:19. 62

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

825

In the next, “barrel-shaped,” category, miniatures n. 991 and n. 805 (western complex, at 3.4 and 4.6 cm in ht., respectively; Fig. 3:15–16) are also extremely thick and coarse, showing no finishing or smoothing to their production69. Although n. 805 has a somewhat larger inner cavity, both are of a type of manufacture known as “thumb pots” or “pinch pots.” There are no canonical versions to this unique cup, but see exact parallels at Nahariya.70 The two goblets have no canonical versions on site.71 The closed goblet with narrow base and high-shouldered profile (n. 394 at 4.0 cm in height, from the corridor room; Fig. 3:17) replicates almost exactly miniature goblets at Ebla in Palace G (interpreted as representative of elite drinking customs) and Syrian cups generally, as well as at other EB IV sites. Thus, distance is the distinguishing characteristic.72 Tall goblet n. 682 (western complex; Fig. 3:18) is a cup of some singularity; that is, it appears to be a crude attempt at a tall goblet with narrow base and high shouldered profile, below the rim of which is an unusual rectangular knob-like attachment. At 6.1 cm in ht., this vessel is, sensu stricto, a small goblet (in itself, though, a miniaturization of the larger goblets). Nevertheless, in its coarse and clumsy fashioning, this unique cup perceptibly recalls the (distant) elite painted northern goblets.73 Finally, the votive class, so-called due to side walls flared out in V-shape, is represented by four vessels: n. 238, a rough miniature “teacup” (4.2 cm in ht.) with knob below rim (benchroom; Fig. 3:19), n. 725 and n. 724 (western complex; Fig. 3:20–21) at 4.5 and 5.5 cm in ht., respectively; and n. 1013, a very coarse tiny cup

Tiny miniature “thumb pot” n. 991 was found in a context similar to goblet n. 682 (see below and fn. 73); that is, the Phase B floor and make-up below is mixed with Phase C destruction material. We classify n. 991 as a Phase B/C miniature until further study of the Phase C levels at the site ensues. 70 Naeh 2012, fig. 5:11; see also at Nagila (Uziel / Avissar-Lewis 2013, fig. 12:16–17). 71 However, in an EB III context, a possible prototype in the form of an imported black-painted goblet does attest to earlier interconnectivity with the Syrian caliciform tradition, and see Richard and D’Andrea 2016. 72 Mazzoni 1994, fig. 1 and especially n. 26; for Transjordanian and Syrian parallels, see Prag 1974, fig. 3:2–4 and, especially, ‘Aroer, fig. 3, 26; see also Ma‘ayan Barukh (Amiran 1961, fig. 6:7). For coarse miniature “votives” from Byblos, said to be found only in temples, see Saghieh (1983, 115–116, pl. XLVI). 73 For convenience, see the Syrian and southern Levantine painted goblets in Dever 1980, fig. 5, third row, especially the first three; see a tall goblet at 10–12 cm in ht. with triple lugs at Ebla (Mazzoni 1994, fig. 2:13). Buttressing this suggestion is the imported Syrian goblet mentioned earlier (n. 69). Cup n. 682 was found in the 2004 attempt to find the Phase B surface discovered at end of 2000 in Square B5A. The cup was in a mudbrick/ ashy layer that could have been surface make-up or may be from the EB III destruction immediately below. Although the provenience is somewhat uncertain, it seems more likely that it belongs with the EB IV, Phase B materials. However, it should be noted that EB III miniatures are present on site. 69

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

826

S. Richard

(2.35 cm in ht.) with wide base (courtyard; Fig. 3:22). No canonical version of the votive shape is thus far extant at Iskandar, although the type is known elsewhere in EB III and EB IV, as well as in the MBA.74 The one miniature teacup in the tombs is of the more popular Iskandar cup-type with incurved profile and slightly upturned rim.75 That miniaturized vessels n. 725 and n. 724 were signifiers of specialized activities is underscored by their contiguity near the western elongated bin. Militating against n. 724 as a cup, however, is the presence of blackening on the rim (see n.74 for a cup/lamp at Yaqush). If the latter was used as a lamp, it would, in any case, be quite extraordinary, given the universal tradition of the four-spouted lamp at the site (and see below). Taken as a whole, the miniature cup assemblage, in terms of frequency, fidelity, and distance is idiosyncratic in the corpus and at Khirbat Iskandar. The infrequency of cups at the site and in the tombs76 makes the miniature cup assemblage (n=11) all the more remarkable. With the exception of one example of fidelity (classic hemispherical cup n. 308), canonical versions on site are either absent or general and vague at best (crude cups n. 223 and n. 395). Most of the adduced parallels (canonical versions, as well as miniatures) evince distance, both temporally and spatially, a clue to second-hand perception: votive shape (n. 238, n. 1013, n. 724, and n. 725, unless a lamp), thumb pots (n. 991, n. 805), goblets (n. 394 and n. 682), baggy shaped beaker (n. 1003). In terms of directionality, the thumb pots and possibly the baggy shaped vessel appear to be unique miniatures without canonical version. Along with ties to a network of miniature cups in EBA and MBA ritual contexts, primarily, it is suggested that the cup assemblage may reflect a symbolic attempt to replicate a distant tradition of elite drinking rituals and customs that resonate with the liquid storage and pouring affordances evident in the rest of the corpus. 4.5 Lamps77 The lack of frequency of miniature four-spouted lamps (n=2) at Khirbat Iskandar is notable, given the popularity of this EB IV fossil type. The first example (n.

For parallels to the votive shape, we need to look beyond the site (see, conveniently, Dever 1973, fig. 4: 13–16 for EB III and IV examples. Note also the EB III parallel to the miniature votive cups at Yaqush (Esse 1993, 1504) in a cultic context, with one also used as a lamp, and possible parallels at EB III Leviah (fig. 3:6); note at Nahariya (Naeh 2012, fig. 5:10). And see Egyptian votives in 4th Dynasty tombs (Allen 2006, p. 24, B); and recall the votives mentioned a Byblos (n. 71). 75 Peterman / Richard 2010, fig. 10.3:1. 76 Cf. Yannai / Nagar 2014. 77 Jericho, four-spouted lamp; Trench I, western room, “pisé bin,” Stage LII, phase liv(W); Kenyon 1981: 106, pl. 87:b; it is published also in Kenyon 1981, fig. 12:25; Kenyon / Holland 1983, 51:6, Reg. 560, fig. 20:6, though attributed to another phase (and thanks to M. D’Andrea for this information). For a votive cup used as a lamp, see at Yaqush (n. 21); for a one-spouted lamp, see at Beth Shean (Mazar 2006, fig. 5:7). 74

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

827

245 from the benchroom; Fig. 3:23) is a well-made lamp with great fidelity to proximate canonical versions, thus distance and directionality are clear.78 Nevertheless it is unusual in terms of its size and its proportions (4.3 cm in height, 9.8 cm in diameter; that is, a H/M ratio of 0.43, as opposed to the 23 lamps in the tombs, whose diameters range from 12.5 (1 ex) to 19 cm and whose H/M ratios average 0.28. The second example, n. 762 (courtyard; Fig. 3:24) is misshapen, quite crudely made, and has the rare rounded base at the site.79 At 1.6 cm in ht. and 3.7 cm in diameter, with a H/M ratio of 0.43, it is the tiniest artifact in the corpus. Despite some fidelity to canonical versions, the lamp’s scaled-down dimensions render it non-functional and, thus, we consider it to be a unique miniature. Knowing of only one other tiny lamp (Jericho at 2.8 cm in ht., fn. 21), it is the paucity of the type in miniature form, as well as the singularity in the case of n. 762, that accentuates the perception and presumably symbolism of the four-spouted lamp in this context, perhaps representing the idea of a lamp. By necessity, lamps must be of a functional full size in order to light both house and tomb; our miniatures, however, emphasize that necessity of light by their form and scale. 4.6 Objects Included in this eclectic corpus of 27 are three idiosyncratic objects (Fig. 4): a miniature tin-bronze socketed spearhead (n. 587), a miniature zoomorphic figurine (n. 651), and a miniaturized, very coarse ceramic object that we call a “crucible” (n. 373). The spearhead—clearly a precious item—is one of the earliest socketed tin-bronzes in the southern Levant.80 Found near the platform and incised pillar in the western complex, it appears too tiny and fragile for a weapon, a factor persuading us to conclude at the time that, given the context, it may have been a votive offering and/or evidence of gifting; at the very least its presence is a testament to differentiated social classes on site. Near the elongated bin, the zoomorphic figurine was found alongside a very small mortar and hammerstone on the Phase B surface. The figurine appears to be a bovine, but this is not certain (see a good parallel at Tell al-Hayyat, associated with the temple precinct).81 It joins the only other (EB IV?) figurine—a sheep apparently—that Peter Parr found on site and which he compared to an MB I figurine from Byblos.82 Figurines of any kind are rare in the EB IV, but, as with evidences of cult in settlement sites, are now becoming better known.83 Whether bovine or caprine, the zoomorphic figurine takes on added sym-

For example, Richard / Boraas 1988, fig. 19:13; Richard / Peterman 2010, fig. 12.6:25 for the site and for the tombs, see selection on fig. 12.4). 79 See one example in the tombs, Peterman / Richard 2010, fig. 10.14:11. 80 See full discussion in Richard 2006. 81 Falconer / Fall 2006, figs 6.18–19. 82 Parr 1960, pl. XIV, 1; p. 130, fn. 1 83 See Dever 2014, fig. 3.27:13 for a female stick-figurine; also note the spout with god78

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

828

S. Richard

bolism as a signifier of community concerns, and perhaps livelihood, in a post-collapse period of ongoing aridity. Finally, the so-called “crucible,” a very coarse and thick container without parallel on site, rounds out the corpus.84 At 3.4 cm in ht, the crude ceramic artifact, first mistaken for stone, includes an unusually elongated lug handle, pierced vertically, and, based on the partial rim profile, perhaps a spout; its manufacture is thick, crude, and rough. This round-based miniaturized vessel (unusual for the site) has, in addition, a hole drilled through the base, indicative of ritual vessels, as seen at Nahariya.85 Tentatively, as a symbolic vessel for smelting (with both economic and ritual overtones), the “crucible’s” size and non-functionality may emphasize economics and/or links to specialized knowledge and new industries, as precious as the spearhead. 5. Conclusions The 27 miniatures and miniaturized vessels, as well as artifacts of some singularity, discussed in this article, present an extraordinary corpus from an EB IV settlement site in the southern Levant. The corpus infers a specialized production process distinct from that of the full-sized repertoire, as well as a social class in demand of such products, also hinted at by context and precious items (storeroom/ public area/cultic area, tin-bronze spearhead, etc.). It would follow that the corpus expresses associated specialized activities. Although it cannot be stated absolutely that the miniatures were not toys (even originally), having adduced numerous parallels from ritualized EBA and MBA contexts, we suggest that, in combination with the public context at Khirbat Iskandar, the eclectic corpus is emblematic of ritualized practices and activities. The strength of the “global” parallels argues for an inter-artifactual network of common cultural attitudes and shared traditions through time and space that infer linkages to agency, such as kinship and solidarity and the desire to maintain that identity in terms of customs, beliefs, rituals, and, we would argue further, settled agrarian life. Along with continuity, the analysis also illuminated influences from the new caliciform tradition, in particular, vessels associated with elite drinking customs to the north. Finally, what can we say about the social practices and presumed rituals enacted in the public complex at Khirbat Iskandar? The analytical method revealed that dess arms mentioned above (fn. 9) from Iskandar. Recent excavations of settlement sites attest to a growing list of zoomorphic figurines as well as evidence of cult, e.g., monoliths at ‘Ein el-Hilu (Covello-Paran 2009, 12; fig. 6); at Nahal Rephaim, monoliths were found along with two zoomorphic (probably sheep) figurines (Eisenberg 1993, 1279). 84 Found in the context of the floor make-up below the Phase A surface (which overlies the collapse matrix of Phase B in the benchroom; note the misattribution of the piece to the central room in earlier publications), its stratigraphic provenience is less than certain pending the final report on the phasing of Area B. However, given the distinctions between Phase A and Phase B, it is highly likely to have originated in Phase B. 85 Naeh 2012, fig. 5:7–8. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

829

all the miniature vessels—ranging along a continuum from faithful icons to highly abstract and crude attempts to emulate canonical versions, along with a number of unique and singular miniatures—were shown to have affordances related to pouring or drinking or storing liquids. Significantly, most of the cups evoke distant prototypes/parallels and most parallels were from ritual contexts, indicators of indirect perception. Situating these factors against the broad background sketched earlier, that is, a period of climatic fluctuation and broader uncertainties about settled life in the eclipse of urbanism, it is plausible to suggest that the exigencies of life may have engendered the societal need for specialized activities/ rituals associated with life-giving water, rituals possibly controlled by elites on site. Resonating with this view, a diverse assemblage of cups and goblets of northern inspiration may symbolically add elite drinking customs to the inferred rituals of pouring and storing liquids in miniatures. Newer views on the materiality of objects suggest that objects are also agents; that is, they are not simply passive containers. Rather, they interact and mediate with the social world around them. Thus, the Khirbat Iskandar corpus is reflective of the ideology of the society that created it, but likewise impacts, resonates with, and sanctions that very same social world and ideology. May we surmise that the beliefs, fears, customs, and concerns of a society living in a changing world (urban collapse, the new dominant Syrian culture, and climatic fluctuations) imbued the specialized corpus with signification. Bibliography Allen, S., 2006: Miniature and Model Vessels in Ancient Egypt. In M. Barta (ed.): The Old Kingdom Art and Archaeology Proceedings of the Conference Held in Prague, May 31–June 4, 2004. Prague. Pp. 19–24. Amiran, R., 1961: Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age I at Ma’ayan Barukh. ‘Atiqot (ES) 3: 84–92. Bailey, D.W., 2005: Prehistoric Figurines: Representation and Corporeality in the Neolithic. London. Baxter, J.E., 2005: The Archaeology of Childhood: Children, Gender, and Material Culture. Walnut Creek. Bunimovitz, S. / Greenberg, R., 2004: Revealed in their Cups: Syrian Drinking Customs in Intermediate Bronze Age Canaan. BASOR 334: 19–31. Cohen, R., 1999: Ancient Settlements of the Central Negev, Vol. 1: The Chalcolithc Period, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age I (IAA Reports 6). Jerusalem. Cordova, C.E., 2007: Millennial Landscape Change in Jordan: Geoarchaeology and Cultural Ecology. Tucson. Cordova, C.E. / Long, J.C., Jr., 2010: Modern and Ancient Environment. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 21–35. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

830

S. Richard

Covello-Poran, K., 2009: Socio-Economic Aspects of an Intermediate Bronze Age Village in the Jezreel Valley. In P.J. Parr (ed.): The Levant in Transition: Proceedings of a Conference Held at the British Museum on 20–21 April 2004 (PEFA IX). Leeds. Pp. 9–20. Crawford, S., 2009: The Archaeology of Play Things: Theorising a Toy Stage in the ‘Biography’ of Objects. Childhood in the Past 2: 56–71. D’Andrea, M., 2014: The Southern Levant in Early Bronze IV. Issues and Perspectives in the Pottery Evidence; Vol. I: Text; Vol, II: Appendices and Plates (CMAO XVII). Roma. D’Angelo, J., 2010: Excavation of the Area E Cemetery. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report won the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 209–22. Dever, W. G., 1973: The EB IV― MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine. BASOR 210: 37–63. –– 1975: A Middle Bronze I Cemetery at Khirbet el-Kirmil. Eretz Israel 12: 18*–33*. –– 1980: New Vistas on the EB IV (“MBI”) Horizon in Syria-Palestine. BASOR 237: 35–64. –– 2014: Excavations at the Early Bronze IV Sites of Jebel Qa‘aqir and Be’er Resisim. (SAHL 6). Winona Lake. Dothan, T. / Ben-Tor, A., 1983: Excavations at Athienou, Cyprus, 1971–1972 (Qedem Reports 16). Jerusalem. Eisenberg, E., 1993: Rephaim, Nahal. In E. Stern (ed.): New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. IV. Jerusalem. Pp. 1277–1280. Esse, D., 1993: Yaqush. In E. Stern (ed.): New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. IV. Jerusalem. Pp. 1502–1504. Falconer, S. / Fall, P., 2006: Bronze Age Rural Ecology and Village Life at Tell el-Hayyat, Jordan (BAR-IS 1586). Oxford. Feig, N., 1991: Burial Caves of the Early Bronze Age IV at Tel ‘Amal. ‘Atiqot 20: 118–128. Gagné, L.A., 2014: Learning to Make Pottery: A Look at How Novices Became Potters in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus. BASOR 372: 19–33. Genz, H., 2002: Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn, Nordjordanien: mit Studien zur Chronologie und Funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitliche Keramik in der südlichen Levante (ADP Bd. 27, 2). Wiesbaden. Guy, P.L.O. / Engberg, R.M., 1938: Megiddo Tombs (OIP 33). Chicago. Harding, G.L. / Isserlin, B.S.J., 1953: An Early Bronze Age Cave at el-Husn. PEFA VI: 1–13. Hershkovitz, M., 1986: Miniature Ointment Vases from the Second Temple Period. IEJ 36: 45–51. Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things. Malden. Höflmayer, F., 2014: Dating Catastrophes and Collapses in the Ancient Near East: the End of the First Urbanization in the Southern Levant and the 4.2 ka BP Event. In: L. Nigro / G. Capriotti Vittozzi / M. Sala (eds): Reading Catastrophes. Proceedings of the International Conference Reading Catastrophes: Method© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

831

ological Approaches and Historical Interpretation. Earthquakes, Floods, Famines, Epidemics between Egypt and Palestine–3rd–1st Millennium BC” held in Rome, 3rd–4th December 2012. (ROSAPAT 11). Rome. Pp. 117–139. Jones, A., 2013: In small things remembered: scale, materiality and miniatures in the British Early Bronze Age. In S. Bergerbrant / S. Sabatii (eds): Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen. (BAR-IS 2508). Oxford. Pp. 367–372. Kamp, K., 2001: Where Have All the Children Gone? The Archaeology of Childhood. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8: 1–34. Katz, J.C., 2009: The Archaeology of Cult in Middle Bronze Age Canaan: The Sacred Area at Tel Haror, Israel. Piscataway. Kenyon, K., 1960: Excavations at Jericho, I. The Tombs Excavated in 1952–1954. London. –– 1981 Excavations at Jericho, III. The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell. London. Kenyon, K.M. / Holland, T.M., 1983: Excavations at Jericho, V. The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds. London. Kiernan, P., 2015: Miniature Objects as Representations of Realia. WA 47/1, 45–59. Kleibrink, M., 2000: The Miniature Votive Pottery Dedicated at the ‘Laghetto del Monsignore’ Campoverde. Paleohistoria 39, 40 (1997/1998): 441–512. Knappett, C., 2004: The Affordances of Things: a Post-Gibsonian Perspective on the Relationality of Mind and Matter. In C. DeMarrais / C. Gosden / C. Renfrew (eds): Rethinking Materiality: the Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge. Pp.43–51. –– 2011: An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture & Society. Oxford. –– 2012: Meaning in Miniature: semiotic networks in material culture. In: M. Jensen / N. Johanssen / H.J. Jensen (eds): Excavating the Mind: Cross-sections Through Culture, Cognition and Materiality. Aarhus. Pp. 87–109. Langin-Cooper, S., 2015: Fascination with the tiny: social negotiation through miniatures in Hellenistic Babylonia. WA 47/1: 1–20. Liebowitz, H./ Poratz, P., 1992: Early Bronze Age Tombs at Yavne’el. ‘Atiqot 21: 1–8. López-Bertran, M. / Vives-Ferrándiz, J., 2015: Miniatures from domestic contexts in Iron Age Iberia. WA 47/1, 80–93. Mazar, A., 2006: Tel Beth-Shean and the Fate of Mounds in the Intermediate Bronze Age. In S. Gitin /J.E. Wright / J.P. Dessel (eds): Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 105–118. Mazar, A. / Ziv-Esudri, A. / Cohen-Weinberger, A., 2000: The Early Bronze Age II–III at Tel Beth Shean: Preliminary Observations. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds): Ceramics and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant: Sheffield. Pp. 255–278. Mazzoni, S., 1994: Drinking Vessels in Syria: Ebla and the Early Bronze Age. In L. Milano (ed.): Drinking in Ancient Societies: History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium Held in Rome, May 17–19, © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

832

S. Richard

1990. Padua. Pp. 245–76. Meskell, L., 2015: A Society of Things: Animal Figurines and Material Scales at Neolithic Çatalhöyük. WA 47/1: 6–19. Meyerhof, E. L., 1989: The Bronze Age Necropolis at Kibbutz Hazorea, Israel (BAR-IS 534). Oxford. Naeh, L., 2012: Just a Sip and a Bite: The Miniature Pottery Vessels of the Middle Bronze Age II Temple at Nahariya, Israel – the Key Questions. In R. Matthews et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. 12–16 April, the British Museum and UCL, London, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 186–200. Nigro, L., 1999: Sei corredi tombali del Bronzo Antico IV della necropoli di Gerico ai Musei Vaticani. BollMonMusGallPont 19: 5–52. –– 2012: In the Palace of the Copper Axes: Khirbet al-Batrawy: the Discovery of a Forgotten City of the III Millennium BC in Jordan (ROSAPAT/Colour Monographs I). Rome. Palumbo, G., 1990: The Early Bronze Age IV in the Southern Levant. Settlement Patterns, Economy and Material Culture of a “Dark Age.” (CMAO III). Rome. Park, R.W., 1998: Size Counts: the Miniature Archaeology of Childhood in Inuit Societies. Antiquity 72: 269–281. Parr, P. J., 1960: Excavations at Khirbet Iskander. ADAJ 4–6: 128–133. Paz, Y. / Shoval, S., 2012: Miniature Votive Bowls as the Symbolic Defense of Leviah, an Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in the Southern Levant,” Time and Mind: The Journal of Archaeology, Consciousness and Culture 5:1: 7–18. Peterman, G. / Richard, S., 2010: Excavation of the Area D, H, and J Cemeteries. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 165–208. Prag, K., 1974: The Intermediate Early Bronze-Middle Bronze Age: an Interpretation of the Evidence from Transjordan, Syria and Lebanon. Levant 6: 69–116. Rast, W. E. / Schaub, R.T., 2003: Bab edh-Dhraʻ: Excavations at the Town Site (1975–1981). 2 Vols. Winona Lake. Regev, J. et al. 2012: Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. In E. Boaretto / N.R. Rebollo Franco (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Radiocarbon and Archaeology Symposium (Radiocarbon Vol. 54, Nr 3–4). Tucson. Pp. 525–566. Renfrew, C., 2004: Towards a Theory of Material Engagement. In E. DeMarrais / C. Gosden / C. Renfrew (eds): Rethinking Materiality: the Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge. Pp. 23–31. Richard, S., 1980: Toward a Consensus of Opinion on the End of the Early Bronze Age in Palestine-Transjordan. BASOR 237: 5–34. –– 1987: The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism. BA 50.1: 22–43. –– 2000: Chronology versus Regionalism in the Early Bronze IV: An Assemblage of Whole and Restored Vessels from the Public Building at Khirbet Islander. In L.E. Stager / J.A. Greene /M.D. Coogan (eds): The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Winona Lake. Pp. 399–417. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

