File loading please wait...
Citation preview
O R I E N TA L I A L OVA N I E N S I A A N A L E C TA Travels through the Orient and the Mediterranean World Essays presented to Eric Gubel
edited by VANESSA BOSCHLOOS, BRUNO OVERLAET, INGRID MORIAH SWINNEN and VÉRONIQUE VAN DER STEDE
P E E T ERS
TRAVELS THROUGH THE ORIENT AND THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD
Eric Gubel speaking on the occasion of his retirement at the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels.
ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA ————— 302 —————
GREATER MESOPOTAMIA STUDIES 3
TRAVELS THROUGH THE ORIENT AND THE MEDITERRANEAN WORLD Essays presented to Eric Gubel
edited by
VANESSA BOSCHLOOS, BRUNO OVERLAET, INGRID MORIAH SWINNEN and VÉRONIQUE VAN DER STEDE
PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, CT 2021
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the publisher, the editors, or the scientific institutions to which they belong. When using material protected by copyright, the responsibility to obtain permission to reproduce these images in this publication lies with the authors.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2021, Peeters Publishers, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven/Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved, including the rights to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form. ISBN 978-90-429-4272-1 eISBN 978-90-429-4273-8 D/2021/0602/120
CONTENTS FOREWORD .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
IX
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
XI
Marc LEBEAU Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (4) : Contrôle de la circulation et sécurité des accès à Tell Beydar (Syrie) à la fin de la période Jezireh archaïque IIIb . . . . . . . .
3
ERIC GUBEL’S
.
.
.
.
.
.
LE GRAND TOUR DE LA SYRIE
Emmanuelle CAPET et Carole ROCHE-HAWLEY Les funérailles du temple de Tell Kazel .
.
19
Lione DU PIÊD A perforated vessel with three loop-shaped legs from Tell Kazel, Syria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
Jacques LAGARCE La nécropole post-ugaritique sur le tell de Ras Shamra : quelques documents oubliés . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
Michel AL-MAQDISSI et Eva ISHAQ Travaux syriens à Amrith, IV. « La fouille de l’aire sacrée fut terminée le 22 décembre 1960 et le relevé de toute chose achevé ». Notice sur les premières campagnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
77
Guy BUNNENS A stela of the moon god from Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib. Contribution to the iconography of the moon god in the Neo-Assyrian period . .
99
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Arlette ROOBART Continuity and discontinuity. Pillar figurines from Tell Ahmar .
. 111
Joachim BRETSCHNEIDER und Greta JANS Nicht schön aber selten: Gedanken zur Koroplastik von Tell Tweini im frühen 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. . . . . . . . . . . . 121
VI
CONTENTS
TRAVELS IN MESOPOTAMIA AND THE GULF
Hendrik HAMEEUW Double-headed bird creatures in third millennium Mesopotamian iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Michel TANRET Decorum divinum. An extended variation of the dingir sign .
.
. 149
Karel VAN LERBERGHE and Gabriella VOET The whining scribe . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 165
Francis JOANNÈS Paṭāru « acheter » dans un texte de Maʻallānāte
.
.
.
.
.
. 173
John CURTIS, Nigel TALLIS and Ann SEARIGHT A bronze bowl with bird handles from Nimrud .
.
.
.
.
.
. 185
Georgina HERRMANN and Stuart LAIDLAW Glass inlays in Phoenician ivories . .
.
.
.
.
.
. 201
.
.
.
.
Véronique VAN DER STEDE Un « œil votif » mésopotamien au Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 Bruno OVERLAET Wine, drinking bowls and camels in pre-Islamic SE-Arabia .
.
. 229
Vanessa BOSCHLOOS The ‘ancient Near East’ in the early 21st century (AD). Observations on education, outreach and decolonisation through comics . . . 247
REISE IN DIE LEVANTE
Denyse HOMÈS-FREDERICQ An overview of the Belgian excavations at al-Lahun in central Jordan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Ingrid Moriah SWINNEN Fortification and town planning of the Early Bronze Age settlement at al-Lahun with reflections on contemporary urban settlements in the southern Levant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Claude DOUMET-SERHAL “Breathing from a lotus flower” in Middle Bronze Age Sidon .
. 289
VII
CONTENTS
Daphna BEN-TOR and Othmar KEEL Two exceptional motifs on Middle Bronze Age stamp-seal amulets 299 Bérénice LAGARCE-OTHMAN Some thoughts on the “pharaoh triumphant” and the Levant .
.
. 309
Jan COENARTS, Melissa SAMAES and Karin NYS Negotiating space: the role of Larnaca-Laxia tou Riou in a complex Late Bronze Age landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 Leila BADRE The AUB Museum Kamares Ware spouted jar in the context of the Levant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Benjamin SASS “Was the age of Solomon without monumental art?” The Frankfort– Albright dispute, more than sixty years later . . . . . . . . 345 Tatiana PEDRAZZI In search of Phoenician borders. Debating the existence of a true ‘Phoenician region’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 María Eugenia AUBET and Francisco J. NÚÑEZ Funerary landscape in the region of Tyre during the Iron Age .
. 385
Annie CAUBET, Elisabeth FONTAN, Hélène LE MEAUX et Marguerite YON Quelques imposteurs phéniciens . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 Françoise BRIQUEL CHATONNET Quelques réflexions sur l’évolution de l’écriture phénicienne à Byblos 413 François DE CALLATAŸ A Tyrian note. Overstruck Alexander tetradrachms from Tyre: an exception that twice confirms the rule . . . . . . . . . . 421
A JOURNEY FROM TUNISIA TO NORTHWEST EUROPE
Roald F. DOCTER A Carthaginian jug from the Douïmès necropolis at Carthage (1894)
435
Martín ALMAGRO-GORBEA Le bronze de Chalon, le scarabée de Mandeure et la « précolonisation » phénicienne dans le Rhône. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 Eugène WARMENBOL The ape, the myth, the legend. Phoenicians in the North .
.
.
. 463
Draft of the Portrait ‘phénicisant’ d’Eric Gubel, by Vincent Hénin (© vhenin 2019). Presented to him on 29 March 2019 on the occasion of his retirement from the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels.
FOREWORD
From his student years onwards, Eric Gubel had a keen interest in the ancient world and he travelled to almost all corners of the modern world to visit archaeological and historical sites to immerse himself in other cultures. On his many travels, he fell in love with local culture and gastronomy, and built a wide network of friends all over the globe. As befits a volume dedicated to such a well-travelled scholar, this volume is conceived as a journey, a Grand Tour of the ancient World, from Mesopotamia to the Phoenician West, from the 3rd millennium BCE to the first centuries of the current era. Four sections with essays written in English, French and German take the reader through the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. It is befitting a scholar who is renowned for his eloquence in many languages. We are happy to present in this volume essays from Belgian and international colleagues, friends and students with whom he worked closely together in excavations, in museums and in research projects. These contributions cover merely a selection of the many research fields to which Eric dedicated his career. The comprehensive publications list that follows this introduction testifies to his diverse interests. Phoenician art and history, the archaeology of the Levant and the study of seals and iconography are the fils rouges of his career. Since the late 1970s, many of us know Eric for his expertise on Phoenician art and history: from his PhD dissertation on Phoenician furniture (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1983) and exhibitions in Belgium and France, to his efforts in the framework of The Interuniversity Contact Group for Phoenician and Punic Studies, the series Studia Phoenicia and Transeuphratène and, since 2006, the Belgian Corpus of Phoenician and Punic Antiquities (International Union of Academies). Currently, he is finishing his new magnum opus, the catalogue of Phoenician seals in the collections of the Musée du Louvre and the Bibliothèque nationale de France. For nearly four decades, Eric was also very active as field supervisor and co-director of excavations, in Cyprus (Amathus), Syria (Tell Melebiyeh, Tell Kazel) and Lebanon (Tell Arqa, Tyre). Between 1996 and 1999 he was an expert for UNESCO when Lebanon began reconstruction after the Civil War, and he was the Belgian secretary for the Comité internationale pour la sauvegarde de Tyr. As secretary of the Assyriological Center Georges Dossin and as head of the Antiquity Department and curator of the Ancient Near East collection of the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, Eric Gubel’s interests also encompassed
X
FOREWORD
ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean world. He thus became member of the Belgian Royal Academy of Overseas Sciences, the Belgian School at Athens, the Association Égyptologique Reine Elisabeth, and numerous international professional organisations. Furthermore, Eric taught courses on art history, the ancient Near East, Egypt, and the Phoenician world at Vesalius College Brussels, and at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel until his retirement in 2019. The idea for this volume was conceived on the occasion of Eric’s retirement from the Royal Museums of Art and History and quickly gained momentum among his many friends and colleagues. The editors wish to warmly thank the authors for their contributions, their discretion during the preparation, and for respecting the stringent deadlines. We are indebted to Peeters Publishers and the editors of the OLA series for including this volume in their series; to Jean-Luc De Paepe (International Union of Academies) for his invaluable help in gathering Eric’s vast list of publications; to Eric’s spouse Kristine De Mulder for her help behind the scenes; to Vincent Henin for the ‘Gallo-Phoenician’ portrait drawing of Eric; and to the Assyriological Center Georges Dossin (Brussels) for organising the presentation of this volume. Vanessa BOSCHLOOS, Bruno OVERLAET, Ingrid Moriah SWINNEN, and Véronique VAN DER STEDE
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS*
1977 GUBEL, E. 1977, Klei en metaal. Vormgeven en spelen met vuur, Brussel: s.ed. 1979 GUBEL, E. 1979, ‘Vijf Fenicische ivoren uit Nimrud in de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis’, Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 49 (1977), 67-88. 1980 GUBEL, E. 1980, ‘Muséographica: Trois expositions sur la Phénicie et le Proche-Orient au Ier millénaire av.n.è.’, Akkadica 20, 18-23. GUBEL, E. 1980, ‘An Essay on the Axe-bearing Astarte and her Role in a Phoenician Triad’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 8, 1-17. 1981 GUBEL, E. 1981, ‘Tell ‘Arqa (N. Libanon)’, in Tien jaar Kunstgeschiedenis en Archeologie aan de V.U.B., Brussel: Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 12. GUBEL, E. 1981, ‘Review of G. Bunnens, L’expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. Essai d’interprétation fondé sur une analyse des traditions littéraires’, Latomus 40/2, 427-429. GUBEL, E., HOMÈS-FRÉDÉRICQ, D. 1981, ‘Tyr, la ville aux huit civilisations’, in Sauvons Tyr. Les phéniciens et nous, Jambes: Musée de Mariemont/Copie Tout, 10-14. HOMÈS-FRÉDÉRICQ, D., GUBEL, E. 1981, Redt Tyrus, stad der acht beschavingen. 24 april tot 10 mei 1981 – Sauvons Tyr, la ville aux huit civilisations. 24 avril au 10 mai 1981, Bruxelles: Comité international pour la sauvegarde de Tyr. 1982 GUBEL, E. 1982, ‘Notes sur un fragment de statuette phénicienne de la région d’Amurru’, Archéologie au Levant. Recueil Roger Saidah, Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 225-231. GUBEL, E. 1982, ‘Monnaies romaines’, in F. VANDENABEELE, K. DE MULDER (eds.), Chypre. 8000 ans de civilisations entre trois continents, Morlanwelz: Musée royal de Mariemont, 66-75. HOMÈS-FRÉDÉRICQ, D., GUBEL, E., DE COSTER-GHANDOUR, N., VANDEWEERT, C., Sceaux-cylindres de Syrie – Rolzegels uit Syrië, Bruxelles: Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire.
* We have aimed to be as comprehensive as possible, but some book reviews and research reports may have been overlooked.
XII
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
1983 BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1983, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues I’, Syria 60, 335-341. GUBEL, E. 1983, ‘A Luristan-type Axe from Northern Phoenicia’, Berytus 31, 151-155. GUBEL, E. 1983, ‘Art in Tyre during the Early First Millennium B.C. A Preliminary Survey’, in E. GUBEL, É. LIPÍNSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Redt Tyrus. Fenicische geschiedenis – Sauvons Tyr. Histoire phénicienne (Studia Phoenicia I-II), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 23-52. GUBEL E., LIPÍNSKI, É., SERVAIS-SOYEZ, B. (eds.) 1983, Redt Tyrus. Fenicische geschiedenis – Sauvons Tyr. Histoire phénicienne (Studia Phoenicia I-II), Leuven: Peeters Publishers. 1985 BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1985, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues II’, Syria 61, 171-186. COLLON, D., GUBEL, E., LAMBRECHTS, J. 1985, ‘Mesopotamische en Egyptische glyptiek in de verzamelingen van het Museum Vleeshuis te Antwerpen. Omtrent vier ongepubliceerde zegels’, Antwerpen 31/3, 130-136. GUBEL, E. 1985, ‘Notes on a Phoenician Seal in the Royal Museums for Art and History (CGPH.1)’, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16, 91-110. GUBEL, E. 1985, ‘Fenicische en Noordsyrische ivoren uit Nimrud in de Koninklijke Musea voor Kunst en Geschiedenis te Brussel’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 56, 43-76. GUBEL, E. 1985, ‘Phoenician Lioness Heads from Nimrud: Origin and Function’, in E. GUBEL, É. LIPÍNSKI (eds.), Phoenicia and its Neighbours. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held on the 9th and 10th of December 1983 at the “Vrije Universiteit Brussel”, in cooperation with the “Centrum voor Myceense en Archaïsch-Griekse Cultuur” (Studia Phoenicia III), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 181-202. GUBEL, E. 1985, ‘Het Witte Goud van de Feniciërs. Olifanten en olifanten-handel in het oude Nabije Oosten’, in C. KRUYFHOOFT (ed.), Zoom op Zoo. Antwerp Zoo focusing on Arts and Sciences, Antwerpen: Koninklijke Maatschappij voor Dierkunde, 305319. GUBEL, E., BORDREUIL, P. 1985, ‘Une statuette fragmentaire portant le nom de la Baalat Gubal’, Semitica 35, 5-11. GUBEL, E., LIPÍNSKI, É. (eds.) 1985, Phoenicia and its Neighbours. Proceedings of the Colloquium Held on the 9th and 10th of December 1983 at the “Vrije Universiteit Brussel”, in cooperation with the “Centrum voor Myceense en Archaïsch-Griekse Cultuur” (Studia Phoenicia III), Leuven: Peeters Publishers. LEBEAU, M., GUBEL, E., MONCHAMBERT, J.-Y. 1985, ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la première campagne de fouilles à Tell Melebiya (Moyen Khabour) - printemps 1984’, Akkadica 45, 1-31. 1986 BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1986, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues III’, Syria 63, 417-435. GUBEL, E. 1986, ‘The Iconography of the Gem MAI 3650 Reconsidered’, Aula Orientalis 4, 111-118.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XIII
GUBEL, E. 1986, ‘Une nouvelle représentation du culte de la Baalat Gebal?’, in C. BONNET, É. LIPÍNSKI, P. MARCHETTI (eds.), Religio Phoenicia (Studia Phoenicia IV), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 263-276. GUBEL, E. 1986, ‘Enkele uitzonderingsgevallen in de verhouding tussen tekst en monument in de Fenicische beschaving’, in A. THEODORIDES, P. NASTER, J. RIES (eds.), Archéologie et philologie dans l’étude des civilisations orientales, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 45-57. GUBEL, E., BUNNENS, G., AUBET SEMMLER, M.E., CAUBET, A., FERNANDEZ, J.H., LIPÍNSKI, É. 1986, Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen, Bruxelles: Générale de Banque. 1987 BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1987, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues IV’, Syria 64, 309-321. GUBEL, E. 1987, Phoenician Furniture. A Typology based on Iron Age Representations with Reference to the Iconographical Background (Studia Phoenicia VII), Leuven: Peeters Publishers. GUBEL, E. 1987, ‘Antiquités carthaginoises aux Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire à Bruxelles: Les amulettes puniques’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 58, 19-36. GUBEL, E. 1987, ‘Syro-Cypriote Cubical Stamps: The Phoenician Connection (CGPH.2)’, in É. LIPÍNSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. (Studia Phoenicia V), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 195-224. GUBEL, E., CAUET, S. 1987, ‘Un nouveau type de coupe phénicienne’, Syria 64, 193204. 1988 BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1988, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues V’, Syria 65, 437-456. GUBEL, E. 1988, ‘Phoenician Seals in the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam (CGPH.3)’, Rivista di Studi Fenici XVI/2, 145-163. GUBEL, E. 1988, ‘A Group of Egyptian Scarabs from Tell Rechidiyeh’, Studi di egittologia e di antichità puniche 3, 67-92. 1989 GUBEL, E. 1989, ‘À propos du marzeah d’Assurbanipal’, in M. LEBEAU, P. TALON (eds.), Reflets des deux fleuves. Volume de mélanges offerts à André Finet (Akkadica Supplementum 6), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 47-53. 1990 BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., AL-MAQDISSI, M., SADER, H. 1990, ‘Tell Kazel, Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum, 1985-1987. Preliminary Reports’, Berytus 38, 10-124. BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E. 1990, ‘Bulletin d’Antiquités Archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues VI’, Syria 67, 483-520. GUBEL, E. 1990, ‘Kazel/Sumur à l’époque achéménide’, Transeuphratène 3, 37-49. GUBEL, E. 1990, ‘Le sceau de Menahem et l’iconographie royale’, Semitica 38, 167170.