833

–– 2006: Early Bronze IV Transitions: An Archaeometallurgical Study. In S. Gitin / G.E. Wright / J.P. Dessel (eds): Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 119–132. –– 2013: EGLBS Presidential Address: Ritual Activity at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: The Function and Symbolism of Miniatures. In S.E. McGinn (ed.): Conversations with the Biblical World XXXII (Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society & Midwest Region Society of Biblical Literature). University Heights. Pp. 1–24. –– 2014: New Vistas on Sociocultural Complexity in the EB IV. Paper Delivered at the ASOR Annual Meeting, San Diego. –– 2016: Recent Excavations at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: The EB III/IV Fortifications. In O. Kaelin and H.-P. Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 13 June 2014, University of Basel, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 330–352. Richard, S. / Boraas, R., 1988: The Early Bronze IV Fortified Site of Khirbet Iskander, Jordan: Third Preliminary Report, 1984 Season. BASOR Supplement 25: 107–130. Richard, S. / D’Andrea, M., 2016: A Syrian Goblet at Khirbat Iskandar, Jordan: A Study of Interconnectivity in the EB III/IV Period. In M. Jamhawi (ed.): Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan XII. Amman. Pp. 561–585. Richard, S. / Long, J. C., Jr., 2010: Summary and Conclusions. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 271–279. Richard, S. / Long, J. C., Jr. / Holdorf, P. S. / Peterman, G. (eds), 2010: Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Richard, S. / Long, J.C., Jr. / Wulff-Krabbenhøft, R. / Ellis, S., 2013: Three Seasons of Excavation at Khirbat Iskandar: 2007, 2010, 2013. ADAJ 57: 447–461. Richard, S. / Peterman, G., 2010: Ceramic Assemblage of the Early Bronze IV Cemeteries. In S. Richard et al. (eds): Archaeological Expedition to Khirbat Iskandar and Its Environs. Vol. 1: Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C “Gateway” and Cemeteries. (ASOR Archaeological Reports 14). Boston. Pp. 223–249. Sa‘ad, Y., 1964: A Bronze Age Tomb Group from Hablet el-Amud, Silwan Village. ADAJ 9: 77–80. Saghieh, M., 1983: Byblos in the Third Millennium BC. A Reconstruction of the Stratigraphy and a Study of the Cultural Connections. Philadelphia. Schaub, R.T. / Rast, W.E., 1989: Bâb edh-Dhra‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–2967). Winona Lake. Sillar, B., 1996: Playing with God: Cultural Perceptions of Children, Play and Miniatures in the Andes. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 13: 47–63. Tadmor, M., 1978: A Cult Cave of the Middle Bronze Age I Near Qedesh. IEJ 28: 1–30. Tchekhanovets, Y., 2013: Early Roman Pottery. In D. Ben Ami (ed.): Jerusalem: Excavations in the Tyropoeon Valley (Givati Parking Lot), Vol. 1 (IAA Reports © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

834

S. Richard

52). Jerusalem. Pp. 109–149. Tournavitou, I., 2009: Does Size Matter? Miniature Pottery Vessels in Minoan Peak Sanctuaries. Hesperia Supplements 42: 213–230. Tufnell, O. 1958: Lachish IV, the Bronze Age. London. Tzaferis, V., 1968: A Middle Bronze I Cemetery in Tiberias, IEJ 18: 15–19. Ussishkin, D. 2015: The Sacred Area of Early Bronze Megiddo: History and Interpretation. BASOR 373: 69–109. Uziel, J. / Avissar Lewis, R.S., 2013: The Tel Nagila Middle Bronze Age Homes – Studying Household Activities and Identifying Children in the Archaeological Record. PEQ 145/4: 268–293. Wightman, G. J., 1988: An EB IV Cemetery in the North Jordan Valley. Levant 20: 139–159. Yannai, E. 2007: An Intermediate Bronze Age Cemetery at Azor, ‘Atiqot 55: 1–28 (Hebr.), 53–54* (Engl.). Yannai E. / Nagar, Y., 2014: Bet Dagan: Intermediate Bronze Age and Mamluk-Period Cemeteries 2004–2005 Excavations (IAA Reports 55). Jerusalem. Yeivin, Z., 1966: Ancient Tombs at Kibbutz Hagoshrim. Yediot 30: 98–109 (Hebr.).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

835

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of Khirbat Iskandar, on the Wadi al-Wala in Jordan.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

836

S. Richard

Fig. 2. Plan of the Khirbat Iskandar Area B, Phase B “Public Complex” with 20 miniatures. The Western Complex with its 7 miniatures is not included.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Miniatures and Miniaturization

Fig. 3. EB IV miniature and miniaturized vessels found at Khirbat Iskandar. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

837

838

S. Richard

Fig. 4. Photo of three miniaturized objects found at Khirbat Iskandar: “crucible,” tinbronze socketed spearhead, and a zoomorphic figurine.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Phoenician Seal Impression from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon

Hélène Sader*

1. The Archaeological Context Tell Hizzin is located 11 km southwest of Baalbek on the edge of the small village of the same name, 1.5 km away from the main road leading to Baalbek.1 The site is 220 × 160 × 13 m.2 Tell Hizzin was identified with the toponym ḫsswm of the Execration texts3 and the place name Ḫasi4 mentioned in Thutmosis III’s list5 and in the Amarna letters.6 There seems to be a large scholarly consensus around this identification. Archaeological investigations on the site were undertaken in 1949 and in 1950.7 Unfortunately the results of these excavations remained unpublished except for two short notes of the excavator.8 The author, in collaboration with Hermann Genz, was granted permission from the Lebanese Department of Antiquities to make an inventory of the finds stored since the end of the excavations and to publish them.9 Among the 794 items stored in the Department of Antiquities only one stamped jar handle was found in a bag containing thirty-two other pot*



1 2

3

6 7 8 9 4 5

This short paper is a modest contribution to honor Frances Pinnock whose invaluable research has impacted Near Eastern archaeology in general and Syrian archaeology in particular. Since the wide scope of her scholarship encompasses the field of glyptic, I chose to contribute an essay on a stamp seal impression from Tell Hizzin as a token of my deep respect and appreciation of her academic work. Kuschke 1954, 123. Marfoe 1995, 241. Galling 1953, 90; Kuschke 1958, 86; Helck 1962, 62 rejects this identification. Kuschke 1958, 106; Helck 1962, 128. Helck 1962, 128. Moran 1987, 175, 185, 186. Chéhab 1949–52, 109. Chéhab 1949–52, 109; 1983, 167. A preliminary assessment of the finds and their situation was published in Sader 2010; Genz / Sader 2010. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

840

H. Sader

sherds10 the archaeological context of which is unknown. The seal impression TH # 51365 is the subject of the present study. 2. Description The handle fragment belongs to a jar the shape of which cannot be reconstructed. It is a flat, 2 cm thick and 3.5 cm wide handle fragment with rounded edges. It is broken on one end and still attached to the body of the jar on the other. It is made of a coarse brownish ware with a lot of white grits. The ware dates it without serious doubt to the Iron Age. The stamp seal was impressed on the lower part of the handle, 2 cm above the line where the handle is attached to the body of the jar. The orientation of the impression is parallel to the edges of the handle. To look at it one has to place the handle lying on its right side when held from its attached end. The seal impression is 1 mm deep and remarkably small: 8 × 6 mm. Most publications do not give the size of the seals represented. However, when measurements are available the seals are all larger than the Tell Hizzin example.11 The tiny size of the present seal singles it out as a rare example. It is difficult to reconstruct the type of seal used but the oval shape of its impression suggests that we are in the presence of either a tiny scarab or a scaraboid seal. The miniscule size of the seal and the bad quality of the impression which is blurred by smeared clay make the identification of the motif details very difficult. It is clear however that the seal represents a cult scene (Fig. 2) that is taking place in a round boat with high prow and stern very close in shape to Phoenician hippoї.12 The prow seems to end in a horse (?) or a bird’s (?) head and the shape of the stern is not very clear. Inside the boat to the left of the scene is a seated figure dressed with a long garment. The details of the seat are not clear and it is difficult to assign it with certainty to one of Gubel’s types.13 It seems to be a four-legged seat with a high straight back and arms ending probably with a sphinx or animal head as suggested by two symmetrical protuberances on both sides of the seated figure. The seated figure has extended arms and holds a child at the loins. In front of the latter is a tree as high as the seated figure. The tree trunk has the same width from top to bottom and three branches on its left and two on its right side. The branches are represented as oblique stokes oriented upwards and they are not placed symmetrically on both sides. The tree could be a date palm

The Inventory Number TH 51365 was given to the whole bag and to the stamped handle as well. 11 For example Buchanan / Moorey 1988 have measured all published seals but none of them is as small as the Hizzin example. 12 Sauvage 2007, 93–97. 13 Gubel 1987. 10

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Phoenician Seal Impression from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon

841

but these are usually represented differently on Phoenician seals as “palmettes.”14 Nevertheless the palm tree motif is very common on Phoenician coins and seals and it would not be surprising to find a slightly different version of that motif on the Tell Hizzin seal. Although less plausible, one cannot rule out the possibility that the tree-like motif is in fact an incense burner. Such long incense burners can be easily mistaken for a tree. Behind the tree at the extreme right of the scene, is a smaller vertical feature which can be identified with fair certainty as an incense burner or thymiaterion (for Phoenician thymiateria and their representation on seals see Morstadt 2008). It has a rectangular foot and two horizontal lines are represented on its upper part. On top of the incense burner three fanning oblique strokes represent the burning fire. A close parallel to the type of incense burner with two strokes is found on a stela from Carthage.15 Incense burners are often represented on Phoenician seals in front of a seated deity and some of them can be mistaken for a tree.16 Incense burner with horizontal strokes on their upper part and a burning fire are also commonly attested in Phoenician glyptic.17 2.1 Comparative Study and Interpretation The Tell Hizzin seal depicts clearly a cultic scene in honor of a deity seated on a throne in a boat. According to Gubel,18 the motif of a deity sitting in a boat is very popular in Phoenician art of the 8th c. BC. Keel and Uehlinger share the same opinion:19 “Phönizische Stempelsiegel zeigen ägyptische Gottheiten wie Isis und eigene hohe Götter wie Eshmun in Barken thronend, und Bootdarstellungen, auf denen die beiden Enden des Bootes in Vogelköpfe ausmünden, sind…typisch für die phönizische Ikonographie.” There is therefore no doubt that we are dealing here with a Phoenician stamp seal. Phoenician seals have been studied by Bordreuil who published royal seals and seals in the Bibliothèque Nationale and the Louvre Museum,20 by Gubel in his study of Phoenician furniture,21 by Moorstadt in her study of incense burners22 and more recently by Boardman23 but none of the published seals is perfectly identical to the Tell Hizzin example. However, single motifs as well as the scene as a whole find very good parallels in Phoenician glyptic. See for example Gubel 1987, cat. no. 90. Morstadt 2008, pl. 23, Ste 13. 16 See for example Gubel 1987, cat. nos 79 and 105. 17 Gubel 1987, cat. nos 94, 108, 130, 132, 139 and 112, fig. 12. 18 Gubel 1987, 112. 19 Keel / Uehlinger 1998, 352. 20 Bordreuil 1986; 1991. 21 Gubel 1987. 22 Morstadt 2008. 23 Boardman 2003. 14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

842

H. Sader

Regarding the seated deity, it can be either a male or a female for both are attested with child. For a seated male holding a child there is a very close parallel from ‘Athlit.24 The typical representation of the female goddess with child is normally as the Egyptian goddess Isis with an Egyptian cap or headdress or as Hathor with the cow horns and the sun disc but this is not the case on the Hizzin seal. The seated female goddess often represented nursing a child in a boat is, according to Gubel, “a theme exclusively bound to the iconography of Phoenician seals.”25 The interpretation of the seated figure of the Tell Hizzin example as the female goddess is highly plausible in spite of the fact that her headdress and garment do not betray her identity. One cannot entirely rule out the possibility that the seated deity is a male god since all the typical attributes of the female goddess are missing and since male gods with child are attested also. On the other hand, seated male gods in a boat are attested on Israelite seals where they are believed to represent the Moon-god.26 Keel and Uehlinger explain the representation of the Moon-god in a boat on Israelite seals as the result of Phoenician—and not Assyrian or Aramaic—influence which transformed metaphorically the moon crescent into a boat.27 On Phoenician seals however the god could be Eshmun, Melqart, or any other Phoenician deity. There is no decisive evidence in favor of a male or a female goddess on the Hizzin seal: both are possible and both are attested in Phoenician glyptic. 3. Conclusion The Tell Hizzin seal impression is a welcome addition to the corpus of Phoenician seals and provides so far the only example of a seal of that size. There may have been other jars stamped with the same seal but they could have been discarded because the seal impression may have been overlooked due to its tiny size.28 Contrary to most Phoenician seals which come from the antiquities market, the Tell Hizzin seal comes from a regular excavation. The seal can be ascribed with no serious doubt to Phoenician glyptic and can be dated based on parallels to the 8th/7th c. BC. The published scarabs and seal impressions from Sarepta29 and Beirut30 do not present similarities with the seal under study. The closest parallel seems to be the above-mentioned seal from Athlit. The assignment of the seal to a particular Phoenician city is however difficult if not impossible at this stage. A

Morstadt 2008, pl. 11, Gly 3a/3. Gubel 1987, 113. 26 Keel / Uehlinger 1998, 349–350. 27 Keel / Uehlinger 1998, 352. 28 For the lack of proper documentation and sorting of archaeological artifacts during the Tell Hizzin excavations see Sader 2010 and Genz / Sader 2010. 29 Pritchard 1988, figs 9 and 17. 30 Elayi / Sayegh 1998, pl. 30:1. 24 25

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Phoenician Seal Impression from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon

843

petrographic analysis of the clay may give a clue regarding the provenance of the vessel and the place of origin of the seal. The presence of a vessel stamped with a Phoenician seal in a site of the northern Lebanese Biqāʿ is a clear indicator that Tell Hizzin in the Iron Age had trade contacts with the Phoenician coast. This is not surprising since Tell Hizzin enjoyed a strategic position on the international route leading to North Syria. The planned study of the Tell Hizzin material may shed more light on the origin and trade relations of the Biqāʿ in the Iron Age. Bibliography Boardman, J., 2003: Classical Phoenician Scarabs. A Catalogue and Study (BAR-IS 1190). Oxford. Bordreuil, P., 1986: Catalogue des sceaux oust-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris. –– 1991: Les premiers sceaux royaux phéniciens. In Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici (Collezione di Studi fenici 30/II). Roma. Pp. 463–468. Buchanan, B. / Moorey, P. R. S., 1988: Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum Volume III. The Iron Age Stamp Seals (c. 1200–350 BC). Oxford. Chéhab, M., 1949–52: Chroniques. Bulletin du Musée du Beyrouth 9: 107–117. –– 1983: Découvertes phéniciennes au Liban. In Atti del 1 Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici 1979. Roma. Pp. 165–172. Galling, K., 1953: Berichte: Archäologisch-historische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Syrien und Libanon im Spätherbst 1952. ZDPV 69: 88–93. Genz, H. / Sader. H., 2010: Tell Hizzin: Digging up New Material from an Old Excavation. BAAL 12: 183–202. Gubel, E., 1987: Phoenician Furniture (Studia Phoenicia VII). Leuven. Elayi, J. / Sayegh, H., 1998: Un quartier du port phénicien de Beyrouth au Fer III/ Perse. Les objets. Paris. Helck, W., 1962: Die Beziehungen Ägyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Wiesbaden. Keel, O. / Uehlinger, C., 1998: Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen. Freiburg / Basel / Wien. Kuschke, A., 1954: Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Bikā’. ZDPV 70: 104–129. –– 1958: Beiträge zur Siedlungsgeschichte der Bikā’. ZDPV 74: 81–120. Marfoe, L., 1995: Kamid el-Loz 13. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Context of the Site. Bonn. Moran, W., 1987: Les lettres d’El-Amarna: correspondance diplomatique du pharaon. Paris. Morstadt, B., 2008: Phönizische Thymiateria : Zeugnisse des Orientalisierungsprozesses im Mittelmeerraum : originale Funde, bildliche Quellen, originaler Kontext (AOAT 354). Münster. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

844

H. Sader

Pinnock, F., 2003: Osservazioni sulla glittica di Alalakh. CMAO 9: 203–222. Pritchard, J.B., 1988: Sarepta IV: The Objects from Area II, X. Beirut. Sader, H., 2010: Tell Hizzin: Digging Up New Materials From an Old Excavation. In P. Matthiae et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome 5–10 May 2008, Vol. 2. Wiesbaden. Pp. 635–649. Sauvage, C., 2007: Marine et navigation phéniciennes. In La Méditerranée des Phéniciens. De Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition de l’Institut du Monde Arabe, Paris, novembre 2007 – avril 2008. Paris. Pp. 92–101.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Phoenician Seal Impression from Tell Hizzin, Lebanon

845

Fig. 1. The stamped jar handle TH#51365 (Drawing of handle R. Yassine. Photos and drawing of seal impression J. Nurpetlian).

Fig. 2. Drawing of the seal impression (J. Nurpetlian).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

Valentina Tumolo*

1. Introduction The site of Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn (Fig. 1), in northern Jordan, was excavated between 1984 and 1994 by the University of Tübingen and the Yarmouk University of Irbid, under the direction of S. Mittmann (Biblisch-Archäologisches Institute— Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen) and M. Ibrahim (Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology—Yarmouk University, Irbid).1 The fieldwork brought to light the features of a medium-sized (about 8 ha) fortified settlement dated to the Early Bronze Age (henceforth EB or EBA) II–III.2 It consisted of an upper city to the north and a lower city to the south, constructed in a well-planned building episode that took place in the EB II and was modified through time only by partial and minor secondary re-buildings and alterations.3 A fragmentary object made of ivory (HZ85–101)4 was discovered at the site during the excavations conducted in 1985 on the upper city (Fig. 2). Although *



1



2



3 4

With my deepest gratitude I dedicate this work to Prof. Frances Pinnock, who provides constant support to my research, offering inspiration and careful encouragement. I would also like to express my sincere thanks to the directors of the Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn excavation, Prof. M. Ibrahim and Prof. S. Mittmann, who offered me the possibility of studying this unpublished work of art. Special gratitude goes to Prof. J. Kamlah, for the generous constant help. Ibrahim / Mittmann 1987, 3; 1988, 7; 1989, 642; 1991, 3; 1994, 11; 1997, 388; Mittmann 1994, 12, 15; Kamlah 2000, 192; Genz 2000, 279; 2002; Douglas 2007. It has been chosen not to discuss in the current work the problematic regarding the relationships between the internal periodization of the southern Levantine chronology, the absolute dates and the synchronization between different areas of the ancient Near East, which are still objects of debates. As far as the southern Levantine EBA chronology is concerned, the traditional partition into four phases (EB I–IV) is used in this article. Regarding the on-going debate on this topic and the absolute dates suggested for the EBA chronologies see, among the others, Regev / de Miroschedji / Boaretto 2012; Regev et al. 2012; 2014; Richard 2014, 331. See Tumolo / Höflmayer forthcoming and references therein. Excavation label: IL4:FN057–A2. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

848

V. Tumolo

this find is badly damaged, it can be identified as part of a miniature bull’s head, comparable to examples coming from several EB sites of the southern Levant (Fig. 3). The height of this preserved portion (4.6 cm) corresponds to that of the complete object, while the width (2.2 cm) covers almost half of the distance between the eyes of the statuette. By comparing this example with similar ones of the same kind, it can be suggested that the fragment consists, therefore, of approximately a third of the original artefact, corresponding to the right side of the bull’s head. It shows the typical features of comparable statuettes: a carved eye, which was probably filled with inlay, the eyebrows rendered by parallel incisions and the triangle on the forehead, of which one side (c. 1.7 cm) is almost complete. Three further perforations are recognizable, probably the housings for the horns and ears and, and the lower one for fixing the object to some kind of support (see below). A specific and unparalleled feature of the bull’s head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn is the presence of small holes regularly drilled at the base of the triangle carved on the forehead (Figs 2–3). Elements of this kind are not mentioned in the descriptions of comparable figurines. It can be suggested that these perforations were used to facilitate the adherence of the bonding material employed to fix the inlay into the triangular incision. As already mentioned, this piece is made of ivory, which is attested by the dentine visible on the upper side of the fragment. Although it was not possible to cut a fresh section in order to examine the pattern of the lamellae, it seems likely that this work of minor art was created from a hippopotamus tusk, in the same way as analogous items belonging to the same group (see below).5 The partial head comes from the area of the so-called “temple district” (area IL4a), in the upper city of Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn.6 It was found during the removal of a floor to the south-east of the circular altar i0.1 and to the north of the temple B0.5 (Fig. 4). Such floor—Locus 14—has been attributed to the last chronological phase of the EB II–III occupation of the site, the so-called “late horizon.”7 This phase, which ended with a general abandonment of the settlement, can be dated to the early EB III, both on the base of the pottery repertoire and radiocar-

It should be pointed out that even expert examinations of only the outer surfaces of ivory objects could not offer unquestionable confirmation about the origin of the material (Kryszowska / Morkot 2000, 321). 6 The “temple-district” is a cultic complex situated directly to the south of the upper city gate, enclosed to the west by the defense wall and to the north and east by a curvilinear temenos wall. The three main buildings are B0.1 to the north, the temples B0.4 to the east and B0.5 to the south, defining the inner court R0.11. B0.2 is a small structure opening southward and directly associated with the altar i0.1. Other subsidiary small buildings are located to the west of the altar (B0.3) and to the south of B0.5 (B0.6 and B0.13) (Ibrahim / Mittmann 1987, 6; 1988, 8; 1991, 4; 1994, 14; Mittmann 1994, 13–14; Genz 2002, 94–96). 7 See Genz 2002, tab. 10, nos 8–12. 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

849

bon analyses.8 Since the floor, in which the fragment of ivory was incorporated, offers a chronological terminus ante quem for the creation and the use of the object, this might be assigned to the EB II or the early EB III. On the other hand, the piece is comparable to EB III items, for iconographic features—the triangle on the forehead and the folded skin in correspondence with the eyebrows—and the use of ivory as carving material (see below). 2. The Early Bronze Age Bulls’ Heads from the Southern Levant The bull’s head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn can be directly associated with a particular set of EB artefacts from the southern Levant. A total number of eight published items are known, dating from the EB II to the EB III9 (Figs 5–7). They have already been discussed by several authors, including P. de Miroschedji who identified the differences between the EB II and the EB III productions, each having specific stylistic features.10 Indeed, taking into account the entire assemblage of these statuettes, a chronological development can be noted, between the earlier EB II bone heads and the later, more naturalistic, EB III examples made of ivory. On the other hand, a few objects are characterized by attributes associated with both of these groups. The earliest items are the EB II bone bulls’ heads from Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ and Tell ‘Arād/Arad. The statuette found at Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ11 (Fig. 5A), consisting of two non-joining fragments (c. 3.1 cm high and 3.5 cm wide), was carved from a bovine long bone whose natural central cavity was perhaps filled with some kind of unidentified material.12 The nose and the muzzle of the animal are defined by two perforations and three incised lines. Further partially preserved cavities correspond to the eyes, probably decorated by inlays, while three more holes are disposed along each side of the head, the two upper-

The main chronological phases identified at the site are the so-called “early horizon,” “middle horizon,” and the “late horizon,” each including one or more stratigraphic phases or sub phases (see Genz 2002, 7–14). The “early horizon” has been dated to the EB II, the “middle horizon” corresponds to the end of the EB II or the very beginning of the EB III, and the “late horizon” can be associated with the early EB III. In fact, the ceramic repertoire of the last phase of the EB III–III occupation at the site suggests an early EB III dating (see Genz 2000, 280; 2002, 9–14, 40–49, 55–56, 59–60, 62–66, 82–84, tabs 2–3 and references herein; Douglas 2007, 5–7, 13, tabs 2–3; Tumolo / Höflmayer forthcoming). 9 A further, unpublished, ivory head from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho (see below) is kept in the Bible Land Museum of Jerusalem (Sala 2010, 226). 10 De Miroschedji 1993, 30–33, 37; 2011, 89 contra Ben-Tor 1972, 27 and Wilkinson 1989, 458. The latter scholars suggested an EB III dating for the entire group of items known so far. 11 De Miroschedji 1988, 86–87, pls 48.1, XXIV.1; 1993, 29–30, fig. 1. 12 De Miroschedji 1993, 29. 8

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

850

V. Tumolo

most perhaps for housing the horns and the ears respectively, while the lower ones were employed to fix the head to some kind of support (see below). This object, which was dated to the EB II from the find context,13 resumes the main features characteristic of the entire group of these works of art, while at the same time being specifically representative of the EB II production.14 A very similar bone head from Tell ‘Arād/Arad15 (Fig. 5B), also uncovered from an EB II find context,16 further confirms the presence of an early “prototypical” production made of bone and, at the present state of the research, centered on the southern part of the area (Fig. 8). The preserved portion of this object only consists of the very front of the head, measuring 3.3 cm in height. The muzzle is characterized by traits, in the same way as the jaw and the neck, and the perforations corresponding to the eyes, and those at the base of the neck, are clearly recognizable. The EB III assemblage, represented by ivory bulls’ heads, is anticipated by a slightly earlier and unfinished specimen found at et-Tell/Ai17 (Fig. 6A) dated to the final EB II (EB IIB) according to the nature of the find spot.18 Although the iconographic-stylistic features are not completely evident, the full and geometric treatment of the volumes, which characterizes the later statuettes, is already present. Additionally, being larger in size (c. 5 cm high) this piece could be placed within the EB III production, therefore representing its oldest prototype. A unique object which can be added to this group of artifacts is a limestone head from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho (Fig. 7).19 This item was found inside the rectangular rock-cut chamber D12, in use during the EB II–III. Since it was found within the so-called “southern group,” consisting of materials mostly attributed to the EB II, the latter dating seems also to be the most suitable for this piece.20 The head, almost completely preserved (4.4 cm high, 3.6 cm large), was obtained from a stone prism with a triangular section carved in a quite severe

It was found from the Area B, locus 67, level B–IV, stratum 9a (de Miroschedji 1988, 33, 184–187, pls 21–22). 14 De Miroschedji 1993, 30. 15 Ben-Tor 1972, 28–29, fig. 3; Amiran et al. 1978, 57, pl. 120:9, no. 5408/41. This item is interpreted in the current work as more probably representing a bull’s head (Ben-Tor 1972, 28; de Miroschedji 1993, 31, fig. 2) rather than the head of a lioness (de Miroschedji 2011, 88–89, fig. 11:1). 16 Locus 748, a mixed context in the upper city associated with Level III–II (Ben-Tor 1972, 28–29, fig. 3; Amiran et al. 1978, pl. 120:9; de Miroschedji 1993, 31, fig. 2). 17 Callaway 1974, 57–61, fig. 1; 1980, 123–125, figs 83, 91:21. 18 The head comes from the destruction debris of a room in the east tower (“Postern Gate,” Site L) situated in the lower city (Phase V), more specifically an ashy layer directly under the foundation of Wall A, Phase VI (Callaway 1974, 57–59, fig. 2; 1980, 123–125, figs 52, 55, pl. XI:1–2; Matthiae 2003, 452). 19 Kenyon 1960, 124–125, fig. 40:2, pl. VII:2, reg. no. 267. 20 Kenyon 1960, 94–95, fig. 32: layer I; Nigro 2010, 222; see also Sala 2010, 226. 13

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

851

style. The muzzle is simply executed and the eyes are incised, apparently to be inlaid with a different kind of material in the same way as the triangle on the forehead, which was filled with bone.21 The three perforations arranged on each side of the head, which characterize the entire assemblage of statuettes are also present. De Miroschedji suggested that this object could have been an imitation of the more widespread items made of bone or ivory.22 Nonetheless, it seems to anticipate some iconographic and stylistic features of the later EB III production, as also does the ivory head from et-Tell/Ai. The four EB III items represent a homogeneous set of works of art, being characterized by a tendency towards more naturalistic depictions. As already pointed out, the EB II ivory specimen from et-Tell/Ai displays some traits typical of this later group, which consists of statuettes almost exclusively made of ivory, namely the heads from et-Tell/Ai, Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ and Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho. Only one object, found at Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘, is carved in bone. A second bull’s head from et-Tell/Ai23 (Fig. 6B) was unpublished until it was identified by A. Ben-Tor during the examination of the materials kept in the collection of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The EB III dating is suggested by the find spot, within the so-called “Sanctuary” A.24 In spite of the partial state of preservation of the object, its height of about 4 cm is equivalent to that of the complete head. Moreover, representative features can be recognized, such as the sunken triangle on the forehead, the cavity corresponding to one eye and the incised lines above it, the three holes on the sides of the statuette and the skin-folds depicting the muzzle and the neck. A similar item found at Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ 25 (Fig. 6C) also comes from an EB III context.26 It is 4.4 cm high and 3.4 cm wide, being apparently obtained from a hippopotamus tusk, and it shows all the features of this later group of artifacts: the three perforations on each side of the head, the full carved geometric volumes and the traits that, although standardized, display naturalistic inspirations.27

Kenyon 1960, 125. An EB III dating was also suggested on comparative grounds (de Miroschedji 1993, 33–34). 23 Ben-Tor 1972, 24–25, figs 1–2. 24 It was found in the Room 116 of the so-called “Sanctuary” A together with Ḫirbet elKerak-ware pottery (Marquet-Krause 1949, pl. XCIV; Ben-Tor 1972, 27; Callaway 1974, 60; 1980, 123; de Miroschedji 1993, 35). 25 Bar-Adon 1962, 46–47; Israeli et al. 1986, 98–99, no. 34; Greenberg / Eisenberg 2006, 144– 145, fig. 5.33; Greenberg et al. 2012, 102, fig. 27a; Paz 2014, 237–238, fig. 6.2, pl. 6.1. 26 The find spot is a mid-Period D room of the structure BS 105 (Stratum 9) in the Southeast Quarter of the Bar-Adon’s excavation area (Ben-Tor 1972, 16–27; Greenberg / Eisenberg 2006, 144). De Miroschedji suggested that this specimen could be slightly later than the other EB III similar objects (1993, 35–35, fig. 6). 27 According to Paz also the ridge at the bottom of the neck would also have been helpful for fixing the object to some kind of support, together with the lower perforations (2014, 238). 21 22

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

852

V. Tumolo

The high quality of engraving shown by the accurately made nose and muzzle. A blackened ivory head was found at Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho28 (Fig. 6D) from a probable EB III domestic context.29 The rear part of the head is missing, while the front is completely preserved (4.75 cm high). The three holes disposed on each side are visible, and the main iconographic features are those shared with similar items:30 the eyebrows, the muzzle, the nose and the neck are rendered by incised lines, while the eyes consist of shallow cavities which were probably completed by inlays, like the triangle on the top of the head of the animal. The example from from Bâb edh-Dhrâ’31 (Fig. 5C) can be interpreted as “hybrid” in nature32 if compared with both the EB II and EB III productions. Furthermore, it was found in the fill of the EB II–III charnel-house A 21 in the site’s cemetery and a generic EB II–III attribution seems reasonable33 even though the EB III dating was suggested, since it was found directly on the cobbled floor to the south of the skeletal remains isolated as Group 3, with which EB III pottery was associated.34 The features of the artifact itself appear linked both to the early EB II bone tradition and the later EB III ivory assemblage since it is made of bone35 and has a rounded frontal cavity, but the larger dimensions (5 cm high) are more like the characteristics of the latest examples. Only two perforations on each side of the head are visible, beside the incised space for the eyes. It was suggested that this object may be unfinished or that it was originally derived from the earlier production of bulls’ heads, being re-cut during a later phase.36 Garstang 1932, 18, pl. xx:a; Cleveland 1961, figs 1–2. Sala mentions the presence of a further bull’s head made of hippopotamus ivory from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho now in the Bible Land Museum in Jerusalem (BLMJ 728) and possibly coming from an EB II–III tomb of the necropolis (2010, 226). 29 This bull’s head was uncovered in one of the rooms (Room W, square K6) located at the south-eastern side of the Spring Hill adjacent to the “Eastern Tower” (Garstang 1932, 15–18, pl. xx:b–c; Cleveland 1961, 31–32; Marchetti 2003, 300–302, note 16; Sala 2010, 226). Hennessy suggested an EB II dating based on the pottery repertoire found (1967, 67), while Ben-Tor dated the specimen to the early EB III (1972, 26). An EB III attribution (Sala 2010, 226) seems more feasible on comparative grounds, also taking into account that, although the residential quarter was associated with the EB II phase of the site (Period IIb: Marchetti 2003, 300), “one cannot exclude that the head belongs to a later level” (Marchetti 2003, 302, note 16). 30 De Miroschedji 1993, 34. 31 Wilkinson 1989, 456–459, fig. 262:2. 32 De Miroschedji 1993, 37. 33 “Since these bone and pottery groups were piled up, however, not clear separation could be made within them, although it appeared that later burials and pots were heaped up next to or over earlier burials” (Schaub / Rast 1989, 343). 34 Wilkinson 1989, 456. 35 Bone according to Wilkinson (1989, 456, 458), ivory in the opinion of de Miroschedji (1993, 37). 36 De Miroschedji 1993, 37. 28

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

853

3. The Southern Levantine Bulls’ Heads: Features and Particularities As already pointed out, it can be stated that, on the whole, the bulls’ heads from the southern Levant repre-sent a homogeneous set of artefacts, both technically and stylistically, although some characteristics show a development from the EB II to the EB III. Ben-Tor described the common elements of these artefacts, which are only partially shared, and not all present together, with examples coming from outside the area. These are: the holes on the sides of the head, perhaps for inserting the ears and horns of the animals, the lowest perforations, for fixing the objects to some kind of supports, the shallow cavities, filled with different kind of materials in order to represent the eyes, and the triangular incision on the forehead, also completed with inlays.37 Several iconographic and stylistic features changed slightly over time, the severe representation of the head appears, in fact, more simplified during the EB II, later assuming some more naturalistic traits in the EB III:38 the plastic shaped severe representation of the head appears, in fact, more simplified during the EB II, assuming afterward some naturalistic appearances in the later EB III phase, as can be noted from the incised lines depicting the eyebrows and the skin-folds on the muzzle and the neck. The ivory offers the possibility of obtaining strong-looking heads with carved details. Moreover, the triangular incision filled with inlay would be primarily a typical EB III feature, possible only from the carving of a solid piece of material. On a wider level, the earlier and the later items can be distinguished by the material employed and the dimensions: most of the EB II items are made of bone and are only slightly higher than 3 cm (3.1 cm Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ and 3.3 cm Tell ‘Arād/Arad), while the majority of the EB III examples are engraved from ivory pieces, always between 4 and 5 cm high (c. 4 cm et-Tell/Ai, 4.4 cm Ḫirbet el-Kerak/ Beth Yeraḥ, 4.75 cm Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho, and 4.6 cm Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn). The late EB II unfinished ivory head (c. 5 cm high) from et-Tell/Ai could also be added to this latter group since it clearly anticipates features of the EB III productions, while the piece from Bâb edh-Dhrâ’ shows some “hybrid” characteristics. This may be due, as already mentioned, to the combining of the EB III stylistic tendencies and the material quality of the bone, or to the fact that the object was originally made during the EB II and afterward re-cut. The only stone item within this collection of artefacts, the EB II limestone head from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho, seems to be anticipating the later EB III pieces both in size (4.4 cm high) and the stylistic features: the more naturalistic traits together with the full shaped geometric volumes, besides the triangle on the forehead. It might be suggested that it represented a kind of model, which inspired both the EB II bone items and the EB III ivory ones, the latter more coherently, were inspired. Although it was suggested that all the heads were produced by the same work-

37 38

Ben-Tor 1972, 27. De Miroschedji 1993, 34, 37. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

854

V. Tumolo

shop39 or by itinerant artisans40 because of the significant homogeneity of their basic-features, the differences and the chronological developments through time now suggest that these objects were shaped by different craftsmen even though representing a uniform production, expression of a unique artistic tendency.41 4. The Bull’s Iconography in the Southern Levant Cattle were depicted using different kinds of media during the EB in the southern Levant.42 Iconographic features such as the incised lines in correspondence with the eyebrows and on the neck would suggest that this class of works of art intended to represent actual bulls more than cows. Although the bull’s iconography was already widespread in the southern Levant during the Late Chalcolithic, it has been suggested that it only became dominant in the artistic expressions of the EB,

Ben-Tor (1972, 28) proposed that these objects were all created by the same workshop and perhaps even by one artist, being the early bone item from Tell ‘Arād/Arad a sort of prototype for the entire production. 40 Since the similarities between the objects displaced across quite a large area are noteworthy, de Miroschedji (1993, 39) suggested the hypothesis of itinerant artisans. This would also justify the strongly conservative stylistic trait shown by the objects through the EB II and EB III, the smaller and more simply carved EB II bone heads and the bigger and more developed EB III ivory items. 41 Israeli et al. 1986, 98. Wilkinson (1989, 458) pointed out that, although all the heads conform to a basic type they are not identical and the differences suggest that they did not derive from one source. Paz (2014, 238) also suggested that the piece from Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ would have been carved at the site, therefore meaning that different workshops were active in the region. Moreover, if the specimen from Bâb edh-Dhrâ’ was actually unfinished or later re-cut, this would imply that it was made locally (de Miroschedji 1993, 37). 42 An unfinished EB stone-carved bull figure is known from Tell ‘Arād/Arad (Beck 2002, 37, 42, fig. 14). Further EB items depict bovines, such as the bowl from the EB I Tomb 14 of Tell el-Fār‛a (North) containing one ox (de Vaux 1952, 582, pl. XIVb, fig. 12.6) and a similar item from the antiquity market, which depicts two oxen held by a yoke (Amiran 1986, 8–9, fig. 3, ills 8–9). Bull-shaped applications on vessels are also documented from Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ (de Miroschedji 2011, 95–92, fig. 17.3). A sherd of a clay ring with two bovine heads on the top comes from a Period D (EB III) context of Area SA, on the steps fronting the northern side of the “Circles Building” of Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ (Maisler / Stekelis / Avi-Yonah 1952, 227, pl. 19B; Amiran 1989, 31–33, pls 5–7; Paz 2006, 79, fig. 3.30; 2014, 238–239, fig. 6.4, pl. 6.1). Bovines are also represented on seals or seals impressions, as on EB IB the stamp seal from Tell Mūsā/Tēl Kittān (Eisenberg 1992) or the impression on the base of a hole-mouth jar from Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ, depicting one (or two?) cattle (Sussman 1980, 76, figs 2–3). Bulls are incised on the graffiti on the stone slabs in front of the EB IB double temple 4047/4050 of Stratum XIX at Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo, Area BB (Loud 1948, pls 277–278; Kempinski 1989, 170–14, fig. 46:1–3; de Miroschedji 2011, 89). 39

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

855

in opposition to a major occurrence of the representations of ibexes/goats during the Chalcolithic period, as an effect of the increasing importance of cattle for the economic development of the area.43 Consequently, the image of the bull would assume, consequently, a significant value in the EB figurative tradition, being meaningfully linked to the sphere of agriculture and, as a consequence, being the symbol of a deity or deities associated with the concept of soil fertility.44 5. Parallels and Comparisons Outside the Area The Levantine bulls’ heads represent original local handwork, characterized by specific features45 but sharing at the same time a number of attributes with similar Syrian works of art, which show in turn inspirations from Mesopotamian protohistorical prototypes—in the grooves defining eyebrows, muzzle and neck, as also the inlaid eyes—and Early Dynastic traditions, like the triangle on the forehead.46 Particularly noteworthy in this sense is the limestone miniature sculpture from the EB IVA Royal Palace G at Ebla (Mardikh IIB1), representing a crouching bull of which only the forepart is preserved, with the raised head and the left foreleg.47 Two perforations are placed at its base, perhaps for fixing it to a support, and the eyes and the horns were possibly made of different kinds of materials.48 The style of this work of art is the expression of the severe natural Beck 2002, 48. Basalt-stands representing bovines are known from Chalcolithic contexts (Ibrahim / Mittmann 1998 and reference herein). Wilkinson (1989, 459) suggested that the concentration of the bull-heads around the Jordan Valley and the southern Ghor would be due to the importance of cattle-breeding in this area. For the central role of cattle for the EB economy of the Levant, see, among the others, Grigson 1995. 44 Beck 2002, 48; Kempinski 1989, 174; Matthiae 2013, 452. According to de Miroschedji (1993, 39) the bull would represent a male partner of a female goddess of fertility, in turn symbolized by a lioness (de Miroschedji 2011, 89, 96). On the other hand, only the later Bronze and Iron Age depictions of bulls would have been associated with actual cults of the bull or calf (Beck 2002, 42). 45 Ben-Tor 1972, 27–28; de Miroschedji 1993, 38; Beck 2002, 39. 46 Hennessy 1967, 67; Ben-Tor 1972, 28–29; Beck 2002, 40–41, 50; Matthiae 2013, 451 and reference therein. Already Cleveland comparisons for the ivory head from Tell esSulṭān/Jericho in Uruk and Early Dynastic examples, especially for the incised lines around the eyes (1961, 32–33). He also noticed similarities with later items (Cleveland 1961, 33–36) which seem, however, too distant (see also Matthiae 2013, 451–452). The intermediary role played by Syria in the transmission of iconographic features from Mesopotamia, documented by evidence from Phases H and I of the ‘Amūq, was mentioned by Wilkinson (1989, 458). The bull is variously depicted in Mesopotamia during the 4th and the 3rd millennium BC (see Aruz [ed.] 2003, 16–17, 27, 85 figs 2b, 13). 47 This item can be considered as representing a link between the Mesopotamian and the southern Levantine works of minor art (Matthiae 2013, 444–445 and notes 27–29). 48 The partial statuette (TM.78.G.320) was found under the destruction level (level 6) above 43

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

856

V. Tumolo

ism distinctive of the mature Early Syrian Period, resulting from the encounter between the tension of the plastic surfaces typical of the protohistorical (Uruk) prototypes and the rigorous composition which depends from Early Dynastic conventions. The incised eyebrows and the use of inlays could derive from the Uruk III and Jemdet-Nast traditions.49 Moreover, the iconography, consisting of the triangle depicted on the forehead of the bull, is characterized by a widespread distribution, as documented by the head in diorite M.2274 from room 4 of the Temple of Ishtarat at Mari (5.8 cm high) interpreted as the arm of a throne,50 and also by a 3rd millennium stone specimen from Elam.51 It has been suggested that the triangle on the forehead corresponds to a peculiar trait meaningfully associated to sacral sphere, more than symbolizing a specific deity.52 It should also be stressed that in Egypt the Apis bull was identified, among several attributes, by a white triangle on the head, which was also usually marked on the mummies and the statues consecrated to this animal.53 Thus, the southern Levantine bulls’ heads seem to convey the Syro-Mesopotamian principles of composition of the images into a fully local manufacture,

the floor of the court L.2913, in the Administrative Quarter of the Royal Palace G (Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae [eds] 1995, 318, no. 96; Matthiae 2013, 443–454, pls 57c, 58a). It is broken just below the base of the neck, the ears are damaged, while two small intact tenons were likely the supports for horns made of other kind of materials. The eyes would have been created with inlays and the eyebrows are marked by thin curved lines, which are also present on the sides and the beginning of the neck and the juncture of the left foreleg. The preserved part is 3.3 cm high, 2.3 cm long and 1.9 cm large and it was proposed that the original size of the complete sculpture was probably c. 1.5 cm longer, as it can be hypothesized from the comparison with a similar limestone statuette of a crouching ram found in the same court L.2913. The two pieces were probably not only created by the same atelier but were parts of the same piece of furniture (Matthiae / Pinnock / Scandone Matthiae [eds] 1995, 322, no. 106; Matthiae 2013, 443–444, note 26 and references therein, pl. 58b–c). 49 Matthiae 2013, 445–449, pl. 217b and references therein. 50 Parrot 1967, 192, no. 2274, pl. LXXIV. Further similar bull’s heads were found at the site (Parrot 1967, 193–194, figs 236, 238–240, nos 2585, 2717–2718, 2762). Parallels are documented from Mesopotamia, such as the partial stone head from Tell Agrab (Frankfort 1943, 10, 33 pl. 52: C–D no. 302) and the stone forepart of a bull from the Square Temple of Tell Asmar, interpreted as the terminal part of a throne (Frankfort 1939, 33, 42, 75, pl. 92: A–B no. 155; 1935, 24, fig. 26). Later examples belong to the 2nd millennium BC or the Iron Age (Ben-Tor 1972, 27–28; de Miroschedji 1993, 37–38). 51 This item, being 7.8 cm long, is characterized by three holes on each side, incised perforations in correspondence to the eyes, eyebrows and the muzzle rendered by parallel lines. The triangle on the forehead is depicted by shallow incised lines (Amiet 1966, 196, no. 144). 52 Ben-Tor 1972, 28. 53 Spycket 1981, 136. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

857

which employs original materials.54 It might also be supposed that these artifacts were inspired by models circulating from Syria, which would have been older than the Eblaite statuette. This would explain not only the earlier dating of the southern Levantine specimens in comparison to the Syrian ones, but also the more schematized style, which differs from the plasticity of the item from Ebla being, instead, more similar to the Protohistorical Mesopotamian examples.55 6. Possible Function(s) of the Early Bronze Age Bulls’ Heads The bulls’ heads were luxury objects—as their limited number implies—which were almost certainly fixed to supports. This hypothesis is suggested by the presence of the perforations placed at the base of the neck, possibly for inserting pegs.56 Unfortunately the nature of the find contexts provides no evidence for better defining the function(s) and the cultural meaning of these statuettes, and the type of activities which involved them. Such items were discovered in the same way in temple areas (et-Tell/Ai, Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn), graves (Tell es-Sulṭān/ Jericho and Bâb edh-Dhrâ’) and domestic spaces (Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ, Tell ‘Arād/Arad, Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho and et-Tell/Ai).57 As far as the nature of the support is concerned, it is still unknown. It has been suggested that the bulls’ heads would have been fixed to tubular objects, representing therefore decorated handles.58 Going further, the supports could have been large sickles (perhaps with ritual functions?)59 similar to the prehistoric items found in the Kebara Cave,60 to which the bulls’ heads were attached through holes. On the other hand, the heads may have been parts of statues of bulls having the body carved in perishable materials,61 or might represent elements of standards.62

The southern Levantine bull’s heads have a “clear character of local versions of artifacts depending on Mesopotamian conceptions, and executed under Mesopotamian influence” (Matthiae 2013, 452). 55 Matthiae 2013, 453. 56 Beck 2002, 38–39, fig. 15b–c. Wilkinson (1989, 458–459) suggested that they had a decorative function. Garstang stated that ivory head from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho could hardly have been “of domestic character” (Garstang 1932, 18; Cleveland 1961, 31). 57 At the present state of the research no certain function can be attributed to the building BS 105, Stratum 9/Period D in Area BS at Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ, only partially excavated and possibly of domestic character (see Greenberg / Eisenberg 2006, 118, tab. 5.1, 142–144). 58 De Miroschedji 1988, 87; 1993, 39. The item from Tell ‘Arād/Arad was described as a “decorated ivory handle” (Amiran et al. 1978, 57). 59 S. Mittmann, personal communication. 60 These objects consist of a long handle ending with the animal’s head, to which sickle blade segments were fitted through a V-shaped groove (Israeli et al. 1986, 38). 61 Beck 2002, 40. 62 As shown by the “Standard” from Mari (Parrot 1956, 140 fig. 81, pls 56–57). 54

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

858

V. Tumolo

They could correspond to decorative pieces of furniture, possibly parts of chairs or thrones, as it was also hypothesized for the diorite specimen from Mari and for the stone forepart of a bull from the Square Temple of Tell Asmar (see above).63 It can be suggested that the miniature heads could have been fixed to musical instruments like harps or lyres, as hinted at by the comparison with Mesopotamian examples such as the harps found in the Royal Cemetery of Ur, and by iconographical representations.64 It has been noticed that the bulls’ heads decorating harps and lyres, together with the sound-boxes replacing the body, possibly represented the authentic animals. In the Mesopotamian literature the voice of the bulls has an exceptional value, being considered as symbol of strength. On the other hand, the Mesopotamian lyre-heads have larger dimensions (between 15 and 35 cm high) than the Levantine miniature items and do not present perforations, being directly glued to the musical instruments.65 7. Summary Although the exact purposes of the EB II–III bulls’ heads from the southern Levant still remain unclear, the item uncovered at Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn offers further information about this particular group of works of minor art. As far as the technical features are concerned, it is characterized by a noticeable element otherwise unknown, namely the presence of small drill-perforations placed on the lower surface of the triangle incised on the forehead of the statuette. This aspect provides new hints concerning the manufacturing techniques of such objects. Moreover, the particular find spot associated with the circular altar, or at least with the temple area in the upper city, would substantiate the attribution of symbolic and ideological values to this kind of artistic production. Finally, the find also represents a useful piece in order to better define the pattern of distribution of the bulls’ heads within the southern Levant, together with the trends characterizing the chronological development of the production (Fig. 8). A general tendency can be noticed, with the (EB II) bone specimens (Ḫirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūṯ and Tell ‘Arād/Arad) centered on the southern part of the area, and the site of et-Tell/Ai representing the northern boundary of their diffusion. On the other hand, the (EB III) ivory items were characterized by a northern displacement, being not documented any further south than et-Tell/Ai and Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho, reaching the large settlements of Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ and Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn in the north.