XIV
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
GUBEL, E. 1990, ‘La glyptique et la genèse de l’iconographie monétaire phénicienne’, in T. HACKENS, G. MOUCHARTE (eds.), Numismatique et histoire économique phéniciennes et puniques. Actes du Colloque tenu à Louvain-la-Neuve, 13-16 mai 1987. Travaux du Groupe de contact interuniversitaire d’études phéniciennes et puniques sous les auspices du F.N.R.S. (Studia Phoenicia IX; Publications d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art de l’UCL LVIII; Numismatica Lovaniensia 9), Louvain-laNeuve: Université catholique de Louvain, 1-11. GUBEL, E. 1990, ‘Antwerp. Museum Vleeshuis’, in F. VANDENABEELE, R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities 13: Cypriote Antiquities in Belgium (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology XX: 13), Jonsered: Paul Åström Forlag, 47. 1991 GUBEL, E. (ed.) 1991, Du Nil à l’Escaut – Van Nijl tot Schelde, Bruxelles: Blondé/ Banque Bruxelles Lambert. GUBEL, E. 1991, ‘Notes sur l’iconographie royale sigillaire’, in E. ACQUARO (ed.), Atti del II° congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma, 9-14 novembre 1987 (Collezione di Studi Fenici 30), Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche/Istituto per la Civiltà Fenicia e Punica, 913-922. GUBEL, E. 1991, ‘From Amathous to Zarephad and Back Again’, in F. VANDENABEELE, R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference of Cypriote Studies, Brussels-Liège-Amsterdam, 29 May-1 June 1989, Nicosia: Leventis Foundation, 131-138. 1992 GUBEL, E. 1992, ‘Notes iconographiques à propos de trois sceaux phéniciens inédits (CGPH.4)’, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientali IV, 167-186. GUBEL, E. 1992, ‘Art phénicien. Art tyrien’, in Tyr et la formation des civilisations Méditerranéennes. Actes du symposium UNESCO, Paris 1990, Araya: UNESCO, 161174. GUBEL, E. 1992, 52 lemmae, in É. LIPÍNSKI, C. BAURAIN, C. BONNET, J. DEBERGH, E. GUBEL, V. KRINGS (eds.), Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, Paris/ Turnhout: Brepols, passim. GUBEL, E. 1992, ‘Review of Antoine Hermary, Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre. Sculptures. Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités orientales’, Syria 69/3-4, 476479. LIPÍNSKI, É., BAURAIN, C., BONNET, C., DEBERGH, J., GUBEL, E., KRINGS, V. (eds.) 1992, Dictionnaire de la civilisation phénicienne et punique, Paris/Turnhout: Brepols. 1993 GUBEL, E. (ed.) 1993, De sfinx van Wenen. Sigmund Freud, kunstkenner en verzamelaar – Le sphinx de Vienne. Sigmund Freud, l’art et l’archéologie, Gent: Ludion. GUBEL, E. 1993, ‘The Iconography of Inscribed Phoenician Glyptic’, in B. SASS, C. UEHLINGER (eds.), Studies in the Iconography of Northwest Semitic Inscribed Seals. Proceedings of a symposium held in Fribourg on April 17-20, 1991 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 125), Freiburg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 101-129.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XV
1994 BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., CAPET, E., PANAYOT, N. 1994, ‘Tell Kazel (Syrie). Rapport préliminaire sur les 4e - 8e campagnes de fouilles (1988-1992)’, Syria LXXI, 259359. GUBEL, E., 1994, ‘A new Sidonian coffin in the U.S.A.’, Studia Varia Bruxellensia III, 83-98. GUBEL, E., 1994, ‘Fenicia, arte’, in Encyclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale. Secondo Supplemento 1971-1994. Vol. II. Carsoli-Gwalior, Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 628-631. GUBEL, E., 1994, ‘Freud and Aphrodite: a Forgotten Collector of Cypriote Art’, in F. VANDENABEELE, R. LAFFINEUR (eds.), Cypriot Stone Sculpture. Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Cypriote Studies. Brussels-Liège, 17-19 May, 1993, Brussels-Liège: Buteneers, 55-62. GUBEL, E. 1994, ‘Byblos: l’art de la métropole phénicienne’, in E. ACQUARO, F. MAZZA, S. RIBICHINI, G. SCANDONE, P. XELLA (eds.), Biblo. Una città e la sua cultura (Collezione di Studi Fenici 34), Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 73-96, pls I-IX. 1995 GUBEL, E. (ed.) 1995, À l’ombre de Babel. L’art du Proche-Orient ancien dans les collections belges – In de schaduw van Babel. Kunst van het oude Nabije Oosten in Belgische verzamelingen, Leuven: Peeters Publishers. GUBEL, E. (ed.) 1995, Egypte Onomwonden. De Egyptische verzameling van het Museum Vleeshuis, Antwerpen: Pandora. GUBEL, E., 1995, ‘Musées et collections archéologiques du Liban’, Le monde de la Bible 93, 52-53. GUBEL, E. 1995, ‘New light on the inscriptions of the “Sidonian” sarcophagi’, National Museum News I, 20-21. GUBEL, E., 1995, ‘Europe en Asie’, Ulysse 40, 12-17. GUBEL, E., 1995, ‘Capitaines courageux’, Ulysse/Télérama 1995, 26-29. GUBEL, E., 1995, ‘À la recherche des Phéniciens. Vingt ans de périls et de périples’, in S. MOSCATI (ed.), I Fenici. Ieri, oggi, domani. Ricerche, scoperte, progetti (Roma 3 - 5 marzo 1994), Roma: Accademia Nazionale deil Lincei, 507-517. GUBEL, E., 1995, ‘Phoenician foundations in archaeological perspective’, in S. MAZZONI (ed.), Nuove fondazioni nel vicino oriente antico: realtà e ideologia. Atti del colloquio 4 - 6 dicembre 1991, Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche del Vicino Oriente, Università degli Studi di Pisa, Pisa: Giardini, 341-355. GUBEL, E. 1995, ‘The AUB Excavations at Tell Kazel, Syria: The Oriental Material from Area I’, in M.F. FANTAR, M. GHAKI (eds.), Actes du IIIe congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques. Tunis 11-16 novemer 1991. Vol. II, Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine, 118-127. GUBEL, E. 1995, ‘Review of Möbel in Ton, Untersuchungen zur archäologischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung der Terrakottamodelle von Tischen, Stühlen und Betten aus dem Alten Orient, by Nadja Cholidis’, Syria 72, 271-273. 1996 BORDREUIL, P., BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E. 1996, ‘Nouveaux documents épigraphiques de Tell Kazel’, Semitica 45, 37-47.