Parrot 1967, 192. The rear part of the head from Mari consists of a rough prism with a hole passing through it. The stone forepart of the bull from the Square Temple of Tell Asmar, interpreted as the terminal part of a throne, is ca. 6 cm high, the head measuring instead ca. 3 cm (see Frankfort 1935, fig. 26). 64 For a complete overview see Rashid 1984. 65 Braun-Holzinger 1984, 29–30; Rashid 1984, 28–29; Aruz (ed.) 2003, 83. 63

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

859

Bibliography Amiet, P., 1966: Elam. Auvers-sur-Ois. Amiran, R., 1986: Some Cult-and-Art Objects of the EB I Period. In M. Kelly-Buccellati et al. (eds): Insight through Images, Studies in Honor of Edith Porada (BiMe 21). Malibu. Pp. 7–13. — 1989: Re-Examination of a Cult-and-Art Object from Beth Yerah. In A. Leonard / B.B. Williams (eds): Essays in ancient civilization presented to Helene J. Kantor (SAOC 47). Chicago. Pp. 31–37. Amiran, R. et al., 1978: Early Arad I. The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze Age City. First-Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962–1966. Jerusalem. Aruz, J. (ed.), 2003: Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. New Heaven / London. Bar-Adon, P., 1962: Another Ivory Bull’s Head from Palestine. BASOR 165: 46–47. Beck, P., 2002: Imagery and Representation. Studies in the Art and Iconography of Ancient Palestine: Collected Articles (Journal or the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University Occasional Publications 3). Tel Aviv. Ben Tor, A., 1972: An Ivory Bull’s Head from ‘Ay. BASOR 208: 24–29. Callaway, J. A., 1974: A second Ivory Bull’s Head from Ai. BASOR 213: 57– 61. — 1980: The Early Bronze Age Citadel and the Lower City ay Ai (et-Tell). A Report of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Ai (et-Tell), No. 2. Cambridge. Cleveland, R. L., 1961: An Ivory Bull’s Head from Ancient Jericho. BASOR 163: 30–36. Douglas, K., 2007: Die Befestigung der Unterstadt von Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn im Rahmen der frühbronzezeitlichen Fortifikationen in Palästina (ADPV 27/3). Wiesbaden. Eisenberg, E., 1992: An EB Stamp Seal from Tel Kitan. EI 23: 5–8, 144–145. Frankfort, H., 1935: Oriental Institute Discoveries in Iraq, 1933/34. Fourth Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition (OIC XIX). Chicago. — 1939: Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and Khafāja (OIP XLIV). Chicago. — 1943: Mores Sculpture from the Diyala Region (OIP LX). Chicago. Garstang, J., 1932: Jericho: City and Necropolis. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 19: 3–54. Genz, H., 2000: Grain-Wash Decoration in Early Bronze Age III) The Evidence from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon. In G. Philip / D. Baird (eds): Ceramic and Change in the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant (LA 2). Sheffield. Pp. 279–286. — 2002: Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik von Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn. Mit Studien zur Chronologie und funktionalen Deutung frühbronzezeitlicher Keramik in der südlichen Levante (ADPV 27/2). Wiesbaden. Greenberg, R. / Eisenberg, E., 2006: Area BS: The Bar-Adon Excavations, Southeast, 1951–1953. In R. Greenberg et al. (eds): Beth Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Vol. I. Excavation Reports, 1933–1986 (IAAR 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 117–275. Greenberg, R. et al., 2012: Tel Bet Yerah: Hub of the Early Bronze Age Levant. NEA 75: 88–105. Grigson, C., 1995: Plough and Pasture in the Early Economy of the Southern © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

860

V. Tumolo

Levant. In T.E. Levy (ed.): The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London. Pp. 245–268. Hennessy, J. B., 1967: The Foreign Relations of Palestine during the Early Bronze Age. London. Ibrahim, M. / Mittmann, S., 1987: Tell el-Mughayyir and Khirbet Zeiraqoun. NIAAY 4: 3–s4. — 1988: Khirbet ez-Zeraqon Excavations. NIAAY 6: 7–9. — 1989: Zeiraqun (Khirbet ez). In D. Homès-Fredericq/ J.B. Hennessy (eds): Archaeology of Jordan II/2. Site Reports, L-Z (Akkadica Supplementum VIII). Leuven. Pp. 641–646. — 1991: Excavations at Khirbet ez-Zeraqoun 1991. NIAAY 12: 3–5. — 1994: Excavations at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, 1993. NIAAY 16: 11–15. — 1997: Zeiraqun, Khirbet ez. In E. M. Meyers (ed.): The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. 5. New York / Oxford. Pp. 388–389. — 1998: Eine chalkolitische Stierskulptur aus Nordjordanien. ZDPV 114: 101–105. Israeli, Y. et al. (eds), 1986: Treasures of the Holy Land. Ancient Art from the Israel Museum. New York. Kamlah, J., 2000: Der Zeraqōn-Survey 1989–1994. Mit Beiträgen zur Methodik und geschichtlichen Auswertung archäologischer Oberflächenuntersuchungen in Palästina (ADPV 27/1). Wiesbaden. Kempinski, A., 1989: Megiddo. A City-State and Royal Centre in North Israel (Materialen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 40). München. Kenyon, K.M., 1960: Excavations at Jericho, Volume I. The Tombs excavated in 1952–54. London. Kryszowska, O. / Morkot, R., 2000: Ivory and related materials (cap. 13). In P.T. Nicholson / I. Shaw (eds): Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology. Cambridge. Pp. 320–331. Loud, G., 1948: Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–1939 (OIP LXII). Chicago. Maisler, B. / Stekelis, M. / Avi-Yonah, M., 1952: The Excavations at Beth Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak) 1944–46. IEJ 2: 165–173, 218–229. Marchetti, N., 2003: A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: a Reconstruction of Its Stratigraphy. In M. Bietak (ed.): The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II. Proceedings of the SCIEM 2000—EuroConference Haindorf, 2nd of May–7th of May 2001 (Contributions to the Chronology of the Eastern Mediterranean IV). Wien. Pp. 295–321. Marquet-Krause, J., 1949: Les fouilles de ‘Ay (et-Tell), 1933–35 (BAH 45). Paris. Matthiae, P., 2013: About the Style of a Miniature Animal Sculpture from the Royal Palace G of Ebla. In F. Pinnock (ed.): Studies on the Archaeology of Ebla 1980–2010. Wiesbaden. Pp. 439–454. Matthiae, P. / Pinnock, F. / Scandone Matthiae, G. (eds), 1995: Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trenta anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza.” Milano. Miroschedji de, P., 1988: Yarmouth I. Rapport sur les trois premières campagnes de fouilles à Tel Yarmouth (Israël) 1980–1982. Paris. — 1993: Notes sur les têtes de taureau en os, en ivoire et en pierre du Bronze ancien de Palestine. In M. Heltzer / A. Segal / D. Kaufman (eds): Studies in © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

861

the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel in Honour of Moshe Dothan. Haifa. Pp. 29–40. — 2011: At the Origin of Canaanite Cult and Religion: The Early Bronze Age Fertility Ritual in Palestine. In J. Aviram et al. (eds): Amnon Ben-Tor Volume (EI 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 74–103. Mittmann, S., 1994: Hirbet ez-Zeraqōn. Eine Stadt der frühen Bronzezeit in Nordjordanien. Archäologie in Deutschland 2: 10–15. Nigro, L., 2010: EB II Tombs in the Necropolis. In L. Nigro (ed.): Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): The Rise of an Early Palestinian City. A Synthesis of the Results of four Archaeological Expeditions (ROSAPAT 05). Rome. Pp. 209–224, 228. Parrot, A., 1956: Le temple d’Ishtar. Mission archéologique de Mari I (BAH LXV). Paris. — 1967: Les temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza. Mission archéologique de Mari III (BAH LXXXVI). Paris. Paz, S., 2006: Area SA: The Stekelis-Avi-Yonah Excavations (Circles Building), 1945–1946. In R. Greenberg et al. (eds): Beth Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Vol. I. Excavation Reports, 1933–1986 (IAAR 30). Jerusalem. Pp. 52–103. — 2014: The Small Finds. In R. Greenberg (ed.): Beth Yerah. The Early Bronze Age Mound. Vol. II. Urban Structure and Material Culture, 1933–1986 Excavations (IAAR 54). Jerusalem. Pp. 235–298. Rashid, S.A., 1984: Mesopotamien. Musikgeschichte in Bilder, Band II: Musik des Altertums, Lieferung 2. Leipzig. Regev, J. / de Miroschedji, P. / Boaretto, E., 2012: Early Bronze Age Chronology: Radiocarbon Dates and Chronological Models from Tel Yarmuth (Israel). Radiocarbon 54: 505–524. Regev, J. et al., 2012: Chronology of the Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant: New Analysis for a High Chronology. Radiocarbon 54: 525–566. — 2014: Wiggle-Matched 14C Chronology of Early Bronze Megiddo and the Synchronization of Egyptian and Levantine Chronologies. Egypt and the Levant 24: 243–266. Richard, S., 2014: The Southern Levant (Transjordan) during the Early Bronze Age. In M.L. Steiner / A. E. Killebrew (eds): The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Oxford. Pp. 330–352. Sala, M., 2010: The Stone Bull’s Head from Tomb D12 in the Palestinian Context. In L. Nigro (ed.): Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Early Bronze II (3000–2700 BC): the rise of an early Palestinian city. A synthesis of the results of four archaeological expeditions (ROSAPAT 05). Rome. Pp. 225–227. Schaub, T. / Rast, W.E. (eds), 1989: Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Seal Plain, Jordan, vol. 1). Winona Lake. Spycket, A., 1981: La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien (Handbuch der Orientalistik, Siebente Abteilung, I. Band, 2). Leiden / Köln. Sussman, V., 1980: A Relief of a Bull from the Early Bronze Age. BASOR 238: 75–77. Tumolo, V. / Höflmayer, F., forthcoming: Khirbet ez-Zeraqon and the Early © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

862

V. Tumolo

Bronze Age chronology revisited. In S. Richard (ed.): New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant. Winona Lake. De Vaux, R., 1952: La quatrième campagne de fouilles à Tell el-Far’ah, près Naplouse. Rapport Préliminaire. RB 59: 551–583. Wilkinson, A., 1989: Object from the Early Bronze II and III Tombs. In R. T. Schaub / W.E. Rast (eds): Bâb edh-Dhrâ‘: Excavations in the Cemetery Directed by Paul W. Lapp (1965–67) (Reports of the Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan, vol. 1). Winona Lake. Pp. 444–470.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

Fig. 1. Topographic plan of Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

863

864

V. Tumolo

Fig. 2. The fragmentary bull’s head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn HZ85–101 (photo Ḫirbet ezZeraqōn expedition).

Fig. 3. The fragmentary bull’s head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn HZ85–101, scale 1:2 (drawing by V. Tumolo). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

865

Fig. 4. Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn; plan of the upper city with indication of the find spot of the bull’s head HZ85–101.

Fig. 5. Bone bull’s heads, scale 1:2. A) From Hirbet Yarmūk/Tēl Yarmūt, redrawn after de Miroschedji 1988, pl. 48:1, XXIV:1. B) From Tell ‘Arād/Arad, redrawn after BenTor 1972, fig. 3. B) From Bâb edh-Dhrâ’, redrawn after Wilkinson 1989, fig. 262:2. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

866

V. Tumolo

Fig. 6. Ivory bull’s heads, scale 1:2. A) from et-Tell/Ai, redrawn after Callaway 1974, fig. 1; B) from et-Tell/Ai, redrawn after Ben-Tor 1972, figs 1–2; C) from Ḫirbet el-Kerak/Beth Yeraḥ, redrawn after Bar-Adon 1962, 47 and Greenberg et al. 2012, fig. 27; D) from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho, redrawn after Garstang 1932, pl. xx:a and Cleveland 1961, figs 1–2.

Fig. 7. Limestone bull’s head from Tell es-Sulṭān/Jericho, scale 1:2, redrawn after Kenyon 1960, fig. 40:2, pl. VII:2, after Sala 2010, fig. 5.13. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

A Bull’s Head from Ḫirbet ez-Zeraqōn

867

Fig. 8. Distribution of the bulls’ heads in the southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla during the EB III and IVA1 Periods Agnese Vacca

1. Introduction In a recent analysis Frances Pinnock focused on strategies of territorial control put in place by Ebla in the third quarter of the 3rd millennium BC (EB IVA2, ca. 2400–2320 BC).1 Moving from the results achieved by the ERC-funded Ebla Chora Project (hereafter, ECP), she attempted to combine survey data, textual evidence, and visual representation of royal power at Ebla, in order to reconstruct a multi-faceted strategy of territorial control exerted by Ebla over, at least, its core region. According to her reconstruction, the celebration of complex ceremonies described in three different versions of the so-called “Ritual of Kingship” symbolically represents “a process of territorial building, retracing an ancestral path aimed at confirming” the right of the royal couple “to rule over that territory.”2 The present contribution aims at exploring the emergence of the Eblaite polity, through the detection of aspects of both change and continuity in settlement patterns and socio-economic strategies at Ebla and in its region. It is here proposed that the area called the “chora of Ebla”3 gradually emerged as the result of intensified contacts, consistent paths toward population growth (as seen through the increasing number of settlements, § 2.2), and the investment on a specialized economy based on the centralized management of livestock and storable surplus (§ 3). The symbolic journey of the royal couple, described by F. Pinnock, could have retraced the boundaries of the Eblaite nuclear area, which started developing since, at least, EB III (ca. 2700–2550 BC). This area is characterized by common traits, also recognizable in the pattern of circulation and consumption of ceramic types (§ 4). In the following EB IVA1 period (ca. 2550–2450 BC), Ebla gradually develops into a political and economic leading Pinnock 2016a; 2016b. Pinnock 2016a, 113. 3 The chora of Ebla has been defined as “the core region sustaining the urban center, the nuclear area, and the economic hinterland, independently of any greater political aggregation.” (Matthiae / Marchetti 2013, 26). 1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

870

A. Vacca

regional centre, eventually becoming the capital of a powerful kingdom in an arena of competing territorial polities (EB IVA2) (§ 5). Three different, but interrelated topics have been selected as potential sources of information in a diachronic perspective: 1) the analysis of settlement patterns (§ 2); 2) the evidence related to primary production, with a special focus on agricultural intensification and centralization of staples during EB III–IVA1 (§ 3); 3) the spatial analysis of ceramic types and styles at Ebla and in nearby sites, which allows for the definition of a “ceramic region” (§ 4). In this article, a comparative perspective is adopted in order to detect the main trends at Ebla over the long-run. The well-know case of the full-fledged city of the Final EB IVA2 (ca. 2400–2300 BC) represents the reference point for comparisons with previous periods. The extraordinary context of Palace G, with its in situ destruction, offers, in fact, the possibility to reconstruct, through the analysis of textual and material correlates, the function of the economic and political core of the Eblaite state.4 Previous EB III and EB IVA1 periods, although less documented, must have represented crucial moments in the occupational sequence of Ebla, showing some structural similarities, at least in the socio-economic strategies, with the later Palace G horizon. While the socio-economic landscape of Ebla and its region can be outlined based on these premises, it is difficult to specify the role of the EB III–IVA1 leading households or elites, whose existence is nevertheless suggested by a set of differentiated evidence.5 The analysis is based on available data from surveys and excavations—carried out during 47 years of research led by the Italian Archaeological Expedition of the Sapienza University of Rome to Ebla (Syria)—, recently published in the framework of the ECP, and are integrated with new data derived from a refinement of the EB III–IVA chronology based on the seriation of stratified materials from Ebla and Tell Tuqan.6 2. Settlement Data 2.1 Materials and Methods The ERC-funded ECP, launched in 2010 and concluded in 2014, have laid the groundwork for the reconstruction of the archaeological landscape around Ebla, through an integrated approach of remote sensing analyses, geological and geo-morphological investigations, combined with data gathered from surveys and excavations, as well as from textual information. The project team used a dataset of already available satellite imagery (such as CORONA, Landsat, WorldView-2 and GeoEye high-resolution images purchased in 2011, as well as French and So-

Matthiae / Marchetti 2013. Vacca 2018a. 6 Vacca 2014; 2015; 2016; in press a. 4 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

871

viet topographical maps and Syrian Army 1960s aerial photographs) in order to localize sites and to record other categories of archaeological evidence such as field systems, land boundaries, communication routes, and water management installations.7 Unfortunately, the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011 hampered the fieldwork and the control on the ground of the observations elaborated by the ECP team on the basis of satellite imagery and previous surveys carried out in the region.8 Nevertheless, the complete dataset obtained by the ECP team has been used for a first reconstruction of land-use, environmental conditions and settlement patterns providing interesting data on the chora of Ebla during the EB IVA–B period.9 It was proposed that the boundaries of the area defined as the Eblaite chora at the time of Palace G Archives should have spanned all over the nuclear region sustaining the urban center and its economic hinterland, approximately from the foothills of the Jebel Zawiye, to the west, to arid the fringes of the Syrian steppe, to the east. The area investigated by the ECP covers about 3,500 km2 and encompasses three main ecological zones: the western fertile limestone plains and the basaltic foothills around Tell Mardikh/Ebla (Area A); the humid environment of the Matkh depression (Area B); the steppe area to the east, as far as the ranges of Jebel el-Hass and Jebel Shbeyt, which marks the Khanaser corridor—the only passage leading to the Jabbul Lake and, eastward, to the Euphrates River—(Area C) (Fig. 1).10 According to the preliminary inventory provided by the ECP, a total amount of 85 sites, dating from the early Bronze Age (hereafter, EBA) to the Classical period, has been identified within the three ecological zones. EBA sites are 37 in total: 10 are located in Area A (7 of which in the limestone and 3 in the basalt hills), 22 in Area B, and only 5 sites have been recorded in Area C.11 Data collected by the ECP can be further improved by adding evidence from other regional surveys carried out in the area around Tell Mastuma by the Japanese archaeological expedition of the Ancient Orient Museum of Tokyo, and in the Jazr Plain by the Italian archaeological expedition at Tell Afis. Although these areas have not been included within the ECP, they must be considered part of the Eblaite chora. In particular, the Jazr plain (covering a surface of about 700 km2, and bordered to the north/north-west by the Jebel Barishi and the Jebel Sam‘an that give access to the ‘Amuq Valley) forms a geological continuum with the southernmost fertile limestone plain surrounding Tell Mardikh/Ebla (Fig. 2). The Afis-Jazr survey identified 22 tells-sites spread around the plain. Major periods of

Mantellini 2013; Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013; Galiatsatos / Mantellini 2013; Peyronel 2014. 8 Liverani 1965; de Maigret 1978, 1981; see also Mantellini 2013 for an overview. 9 Matthiae / Marchetti 2013. 10 Those three areas correspond to ecological zones A, B and C respectively, according to the ECP (Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, pl. 13:1). 11 Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, tab. 8.7. 7

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

872

A. Vacca

occupation are EB IVB, MB II and IA II–III; on the contrary EB III–IVA and LB I settlements are apparently scarcely documented.12 The area to the east of Tell Mastuma, corresponding to the sloping foothills of the Jebel Zawiye, appears densely occupied during the EBA, with several smallsized settlements, ranging from 0.3 to 5 ha. Out of 20 tell-settlements identified within a 15 km radius from Tell Mastuma, and spanning from the Neolithic to the Islamic period, 19 can be dated to the EBA including the very site of Tell Mastuma. 13 Data from these regional surveys, partly overlapping with the area investigated by the ECP (Figs 1–2),14 allow us to enrich the inventory of EBA settlements spread across the Eblaite chora (i.e., 37 in total), which thus increases to a total of 59 EBA sites. The settlement pattern of the Eblaite chora varies according to the different ecozones, with a general decrease in the number of sites as one moves from the fertile western plains (Areas A–B) to the arid fringes of the eastern steppe (Area C), where the occupation peak corresponds with late 3rd millennium BC phases (see § 2.2). It is worth noting that excavated sites within the Eblaite chora are relatively few compared to the total of surveyed ones (only 5 out of 59), and that the lack of excavations or test soundings hamper, in many cases, the accurate dating of the overall sequence, in particular for those sites with multi-phase occupation that concealed evidence of earlier levels.15 The case of Tell Tuqan is exemplifying since the preliminary survey did not allow the recognition of EB III levels, which, conversely, have been identified through the excavation of a deep sounding in the Lower Town.16 It should also be noted that data for the earliest EBA phases are overall relatively scanty, hindering a diachronic analysis of settlement pattern. Only few materials from surveyed sites are published, and first explorations in the area around Tell Mardikh/Ebla, although carried out following a thorough methodology, mainly focused on the better known and most recognizable late 3rd–2nd millennium BC phases and on the Classical period.17 An exception is represented by the geo-archeological survey carried out in the 1970 by the MAIS (Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria) and coordinated by A. de Maigret; the systematic collection and study of diagnostic pottery allowed to assess the chronological developments of a substantial number of tell-sites from the Late Chalcolithic (Phase Mazzoni 2005, 6. See also Mantellini 2013, 249–250 with relevant bibliography on the Jazr Plain/Afis survey. 13 Tsuneki 2009a, table 2.1. 14 Some sites surveyed by the Japanese team coincide, for instance, with those included within the ECP area, such as Tell el-Dadikh (EC 011) and Tell es-Sfine (EC 013). Similarly, the south-eastern and north-eastern sectors of the Jazr-Afis survey coincide with those included in the ECP area, encompassing sites such as Tell Tuqan, Tell Bajer and Tell Gilash (Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013: 172; Mantellini 2013, 249–250). 15 See similar remarks by Ascalone / D’Andrea 2013, 215, 224–225; Peyronel 2014, 120. 16 Peyronel 2014, 120, fn. 26. 17 Liverani 1965; Pericoli Ridolfini 1964. See Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 170. 12

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

873

I) to the Persian period (Phase VII).18 The analysis of surface materials of the Matkh region resulted in a comprehensive documentation of that area (Fig. 2), providing a set of verifiable data stored in the MAIS Archives.19 Moving from these insights, coupled with more recent data obtained in the framework of the ECP, a reconstruction of the major phases of occupation of the Matkh region in relation to the fluctuation of the Matkh paleo-lake has been proposed.20 Moreover, the recent refinement of the EB III–IVA1 sequence, based on the seriation of ceramics from stratified contexts at Ebla and Tell Tuqan,21 represents a step forward in the assessment of the chronology of the Eblaite chora, adding new data for the reconstruction of patterns of continuity and change. 2.2 EB III–IVA Settlement Patterns in the Eblaite Chora In the following description, the evidence from the three ecological zones defined by the ECP team is discussed, for an area included between the western Area A (which is here enlarged up to comprise the Jazr and Tell Mastuma surveys) and the eastern Area C. Out of 55 EB IVA sites, 17 appear occupied, at least, from the EB III period (Table 1). Most of the tells-sites located within Area A are placed at an altitude of less than 500 m a.s.l., which corresponds to the so-called “lines of wells,” i.e. the maximum altitude beyond which water table is not available through manual digging techniques.22 In this area a total amount of 29 EB IVA23 sites is documented, out of which only 5 sites are settled from EB III. On the foothills of the Jebel Zawiye, Tell Mastuma is the only site that can be safely dated to the EB III period based on excavation data. The small tell (ca. 3 ha), located 15 kilometres to the west of Ebla, yielded early 3rd millennium BC materials uncovered in a deep stratigraphic sounding opened on the southern slope of the mound, in square 15Gc.24 Additional materials dating from EB IVA were brought to light in the North Trench (Strata XIII–X) and have consistent parallels in the ceramic repertoire of the Initial and Final EB IVA2 phases at Ebla (the latter corresponding to the Palace G horizon).25 In the Jazr-Afis plain survey, only 3 sites yielded EB I–III materials (Tell Afis, De Maigret 1978; 1981; Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 170–171. The original documentation stored in the MAIS Archives encompasses topographic maps of tell-sites, field notes and detailed ceramic description, as well as pottery drawings. 20 Cantelli / Picotti / Martina 2013; Peyronel 2014. 21 Mazzoni 2002; Vacca 2014; 2015. 22 Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 177. 23 In the Tell Mastuma survey an EB IVA date can be ascertain only for Tell Roman, Tell Kourine, Tell es-Shela, Tell el-Neirab and Tell Mastuma (EC 096) based on published pottery (Tsuneki 2009a). 24 Tsuneki 2009b. 25 Vacca 2015, 9–10; Marchetti / Vacca 2018. 18 19

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

874

A. Vacca

Tell Suffane and Tell Shillakh); they were occupied also during the following EB IVA period, when the total number of surveyed sites rises up to 6 (including Tell Nuwaz, Tell Sandal and Tell Serji). The only sites showing a continuous occupation throughout the whole 3rd millennium BC are Tell Suffane and Tell Afis. Tell Suffane, located 24 km north of Idlib, is a 3 ha site with a low elevation above the surrounding plain (ca. 7 m); based on surface materials the occupation spans from the Neolithic to the MB II. EB III–IVA1 diagnostics are largely comparable with stratified pottery from Ebla,26 suggesting a close affinity in terms of material culture and periodization with the latter site. Long-term and systematic excavations at Tell Afis, carried out by the Italian Expedition of the University of Florence under the direction of S. Mazzoni and S. Cecchini, allowed the excavators to single out the main phases of occupation, spanning from the Early Chalcolithic to the Persian period. The EBA, corresponds to Afis III (EB I–III) and Afis IV (EB IVA–B) in the site’s periodization. The EB I–IVA occupation is quite ephemeral; several pottery fragments dating to EB I–III have been found in a deposit (level 17), covering the collapsed Late Chalcolithic fortification wall,27 whereas some EB IVA1 materials have been collected from secondary contexts (pits of level 18a).28 This evidence suggests a period of decreasing occupation of the tell beginning in EB I and ending in EB IVB, probably following the rise and collapse of the Eblaite hegemony.29 The discovery of fragmentary stone vases imported from Egypt and comparable with specimens retrieved in Palace G at Ebla, led Matthiae to hypothesize the presence of a secondary royal residence at Tell Afis during EB IVA2.30 The situation so far outlined for the Jazr plain during the EBA is that of a quite dispersed pattern of small rural settlements (ranging from 0.50 to 4 ha), with the largest site of Tell Nuwaz (ca. 15 ha) located in a strategic position at the passage from the Jazr plain to the Amuq (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain each site’s size by period, since most of the tells documented in Area A have a superimposed later occupation, mainly dating to the Middle Bronze Age. Generally speaking, this sub-region appears occupied by small villages and hamlets ranging between 0.3 and 4 ha during the EB IVA (10 sites are less than 1 ha, 8 sites are between 1 and 2.5 ha, while 6 sites are between 3 and 4 ha, Table 1). Larger sites are Tell Kourin (c. 5.31 ha), Tell Roman (c. 7.07 ha) and Tell Nuwaz (c. 15 ha) (Fig. 1). The major EB IVA center within the limestone sub-region is Tell Mardikh/Ebla (EC 001). The site yielded substantial evidence of its 3rd millennium BC occupation, shedding light, particularly, on

Mazzoni 2006, fig. 4:g–l. Mazzoni 1998, fig. 16: 3–5, 9–11. 28 Mazzoni 1998, fig. 16: 1, 6–8. For the dating of these material to the EB IVA1 see Vacca 2015, 13, fig. 12. 29 Mazzoni 1998, 31. 30 Matthiae 2014, 41. On Eblaite royal residences see Biga 2013, 262. 26 27

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

875

the outstanding remains of the EB IVA2 city (Mardikh IIB1, ca. 2450–2300 BC), with its palace and cuneiform archives (Royal Palace G), temples (the Temple of the Rock and the Red Temple), public buildings (Building P4) and the massive mud-brick fortification wall (Area AA) enclosing a total settled area of ca. 56 ha.31 While the beginning of the Early Bronze Age (EB I–II) is still an ill-defined period in the site’s periodization due to the lack of extensive excavations,32 more data is now available for the following EB III–IVA1 phases. Evidence of the EB III and EB IVA1 occupation are documented in several sectors, below Palace G, on the 4 ha central Acropolis, which appears extensively settled with at least two successive monumental buildings (Buildings G2 and G5) and centralized warehouses (§ 3).33 One of the main function of these buildings is connected with the collection, storage and processing of large quantities of staples, probably managed by large households, or institutionalized elites, focusing on the long-term investment on agricultural staples. Unfortunately, no structures dating from this period have been detected in the Lower Town so far, thus hampering an estimation on the total extension of the EB III–IVA1 settlement and leaving some important questions regarding urbanism at Ebla unsolved.34 However, based on the distribution of EB III–IVA1 diagnostics from the Lower Town it is possible to argue in favor of an occupation of at least the area immediately at the foot of, and at short distance from, the central mound,35 probably not exceeding the size hypothesized by P. Matthiae for the proto-urban settlement, i.e. 10 ha.36 Thus, although a diachronic site size estimation is problematic, the discovery of a long stratified sequence beneath Palace G of successive palatial-like (Building G2, EB III) and palatial (Building G5, EB IVA1) buildings hints at the leading role of Ebla over a long period of time. Moving eastward, in the adjacent Matkh region (Area B) a total amount of 20 EB IVA sites has been identified, 11 of which occupied from EB I–III (Fig.

Matthiae 2010, 377–390, 392–396. Mazzoni 2002, 71–73. 33 On Building G2 (EB III) and Building G5 (EB IVA1) see Matthiae 1987; 2000; Mazzoni 1991; Vacca 2014; 2015; 2018a. 34 This situation is partly affected by the lack of data concerning earlier fortification systems. In fact, it has not yet been possible to identify the EB III–IVA1 fortification wall, at any point either on the Acropolis or in the Lower Town. Excavations in Area AA, in 1998, allowed archaeologists to single out a segment of the EB IVA2 outer town wall that was later incorporated in the earthwork ramparts of the MBA fortification (Matthiae 2000, 581, fig. 9). 35 The distribution of EB III–IVA1 materials in the Lower Town (although from secondary contexts) suggests that the settlement was probably extended to the Lower Town as well, at least at the foot of the Acropolis, although probably characterized by a low density occupation (see Vacca 2018a). 36 Matthiae 2010, 41; see also Margueron 2014, 340. 31 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

876

A. Vacca

2).37 The only site that seems to be abandoned during the EB IVA period is Tell Waaz (EC 037), later reoccupied in the MBA.38 A further site with an EB III–IV occupation is Tell Berne, located at the northernmost fringe of the fertile Matkh depression, in the lower Nahr el-Quweiq sector investigated in years 1977–1979 by a team from the Institute of Archaeology of London University.39 Although sites’ dimension is difficult to ascertain, it seems that during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC (3000–2550 BC) the Matkh plain was occupied by small and low elevated tell-sites (12 in total, ranging from 0.3 to 4 ha), located around the shoreline of the ancient lake.40 Pottery collected by de Maigret from different sectors of Tell Allush (N, S, S-E, and S-W), located 7 km to the north-east of Tell Tuqan, suggests, for instance, an occupation of the 1 ha flat site at least from the EB III (Figs 6:2, 15; 7:5, 8). Larger sites could have been Tell Tuqan (> 5 ha?)41 on the western side of the lake, Tell Dlamah (> 5 ha?)42 about 5 km to the north-east of the Matkh depression, and Tell Berne (8 ha?), ca. 18 km further north along the Nahr el-Quweiq River. All these sites are situated in strategic positions controlling access to the Matkh plain, which constitutes a crossroad from Ebla toward the Jabbul Plain and the Euphrates to the east, and Aleppo to the north. Archeological investigations at Tell Tuqan (EC 002), resumed since 2006 by the Italian Expedition of the University of Salento headed by F. Baffi, provided new evidence on the earliest 3rd millennium BC phases in Northern Levant.43 The excavation of a deep sounding in Area P South (Lower Town North) revealed a long EB III architectural sequence: in the earliest level (Phase 10)—probably dating to the EB II/III transition—a pottery workshop with kilns and working surfaces attests for the specialized manufacture of ceramics; in the following Phases 8–9 the function of the area changed as suggested by the presence of mud-brick structures, with plastered vats and a small kiln, related to household activities; in the latest EB III levels (Phases 6–7) the area is rearranged with large storage facilities (circular silos and vats) and crop-processing areas that occupied the whole excavated surface, suggesting intensive warehousing and accumulation of primary products beyond the household level.44 The EB III pottery assemblage singled out within the architectural sequence of Area P South fits well with the Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 177–180; Peyronel 2014, figs 8, 14. Tell Dlamah (EC 020), which is not listed among LC–EB III sites (Peyronel 2014, fig. 8) appears occupied at least from the EB III period according to surface materials (Fig. 7). 38 Peyronel 2014, 119. 39 Matthers (ed.) 1981. 40 Peyronel 2014, 119. 41 Peyronel 2014, figs 8–9. 42 The site of Tell Dlamah appears mainly settled during the MBA, when it is characterized by a defensive earthen rampart (Peyronel 2014, 127), although some surface materials point to an earlier occupation during the EB III. 43 Baffi / Peyronel 2013. 44 Peyronel 2011, 64–77; Peyronel / Vacca 2014; Vacca 2014; 2018a. 37

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

877

material from stratified contexts at Mardikh IIA, allowing for a refined chronological sequence based on these two key-sites.45 The lack of early 3rd millennium BC surface materials collected during the preliminary survey of Tell Tuqan hampers a precise size estimation; nevertheless the evidence of a few EB III sherds retrieved during an intensive survey (carried out in 2008 in the central part of the Lower Town)46 coupled with stratigraphic data from the sounding, as well as with the fact that excavations on the Acropolis documented MBA levels immediately above the bedrock,47 suggest that the occupation was restricted to the Lower Town during EBA (of about 5–10 ha), in line with the already observed general low elevation of Area B sites. A marked increase in the number of settlements is observable in the following EB IVA (2550–2300 BC), when the number of sites almost doubles (from 12 to 21). Nevertheless, the occupation of the plain is still characterized by a dense matrix of small rural settlements devoted to an intensive agricultural production, while pasture was practiced in the adjacent steppe to the east, which is occupied starting from this period.48 It is difficult to attempt a size-estimation for EB IVA sites based on survey materials; nevertheless, sites such as Tell Tuqan and Tell Hader seem still relatively small during EB IVA, increasing in size and in importance only from EB IVB, following the demise of the regional power of Ebla. It is, in fact, only from the latter period that the settlement system seems to change from densely and dispersed to hierarchical organized, with a reduction in the number of sites and a corresponding increase in size of some settlements (Tell Tuqan and Tell Hader are 26 and 16 ha respectively by this time).49 Finally, a different settlement pattern characterizes the steppe area at the piedmont of Jebel el-Hass (Area C), which appears occupied since at least the mid–3rd millennium BC. Only 4 sites can be confidently dated to EB IVA. Two of these sites, Tell Munbatah and Tell Sabkha, are probably newly founded settlements (with circular urban planning),50 located in a strategic position within the corridor of Khanaser, which gives access to the Jabbul Lake and, further east, to the Euphrates River.51 3. Agriculture Production and Storage Practices The chora of Ebla is located in a semiarid zone, with an average rainfall of 250– 300 mm/y, allowing for an integrated economy based on dry farming agricul-

Vacca 2014. Peyronel 2014, 120, fn 26. 47 Baffi 2011, 144. 48 Peyronel 2014, 122. 49 Peyronel 2014, 122, Matthiae 2014, 42–43. 50 Peyronel 2014, 122, fn. 34; Mouamar 2017. 51 Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 180. 45 46

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

878

A. Vacca

ture and animal husbandry. From a geological point of view the area around Tell Afis and Tell Mardikh is characterized by the same formation of reddish-brown calcisols and vertisols overlying calcareous crusts—with the exception of the north-western sector of the plain mainly consisting of alluvial deposits—52 which are suitable for rain-fed cultivation of cereals and fruit trees.53 Similarly, the greybrown soil of the Matkh depression, with its humid environment, is particularly favorable for both dry and irrigated farming.54 The analysis of modern cultivations compared with data on ancient agriculture and land use during the EBA period, gathered from archaeobotanical analysis and textual evidence from Palace G Archives, suggests the persistence of einkorn, wheat and barley crops in the area, as well as the cultivation of lentils, olive and grapevine.55 Olives (Olea europea) are attested in noteworthy quantities among archaeobotanical remains from both Palace G and Building P4 (EB IVA2), and olive oil production is also documented in specially equipped rooms in the West Unit of Palace G.56 Cuneiform texts often mention olive tree groves located in farms or villages in the Eblaite territory, where it seems plausible that most of the processing activities took place.57 Large plots cultivated with olive groves might be mainly located in the hilly land,58 probably along the foothills of the Jebel Zawiye (around the site of Tell Mastuma), where even today olives represent the main agricultural product. Archaeobotanical analyses of samples collected from EBA layer at Tell Mastuma suggest a dramatic increase in olive cultivation at the expense of crops from around the mid-3rd millennium BC, pointing to the rising of specialized and intensive agricultural production.59 As for cereals, the most attested crop, both nowadays and during the EBA, is the six-row barley (particularly resistant to salinity, drought as well as to colder temperatures).60 Barley was employed as the basic ingredient for food preparation, as a source of fermentable material for beer, and as animal fodder.61 The palace controlled substantial flows of crops collected from villages, which were

Calcisols are characterized by a substantial secondary accumulation of lime, while Vertisols have a high content of expansive clay (Arnoldus-Huyzendveld 2013, 326–327, fig. 18.1); Falcone / Lazzarini 1998, 482–483. 53 Rossi Pisa / Venturi / Vignudelli 2013. 54 Arnoldus-Huyzendveld 2013, 329; Rossi Pisa / Venturi / Vignudelli 2013. 55 See Peyronel / Vacca 2013, table 26.1; Rossi Pisa / Venturi / Vignudelli 2013; Marchesi 2013; Wachter Sarkady 2013. 56 Wachter Sarkady 2013, tables 23.2 and 23.3; Peyronel / Vacca / Wachter Sarkady 2014, 9. 57 Archi 1991; 1992, 26; Milano (1996, 158–68) lists the names of the villages located around Ebla in which agricultural activities were performed. 58 Archi 1992, 26. 59 Yasuda 1997. 60 Peyronel / Vacca 2013, 434; Wachter Sarkady 2013, tables 23.2 and 23.3; Marchesi 2013, 281–282. 61 Milano 1996; Sallaberger 1996; Miller 1997. 52

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

879

probably in charge of the cultivation of palace’s estates through corvées.62 Cereals were probably stored both at Ebla and in granaries located in the countryside.63 It is worth noting the mention in cuneiform texts of (re)building works of a silos located in the palace, probably on the top of the Acropolis.64 Cereals were also stored in large jars (with volumes ranging between 30 and 130 liters), mainly kept in sectors of the Palace connected with food processing activities.65 Interestingly, some texts mention the existence of large-scale silos, in some cases grouped into storage complexes.66 The estimated capacity of a single silos, based on textual data dealing with grain transfer, can range from a minimum of 600 measures gubar of barley (ca. 36,000 litres) to a maximum of 5,000 measure gubar of barley (ca. 300,000 litres).67 The latter value is surprisingly high for a single silos—that should therefore have a diameter of ca. 17 m—and can probably refer to a larger storage complex, presumably considered as a single granary. The large silos excavated at ED IIIa Fara (approximately contemporary with EB IVA1 Ebla) have capacities of about 125 m3 of grain (125,000 litres).68 The so-called Circles Building of Khirbet Kerak/Beth Yerah (EB II–III), actually never used according to a recent reconstruction, was a huge structure with seven circular silos, with diameters of about 7.8, 8.2 and 9 m, sunk into a stone platform.69 The granary would have contained up to 2,250 m3 of grain (2250000 liters), appearing as single massive storage structure.70 Data collected from Palace G Archives suggest the centralization of a great amount of cereals needed in order to sustain the high level of food consumption by palatial residents and the redistribution of food rations to different categories of waged workers, craftsman and specialized personnel estimated around 5,000 people.71 According to Archi,72 a total number of 20,000 individuals could live in Ebla, thus implying a relative high population density of about 300 or 400 inhabitants per hectare considering the extension of the EB IVA site (ca. 60 ha).73

Archi 1992, 27; Milano 1996, 142. Milano 1996, 144. 64 Bonechi 2016, 28–29 with relevant bibliography. 65 Dolce 1988; Peyronel / Vacca 2013, 433–434; D’Andrea / Vacca 2013; Peyronel / Vacca / Wachter Sarkady 2014. 66 On the term for “silo, granary” see Catagnoti 2004; Fronzaroli 2018 (with a thorough discussion on the occurrence of this term and its interpretation). 67 Fronzaroli 2018. One measure gubar of barley corresponds approximately to 60 litres (Chambon 2011, 57). 68 Paulette 2017, 100. 69 Greenberg et al. 2017. 70 Mazar 2001. 71 Archi 1992; Milano 1990; 1996. 72 Archi 1992, 25. See also Milano 1996, 144. 73 Urban population density in Northern Mesopotamia is generally estimated around 100– 200 people per hectare based on environmental and technological parameters (Stein 62 63

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

880

A. Vacca

Unfortunately, the lack of specific knowledge about the actual agricultural yield hampers any accurate estimation.74 Indirect evidence on pre-Palace G primary economy can be gathered from the excavation of storage structures in Area CC (EB III, ca. 2700–2550 BC), on the southern slopes of the Acropolis, and in Building G5, on the Acropolis north-west (EB IVA1, 2550–2450 BC). Excavations in Area CC yielded a multilevel sequence with mud-brick granaries and silos, which appear largely contemporary with Building G2, a monumental structure identified 40 m westward on the south-western slopes of the Acropolis.75 The stratigraphic sequence identified in Area CC consists of several rebuilding episodes with a series of superimposed storage structures and working areas (Phases CC 2–7), all dating to EB III.76 The best preserved ones pertain to Phases CC 4–6. In Phase CC 6 a system of large circular storage pits, occupying an area of ca. 400 sqm, have been documented. Silos vary between 1.5 and 2.5 m in diameter, while they are preserved to a depth of ca. 0.50–0.70 m. Both the bottom and the inner walls were plastered with clay and chaff in order to insulate the content (Fig. 3). In the next phase (CC 4–5) a freestanding mud-brick granary (preserved to a maximum height of ca. 1.20 m), associated with subterranean circular silos,77 was built over the storage facilities of the previous level (Fig. 4). Beside the high amount of storage vessels, the tool assemblage retrieved in association with silos and granaries includes mostly lithic and stone tools (grinding slabs, pestles, and mortars), suggesting that cereals were not only stored, but also processed in this area. Archaeobotanical remains collected from the storage structures mostly belong to barley.78 Unfortunately, the loss of the original archaeological deposits, due to continuous building activities, hampers an accurate assessment of the capacity of each storage unit. Basing the calculation on the actual measures of the structures, the minimum storage capacity of the Phase CC 6 silos is ca. 12,000 liters, while that of Phase CC 4–5 structures (silos plus mud-brick granary) is ca. 14,000 liters. Storage facilities dating to EB IVA1 were excavated in association with 2004, 65 with relevant bibliography), but see also Pfälzner 2001 for higher values between 300 and 400 people/ha. 74 See the remarks by Archi 1990, 16–17 about the difficulties in reconstructing the organization of rural territory based on cuneiform texts from Palace G. For studies on these topics see especially Sallaberger 1996; Widell 2003; Deckers / Riehl 2008. 75 Matthiae 2000, 572; Vacca 2016. 76 For the stratigraphic sequence and the description of Area CC storage structures see Vacca 2016; 2018a. 77 Silos have diameters ranging between 1.5–2 m and are preserved to a depth of ca. 0.40–0.50 m. 78 Wachter Sarkady personal communication. Radiocarbon dates obtained from charred seeds collected in Area CC silos are discussed in Vacca in press a. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