XVI
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
GUBEL, E. 1996, ‘The Seals’, in The Sanctuary of Apollo Hylates at Kourion: Excavations in the Archaic Precinct (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology CIX), Jonsered: Paul Åström Forlag, 163-168. GUBEL, E. 1996, ‘Carthage, Carthaginian Art’, in J. TURNER (ed.), The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 5, London/New York: Grove’s/Macmillan, s.v. GUBEL, E. 1996, ‘Phoenicia, Phoenician Art’, in J. TURNER (ed.), The Dictionary of Art. Vol. 24, London/New York: Grove’s/Macmillan, s.v. GUBEL, E. 1996, ‘The influence of Egypt on Western Asiatic Furniture, and Evidence from Phoenicia’, in G. HERRMANN (ed.), Furniture from Western Asia, Ancient and Traditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London, June 28 to 30, 1993, Mainz-am-Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 139-151. 1997 GUBEL, E. 1997, ‘A Cylinder Seal of Sesostris III from Retenu’, Göttinger Miszellen 156, 63-65. GUBEL, E. 1997, ‘Some ‘well-to-do Ladies’ of imperial Tripoli’, Varia Bruxellensia VI, 117-130. GUBEL, E. 1997, ‘Cinq bulles inédites des archives tyriennes de l’époque perse’, Semitica 47, 54-60. GUBEL, E. 1997, ‘La royauté phénicienne d’après le paramètre iconographique’, Cahiers d’Orient 3, 131-156. GUBEL, E. 1997, ‘Piranèse et les Phéniciens du Caffé degl’Inglesi, Piazza di Spagna’, in E. ACQUARO (ed.), Alle soglie della classicità: il mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati. Vol. I, Storia e culture, Pisa/ Roma: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 213-222. GUBEL, E. 1997, catalogue entries, in P. TALON, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), La Syrie: aux origines de l’écriture, Paris/Turnhout: Brepols, 290-293. 1998 BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E., 1998, Les Phéniciens. Aux origines du Liban (Découvertes Gallimard 358), Paris: Gallimard. GUBEL, E. 1998, ‘E pluribus unum. Nubian, Libyan and Phoenician Bastet-sphinxes’, in W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOOLS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian religion: the last thousand years. Studies dedicated to the memory of Jan Quaegebeur. Vol. I (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 84), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 629-645. GUBEL, E. 1998, ‘Notes on the use of moulds in the propagation of Phoenician iconography’, in R. ROLLE, K. SCHMIDT, R. DOCTER (eds.), Archäologische Studien in Kontaktzonen der antiken Welt. Festschrift Hans Georg Niemeyer zum 65. Geburtstag am 30. November 1998 (Veröffentlichungen der Joachim-Jungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 87), Göttingen/Hamburg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht/BPR Publishers, 477-488. 1999 BAERT, L.-P., GUBEL, E. 1999, ‘Rasoir punique de Carthage. Notes de restauration’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 70, 99-101. BORDREUIL, P., GUBEL, E., BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F. 1999, ‘Bulletin d’antiquités archéologiques du Levant inédites ou méconnues VII’, Syria 76, 237-280.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XVII
BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E. 1999, I Fenici. Alle origini del Libano, Milano: Electa. CAPET, E., GUBEL, E. 1999, ‘Tell Kazel: Six Centuries of Iron Age Occupation (c. 1200612 B.C.)’, in G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement VII), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 425-457. GUBEL, E. 1999, ‘Un chef d’œuvre de l’art orientalisant retrouvé: la pyxide Tyszkiewicz aux Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles (A 1161)’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 70, 103-121. GUBEL, E. 1999, ‘Die Phönizier’, in O. BINST (ed.), Die Levante. Geschichte und Archäologie im Nahen Osten, Köln: Köneman, 46-79 [translated to French, English, Italian, Spanish and Dutch]. 2000 BADRE, L., GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Tell Kazel Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum 19931998. Third Preliminary Report’, Berytus XLIV (1999), 123-204. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘A demon from ancient Gozan (North Syria) in the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels (O.4705)’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 71, 43-52. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Multicultural and multimedial aspects of early Phoenician art, c. 1200675 B.C.’, in C. UEHLINGER (ed.), Images as Media. Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium BCE). Proceedings of an international symposium held in Fribourg on November 25-29, 1997 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175), Freiburg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 185-214. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Das libyerzeitliche Ägypten und die Anfänge der phönizischen Ikonographie’, in M. GÖRG, G. HÖLBL (eds.), Ägypten und der östliche Mittelmeerraum im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Akten des Interdisziplinären Symposions am Institut für Ägyptologie der Universität München 25.-27.10.1996 (Ägypten und Altes Testament 44), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 69-100. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Amurru, Sumur and the Mitanni: New Historical Perspectives’, 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, Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 573583. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Nouveaux documents pour l’étude de la civilisation phénicienne continentale’, in M. BARTHÉLEMY, M.E. AUBET-SEMMLER (eds.), Actas del IV Congreso internacional de studios fenicios y púnicos. Cádiz, 2 al 6 de octobre de 1995. Vol. 3, Cadiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 1005-1018. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Miroirs et reflets d’Orient. Le miroir dans les civilisations du ProcheOrient aux IIe et Ier millénaires av. J.-C.’, in G. SENNEQUIER (ed.), Miroirs. Jeux et reflets depuis l’Antiquité, Paris: Somogy, 18-21, 57, 95. GUBEL, E. 2000, catalogue entries, in CENTRE DE CULTURA CONTEMPORÀNIA DE BARCELONA (ed.), La fundació de la ciutat: Mesopotàmia, Grècia, Roma – La fundación de la ciudad: Mesopotamia, Grecia, Roma, Barcelona: Barcelona Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, 174, 191-192, 197. GUBEL, E. 2000, catalogue entries, in Les jardins de l’imaginaire, Binche: Musée international du Carnaval et du Masque, 14. GUBEL, E. 2000, ‘Review of Frieda Vandenabeele, Figurines on Cypriote Jugs holding an Oinochoe’, L’Antiquité Classique 69, 535-537.
XVIII
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
2001 GUBEL, E. 2001, ‘The Breath of Life or: the Riddle of the Ram-headed sceptre’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 13, 35-44. GUBEL, E. 2001, 8 lemmae in J. LECLANT (ed.), Dictionnaire de l’Antiquité, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. GUBEL, E. 2001, catalogue entries, in A. NICOLAU (ed.), Aliments sagrats – Alimentos sagrados – Sacred foods, Barcelona: Museo d’Historia de la Ciutat, 203, 280. GUBEL, E. 2001, catalogue entries, in Du blé au pain, Wéris: Musée des Mégalithes de Wéris, 27-28, 96-97. 2002 CAUBET, A., FONTAN, E., GUBEL, E. 2002, Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités orientales. Art phénicien. La sculpture de tradition phénicienne, Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. GUBEL, E. 2002, ‘The Anthroponym ‘hr: New Light on the Iconography of Horon?’, in M.G. GUZZO-AMADASI, M. LIVERANI, P. MATTHIAE (eds.), Da Pyrgi a Mozia: studi sull’archeologia del Mediterraneo in memoria di Antonia Ciasca (Vicino Oriente Quaderno 3), Roma: Università degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, 269-297. 2003 EVERS, C., GUBEL, E. 2003, Da Pompei a Roma. De Oudheid Herontdekt – Da Pompei a Roma. L’Antiquité Redécouverte, Bruxelles/Gent: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire/ Snoeck. EVERS, C., GUBEL, E. 2003, ‘Le fonti archeologiche’, in O. CALABRESE, U. ECO (eds.), Venere svelata. La Venere di Urbino di Tiziano, Milano: Silvana, 135-139. GUBEL, E. 2003, ‘À propos d’un sceau phénicien épigraphe représentant le dieu Bés’, Bulletin des Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 74, 45-61. GUBEL, E. 2003, ‘Review of Phönizische Anthropoide Sarkophage, by Katja Lembke’, BASOR 332, 98-100. 2004 GUBEL, E. 2004, ‘Cumont & C° au Pays des 1001 nuits/ennuis’, in V. KRINGS, I. TASSIGNON (eds.), Archéologie dans l’empire ottoman autour de 1900: entre politique, économie et science, Bruxelles/Rome: Istituto Storico Belga di Roma, 97-110. 2005 GUBEL, E. 2005, ‘Phoenician and Aramean bridle-harness decoration’, in C.E. SUTER, C. UEHLINGER (eds.), Crafts and Images in Contact. Studies on Eastern Mediterranean art of the first millennium BCE, Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 111-147. GUBEL, E. 2005, ‘Phönizische Kunst’, in D.-O. EDZARD (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Band 10 – Lieferung 7/8: Pflanzenkunde Priesterverkleidung, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 539-543. GUBEL, E. 2005, 13 lemmae, in J. LECLANT (ed.), Dictionnaire de l’Antiquité, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. GUBEL, E. 2005, catalogue entries, in Sex, drugs en rock-n’-roll in de oudheid, Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XIX
2006 GUBEL, E. 2006, ‘Notes on the Phoenician Component of the Orientalizing Horizon’, in C. RIVA, N. VELLA (eds.), Debating Orientalization. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 10), London/Oakville: Equinox, 85-93. GUBEL, E. 2006, catalogue entries, in HISTORISCHES MUSEUM DER PFALZ SPEYER (ed.), Pracht und Prunk der Grosskönige. Das Persische Weltreich, Stuttgart: Theiss, 111, 141, 178-179, 199. GUBEL, E. 2006, catalogue entries, in E. WARMENBOL (ed.), Sphinx. Les gardiens de l’Égypte, Bruxelles: Fonds Mercator, 183-185 (nrs. 8-9), 276 (nr. 156), 228-230 (nrs. 175), 295-301 (nrs. 181-189) [and Dutch edition]. GUBEL, E. 2006, catalogue entries, in E. WARMENBOL (ed.), La caravane du Caire – l’Égypte sur d’autres rives, Liège: Musée Curtius, 276-277 (nrs. 78-79). GUBEL, E. 2006, catalogue entries, in M. TEHEUX (ed.), Entre ciel et terre. Les portes du mystère. L’Univers du sacré, Huy: s.ed., 25 (nr. 19), 29 (nr. 26), 31 (nr. 30), 32 (nr. 31), 34 (nr. 34), 42-43 (nrs. 46-48), 44-45 (nrs. 49-50), 50 (nr. 57), 64 (nr. 81), 66-67 (nrs. 84-85). 2007 BADRE, L., GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘Les fouilles de Tell Kazel (Sumur?)’, Dossiers d’Archéologie hors-série 13 «La Méditerranée des Phéniciens», 46-49. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., 2007, ‘Tell Kazel’, in E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX (eds.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe, 6 novembre 2007 - 20 avril 2008, Paris, Paris: Somogy éditions d’art/Institut du monde arabe, 269-270. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., THALMANN, J.-P. 2007, ‘Trois sanctuaires phéniciens: Sarepta, Tell Arqa, Tell Kazel’, in E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX (eds.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe, 6 novembre 2007 - 20 avril 2008, Paris, Paris: Somogy éditions d’art/Institut du monde arabe, 58-59. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E., 2007, Les Phéniciens. Aux origines du Liban (Découvertes Gallimard 358) [2nd revised edition], Paris: Gallimard. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘Arwad’, in E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX (eds.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe, 6 novembre 2007 - 20 avril 2008, Paris, Paris: Somogy éditions d’art/Institut du monde arabe, 267. GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘L’altissime Astarté de la Via Appia Nuova et ses racines orientales’, Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 24, 53-58. GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘Les dieux de la cité’, Connaissance des arts - Hors-série 336 «La Méditerranée des Phéniciens», 26-31. GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘Varia Irqatica’, in H. CHARAF (ed.), Inside the Levantine Maze. Archaeological and Historical Studies Presented to Jean-Paul Thalmann on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday (Archaeology and History in Lebanon 26-27), Beirut: The Lebanese British Friends of the National Museum, 4-16. GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘Histoires de pierres: lionnes et sphinges léontocéphales dans l’iconographie araméo-phénicienne du Fer II’, in F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, C. ROCHE, E. GUBEL (eds.), Hommages Pierre Bordreuil (Orient & Méditerranée 2), Paris: De Bocard, 131-142.