881

Building G5, a monumental structure brought to light underneath Palace G, on the north-western edge of the Acropolis. This large building appears to have been erected on terraces, covering an area of at least 500 sqm (Fig. 5).79 The complex of silos was exposed at the bottom of a large Iron Age pit (F.4461), deeply cut into Palace G up to the level of EB IVA1 structures. The storage facilities discovered at this spot include three circular silos associated with a gypsum floor. The silos are semi-subterranean structures with a cylindrical shape, and were probably covered by a doomed roof or at least lined with mud-bricks walls.80 The archaeobotanical analyses of the fill of the southernmost silos (S.4843) showed a broad spectrum of food plants, mainly cereals (especially barley in a proportion of 41.9%, but also emmer, einkorn and free-threshing wheat), and a smaller number of pulses (peas and lentils), bitter vetch, and olive stones.81 The good preservation of the plant remains and the nature of excavated layers suggest that the silos was filled with alternated ashy soil and compact layers resulting from the periodical practice of burning cereal grains in order to avoid germination.82 The estimated capacities suggest that the maximum amount of grain that could have been stored in the two fully excavated silos (S.4843 and S.4841) is of about 26,680 liters, which should correspond to a minimum of 10,665 kg and a maximum of 22,430 kg of barley.83 The composition of the archaeobotanical remains (mainly barley and olive stones), and the concentration of large warehouse areas on the top of the Acropolis, in connection with monumental buildings, point to aspects of continuity with the later EB IVA2 period, in terms of both investment on specialized crops and control over primary resources (§ 5). The evidence from Ebla can be compared with data from EB III levels at Tell Tuqan, which yielded large silos containing barley and olive stones, associated with working surfaces.84 Storage structures are virtually documented at all the EB III–IVA1 excavated sites throughout the Northern Levant, suggesting that the practice of intensive warehousing was likely to be related to the urban formation process, whose outcomes are visible in the immediately later periods.85 For Building G5 see Matthiae 1993, 618–625; Vacca 2015; 2018a. Numerous fragments of collapsed mud-bricks were retrieved in the uppermost layers of the silos filling. 81 Wachter Sarkady 2013, 377–378. 82 Wachter Sarkady 2013, 393, fn 6. 83 These values have been calculated with the ARCANE tools developed by J. P. Thalmann (Area_Utility, Version 1.02, 29/07/2007) as a part of the ARCANE Project. The capacity of silos S.4843 is estimated at about 24.0 m3 (=24,000 l), while that of silos S.4841 is at about 2.68 m3 (=2,680 l) (Vacca 2018a). The third silos probably attained a size similar to the smaller silos S.484, although the total depth is unknown because the fill was not excavated. 84 Peyronel 2011; Vacca 2014; 2018a. 85 See Vacca 2018a; D’Andrea / Vacca in press for an overview of EB III storage structures. 79 80

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

882

A. Vacca

4. Ceramic Evidence Looking at the regional scale, a large number of comparisons can be found among sites located in the nearby Idlib (e.g., Ebla and Tell Mastuma), Jazr (e.g., Tell Afis and Tell Suffane), and Matkh plains (e.g., Tell Tuqan, Tell Debben, Tell Allush and Tell Abu Mreir), suggesting a regional production and circulation of similar pottery types during the EB III–IVA1 period. In fact, although the majority of sites recorded in the Eblaite chora (Fig. 2) have been investigated by means of surveys, and only in a few cases by means of horizontal exposures (§ 2), it is worth mentioning that all the ceramic materials assigned to EB III–IVA1 find their best counterpart in the assemblage from stratified contexts at Tell Mardikh/Ebla and Tell Tuqan. During EB III (ca. 2700–2550 BC) a wide range of Simple Ware (SW) open shapes is attested, from shallow and large bowls to closed and deep cups for solid and liquid products. Large platter-bowls and hemispherical bowls with flattened or protruding inside rim (Fig. 6:1–10) are quite common, as well as small bowls and cups with rounded profiles and beaded or slightly everted rim (Fig. 6: 11–21). Among closed shapes, the most recurring types are distinct neck jars with high shoulder, vertical or slightly everted rim (Fig. 4:7–6) or with thickened and outwardly protruding rim (Fig. 7:7–9). Medium size jars with short everted, and thickened rounded rim, are also very common, often bearing a potmark incised on the shoulder (Fig. 7:10–11). Another type, which is quite widespread in the Matkh area according to de Maigret,86 is the jar with pronounced, tapering neck, and channelled upside rim (Fig. 7:12–13). Based on the geographical distribution of pottery types it is possible to define a “ceramic region” encompassing the Eblaite chora, which is characterized by a relatively homogeneous ceramic assemblage, even with specific local features, as indicated by the existence of local EB III variant of Cooking Ware (CW) pots, with vertical or inverted stepped rims, attested only at Tuqan and virtually absent at Ebla (Fig. 7:15).87 A peculiar regional production is the Painted Simple Ware (PSW) characterized by black-brownish monochrome painted patterns mainly consisting of zigzag motifs and crossing lines framed by horizontal bands. This painted ware is documented in small amounts in EB III stratified contexts at Ebla, Tell Tuqan and Tell Mastuma (Fig. 7:1–3), and can be regarded as a regional variety largely comparable with contemporary painted ware productions documented during the first half of the 3rd millennium BC in northern Syria, south-eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia.88 The PSW of the Ebla region shows affinities, in particular, with other contemporary painted production attested in the nearby Amuq Plain (i.e., the Mul-

De Maigret 1978, 86, fn 13. Vacca 2014, 58, fig. 3: 5–8. 88 Marro / Helwing 1995; Sconzo 2015, 99. 86 87

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

883

tiple-Brush Painted Ware) and in the Orontes Valley.89 Generally speaking, the EB III ceramic horizon of the Ebla region display similarities with the western area (Amuq H),90 the Orontes Valley (e.g., Hama K 4–1 and Mishrifeh II)91 and with sites located in the Jabbul plain (e.g., Tell Abu Danne and Umm el-Marra, period VI later)92 and, to a lesser extent, along the Middle Euphrates River (Period EME 3).93 Few types documented in the Ebla region show a supra-regional distribution, such as platter-bowls, either plain or burnished, CW pots and Simple Ware (SW) jars with vertical, slightly out-flared rim, and small bowls with rounded or curved profiles.94 Archaeometric analyses carried out on EB III samples from Ebla and Tell Tuqan suggest the use of local raw materials at each site, arguing in favour of the existence of multiple workshops operating in the region, as also pointed out by the direct evidence of pottery production documented at Tuqan.95 The following EB IVA1 ceramic horizon (ca. 2550–2450 BC), distinguished by the introduction of the goblet form in the morphological repertoire of SW and by the appearance of a new type of hole-mouth cooking pot, can be clearly singled out based on the stratigraphic sequence excavated at Ebla.96 When enlarging the perspective at the regional level, some diagnostic types restricted to EB IVA1 contexts at Ebla can be recognized also among surface materials and stratified assemblages at other sites in the Eblaite chora, pointing to a regional production. This is the case, for instance, of SW plain or corrugated goblets with short flaring rim (Fig. 8:1–2) or out-turned inner-stepped rim (Fig. 8:3–5), or of small size jars with cylindrical neck and beaded rim (Fig. 8:10–11). Similarly, peculiar types of hole-mouth CW pots, characterized by a different range of modelled rims (Fig. 8:12–18), are widely distributed in the Matkh, Jazr and Idlib plains, probably suggesting the existence of regional circuits of production and distribution within the macro-region of Ebla. CW, in particular, show a trend toward homogenization and regionalism: the local morphologies of CW pots produced at Ebla and Tuqan during EB III appear replaced by identical types of globular hole-mouth pots from one phase to the next phase. From the EB IVA1 period onward the trend toward homogenization in pottery production started during EB III seemingly reached its Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 281–287, 356–357. In the Orontes Valley PSW is documented in EB III contexts at Tell Mishrifeh/Qatna and Tell Al-Ṣūr, showing similar decorative motifs to those described for inland northern Syria, combining superimposed bands with zigzags and crossing lines (Mouamar 2014, 101, fig. 15). 90 Braidwood / Braidwood 1960, 345–395. 91 Thuesen 1988, 94–185; Morandi Bonacossi 2008. 92 Tefnin 1979; Schwartz 2017, 89–90, fig. 5.2. 93 See now the ARCANE ceramic periodization (Sconzo 2015) with reference to previous works. 94 For detailed comparisons of the EB III ceramic assemblage from Ebla and Tuqan see Vacca 2014; 2018b; in press a. 95 Peyronel / Vacca 2014; Vacca 2018b. 96 Mazzoni 1991; 2002, 76; Vacca 2015; 2018a. 89

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

884

A. Vacca

peak, resulting in technological and morphological similarities shared over a wide area, particularly visible in the so-called Caliciform Ware assemblage of inland Syria. As an example several local tradition of drinking vessels develop at the same time in the Amuq Plain, in the Orontes Valley and in the Ebla region, each characterized by regional features, such as the prevalence of plain or corrugated truncated-conical cups in the Amuq (Phase I), of cylindrical corrugated goblets in the Ebla region (Fig. 8:3–5), and of plain or white painted/reserved slip goblets in the Orontes Valley (Hama J8–7).97 These traditions were maintained and further developed in the following period, when the “Caliciform Ware” assemblage expanded out of this core area, along the Euphrates River Valley and in the Southern Levant, suggesting a wider inter-regional network of interaction (ENL 4–5).98 5. Discussion and Conclusions The dispersed pattern of small to medium sites documented during EB III gives way to a generalized intensification in the number of settlements around the mid– 3rd millennium BC, when nearly all the areas with a potential for agro-pastoral exploitation are occupied. This trend is observable not only in the chora of Ebla,99 but also over a wider area, encompassing the whole Northern Levant, from the Syrian upland down to the Orontes Valley, as documented by other regional survey projects.100 Even if the number of settlements identified across the Eblaite chora increases in the course of EB IVA, they are still small in size, ranging from small towns and villages to hamlets. These data are consistent with the framework provided by the Palace G texts, reporting a number of minor centers scattered in the countryside, apparently not administrated by local authorities (e.g., agricultural centers, secondary residences of the king and the royal court, cultic places).101 This matrix of small settlements scattered over the rural territory is already present in EB III and further expands into EB IVA, supporting the hypothesis put forward by Matthiae of a quantitative rather than qualitative change of the EB IVA occupation.102 The long-term investment on agricultural staples (one of the main foundations of the later Eblaite economy, alongside husbandry) appears one relevant aspect emerging from the analysis. In particular barley and olives are the most attested species among archaeobotanical remains. It appears that the accumulation of staples was a key function of EB III–IVA1 buildings at Ebla; the localization of storage structures on the Acropolis, in connection with monumental

Welton / Cooper 2014; Vacca 2016; in press a; D’Andrea 2017, 174. Welton / Cooper 2014, 334–336; D’Andrea 2017. 99 De Maigret 1978, 88; Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 177. 100 See Wilkinson et al. 2014, with relevant bibliography. 101 Biga 2013; Matthiae 2014. 102 Matthiae 2014, 40–41. 97 98

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

885

buildings, might indicate a control over primary resources initiated in the course of EB III. According to information gathered from Palace’s G archives, cereals were stored in granaries located both at Ebla and in the countryside. The minimum capacity of these warehouses is estimated at quantities roughly comparable with EB IVA1 silos (36,000 contra 24,000 litres), while the largest facilities far exceed these values. The general picture suggests that the formation process of the Eblaite state was already undergoing during EB III, and ultimately achieved in the course of EB IVA1. Furthermore, the “Caliciform” pottery style that characterizes the EB IVA2 seems to have its origin in the earlier periods. This ceramic horizon encompasses the chora of Ebla and is defined by an overall homogeneity, and a certain degree of continuity, through the EB III–IVA1 period. This “ceramic region” shows loose links, during EB III, with the neighbouring regions (in terms of specific pottery productions that are absent or rare outside the Ebla region), while closer ties are documented from the mid-3rd millennium BC (EB IVA1), when a number of shared characters and similarities with the ceramic tradition of the northern inland Syria clearly emerged. The distinctive traits of the EB IVA2 Eblaite state are: 1) the mono-centric organization of the chora (Ebla appears to rank among the largest know sites, including Tell Munbatah, Tell Nuwaz and possibly Tell Tuqan) (§ 2);103 2) the specialized and intensive cultivation of crops (especially barley) and of olives groves;104 3) the centralized storage of the agricultural surplus (both at Ebla and in the countryside) and its centralized management (§ 3); 4) the existence of an homogeneous ceramic horizon documented throughout the Eblaite chora, and extended even beyond it (§ 4).105 The analysis illustrated in this article suggests that these traits already exist, or start developing since, at least, the EB III period, and were ultimately accomplished in the course of EB IVA1–2. Bibliography Archi, A., 1991: Culture de l’olivier et production de l’huile à Ebla. In D. Charpin / F. Joannès (eds): Marchands, diplomates et empereur: Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli. Paris. Pp. 211–222. –– 1992: The City of Ebla and the Organization of the Rural Territory. AoF 19: 24–28. –– 2001: The King-Lists from Ebla. In T. Abusch et al. (eds): Historiography in the Cuneiform World (RAI 45, Part I). Bethesda. Pp. 1–13. Arnoldus- Huyzendveld, A., 2013: A Thin Basis. The Soil Landscape of Ebla and Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, 194, fig. 8.22. Wachter Sarkady 2013; Marchesi 2013; Peyronel / Vacca 2013. 105 Ascalone / D’Andrea 2013; D’Andrea / Vacca 2013. 103 104

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

886

A. Vacca

Tell Tuqan. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 324–333. Ascalone, E. / D’Andrea, M., 2013: Assembling the Evidence. Excavated Sites Dating from the Early Bronze Age in and around the Chora of Ebla. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 215–237. Baffi, F., 2011: Area D. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Excavations 2008–2010. Galatina. Pp. 143–168. Baffi, F. / Peyronel, P., 2013: Trends in Village Life. The Early Bronze Age Phases at Tell Tuqan. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp 195– 214. Biga, M.G., 2013: Defining the Chora of Ebla. A Textual Perspective, In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 259–267. Bonechi, M., 2016: Building Works at Palace G. The Ebla King Between Major-domos, Carriers and Construction Workers. Studia Eblaitica 2: 1–45. Braidwood, R.J. / Braidwood, L., 1960: Excavations on the Plain of Antioch I. The Early Assemblages. Phases A–J (OIP 41). Chicago. Cantelli, L. / Picotti, V. / Martina, V.L.M., 2013: From Wetland to Desert. A Geomorphologic Approach to the Eblaite Chora. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 316–323. Catagnoti, A., 2004: Le “grenier” à Ébla. NABU 2004/62: 64. Chambon, G., 2011: Normes et pratiques: l’homme, la mesure et l’écriture en Mésopotamie. I. Les mesures de capacité et de poids en Syrie ancienne, d’Ébla à Émar (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 21). Berlin. D’Andrea, M., 2017: Note on Early Bronze IV Grey Hard-Textured Wares in the Levant, Studia Eblaitica 3: 172–181. D’Andrea, M. / Vacca, A., 2013: Form and Content. A Preliminary Functional Interpretation of the Storage Jars from Royal Palace G. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 111–130. Deckers, K. / Riehl, S., 2008: Resource Exploitation of the Upper Khabur Basin (NE Syria) During the 3rd Millennium BC. Paléorient 34/2: 173–189. Dolce, R., 1988: Some Aspects of the Primary Economic Structure of Ebla in the Third and Second Millennium B.C.: Stores and Workplaces. In H. Waetzoldt, / H. Hauptmann (eds): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Ebla. Akten der Internationalen Tagung Heidelberg 4.–7. November 1986 (HSAO 2). Heidelberg. Pp. 22–34. Falcone, R. / Lazzarini, L., 1998: Analisi micro-petrografiche e chimiche sui campioni di ceramica. In S.M. Cecchini / S. Mazzoni (eds): Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis (Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 1). Pisa. Pp. 481–500. Fronzaroli, P., 2018: La conservation des céréales dans les textes de chancellerie d’Ébla. In A. Vacca / S. Pizzimenti / M.G. Micale (eds): A Oriente del Delta © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

887

Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae (CMAO XVIII). Roma. Pp. 257–266. Galiatsatos, N. / Mantellini, S. 2013: Analysis of CORONA Imagery. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 302–315. Greenberg, R. et al., 2017. The Circles Building (Granary) at Tel Bet Yerah (Khirbet el-Kerak): A New Synthesis (Excavations of 1945–1946, 2003– 2015). BASOR 378: 163–202. Liverani, M., 1965: I tell preclassici. In P. Matthiae (ed.): Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria: Rapporto preliminare della campagna 1964. Roma. Pp. 107–133. de Maigret, A., 1978: Fluttuazioni territoriali e caratteristiche tipologiche degli insediamenti nella regione del Matah (Siria). Nota Preliminare. In Atti del 1° Convegno Italiano sul Vicino Oriente Antico, Roma, 22–24 Aprile 1976 (Orientis Antiqui Collectio 13). Roma. Pp. 83–94. –– 1981: Il fattore idrogeologico nell’economia di Ebla. Oriens Antiquus 20: 1–36. Mantellini, S., 2013: Regional Approach and Archaeological Surveys in Northern Syria. An Overview. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 238–256. Mantellini, S. / Micale, M.G. / Peyronel, L., 2013: Exploiting Diversity. The Archaeological Landscape of the Eblaite Chora. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 163–194. Marchesi, G., 2013: Of Plants and Trees. Crops and Vegetable Resources at Ebla, In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 274–292. Marchetti, N. / Vacca, A. 2018: Building Complexity. Layers from Initial EB IVA2 in Area P South at Ebla. In A. Vacca / S. Pizzimenti / M.G. Micale (eds): A Oriente del Delta Scritti sull’Egitto ed il Vicino Oriente antico in onore di Gabriella Scandone Matthiae (CMAO XVIII). Roma. Pp. 303–344. Margueron, J.-C., 2014: About the First Town Planning Near East, 4th–1st Millennium. In P. Bieliński / M. Gawlikowski / R. Koliński (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. 1. Wiesbaden. Pp. 335–367. Marro, C. / Helwing, B., 1995: Vers une chronologie des cultures du Haut-Euphrate au troisième millénaire. Untersuchungen zur bemalten Keramik des 3. Jt. am oberen und mittleren Euphrat. In U. Finkbeiner et al. (eds): Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer. Mainz. Pp. 341–384. Matthers, J., (ed.), 1981: The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria, and Its Catchment: Studies Arising from the Tell Rifa’at Survey 1977-1979, Part I (BAR IS 98). Oxford. Matthiae, P., 1987: Les dernières découvertes d’Ébla en 1983–1986. CRAIBL 131/1: 135–161. –– 1993: L’aire sacrée d’Ishtar à Ébla: résultats des fouilles de 1990–1992. CRAIBL © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

888

A. Vacca

137/3: 613–662. –– 2000: Nouvelles fouilles à Ébla (1998–1999): Forts et palais de l’enceinte urbaine. CRAIBL 144/2: 567–610. –– 2010: Ebla la città del trono. Archeologia e storia. Torino. –– 2014: A Note on Tell Tuqan and the Archaic Urbanization in Western Syria. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period, Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 35–44. Matthiae, P. / Marchetti, N., 2013: Representing the Chora of Ebla. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 25–28. Mazar, A., 2001: On the significance of the Early Bronze III Granary Building at Beth Yerah. In S.R. Wollf (ed.): Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (SAOC 59). Atlanta. Pp. 447–464. Mazzoni, S., 1991: Ebla e la formazione della cultura urbana in Siria. La Parola del Passato 46: 163–194. –– 1998: Materials and Chronology. In S.M. Cecchini / S. Mazzoni (eds): Tell Afis (Siria): Scavi sull’Acropoli 1988–1992. The 1988–1992 Excavations on the Acropolis, (Ricerche di Archeologia del Vicino Oriente 1). Pisa. Pp. 9–100. –– 2002: The Ancient Bronze Age Pottery Tradition in North-western Central Syria. In M. Al-Maqdissi / V. Matoïan / Ch. Nicolle (eds): Céramique de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie, I: La Syrie du Sud et la Vallée de l’Oronte (BAH 161). Beyrouth. Pp. 69–96. –– 2005: Mazzoni, S., 2005: Tell Afis, the Survey and the Regional Sequence. EVO 28: 5–14. –– 2006: Syria and the Emergence of Cultural Complexity. In F. Baffi et al. (eds): Ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia Orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae. Roma. Pp. 321–347. Milano, L., 1990: Archivi Reali di Ebla. Testi. Testi amministrativi: Assegnazioni di prodotti alimentari (Archivio L. 2712 – Parte I). Roma. –– 1996: Ébla: gestion de terres et gestion des ressources alimentaires. In J.-M. Durand (ed.): Mari, Ébla et les Hourrites dix ans de travaux. Première partie. Actes du colloques international (Paris, Mai 1993) (Amurru I). Paris. Pp. 135–171. Miller, R., 1997: Farming and Herding Along the Euphrates: Environmental Constrain and Cultural Choise (Fourth to Second Millennia B.C.). In R. Zettler (ed.): Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment:Tell Es-Sweyhat, 1989–1995 Preliminary Report (MASCA Research Papers in Science and Archaeology 14). Philadelphia. Pp. 96–123. Morandi Bonacossi, D., 2008: Excavations on the Acropolis of Mishrifeh, Operation J. A New Early Bronze Age III – Iron Age III Sequence for Central Inner Syria. Part 1: Stratigraphy, Chronology and Architecture. Akkadica 129: 55–127. Mouamar, G., 2014: Tell Al-Ṣūr/Al-Sankarī: une nouvelle agglomeration circulaire du Bronze ancien IV à la lisière de la steppe syrienne. In F. Baffi / R. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

889

Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period, Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 45–84. –– 2017: Tell Ṣabḥah: A Large Circular City of the 3rd Millennium BC in the Syrian Steppe (Shamiyah). Studia Eblaitica 3: 182–189. Paulette, T., 2016: Grain Storage and State Making in Mesopotamia (3200–2000 BC). In L.R. Manzanilla / M.S. Rothman (eds): Storage in Ancient Complex Societies. Administration, Organization and Control. New York. Pp. 85–109. Peyronel, L., 2011: Area P. In F. Baffi (ed.): Tell Tuqan. Excavations 2008–2010. Galatina. Pp. 61–110. –– 2014: Living Near the Lake. The Matkh Region (Syria) during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period, Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 115–161. Peyronel, L. / Vacca, A., 2013: Natural Resources, Technology and Manufacture Processes at Ebla. A Preliminary Assesment. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 431–449. –– 2014: From Clay to Pots: Pottery Production and Workplaces in Syria During the EB III–IV. In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw, Vol. 3. Wiesbaden. Pp. 201–222. Peyronel, L. / Vacca, A. / Wachter Sarkady, C., 2014: Food and Drink Preparation at Ebla, Syria. New Data from the Royal Palace G (c. 2450–2300 BC). Food & History 12/3: 1–38. Pericoli Ridolfini, F.S., 1965: Le rovine romano bizantine. In P. Matthaie (ed.): Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria: Rapporto Preliminare della Campagna 1964. Roma. Pp. 135–155. Pfälzner, P. 2001: Haus und Haushalt: Wohnformen des dritten Jahrtausends vor Christus in Nordmesopotamien. Mainz. Pinnock, F., 2016a: Royal Images and Kingship Rituals in Early Syrian Ebla: A Multi-Faceted Strategy of Territorial Control in EB IVA North Inner Syria. ZOrA 9: 98–116. –– 2016b: Dealing with the Past at Ebla. Ancestors’ Cults and Foreign Relations. In R.A. Stucky / O. Kaelin / H.-P. Mathys (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 9–13 June 2014, Basel. Wiesbaden. Pp. 395–406. Sallaberger, S., 1996: Grain Accounts: Personnel Lists and Expenditure Documents. In F. Ismail et al. (eds): Administrative Documents from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1993–1995) (Subartu II). Turnhout. Pp. 107–117. Schwartz, G., 2017: Western Syria and the Third- to Second-Millennium B.C. Transition. In F. Höflmayer (ed.): The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Chronology, C14, and Climate Change (OIS 11). Chicago. Pp. 87–126. Sconzo, P., 2015: Ceramics. In U. Finkbeiner et al. (eds): Associated Regional © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

890

A. Vacca

Chronologies for the Ancient Near East. The Middle Euphrates Region (ARCANE 4). Turnhout: 85–202. Stein, G., 2004: Structural Parameters and Socio-Cultural Factors in the Economic Organization of North Mesopotamian Urbanism in the Third Millennium BC. In G. Feinman / L. Nicholas (eds): Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies. Salt Lake City. Pp. 61–78. Tefnin, R., 1979: Tel Abou Danné. Une ville fortifiée de l’Âge du Bronze en Syrie du nord. Archéologia 129: 42–49. Thuesen, I. 1988: Hama. Fouilles et recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg, 1931– 1938. I. The Pre- and Protohistoric Periods (Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Større Beretninger 11). Copenhague. Tsuneki, S., 2009a: Tell-Type Settlement around Tell Mastuma. In T. Iwasaki et al. (eds): Tell Mastuma: An Iron Age Settlement in the Northwest Syria (Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3). Tokyo. Pp. 13–52. –– 2009b: Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Layers in Square 15Gc. In T. Iwasaki et al. (eds): Tell Mastuma: An Iron Age Settlement in the Northwest Syria (Memoirs of the Ancient Orient Museum 3). Tokyo. Pp. 69–88. Vacca, A., 2014: The Tuqan IC Pottery Sequence from Area P South. In F. Baffi / R. Fiorentino / L. Peyronel (eds): Tell Tuqan Excavations and Regional Perspectives Cultural Developments in Inner Syria from the Early Bronze Age to the Persian/Hellenistic Period, Proceedings of the International Conference May 15th–17th 2013, Lecce. Galatina. Pp. 45–84. –– 2015: Before the Royal Palace G. The Stratigraphic and Pottery Sequence of the West Unit of the Central Complex: The Building G5. Studia Eblaitica 1: 1–32. –– 2016: Review of Marc Lebeau (ed.), ARCANE-IR, Vol. I: Ceramics, Studia Eblaitica 2: 230–241. –– 2018a: Centralization before the Palace. The EB III–IVA1 Sequence on the Acropolis of Tell Mardikh/Ebla: Stratigraphy and Architecture. In P. Matthiae / F. Pinnock / M. D’Andrea (eds): Ebla and Beyond. Ancient Near Eastern Studies after Fifty Years of Discoveries at Tell Mardikh. Proceedings of the International Congress Held in Rome, 15th–17th December 2014. Wiesbaden. Pp. 35–74. –– 2018b: Characterizing the Early Bronze III–IVA1 Pottery of Northern Levant Through Typological and Petrographic Analyses. The Case Study of Tell Mardikh/Ebla and Tell Tuqan (Syria). Levant 49/3: 1–21. –– in pr a: The Origin of Caliciform Ware in Inland Northern Syria during the Mid-3rd Millennium BC: A View from Tell Mardikh/Ebla and Hama. Studia Chaburiensia: in press. Vacca, A. / D’Andrea, M., in pr: Evidence for Connectivity between the Northern and Southern Levant during EB III. In S. Richard (ed.): New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV in the Levant. Winona Lake, IN. In press. Wachter Sarkady, C., 2013: Consuming Plants. Archaeobotanical Samples from Royal Palace G and Building P4. In P. Matthiae / N. Marchetti (eds): Ebla and its Landscape. Early State Formation in the Ancient Near East. Walnut Creek, CA. Pp. 376–402. Welton, L. / Cooper, L., 2014: Caliciform Ware. In M. Lebeau (ed.): Arcane I-IR. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

891

Ceramics. Turnhout. Pp. 295–323. Widell, M., 2003: Some Observations on the Administration, Agriculture and Animal Management of Tell Beydar. UF 35: 717–733. Wilkinson, T.J. et al., 2014: Contextualizing Early Urbanization: Settlement Cores, Early States and Agro-pastoral Strategies in the Fertile Crescent During the Fourth and Third Millennia BC. Journal of World Prehistory 27: 43–109. Yasuda, Y., 1997: The Rise and Fall of Olive Cultivation in Northwestern Syria. Paleoecological Study of Tell Mastuma. Japan Review 8: 251–273.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

892

A. Vacca Survey

Area

Site/ECP

Area Hectars EB III EB IVA

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Mardikh/Ebla/ EC 001

A

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Mastuma/EC 096

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Kourin

Ebla Chora

Idlib

T Kafar-Najid

56,00

x

x

A

3,14

x

x

A

5,31

x

A

2,40

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Roman

A

7,07

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Babi

A

2,69

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Ariha

A

1,13

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Jarnaz

A

0,57

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Bet Sofan

A

3,46

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Mnabiya

A

1,89

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Tar

A

1,43

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Shela

A

0,64

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Msaibin

A

1,70

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Neirab

A

1,23

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Safin West

A

0,95

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell es-Sfine/EC 013

A

0,67

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Bahra

A

0,57

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Dadikh/EC 011

A

2,01

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Kafar Batyha

A

0,33

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell el-Jabani

A

0,87

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Mahti/EC 007

A

0,19

x

Ebla Chora

Idlib

Tell Sheik Mansur/ EC 005

A

3,00

x

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Suffane

A

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Afis/EC 004

A

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Shillakh

A

3,14 4,29/ 25,00 0,37?

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Nuwaz

A

15,00

x

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Sandal

A

0,50

x

Jazr

Idlib/Jazr

Tell Serji

A

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Tuqan/EC 002

B

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Dlamah/EC 020

B

0,64 14,00/ 26,00 8,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Berne

B

13,66

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Baraghitah/EC 014

B

3,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Abu Mreir/EC 018

B

3,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Atchana/EC 032

B

3,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Sultan/EC 029

B

3,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Allush/EC 033

B

1,00

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Ra's el-Ain/EC 026

B

1,00

x

x

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

893

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Debben/EC 041

B

0,50

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Abu el-Mujaher/EC 038

B

0,80

x

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Hader/EC 036

B

16,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Bajer/EC 095

B

4,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Fakhar/EC 027

B

3,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Sheik Fares/EC 016

B

3,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Abu Rwail/EC 034

B

2,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell el-Awainat/EC 043

B

2,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Kalbe/EC 028

B

2,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Hubar/EC 035

B

2,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Selmo/EC 024

B

1,00

x

Ebla Chora

Maath

Tell Gilash/EC 045

B

0,50

x

Ebla Chora

Steppe

Tell Hamidiyeh/EC 058

C

4,00

x

Ebla Chora

Steppe

Tell Bridah/EC 042

C

1,00

x

Ebla Chora

Steppe

Tell Mase/EC 039

C

3,00

x

Ebla Chora

Steppe

Tell Mumbatah/EC 003

C

6,00

x

Tab. 1. Sites inventory.

Fig.1. Distribution of EB IVA archaeological sites in and around the area of the ECP (modified after Mantellini / Micale / Peyronel 2013, pl. 15.b). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

894

A. Vacca

Fig. 2. Distribution of EB III‒IVA1 archaeological sites in the Eblaite chora. In the background an Aster GDEM v.2 (2011). Map by S. Mantellini, elaborated within the frame of the ECP (©MAIS).

Fig. 3. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Area CC, EB III. Circular silos (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

895

Fig. 4. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Area CC, EB III. Circular silos and the freestanding mudbrick granary (©MAIS).

Fig. 5. Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Building G5, EB IVA1. The Iron Age pit (F.4461) with the EB IVA1 silos, from the east (©MAIS). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

896

A. Vacca

T.AL.71.S.7

1

TT.09.P.472/1

2

3

TM.99.G5.555/9

4

TM.98.CC.91/4

5

TT.09.P.421/5

6

7

8

9

TM.98.CC.123/7

T.DB.72.S.24 0

TT.10.P.448/1

11

14

TM.98.CC.90/5

T.AL.71.S.261

TM.84.G2.118/4

TM.84.G2.147/2

15

18

10 cm

13

12 TT.10.P.700/1

T.DB.72.S.28

16

TM.99.CC.142/7

17

19

TT.10.P.474/1

20

10

21

TT.09.P.284/1 0

10 cm

Fig. 6. EB III pottery from Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Building G2 and Area CC (nos 2, 6, 9, 12, 17‒18, 20; ©MAIS); Tell Tuqan, Area P South, Phases 6‒9 (nos 1, 5, 11, 13, 19, 21; ©Missione Archeologica Italiana at Tell Tuqan); Tell Debben/EC 041, surface (nos 10, 16; ©MAIS); Tell Allush/EC 033, surface (nos 2, 15; ©MAIS); Tell Mastuma, square 15Gc, layer h (nos 7, 14; redrawn after Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.24:1, 3); Tell Afis, Area E, level 17/18 (no. 8; redrawn after Mazzoni 1998, fig. 16:5); Tell Berne, Phase H (no. 4; redrawn after Mellaart 1981, fig. 166:945). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Reflections about the Chora of Ebla

1

TM.82.G2.150/1

897

TT.10.P.703/3

2

4

TM.84.G2.95/4

T.AL.71.S.315

3

6

5 T.DL.71.S.1014

7

TM.98.CC.168/8

8

T.AL.71.S.186

9 0

TT.08.P.251/2

10 cm

11

12

T.AMR.74.S.105

TM.98.CC.83/1

TM.84.G2.96/3

13

TM.98.CC.118/6

10

0

14

10 cm

15

TT.10.P.446/2 0

10 cm

Fig. 7. EB III pottery from Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Building G2 and Area CC (nos 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14; ©MAIS); Tell Tuqan, Area P South, Phases 6‒9 (nos 3, 9, 15; ©Missione Archeologica Italiana at Tell Tuqan); Tell Dlamah/EC 020, surface (no. 6; ©MAIS); Tell Allush/EC 033, surface (nos 5, 8; ©MAIS); Tell Abu Mreir/EC 018, surface (no. 12; ©MAIS); Tell Mastuma, square 15Gc, layer h (nos 2, 11; redrawn after Tsuneki 2009, fig. 3.24:5‒6). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

898

A. Vacca

TM.99.G5.531/12

3

2

1 TM.93.G5.637/1

TT.08.P.248/1

5

4 0

10 cm

TT.09.P.431/1 6

7

TM.99.G5.544/5

8

TM.99.G5.531/2

9 0

TM.90.G5.116/20

11

10

12

TM.93.G5.627/9

TM.90.G5.99/16

10 cm

14

13

T.AC.74.S.5

TM.99.G5.531/26

T.AC.74.S.34

15

T.AL.71.S.423

16

17

18

0

10 cm

Fig. 8. EB IVA1 pottery from Tell Mardikh/Ebla, Building G5 (nos 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17; ©MAIS); Tell Tuqan, Area P South, Phase 5 (nos 1, 7; ©Missione Archeologica Italiana at Tell Tuqan); Tell Atchana/EC 032, surface (nos 15, 18; ©MAIS); Tell Allush/EC 033, surface (no. 16; ©MAIS); Tell Afis, Area E, levels 18 and 18a (nos 4, 9, 11, 13; redrawn after Mazzoni 1998, fig. 16:1, 6, 8, fig. 18:16); Tell Suffane (no. 5; redrawn after Mazzoni 2006, fig. 4:k). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

Some Preliminary Remarks on the Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish Federico Zaina

1. Introduction Investigations in the Outer Town at Karkemish were conducted at different times and with diverse methodologies. C.L. Woolley first explored the area in 1920, exposing a large segment of the city wall, several towers, city gates, as well as some domestic buildings.1 About a century later, a two-year surface survey (2009–2010) was carried out on the Syrian side of the Outer Town in the frame of the “Land of Carchemish” project (henceforth LCP) directed by T.J. Wilkinson and E. Peltenburg.2 Thanks to the updated field methodologies, the project allowed to partially review Woolley’s excavation of the ancient city as well as to bring fresh information on the urban layout and the chronology of the Outer Town. In addition, since 2011, researches carried out on the Turkish side of the ancient site by a Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition directed by Nicolò Marchetti (Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna), aimed at extensively exposing the Iron Age (henceforth IA) town in order to understand its urban history and the development of the material culture.3 Recent excavations in the Inner and Outer Town at Karkemish, as well as the Yunus cemetery included several areas previously explored by Woolley, which have been newly investigated with the aim of re-analyzing the information provided by the 1920s British expedition. This is also the case of the Outer Town city wall, of which Woolley identified the course albeit stressing the hypothetical nature of some parts of it, due to their poor conditions.4 The aim of this paper is therefore to propose a fresh analysis of the Outer Town city wall of Karkemish, in the light of the researches so far conducted. I will first Woolley 1921. Wilkinson et al. 2007; Wilkinson / Ricci 2016. 3 Marchetti 2012; 2013; 2014. The Turco-Italian Expedition at Karkemish of the Universities of Bologna, Gaziantep, Istanbul is directed by Nicolò Marchetti (Alma Mater Studiorum—University of Bologna), to whom I would express my gratitude for his guidance and support and for allowing me to undertake the present study. Thanks are also due to all the Turkish and Italian colleagues and friends for their help and support. 4 Woolley 1921, 53. 1 2

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

900

F. Zaina

provide an overview of Woolley’s investigations of the fortification system concentrating on the stratigraphic sequence, the architectural evidence and the material culture also highlighting the issues still to be clarified. Then, I will present the results of the recent researches in the field (excavations and surveys) carried out both on the Turkish and the Syrian side of the site. I will discuss the results of the survey conducted between 2009 and 2010 in the Syrian part of the Outer Town within the LCP project, followed by the recent work (2011) of the Turco-Italian expedition in the Turkish side of the Outer Town (area E). In the conclusion, the results of the three researches will be discussed in order to propose a revised interpretation of the Outer Town at Karkemish during the Iron Age period. Comparisons with further contemporary examples will be also evaluated. 2. Woolley’s Excavation in the Outer Town C.L. Woolley explored the city walls and buildings of the Outer Town during a single campaign in 1920 with the assistance of P.L.O. Guy (Fig. 1).5 The city wall system, as reconstructed by the British excavators, consisted of a double line of parallel walls approximately 5 m thick and about 9 m distant from each other.6 Only one gate (West Gate) connected to this was recognized, while the location of a second one was hypothesized.7 According to Woolley the northern section of the Outer Town wall was “practically non-existent.”8 The reconstruction of the original course of this sector was based on three evidences: an excrescence in the supposed junction with the rampart,9 a “mass of fallen and decomposed brickwork” that could be distinguished from the rest of the deposit about 100 m to the west of the excrescence,10 and a 40 m long line of small stones and pebbles located where the first turn of the wall was presumably recognized. Some “Late Hittite”11 pottery vessels were also recovered here.12 The rest of the city wall had more or less the same state of preservation and in some cases the presence of towers and city gates could be also hypothesized.13 The southern part of the Outer Town wall was still visible in several scattered

Woolley 1921, 52. For a recent summary of the expedition members and the activities carried out at Karkemish see Benati 2014, 61–63. 6 Woolley 1921, 53. 7 The South Gate of the Outer Town (Woolley 1921, 54–57). 8 Woolley 1921, 53. 9 Geophysical investigation carried out in 2015 by a team from the Sakaria University in this area did not confirm Woolley’s evidence. 10 Woolley 1921, 53. 11 To be interpreted in this case as Iron Age III (7th century BC). In pl. 20 of the Outer Town report (Woolley 1921) the excavators described the finds as belonging to the 7th century BC. 12 Woolley 1921, pl. 20, fig. c4. 13 Woolley 1921, 54–57. 5

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

901

spots. Among others, evidence of an hypotetical city gate were recorded by Woolley in the area around House C. The only other portion of the Outer Town well preserved is the so-called “Quay Wall.”14 This single line structure started at the junction between the River Wall and the ramparts and it was running along the Euphrates river for 253 m. Further investigations in the Outer Town revealed late Iron Age (IA) domestic buildings, some of which contained imported Egyptian finds together with local late IA pottery (House D).15 In addition, some inhumation burials dating to the 6th century BC were also excavated by the British expedition close to the remains of House A and in its vicinity.16 As far as the building techniques are concerned, Woolley observed that almost the entire wall circuit was constituted by flimsy foundations made of small rubbles and pebbles and a mud-brick masonry lying (where preserved) on top of it.17 The whole structure was built directly on a “hard gravelly soil (decomposed pudding-stone),” that can be interpreted as the natural bedrock (see below). The presence of limestone slab fragments both along the wall circuit and in the immediate vicinity, led Woolley to propose that at least a single line of orthostats or simple squared stone blocks was placed upon the stone foundation such as those recovered in the nearby House C.18 Slightly different was the description of the Quay Wall masonry, characterized by large stone blocks and orthostats like those observed at the River Wall. The dating of the city walls is based on a meager stratigraphic evidence, while most of the information come from domestic buildings excavated within the Outer Town. Woolley, on the basis of the construction techniques of the domestic buildings as well as his own interpretation of the chronology of the material culture, proposed to assign the first expansion of the city to the “Late Hittite” period (Neo-Hittite).19 Despite this interpretation, the evidence allows to define the last phase of use of at least part of the outer city, while it is more difficult to understand when the city expansion occurred. Although few late Iron Age pottery vessels were found in connection with the city wall,20 the greatest chronological support comes from Houses A, C and D. Indeed, the pottery assemblage from the buildings can be broadly assigned to the IA II–III,21 while other epigraphic docu Woolley 1921, 57, pl. 3. See Woolley 1921, pl. 20. Several Egyptian finds from House D have been recently discussed by Zecchi 2014a; 2014b. 16 Woolley 1921, 119, pl. 20, figs c1 and c3. 17 Woolley 1921, 53. For a detailed account on the building techniques see also Woolley 1921, 143–145. 18 Woolley 1921, 53. 19 Woolley 1921, 40–41. For a more detailed discussion of the dating of the Outer Town by Woolley see also Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 163–166. 20 Woolley 1921, 53. 21 According to preliminary researches on the IA pottery assemblage from area C at Karke14 15

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

902

F. Zaina

ments,22 as well as some Egyptian finds such as seal impressions and statuettes,23 refer to the Egyptian presence at the city during the 7th century BC at least until the battle of 605 BC.24 To sum up, the British Museum excavation in the northern Outer Town revealed two main phases of occupation: one dating to the IA III (7th century BC) and characterized by the city walls and the remains of House A, while a second phase, composed by few burials, dating to the Achaemenid period (approximately 6th–5th century BC). 3. The “Land of Carchemish” Project The 2006–2010 LCP project was a University of Durham and University of Edinburgh joint survey aiming at reconstructing the settlement pattern and land use in the area between the Syro-Turkish border, the Euphrates and the Sajur rivers.25 Within the frame of this project, between 2009 and 2010 an intra-site survey was carried out on the Syrian part of the Outer Town of Karkemish.26 In order to provide the highest amount of information with the less invasive methodology, the LCP team designed a specific research system including different types of activities,27 such as the recording of standing structures using remote sensing and other techniques, the collection of surface materials and the correlation of the new evidence with previous publications. A first step concerning the analysis of satellite images and the ortho-rectification of P.L.O. Guy plan28 revealed a series of anomalies to the south of the Inner Town South Gate.29 The surface survey undertaken during spring 2009 and summer 2010 was mostly concentrated in the southern sector of the Outer Town,30 while minor researches were also conducted in its western sector (outside the West Gate). Surface finds collection was carried out in three areas (A, B, C) located in the south-eastern sector of the Outer Town,

mish (Pizzimenti / Zaina 2016) the distinction between IA II and IA III horizons is based on two main elements: the appearance of few diagnostic typologies, and the statistical occurrence of others. In the specific case of Woolley’s excavations, the total amount of ceramic sherds does not allow any conclusive chronological association and its dating must be necessary supported by other classes of finds (such as the Egyptian objects, for which see note 15). 22 Woolley 1921, pl. 26a. 23 Woolley 1921, pls 21, 25, 26. 24 Marchetti 2010, 133; 2012, 132. 25 Wilkinson / Peltenburg 2016, 1. 26 Peltenburg et al. in press; Wilkinson et al. 2011; Wilkinson / Ricci 2016. 27 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 136. 28 For the ortho-rectification of P.L.O. Guy plan made by the topographic team of the Turco-Italian expedition at Karkemish see Bernardoni / Trojanis 2014. 29 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 136–137. 30 Wilkinson et al. 2011, fig. 2; Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 137–139. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

903

by means of sparse collection points (A and C) or georeferenced transects (B).31 Three main points can be summarized from the investigations of the LCP team at Karkemish: 1. The analysis of the 1960s CORONA images and old British plans, integrated with the survey data allowed to identify an elongated constructed component, defined as the “inner anomaly” (Fig. 2).32 This structure is located in the southern and western sectors between the rampart and the Outer Town walls. While totally missed by Woolley in his final reports, the inner anomaly was already recognized by the 1879 British expedition.33 In the field this can be defined as a “broad, diffuse change in soil color and texture.”34 To further support this feature, five cross profiles (Transects A–E) were made in two different points of the Outer Town along its line.35 The analysis of the profiles, suggested different state of preservation, with the southern stretch (Transects D–E) showing a remarkable variation comparable with the Outer Town walls, while the northern transects partially failed in recognizing such anomaly. Beside this anomaly, the LCP also provided a detailed reassessment of Woolley’s town plan.36 Of particular interest is the reanalysis of the stratigraphic sequence of Houses D, located on the top of the Inner Anomaly. According to the LCP team both the architecture and building technique of House D (comparable with other monumental buildings or city gates) and its location on top of the inner anomaly, may suggest to interpret it as part of an early fortification system of the Outer Town, probably antedating the Neo-Assyrian occupation.37 2. A second point of interest, also confirmed by the 2011 Turco-Italian excavations (see paragraph below), concerns the building technique of the Outer Town city walls. Indeed, the masonry observed and described by the British team, seems to be somewhat different from what described by Woolley,38 being composed by “Euphrates river gravels and broken limestone” above which was set the brickwork.39 3. The third element regards the dating of the Outer Town on the basis of the architectural features and the ceramic assemblage from the surface collection. While in the preliminary stage of their research the LCP team suggested an IA II dating for their ceramic horizon,40 the final report provided a convincing Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 139, fig. 8.4. Wilkinson et al. 2011, fig. 6; Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 147–152, fig. 8.5. 33 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, fig. 8.5. The original plan was published in the first report of the British Museum Excavations at Karkemish (Hogarth 1914, fig. 4). 34 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 147. 35 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 148–149, fig. 8.8–9. 36 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 152–154. 37 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 164. 38 Woolley 1921, 53. 39 Wilkinson et al. 2011, figs 4–5. 40 Wilkinson et al. 2011. 31 32