XX
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘L’art des «Phéniciens» d’Orient’, in E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX (eds.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe, 6 novembre 2007 - 20 avril 2008, Paris, Paris: Somogy éditions d’art/Institut du monde arabe, 111-117. GUBEL, E. 2007, ‘La glyptique phénicienne’, in E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX (eds.), La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage. Catalogue de l’exposition à l’Institut du monde arabe, 6 novembre 2007 - 20 avril 2008, Paris, Paris: Somogy éditions d’art/Institut du monde arabe, 194-197, 386-387. GUBEL, E. 2007, catalogue entries, in E. GUBEL, B. OVERLAET (eds.), Trésors de l’Antiquité, Proche-Orient et Iran. De Gilgamesh à Zénobie – Kunstschatten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten en Iran. Van Gilgamesh tot Zenobia, Bruxelles, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire/Mercatorfonds, passim. GUBEL, E., OVERLAET, B. (eds.) 2007, Trésors de l’Antiquité, Proche-Orient et Iran. De Gilgamesh à Zénobie – Kunstschatten uit het Oude Nabije Oosten en Iran. Van Gilgamesh tot Zenobia, Bruxelles, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire/Mercatorfonds. 2008 BADRE, L., GUBEL, E. 2008, ‘Tell Kazel en de Akkarvlakte, zuidelijke buur van de Jeblehregio’, in G. DE NUTTE, E. DUFLOU, H. HAMEEUW, D. VAN LANGENDONCK (eds.), Syria Icognita? Het verborgen verleden van de Syrische kuststreek, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 13-16. GUBEL, E. 2008, ‘Le trésor de Nimroud (Iraq) et l’art du royaume bicéphale tyrosidonien: remarques typologiques sur quelques bijoux des tombes I-II du Palais Nord-ouest’, in Rencontres organisées par l’Association pour la Sauvegarde de Tyr dans le cadre de la campagne UNESCO, Paris: AIST, 179-183. GUBEL, E. 2008, ‘Maurice Dunand et ses travaux sur la période phénicienne’, in M. ALMAQDISSI (ed.), Pionniers et protagonistes de l’archéologie syrienne 1860-1960. D’Ernest Renan à Sélim Abdulhak, Damas: DGAM, 37. GUBEL, E. 2008, ‘Ernest Renan et sa Mission de Phénicie’, in M. AL-MAQDISSI (ed.), Pionniers et protagonistes de l’archéologie syrienne 1860-1960. D’Ernest Renan à Sélim Abdulhak, Damas: DGAM, 205. GUBEL, E. 2008, catalogue entries, in E. GUBEL, B. OVERLAET (eds.), De Gilgamesh à Zénobie: Proche-Orient et Iran millénaires, Paris: Actes Sud/Imprimerie Nationale, passim. GUBEL, E., OVERLAET, B. (eds.) 2008, De Gilgamesh à Zénobie: Proche-Orient et Iran millénaires, Paris: Actes Sud/Imprimerie Nationale. 2009 EGGLER, J., GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘Bastet/Sekhmet (Levant, Phoenician colonies)’, in Iconography of Deities and Demons (electronic pre-publication), 9 pp. (, updated 14.01.2010) GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘Ibirta et le Nahr el-Bared. Notes de toponymie historique akkariote, I’, Syria 86, 221-232. GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘The Phoenician temple at Tell Kazel (Sumur)’, in Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2008 (BAAL-Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises Hors-Série VI), Beyrouth: Ministère de la Culture/DGA, 453-468
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XXI
GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘Héracléopolis et l’interaction culturelle entre l’Égypte et la côte phénicienne pendant la Troisième Période Intermédiaire’, in W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 191), Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters Publishers, 333-350. GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘Phoenician Towns and Harbours in the North: the Case of Iron Age Sumur (Tell Kazel, Syria)’, in S. HELAS, D. MARZOLI (eds.), Phönizisches und punisches Städtewesen. Akten der internationalen Tagung in Rom vom 21. bis 23. Februar 2007 (Iberia Archaeologica 13), Mainz-am-Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 45-54. GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘The “unusually-shaped ivories” (USI) Group with Stylized Trees’, in S.M. CECCHINI, S. MAZZONI, E. SCIGLIUZZO (eds.), Syrian and Phoenician Ivories of the Early First Millennium BCE: Chronology, Regional Styles and Iconographic Repertories, Patterns of Inter-Regional Distribution. Acts of the International Workshop, Pisa 9-11 December 2004, Pisa: ETS, 187-207. 2010 GUBEL, E. 2010, ‘Tell Kazel (Syrië) en de Akkarvlakte: Beknopt overzicht van een kwart eeuw opgravingcampagnes’, Mededelingen van de Zittingen van de Koninklijke Academie der Overzeese Wetenschappen/Bulletin des Séances de l’Académie royale des Sciences Outre-Mer 56, 401-416. GUBEL, E. 2010, ‘‘By the rivers of Amurru’. Notes de topographie historique du Akkar-II’, in G. BARTOLONI, P. MATTHIAE, L. NIGRO, L. ROMANO (eds.), Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus: nuove acquisizioni. Atti del Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo, Roma, 24-25 novembre 2008 (Vicino Oriente. Anuario del Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropoloiche dell’ Antichità IV), Roma: Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, 117-130. GUBEL, E., SMITH, J.S. 2010, ‘Appendix III: A New Cypro-Aegean Cylinder Seal from Hala Sultan Tekke, T.1, MLA 1173’, Report of the Department of Antiquities, 40-44. 2011 GUBEL, E., LOFFET, H.-C. 2011, ‘Sidon, Qedem and the Land of Iay’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 34-35 (2011-2012), 79-92. 2012 GUBEL, E. 2012, ‘Episème de bouclier ou égide (sam’alite?) à inscription ouest sémitique’, in T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life. Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 220), Leuven/Paris/Walpole, MA: Peeters Publishers, 253-268. GUBEL, E. 2012, catalogue entries, in D. PILIDES, N. PAPADIMITRIOU (eds.), Ancient Cyprus. Cultures in Dialogue, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 186-7 nr. 143, 224-225 nr. 209, 234-235 nr. 229, 256-257 nr. 262 [and French and Dutch editions]. GUBEL, E. 2012, catalogue entries, in P. AZARA (ed.), Antes Del Diluvio. Mesopotamia 3500-2100 A.C., Barcelona: Obra Social “la Caixa”, passim. GUBEL, E., MASSAR, N. 2012, ‘The Birth of Cypriote Archaeology: 3.II. Cyprus and Belgium’, in D. PILIDES, N. PAPADIMITRIOU (eds.), Ancient Cyprus. Cultures in Dialogue, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 24-25 [and French and Dutch editions].