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

904

F. Zaina

reassessment to the IA III (mostly 7th century BC.)41 Several shapes including in-turned folded rim bowls,42 jars with in-turned thick rim43 and jugs and juglets with in-turned thick rim,44 are among the typical IA III assemblage also from the new Turco-Italian excavation at Karkemish. It is interesting to note how some typical Neo-Assyrian shapes such as the Palace Ware as well as IA III Cypriot imports do not represent a strong component within the LCP assemblage, a datum confirmed also by the recent Turco-Italian excavation in the Outer Town. 4. The 2011 Turco-Italian Excavations in Area E Since 2011 the aim of the renewed excavation in the Outer Town (Fig. 1) carried out by the Turco-Italian team in 2011 was twofold. The first was to identify part of the Neo Assyrian city wall already exposed by Woolley and to confirm or possibly modify the path proposed by the 1920s British excavation. In the second place we hoped to detect new buildings and/or streets in order to investigate the urban layout of the Outer Town. To this aim we selected two areas: Area E, located at the northern end of the Outer Town, consisted of a southern sector of about 8 × 20 m and a northern one approximately 5 × 8 m. The aim of this area was to re-investigate the city wall system; Area F, is a small sounding excavated between 2011 and 2012 north of Woolley’s House A.45 Due to safety reasons the excavations were halted until the 2016 season when two large sectors were opened to the east and north of House A. The excavation in the southern sector of area E revealed a single partially eroded structural phase just a few cm below the top soil and directly set upon the natural limestone bedrock (Fig. 3). Below the 5 to 8 cm thick topsoil (F.400),46 two superimposed layers covered the structures of the area. The upper layer, F.401, made of a hard brownish clay, was extended throughout the entire area sloping towards northeast and gradually thickening in the same direction from less than 5 cm to more than 20 cm. In this latter part it covered another sandy-clayish layer, named F.405, less than 15 cm thick and limited to the northern half of the area. To the south F.401 covered a wall (W.404), oriented east-west about 3 m thick and almost 10 m long crossing the entire area. The foundation trench of W.404 partially Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 142–144. A small amount of “Graeco-Roman” as well as Byzantine and Early Islamic sherds is also reported by the LCP from the surface collection (Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 139–142, tab. 8.2–4). This datum is also confirmed the scattered evidence documented around area E, and other areas on the Turkish side of the Outer Town. 42 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 168, fig. 8.30, nos 8–10, 174, fig. 8.33, no. 8. 43 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 173–174, fig. 8.32, no. 37, fig. 8.33, no. 7. 44 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 173, fig. 8.33, nos 12–13. 45 Bonomo / Zaina 2016. 46 F. means “fill,” W. stands for “wall,” while P. means “pit.” 41

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

905

cut the limestone bedrock (a 5 to 10 cm deep cut), and it was filled with small river pebbles, a single line of which emerged on the surface.47 At the extreme western and eastern limits of the southern face of W.404, well aligned with that, several large engraved limestone blocks were found just above the bedrock. To the north F.405 covered an extended mudbrick surface named W.406 (Fig. 4). This was about 10 cm thick and 10 m long, while it is not possible to ascertain the exact north-south width as the structure runs over the northern, western and eastern limits of the area. We also observed that, as for W.404, W.406 had a foundation trench partially cutting the natural limestone bedrock and it was oriented east-west running almost parallel to the former. The building technique observed for both walls slightly differs from the description provided by Woolley,48 with the brickwork covering a stone pebble and limestone blocks foundation partially cut into the natural limestone bedrock. Due to the morphology of the area, as well as the heavy erosion, few bricks could be recognized while the rest of the structure appeared as a uniform and incoherent mudbrick earth surface. This was particularly clear in the north-western limit of the area where only a few cm of mudbrick soil were still in place. Between W.406 and W.404, F.405 covered a 3 m long and less than 2 m large trench, running north-south and probably connecting the two structures. This trench named P.407, was about 10 cm deep cutting the natural bedrock and filled with stone pebbles in the same technique used for W.404 and W.406. This evidence has been tentatively interpreted with the presence of a north-south wall (W.408) connecting the two main structures (Fig. 5). A second small cut, named P.409 was identified about 4 m to the east, partially running below the eastern limit of the area. This has the same dept and probably the same width of P.407. However, despite the somewhat similar alignment between P.409 and P.407, the bad state of preservation and the low number of scattered stone pebbles do not allow to propose a conclusive interpretation as for W.408. In general the structures recognized and the chalky natural soil were badly weathered, mostly eroded by the wind and often crossed by canals and small cuts caused by water runoff. No floors associated with the structures were found, although it is possible that, at least for the external open space, the chalky natural soil was used as a floor. The excavation in the northern sector of area E did not reveal structural remains but several superimposed clay deposits. Indeed, below the top soil, we

The chalky natural soil uncovered in area E consists of a mixture of small stones or limestone powder and loose earth. A similar description was provided by Woolley during the excavation of the city wall in the Outer Town (Woolley 1921, 50, 53). In addition the same type of soil has been found elsewhere at Karkemish, such as in area G, located in the Inner Town, and in the cemetery of Yunus. 48 Woolley 1921, 50, 53. 47

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

906

F. Zaina

found a sequence of three layers, the first (F.412) extending through the entire area and characterized by a soft brownish clay soil about 5 to 7 cm thick. F.412, covered another layer, F.413 of hard brownish clay and a few broken mudbricks, extending through the whole sector and sloping northward. The lowest layer, F.414, had a higher percentage of broken mudbricks mixed with hard clay and was only identified in the central part of the area, while at the extreme north and south end of the area F.413 covered two limestone surfaces that could be interpreted as the chalky natural soil. To sum up, the excavation in area E south revealed the presence of a main wall (W.406) and a second smaller one parallel to that (W.404), both oriented approximately east-west and probably connected each other by at least one wall running north-south (W.408). In area E north the presence of loose deposits with scattered building materials suggests an open area. With regard to the chronology, despite most of the materials from area E come from the top soil as well as other layers often disturbed, the small amount of diagnostic pottery shapes may be assigned to the IA II–III (most likely IA III, on the basis of comparisons with the rest of the pottery horizon from Karkemish).49 The assemblage is mainly characterized by Simple Ware (SW)50 open and closed shapes, while less frequent is the presence of Kitchen Ware vessels as well as medium or large size Preservation Ware vessels. Simple Ware open shapes include platters and bowls, the former having plain rim and wall (Fig. 6.1–2) or slightly thickened rim. The repertoire of bowls geographically belongs to the Southern Anatolian, Northern Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian horizons. Among the hall-marks of the period there are different types of bowls with in-turned folded rim (Fig. 6.3–6). At Karkemish in-turned folded rim bowls appear as early as the IA II and increase in the following IA III period.51 These shapes are widely attested in the Euphrates Valley and beyond.52 Further late IA shapes have black painted geometric pattern decoration on a white slipped surface (Fig. 6.8) such as the well-known types from the late IA cemetery of Yunus53 and in other variants, from other neighbouring sites.54 SW closed shapes include jugs, jars and craters. The former may have out-turned rim, vertical or slightly rounded neck and a combed decoration just below the rim (Fig. For updated analyses of the Iron Age I–III pottery assemblages from Karkemish see Bonomo / Zaina 2014; Pizzimenti / Zaina 2016. 50 For the definition of the pottery analysis methodology of the Turco-Italian expedition in the Gaziantep region see Zaina 2013. 51 Pizzimenti / Zaina 2016, figs 5.8–9. For further parallels from the Outer Town of Karkemish see also Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, figs 8.30.8–11, 8.33.8, 8.34.7. 52 Jamieson 2012, 56–58, fig. 3.4; Luciani 2005, 827, pl. 14, figs 158–161; Anastasio 2010, 88–91, pls 6.4–5, 7.2. 53 Woolley 1914, pl. XXVIc–d; 1939: pls IX–XIII. 54 Luciani 2005, 879, pl. 40, fig. 48. For a detailed review of this type see also Lehmann 1996, pl. 31, form 188. 49

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

907

6.12–14). The ceramic horizon from area E also includes a fragment of a black painted pottery with a concentric circles pattern (Fig. 6.9), probably an imported Cypriot White Painted specimen. This type is well attested in Cilicia and along the Syrian coast between the 9th and the 7th century BC.55 The most representative Kitchen Ware type is the so-called “Hole-mouth pot” (Fig. 6.11) with in-turned thick rim. This type is widely attested at Karkemish during the hole Iron Age period56 as well as Anatolia, Northern Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. Preservation Ware include jars or pithoi, with out-turned thick rim and applied rope (Fig. 6.15). With regard to surface treatments, given the low amount of diagnostic sherds retrieved any detailed discussion or statistical analyses would not be enough informative.57 One remarkable element for the study of the Outer Town at Karkemish is represented by the discovery, during the 2015 campaign inside a well (P.5345) in the southern sector of Area C, of three fragments from cuneiform prisms bearing an inscription by Sargon II. According to the forthcoming edition by G. Marchesi (p.c.), Sargon—in addition to raising the city walls and implementing large hydraulic works—writes “[… The people of Karkemish] I brought down [from the cen]ter of the city and made (them) occupy its rear part.” It is possible that he hints here at the Outer Town, although this is not yet fully clear. Therefore, although the excavation in Area E did not provide structural evidence prior to the IA III, it is possible that IA II remains are still preserved both on the Turkish and Syrian sides of the Outer Town. 5. Conclusions To conclude, the renewed analysis of the northern Outer Town occupation at Karkemish allowed to better understand the chronological sequence of occupation, the general development of the urban layout (at least for the Iron Age) and other details concerning the city wall system. With regard to chronology, we may hypothesize two main phases of occupation in the northern part of the Outer Town dating to the IA III (Neo-Assyrian, 7th century BC) and Achaemenid period (approx. 6th–5th century BC), while an earlier phase tentatively associated with the IA II (Neo-Hittite, approx. 9th–8th century BC) is currently attested only in the Syrian side of the Outer Town. During this earlier phase, the settlement was considerably enlarged (approx. 40 ha or more) and a new city wall system (the inner anomaly) was built in order to protect the southern, western as well as part of the northern flanks of the city. Further evi-

Du Plat Taylor 1959, 63–65. Bonomo / Zaina 2014, 142–143, fig. 6.2,4,6,8; Pizzimenti / Zaina 2016, figs 4.15–16, 5.16–17. 57 For some preliminary results on this subject see Pizzimenti / Zaina 2016, while more detailed studies are in progress. 55 56

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

908

F. Zaina

dence for this period might be represented by the early structural phase of House D whose construction might have been connected with the first enlargement of the city. This early expansion has been explained by the LCP team58 quoting previous studies,59 within the long term trend of urbanization which involved the area west of the Euphrates since the Early Iron Age.60 After the Assyrian conquest of the city (i.e. 717 BC), some relevant changes took place. The joint analysis of the archeological and epigraphic evidence suggested a further extension of the city promoted under Sargon II. A new massive mudbrick wall with at least one but possibly two monumental city gates was built by the Assyrians, thus extending the city of 15 ha more.61 According to the preliminary data from the new Turco-Italian excavation, at least in the northern sector of the Outer Town, this wall might have had a different path than the one proposed by Woolley. Beside the alleged path of this second massive fortification system, some doubts can be also raised on the architectural analysis proposed by Woolley. In particular, to date there are not enough data to confirm or reject the presence of a double city wall system identified by the British Museum expedition. The evidence from the Turco-Italian excavations in area E suggests a single wall or a casemate-like system. As already stressed by several scholars, the double line fortification system, represents an uncommon though not completely unknown layout, with contemporary parallels attested at the rounded sites of Zincirli Höyük/ Sam‘al62 and Tell Rifa‘at/Arpad (Fig. 7).63 However, the majority of large and small scale sites from northern Syria to Assyrian, such as Tell Halaf/Guzana (Fig. 8),64 Arslan Tash/Hadatu,65 Tell Sheikh Hamad/Dur Katlimmu,66 have a single city wall line, with numerous towers and city gates. The latter also found parallels with Assyrian core centers such as Nineveh, Nimrud, Khorsabad and Shemamok Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 165–166. Hawkins 1980; Winter 1983; Mazzoni 1995. 60 Further arguments to support this theory include the rather low quantity of Neo-Assyrian inscriptions mentioning Karkemish after its conquest (Mazzoni 1995, 181–196; Hawkins 1980, 445–446; Winter 1983: 194–195) together with the high degree of local material culture retrieved (also by the Turco-Italian expedition) in the Outer Town. 61 Wilkinson / Ricci 2016, 165–166. 62 Casana / Hermann 2010; Schloen / Fink 2009, 207. 63 Seton Williams 1961, 80, pl. XXXV. Further although minor evidence of double defensive city wall system have been proposed based on the analysis of Neo-Assyrian reliefs (Lipinski 2000, 529), while another possibly Middle-Late IA double line system has been recently discovered at Sirkeli Höyük (Kozal / Novák 2013, 231). More evidence in the archaeological record must be searched as far as the Southern Levant, where similar IA military layouts have been retrieved at Lachish (Ussishkin 1990, fig. 2). 64 Langenneger et al. 1950, pl. 3. 65 Thureau Dangin et al. 1931, fig. 80. 66 Kühne 1990, 166, pl. 36. 58 59

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

909

(Fig. 8),67 possibly suggesting on the one hand a stronger Assyrian influence to the east of the Euphrates, while on the other hand the persistence of local building techniques to the west of the Euphrates after the Assyrian takeover.68 At Karkemish the city wall was characterized by a thin foundation partially cut in the chalky natural soil and consisting of limestone and pebbles on which was set up a mudbrick wall. The study of the material culture associated with the second phase would also suggest the end of 7th century BC as the most suitable period for the abandonment of the Outer Town.69 After the fall of the Assyrian empire, a third main phase of occupation of the northern Outer Town, dating to the Achaemenid period (approx. 6th–5th century BC) consisted of some scattered inhumation burials. Sparser, although still to be fully understood are the evidence dating to the Hellenistic, Roman and Early Islamic periods.70 All in all, there are numerous aspects that remain to be clarified such as the identification of the full layout of the city wall, the actual presence of a double wall as well as the distribution of towers and city gates, especially in the southern sector of the Outer Town. Since 2016 a new research project has begun by the Turco-Italian expedition in the Outer Town with the aim of providing a detailed understanding of its urban development during the Iron Age and beyond. Bibliography Anastasio, S., 2010: Atlas of Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age (Subartu XXIV). Turnhout. Benati, G., 2014: The British Museum Excavations at Karkemish (1911–1914, 1920): A Summary of the Activities and of the Methods Employed. In N. Marchetti (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Pp. 52–65. Bernardoni, S. / Trojanis, R., 2014: Optical VS Electronic Tools in Near Eastern Archaeology: The Accuracy of the 1920 Map of Karkemish by P.L.O. Guy Checked with a Total Station and GPS Survey. In P. Bieliński et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 30 April–4 May 2012, University of Warsaw. Wiesbaden. Pp. 645–655. Bonomo, A. / Zaina, F., 2014: The Iron Age II–III pottery assemblage from Karkemish and Yunus. In N. Marchetti (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Pp. 137–144. Ur 2013, figs 2, 4, 6. Some of these cities have a more squared shape, perhaps the result of a more weighted planning, typical of the new cities (Ur 2013, 13). 69 Probably the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar II in 605 BC (Hawkins / Weeden 2016, 17; Marchetti 2010, 133; 2012, 132). 70 See fn. 41. 67 68

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

910

F. Zaina

Bonomo, A. / Zaina, F., 2016: Karkemish. Report on the 2011 and 2012 Excavations in Area F. GRPOP 2016.1. Casana, J. / Hermann, J.T., 2010: Settlement History and Urban Planning at Zincirli Höyük, Southern Turkey. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 23: 55–80. Du Plat Taylor, J., 1959: The Cypriot and Syrian Pottery from Al Mina, Syria. Iraq XXI: 62–92. Hawkins, D., 1976–1980: Karkamiş. RlA 5: 426–446. Hawkins, J.D. / Weeden, M., 2016: Sketch History of Karkamish in the Earlier Iron Age (Iron I–IIB). In T.J. Wilkinson / E. Peltenburg / E.B. Wilkinson (eds): Carchemish in Context. The Land of Carchemish Project 2006-2010 (BANEA Publication Series 4). Oxford. Pp. 9–22. Hogart, M.A., 1914: Carchemish. Report on the excavations at Djerabis on behalf of the British Museum. Part I: Introductory. London. Jamieson, A., 2012: Tell Ahmar III. Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Area C (ANES Supplement Series 35). Leuven. Kozal, E. / Novák, M., 2013: Sirkeli Höyük. A Bronze and Iron Age Urban Settlement in Plain Cilicia. In Ü. Yalçın (ed.): Anatolian Metal VI. Bochum. Pp. 229–238. Kühne, H., 1990: Gedanken zur Historischen und Stadtebaulichen Entwicklung der Assyrischen Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu. In P. Matthiae / M. Van Loon / H. Weiss (eds): Resurrecting the Past. A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni. Istanbul. Pp. 153–171. Langenneger, F. / Muller, K. / Naumann, R., 1950: Tell Halaf II: Die Bauwerke. Berlin. Lehmann, G., 1996: Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramik Formen zwischen ca.720 bis 300 v. Chr. (AVO 5). Münster. Lipinski, E., 2000: The Arameans: their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (OLA 100). Leuven. Luciani, M., 2005: Area G. The Iron Age Productive Area (Period IX) and the Inhumation Cemetery (Period X). In L. Bachelot / F.M. Fales (eds): Tell Shiuk Fawqani 1994–1998, Vol. II (History of the Ancient Near East VI/2). Padova. Pp. 719–996. Marchetti, N., 2005: Karkemish. In Enciclopedia archeologica: Asia. Roma. P. 133. — 2012: Karkemish on the Euphrates. Excavating a City’s History. Near Eastern Archaeology 75/3: 132–147. — 2013: The 2011 Joint Turco-Italian Excavations at Karkemish. 34. kazı sonuçları toplantısı, 28 mayıs-1 haziran 2012, Çorum. 1. cilt. Ankara. Pp. 349–364. — 2014 (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Mazzoni, S., 1995: Settlement Pattern and New Urbanization in Syria at the Time of the Assyrian Conquest. In M. Liverani (ed.): Neo-Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di geografia storica 5). Rome. Pp. 181–191. — 2000: Syria and the Periodization of the Iron Age. A Cross-Cultural Perspective. In G. Bunnens (ed.): Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (ANES 7). Louvain. Pp. 31–59. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

911

Peltenburg, E. et al., in press: The Land of Carchemish (Syria) Project 2009: Carchemish Outer Town Survey, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. Pizzimenti, S. / Zaina, F., 2016: The Iron Age at Karkemish between Tradition and Innovation. The Case Study of the Pottery Assemblage from Area C. In R.A. Stucky et al. (eds): Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Basel 14–17 June 2014. Wiesbaden. Pp. 361–376. Schloen, D. / Fink, A., 2009: Searching for Ancient Sam‘al: New Excavation at Zincirli in Turkey. Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4: 203–219. Seton Williams, M.V., 1961: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Rifa‘at. Iraq 23/1: 68–87. Thureau Dagin, F. et al. 1931: Arslan Tash. Paris. Ussishkin, D., 1990: The Assyrian Attack on Lachish: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwest Corner of the Site. Tel Aviv 17: 53–86. Ur, J., 2013: The Morphology of Neo-Assyrian Cities. Subartu 6–7: 11–22. Wilkinson, T.J., 1995: Late-Assyrian Settlement Geography in Upper Mesopotamia. In M. Liverani (ed.): Neo-Assyrian Geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5). Roma. Pp. 139–160. Wilkinson, T.J. / Peltenburg, E. / Wilkinson, E.B., 2016 (eds): Carchemish in Context. The Land of Carchemish Project 2006–2010 (BANEA publication series 4). Oxford. Wilkinson, T.J. et al. 2007: Archaeology in the Land of Carchemish: landscape surveys in the area of Jerablus Tahtani. Levant 39: 213–247. Wilkinson, E.B. / Wilkinson, T.J. / Peltenburg, E. 2011: Revisiting Carchemish: the Land of Carchemish Project in Syria, 2009 & 2010. Antiquity Project Gallery 329 (http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/wilkinson329/). Wilkinson, E.B / Ricci, A., 2016: Investigations of Iron Age Carchemish: the Outer Town Survey of 2009 and 2010. In T.J. Wilkinson / E. Peltenburg / E.B. Wilkinson (eds): Carchemish in Context. The Land of Carchemish Project 2006-2010 (BANEA publication series 4). Oxford. Pp. 132–184. Winter, I., 1983: Carchemish ša kišad puratti. Anatolian Studies 26: 87–92. Woolley, C.L., 1914: Hittite Burial Customs. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 6: 87–98. — 1921: Carchemish. Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum. Part II: The Town Defences. London. — 1939: The Iron Age Graves of Carchemish. Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 26: 11–37. Zaina, F., 2013: A Functional and Morphological Analysis of the Iron Age III Pottery Assemblage at Taşlı Geçit Höyük. In L. Bombardieri et al. (eds): 16th SOMA Florence – Indetity and Connectivity (BAR-IS 2581). Oxford. Pp. 65–75. Zecchi, M., 2014a: Karkemish in the Egyptian Sources. In N. Marchetti (ed.): Karkemish. An Ancient Capital on the Euphrates (OrientLab 2). Bologna. Pp. 99–107. — 2014b: A Note on Two Egyptian Seal Impressions from Karkemish. Orientalia 83/2: 202–206. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

912

F. Zaina

Fig. 1. General map of Karkemish by the Turco-Italian expedition superimposed to that by C.L. Woolley (1921, pl. 3); note that Woolley’s map is not georeferenced and has simply been rotated in order to fit the other map. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

913

Fig. 2. The “Inner Anomaly” spotted by the Land of Carchemish project (Wilkinson / Wilkinson / Peltenburg 2011, fig. 6).

Fig. 3. Topographic plan of Area E. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

914

F. Zaina

Fig. 4. Area E south. Wall W.406 looking south towards the ramparts.

Fig. 5. Area E south. Walls W.404 and W.408 looking south. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

The Neo-Assyrian City Wall in the Outer Town at Karkemish

Fig. 6. The IA III pottery assemblage from Area E. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

915

916

F. Zaina

Fig. 7. Iron Age double city walls from Zincirli Höyük/Sam‘al (left) and Tell Rifa‘at/ Arpad (right) (Casana / Hermann 2010, figs 10a, f).

Fig. 8. Iron Age single city walls from Tell Halaf/Guzana (Langenneger et al. 1950, pl. 3) and Nimrud (Ur 2013, 19, fig. 2).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-058-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-059-8 (E-Book)