XXII
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
2013 GUBEL, E. 2013, ‘Decoding Phoenician Art: Pharaoh Triumphant’, Rivista di Studi Fenici XL/1 (2012), 21-38. GUBEL, E. 2013, ‘In Memoriam Glenn E. Markoe’, Carthage Studies 7, 1-6. GUBEL, E. 2013. ‘Review of Sagona, C. (ed.), Beyond the Homeland. Markers in Phoenician Chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series, 28). Editions Peeters, Leuven, 2008’, Bibliotheca Orientalis LXX/5-6, 783-786. 2014 BOSCHLOOS, V., DEVILLERS, A., GUBEL, E., HAMEEUW, H., JEAN, C., VAN GOETHEM, L., VAN OVERMEIRE, S., OVERLAET, B. 2014, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Glyptic Collections of the RMAH Reconsidered’, Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 83 (2012), 23-43. CAUBET, A., GUBEL, E. 2014, ‘Art figuré miniature’, in P. BORDREUIL, F. BRIQUELCHATONNET, C. MICHEL (eds.), Les débuts de l’histoire. Civilisations et cultures du Proche-Orient ancien, Paris: Editions Kheops [2nd revised edition], 394-402. GUBEL, E. 2014, ‘On the Interaction between Ammon, Moab and Edom with the Phoenician Coast: Some Addenda and Afterthoughts’, in I.M. SWINNEN, E. GUBEL (eds.), “From Gilead to Edom”. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Jordan in Honor Denyse Homès-Fredericq on the Occasion of Her Eightieth Birthday, Brussels: Cultura, 187-204. GUBEL, E. 2014. ‘Carthago in de spiegel van de 19e-eeuwse kunst’, in R. DOCTER, R. BOUSSOFFARA, P. TER KEURS (eds.), Carthago: Opkomst en ondergang, Leiden: Sidestone, 126-129. SWINNEN, I.M., GUBEL, E. (eds.) 2014, “From Gilead to Edom”. Studies in the Archaeology and History of Jordan in Honor Denyse Homès-Fredericq on the Occasion of Her Eightieth Birthday, Brussels: Cultura. 2015 GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘Un dépôt votif phénicien d’œufs d’autruche?’, Semitica et Classica VIII, 117-124. GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘In Memoriam Khaled al-Ass’ad’, Ex situ. Tijdschrift voor Vlaamse Archeologie 9, 25. GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘In the shadow of Jakin and Boaz. Notes on anthropomorphic columns and capitals in Phoenician sacral architecture’, in A.M. AFEICHE (ed.), Cult and ritual on the Levantine Coast and its impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2012 (BAAL-Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises Hors-Série X), Beirut: Ministry of Culture/DGA, 169-182. GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘Bronze Work in the Phoenician Homeland: A Preliminary Survey’, in J. JIMÉNEZ AVILLA (ed.), Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 45), Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 245-271. GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘Reflections of Carthage in nineteenth-century art’, in R. DOCTOR, R. BOUSSOFFARA, P. TER KEURS (eds.), Carthage: fact and myth, Leiden: Sidestone Press, 127-129. GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘Voorwoord – Avant-propos’, in L. DELVAUX, I. THERASSE (eds.), Sarcophages. Sous les Étoiles de Nout, Bruxelles: Editions Racine, 3.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XXIII
GUBEL, E. 2015, ‘Introduction’, in Masterpieces of the Cinquantenaire Museum, Brussels: Ludion, 6-11, and catalogue entries 27, 33, 36-37, 53, 56 [and Dutch and French editions]. 2016 GUBEL, E. 2016, ‘Henri Arnold Seyrig (1895-1973). Une passion pour la glyptique, II, La glyptique (paléo-)phénicienne’, in F. DUYRAT, F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, J.-M. DENTZER, O. PICARD (eds.), Syria. Supplément III. Henri Seyrig (1895-1973), Beyrouth: Presses de l’Ifpo, 203-210. GUBEL, E. 2016, ‘Crossing Continents: Phoenician Art and How to Read It’, in J. ARUZ, M. SEYMOUR (eds.), Assyria to Iberia - Art and Culture in the Iron Age, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 168-179. GUBEL, E., BOSCHLOOS, V. 2016, ‘Sous les étoiles de Thot. Le dieu lunaire dans l’art phénicien’, in M. BOTTO, S. FINOCCHI, G. GARBATTI, I. OGGIANO (eds.), Lo moi maestre e ‘l moi autore. Studi in onore di Sandro Filippo Bondí (Rivista di Studi Fenici XLIV), 87-97. 2018 GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Desperately seeking Kašpuna. Notes on the Historical Topography of the ‘Akkar Plain-3’, Akkadica 139/2, 109-126. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Milqart Herakles on a Persian Age Scarab from Sidon’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon, 48-49 (2018-2019), 96-107. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Rebuilt from Scrap. Notes on a new Aleppo-style steatite pyxis’, Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles 87-88 (2016-2017), 31-42. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘D’Orthosia à Ard Arṭousi. Notes de toponymie historique akkariote – IV’, in J. TAVERNIER, E. GORRIS, K. ABRAHAM, V. BOSCHLOOS (eds.), Topography and Toponymy in the Ancient Near East: Perspectives and Prospects (Publications de l’Institut Orientaliste de Louvain 71; Greater Mesopotamia Studies 1), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 113-128. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Imitations, faux et ‘faux-faux’ dans le domaine phénicien’, in N. GRIMAL, O. PERDU, H. GABER (eds.), Imitations, copies et faux dans les domaines pharaoniques et de l’Orient ancien. Actes du colloque Collège de France - Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, 14-15 janvier 2016 (Études d’égyptologie 16), Paris: AIBL/Soleb, 154-175. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Préface’, in D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, P. GARELLI (†), J.-M. DURAND, P. JOANNÈS, H. HAMEEUW, Z. NIEDERREITER, Maʽllānāte. Archives d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien (Akkadica Supplementum 13; Greater Mesopotamia Studies 2), Bruxelles: Cultura, 5. 2019 BOSCHLOOS, V., GUBEL, E., DOCTER, R. 2019, ‘Phoenician and Punic Antiquities in the Heart of Europe. The Corpus of Phoenician and Punic Antiquities in Belgium’, in L. BONADIES, I. CHIRPANLIEVA, E. GUILLON (eds.), Les Phéniciens, Les Puniques et Les Autres. Echanges et Identités (Orient et Méditerranée 31), Paris: de Boccard, 319-323. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., CAPET, E., GUBEL, E., ROCHE-HAWLEY, C. (eds.) 2019, Nuit de pleine lune sur l’Amurru. Mélanges offerts à Leila Badre, Paris: Geuthner.
XXIV
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E. 2019, ‘Nouveaux documents épigraphiques de Tell Kazel (Syrie)’, in F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, E. CAPET, E. GUBEL, C. ROCHEHAWLEY (eds.), Nuit de pleine lune sur l’Amurru. Mélanges offerts à Leila Badre, Paris: Geuthner, 131-143. GUBEL, E. 2019, ‘Arte e artigianato’, in A. RUSSO, F. GUARNERI, P. XELLA, J.A. ZAMORA (eds.), Carthago. Il Mito Immortale, Milano: Mondadori Electa, 287-289. GUBEL, E. 2019, ‘Phoenician Art and Iconography’, in C. LOPEZ-RUIZ, B. DOAK (eds.), Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 349-360. GUBEL, E., MASSAR, N. 2019, ‘Egkomi, Cyprus and Brussels, Belgium: the Cypriot Holdings of the Royal Museums of Art and History’, in D. PILIDES (ed.), The Tombs of Egkomi. British Museum Excavations, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, 177-197. Forthcoming BOSCHLOOS, V., GUBEL, E., ‘The Sidon Excavations 2014-2017: The Scarabs (Part 2)’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 50-51 (Autumn-Spring 2019-2020). GUBEL, E., La glyptique phénicienne du Ier millénaire av. J.C., Paris (Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Musée du Louvre, Musée communal de Péronne et Musée Lattes, Montpellier), Paris. GUBEL, E., La glyptique phénicienne et punique. Catalogue raisonné des sceaux conservés dans les collections françaises: Cabinet des Médailles et Antiques, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Musée du Louvre, Musées de Péronne, Cannes et Lattes (Corpus des antiquités phéniciennes et puniques, France II - Union académique Internationale), Paris. GUBEL, E., The mysterious Van Branteghem Collection of Ancient Near Eastern cylinders and Stamp Seals, Bruxelles (e-publication). GUBEL, E., ‘Nimrud bowl 26 and the Temples of Jerusalem and Sidon’, Iraq. GUBEL, E., ‘An Archaic Phoenician Bronze Bowl of the Aproned Sphinx Group’, Rivista di Studi Fenici. GUBEL, E., ‘From Collection to Museum: the Near Eastern Holdings of the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels’, Berytus. GUBEL, E., ‘Baal Arwad rules the Waves’, Folia Phoenicia. GUBEL, E., ‘Asiti, An ostracized Sidonian goddess’, in A.M. AFEICHE, C. DOUMETSERHAL (eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on ‘Tyre, Sidon, Byblos Three Global Harbours of the Ancient World’, Beirut 25-29 October 2017 (BAALBulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises Hors-série), Beirut: Ministry of Culture/DGA. GUBEL, E., ‘Cherchez la femme: Luigi Calamatta et le périple d’un relief néo-assyrien aux Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire’, in V. VAN DER STEDE (ed.), Recueil Philippe Talon, Bruxelles. GUBEL, E., ‘Notes sur la renaissance d’un type de montures sigillaires du Fer I-II et leur propagation dans le bassin méditerranéen’, in H. CHARAF (ed.), Recueil Jean-Paul Thalmann (BAAL-Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises), Beirut: Ministère de la Culture/DGA. GUBEL, E., ‘New evidence on Phoenician Amphora Types and amphoric Inscriptions (dipinti, stamps)’, in R. DOCTER, E. GUBEL, V. MARTINEZ, HAHN MÜLLER (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Congress of Phoenician and Punic Amphorae, Ghent University 2018 (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement Series), Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT: Peeters Publishers, 6-29.
ERIC GUBEL’S LIST OF PUBLICATIONS
XXV
GUBEL, E., ‘Astarté-Lactans. Le premier relief phénicien découvert in situ à Tyr’, BAAL-Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises. GUBEL, E., AL-MAQDISSI M., ‘Un lot de situles égyptiennes d’un nouveau sanctuaire d’Amrit (Syrie)’. GUBEL, E., AYAA, A., ‘Les terres-cuites du sanctuaire phénicien de Tell Arqa (Irqata, Liban)’, BAAL-Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises. GUBEL, E., BOSCHLOOS, V., ‘The new charioteer curses from a Late Roman well in Tyre’. GUBEL, E., BOSCHLOOS, V., KALLAS, N., ALA’EDDINE, A., VAN RENGEN, V., HAMEEUW, H., SCOTT R.B., BAERT, L.-P., ‘The AUB Archaeological Museum excavations in Tyre Sector 7A. Preliminary report on a Late Roman context with defixio tablets’, BAALBulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture libanaises.
LE GRAND TOUR DE LA SYRIE
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4). CONTRÔLE DE LA CIRCULATION ET SÉCURITÉ DES ACCÈS À TELL BEYDAR (SYRIE) À LA FIN DE LA PÉRIODE JEZIREH ARCHAÏQUE IIIB Marc LEBEAU* À mon ami Eric, ce frère de la côte, en souvenir de Tell Melebiya, campagne de 1984, et des innombrables heureux moments passés en sa compagnie.
Considérations générales La fin de la période Jezireh archaïque IIIb (EJZ 3b, c. 2425/2330 av. n. è.) en Haute Mésopotamie – mais également l’époque contemporaine en Syrie et en Basse Mésopotamie – est marquée par un état d’insécurité quasi permanent, par une rivalité exacerbée entre les pouvoirs de l’époque (Ebla, Mari, Nagar, Armi, Eshnunna, Kish, Akkad, Uruk) comme semblent l’indiquer les textes de la documentation éblaïte de même que des considérations d’ordre archéologique. Assisté par des collègues philologues (Maria-Giovanna Biga, Alfonso Archi et Walther Sallaberger), j’ai essayé d’en rendre compte dans deux articles précédents destinés à préciser la chronologie des événements ayant conduit à la chute de plusieurs de ces entités territoriales qui se combattirent en vue d’acquérir l’hégémonie sur la Syrie du nord, la vallée de l’Euphrate et la Haute Mésopotamie1. C’est ainsi que vers 2350 av. n. è., Ebla et Nagar d’un côté, Mari, vraisemblablement alliée à Armi de l’autre, guerroient pour la conquête de territoires très riches et le contrôle des principaux axes commerciaux de l’époque: le Moyen Euphrate et la route qui, provenant des piémonts du Zagros, bifurquait vers l’ouest à hauteur de Ninive, menant ainsi du Tigre à l’Euphrate et par-delà à Alep et la Méditerranée. Ces rivalités et ces conflits quasi incessants sont ponctués de courts épisodes de paix menant à la conclusion d’alliances matrimoniales, de phases où s’activent les messagers et les diplomates, quand les alliances se font et se défont en des retournements subits dictés par la situation. * Centre européen de recherches sur la Haute Mésopotamie, Bruxelles. 1 LEBEAU 2016, 55-64 ; LEBEAU 2012a, 301-321.
4
M. LEBEAU
Les territoires contrôlés par ces villes royales, les puissances de l’époque, dépassent le cadre d’une cité-état. Ils préfigurent le concept de royaume. Des royaumes certes parfois limités en superficie mais dont la richesse, qu’elle soit liée aux revenus des récoltes, à l’exploitation des troupeaux, à l’artisanat ou au commerce, n’est certainement pas à négliger. L’accès aux sources du métal – cuivre et étain en particulier – est également un impératif majeur à cette époque où se développe la métallurgie du bronze. Outre le métal, acquérir d’autres ressources ou produits manufacturés à haute valeur ajoutée, susceptibles de souligner le statut social des élites locales, a certainement constitué un aiguillon important. La vision d’une Haute Mésopotamie conquise rapidement et d’un seul tenant par les troupes akkadiennes menées par Sargon aux alentours de 2340/2330 av. n. è. – vision qui a longtemps prévalu dans les études historiques sur cette époque – est à revoir en raison des résultats récents de la philologie et des découvertes archéologiques. Sargon s’est bien rendu maître de la région avant de la dépeupler, d’y installer quelques bases ou casernements, se contentant d’occuper quelques villes importantes dont la superficie et la population se rétractèrent drastiquement, tout en délaissant la campagne. Mais ce qui est nouveau est la constatation que, si cette capture du nord mésopotamien par les Akkadiens est bien réelle, elle ne fut rendue possible que grâce à l’affaiblissement rapide des pouvoirs qui auparavant se partageaient ces contrées. Les guerres entre Mari et Ebla sont désormais bien connues et illustrent cet état d’insécurité. Mari et Ebla n’étaient pas seules: elles comptaient des alliés et ces alliés, à l’occasion, changeaient de camp. D’autres pouvoirs existaient: Abarsal (probablement au début de la période), Nagar, Eshnunna, Kish. Sans compter les cités que les textes ne mentionnent pas (ou pas encore) mais dont la superficie et la nature des découvertes archéologiques qui y ont été réalisées ne manquent pas d’évoquer l’importance à l’époque. Les affrontements entre cités et royaumes ne se concluent pas nécessairement par la capture de l’ensemble du territoire ennemi par l’un des belligérants. Le pillage de récoltes, le contrôle de ressources naturelles, la prise de villages ou de petits centres urbains mènent à l’affaiblissement progressif du rival. La victoire peut être précédée par des campagnes d’attrition et se solde souvent par la destruction des remparts ou des bâtiments importants de l’entité vaincue, voire davantage. Un célèbre document découvert à Tell Mardikh, l’antique Ebla, mentionne les cités principales que l’on peut interpréter comme étant les chefs-lieux du royaume de Nagar2. Ce document est à dater des environs de 2350 av. n. è. et mentionne 2
SALLABERGER et UR 2004, 54 ; ARCHI 1998, 7-8.
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
5
notamment la ville de Nabatium. Ce terme équivaut à Na-ba4-daki, cité mentionnée dans les textes de Tell Beydar et, selon toute probabilité, correspond à son nom ancien, ainsi que l’a proposé W. Sallaberger3. Nabada faisait donc, à cette époque, partie du royaume de Nagar. Bien que le nom du souverain de Nagar ne soit jamais mentionné dans les textes découverts à Tell Beydar, sa présence à des événements importants organisés sur place est assurée4. Les données archéologiques (céramique et architecture) récoltées au terme de dix-sept campagnes de fouilles à Tell Beydar permettent de conclure que la chute de la cité précède d’une vingtaine d’années environ (une estimation basée sur les dégradations des bâtiments et sur l’évolution de la céramique) la conquête de la Haute Mésopotamie par Sargon. Or il semble que Nagar, le cœur du Royaume, soit tombée plus tard, à une date voisine de celle de la chute d’Ebla (cette dernière ayant été détruite par l’armée de Mari, si l’hypothèse avancée par les philologues d’Ebla est confirmée) et de la conquête finale du nord mésopotamien par les forces akkadiennes. Les luttes permanentes entre pouvoirs régionaux ont donc profondément marqué la Syrie et la Haute Mésopotamie entre les règnes d’Iblu-Il de Mari et IgrishHalab d’Ebla d’une part, et Sargon d’Akkad d’autre part, soit durant la presque totalité du 24e siècle (des alentours de 2390 à 2310 av. n. è. environ, date possible de la chute de Mari, suivant d’environ dix ans celle d’Ebla). Nous ne sommes malheureusement pas informés sur la phase antérieure, c’est-à-dire sur les débuts du Jezireh archaïque IIIb, faute de textes. Tell Beydar Les campagnes archéologiques menées par une équipe euro-syrienne à Tell Beydar ont permis de dégager, sous plusieurs phases d’occupation d’époque hellénistique, une partie importante de la cité du 3e millénaire en ville haute, une cité bâtie sur une succession de terrasses s’élevant vers le centre du site (Fig. 1). Comportant au moins cinq temples et deux édifices de nature palatiale, Nabada apparaît comme une ville de rang 2, dépendante de la capitale mais contrôlant un territoire et un ensemble de cités de moindre importance, de bourgades et d’installations agricoles. Certaines de celles-ci ont pu être identifiées5. Les traits fondamentaux de l’urbanisme de la cité de l’époque Jezireh archaïque IIIb de même que les bâtiments les plus importants de la cité ont été décrits dans les rapports de fouilles, pour la plupart publiés dans la série Subartu (Brepols Publishers). Cet urbanisme succède à celui d’une cité fondée et conçue sur un plan en couronne (une Kranzhügel). Certains bâtiments – en particulier 3 4 5
SALLABERGER 1998, 122-125. SALLABERGER et UR 2004, 54. SALLABERGER et UR 2004, 57, 62.
6
M. LEBEAU
Bâtiment B1(6)
Palais de l’Acropole / Bloc Officiel (4)
Palais Est (5)
Temple A (7)
Temples B & C (8)
Tour de garde (3)
Porte de l’Acropole (2)
Temple E / White Hall (9)
Parvis Sud (1)
Tell Beydar 2010 – Ville haute Niveaux Early Jezirah IIIb et antérieurs Contrôle de la circulation et sécurité des accès
Fig. 1 : Tell Beydar (campagne 2010), ville haute : contrôle de la circulation et sécurité des accès.
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
7
les sanctuaires et plus précisément le Temple E – sont presque identiques aux bâtiments de même fonction dans la capitale du royaume6. Les systèmes de remparts n’ont malheureusement été reconnus que de manière très sporadique, ceux-ci ayant été largement détruits par l’érosion naturelle. Je souhaiterais, dans ce court article, mettre l’accent sur des installations beaucoup plus légères ayant contribué à renforcer la sécurité dans les murs de la cité en permettant d’assurer le contrôle de segments de la voirie urbaine et de bâtiments d’importance significative. Ces aménagements modestes reflètent l’état d’insécurité qui prévalut en ces temps troublés. Il s’agit pour la plupart de constructions de qualité médiocre adossées mais non liées structurellement à des murs d’édifices officiels. Architecture sécuritaire structurelle (Fig. 1, n° 1-3) L’axe majeur de la cité de l’époque est la « voie royale » (Main Street) qui relie la porte sud du rempart intérieur (inexplorée car détruite par l’érosion, du moins dans sa phase Jezireh archaïque IIIb finale, soit Beydar 3b) au Palais de l’Acropole (également dénommé Bloc officiel). J’ai décrit de manière détaillée cette voie importante dans un article précédent7. Partant de la porte sud, conduisant à un vaste espace ouvert et pavé de briques cuites (Parvis Sud), bordée ensuite par des temples, franchissant une tour de garde, équipée dans sa partie supérieure d’une canalisation imposante et menant enfin au Palais de l’Acropole, cette « voie royale » est le nerf principal de la cité. Traversant plusieurs secteurs de celle-ci et menant à des bâtiments vitaux, elle offre, le long de son parcours, un condensé de l’architecture sécuritaire adoptée par les urbanistes du royaume qui se manifeste notamment par des points de contrôle successifs: les deux pièces menant au sud du Parvis Sud, son accès nord que nous avons dénommé Porte de l’Acropole, le verrou commandant la circulation vers les terrasses hautes de la cité et le Palais de l’Acropole (Fig. 2). Dans sa partie médiane, au nord de la Porte de l’Acropole, la voie traverse une tour de garde, un bâtiment singulier pour l’époque, décrit dans un article récent,8 raison pour laquelle je n’y reviens pas ici. Ce bâtiment massif constitue le centre du dispositif de contrôle de la cité. Notons également, au sud du Parvis Sud, deux espaces allongés commandent l’accès au Temple E et au secteur relié à cet édifice (Fig. 1, n° 9). Tous ces bâtiments, ces chicanes et ces pièces pouvant abriter un corps de garde relèvent d’une vision sécuritaire de cet axe majeur de la cité et assurent un accès protégé de manière optimale aux bâtiments officiels et aux secteursclés abritant le pouvoir, le sacré et l’administration centrale. Largement décrits dans des publications antérieures, je les évoque ici pour mémoire. 6 7 8
LEBEAU 2020. LEBEAU 2012b, 49-68. LEBEAU 2019.
8
M. LEBEAU
Fig. 2 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb : Porte de l’Acropole (après restauration) et section centrale de Main Street.
Fig. 3 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, Palais de l’Acropole : détail du plan de la cour centrale et de ses trois annexes (relevé : R. Waldmann).
Fig. 4 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, Palais de l’Acropole : vue aérienne de la cour centrale et des annexes (photo : J. Driessen).
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
9
Dispositifs sécuritaires additionnels (Fig. 1, n° 4-8) À un moment précis de la phase Beydar 3b, vers la fin de l’existence de la cité du JA IIIb, certains aménagements furent construits en hâte dans le but vraisemblable d’améliorer le contrôle de la voirie. Ce point est à mettre en relation avec des menaces croissantes à une époque où, comme nous l’avons vu précédemment, des conflits en cours ou craints dans un futur proche affectent la Haute Mésopotamie. (1) Aménagements liés à la sécurisation de bâtiments (Fig. 1, n° 4-6, fig. 3-8) Un ensemble d’annexes, localisées à l’intérieur de bâtiments dans trois secteurs différents de la cité, permet d’illustrer le souci qu’eurent les dirigeants de l’époque de protéger les bâtiments importants. [Fig. 1, n°4, fig. 3-4] C’est dans la cour centrale du Palais de l’Acropole qu’ont été découverts pour la première fois ces ajouts au plan original, construits dans la dernière phase d’occupation du Palais (Beydar IIIb, phase 3b), vers 23652350 av. n. è. (Fig. 3-4). Comprenant des murs d’une largeur d’une brique ou d’une brique et demie reposant directement sur le pavement de briques cuites, ces annexes ont été conservées très irrégulièrement. L’angle nord-ouest de l’annexe 6284 s’élève sur près de deux mètres de hauteur préservée. Cette même annexe comporte une niche. Le sol des trois annexes est dépavé et donc de terre battue, parfois recouverte d’une mince couche de chaux ou de juss. Une deuxième annexe (6964), aménagée dans l’angle sud-ouest de la cour centrale, est également bien conservée et présente un aspect semblable à l’annexe 6284. La troisième annexe (6965), bien moins conservée et accolée au mur ouest de la cour centrale, présente une zone plâtrée et a livré, dans son angle sud-ouest, un ensemble de six boules en tuf, vraisemblablement destinées à chauffer ce local exigu. C’est ainsi que si ces petites pièces furent effectivement occupées par des gardes, ceux-ci abandonnèrent leurs postes en hiver, peut-être lors de la chute de la cité. Construites sommairement et hâtivement, ces installations semblent avoir servi à renforcer la sécurité du bâtiment en permettant un contrôle accru de la circulation interne. Une pièce d’origine, la pièce barlongue 6130, fit l’objet, lors de la même phase, d’un aménagement comparable. Réduite dans sa partie nord par un mur transversal, la pièce d’origine fut ainsi scindée en deux. Le local le plus petit (6131), au nord du mur rajouté, peut lui aussi avoir servi de guérite (Fig. 4). [Fig. 1, n°5, Fig. 5-6] Ce sont des aménagements de même nature et strictement contemporains qui ont été découverts dans la cour centrale du Palais Oriental, au pied de l’Acropole mais également en ville haute. Quatre annexes aux fragiles murs de briques crues ont réduit la surface utile de la cour centrale,
10
M. LEBEAU
Fig. 5 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, Palais Oriental, Phase 5 a-b : annexes construites dans la cour centrale.
Fig. 6 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, Palais Oriental, Phase 5 a-b : annexes construites dans la cour centrale.
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
11
pavée de briques cuites. Trois annexes (16564, 16680 et 16965) sont similaires à celles occupant une partie de la cour du Palais de l’Acropole et s’appuient sur le mur nord à contreforts de la cour centrale (Fig. 5). Leurs murs sont très fins et ne se sont conservés que très imparfaitement (Fig. 6). Les sols de ces locaux sont eux aussi dépavés. Un autre mur de même nature réduit la cour centrale dans sa partie orientale sur tout un côté et détermine un nouvel espace (42114) assez comparable à la pièce barlongue située à l’est de la cour centrale du Palais de l’Acropole. Il est logique d’assigner aux trois premiers locaux une fonction similaire à celle des annexes du Palais de l’Acropole. C’est ici encore la présence d’abris pour les gardes du bâtiment qui semble s’imposer, ces locaux étant situés à l’emplacement du nœud de communication principal régissant la circulation interne. [Fig. 1, n° 6, Fig. 7-8] Un bâtiment important (résidence d’un membre de l’élite ?) domine le chantier B de Tell Beydar de sa masse imposante. Il a été dénommé Bâtiment B1 par la fouilleuse. Une construction légère (54436), composée de deux locaux distincts, bâtie en briques rouges (contrastant avec les briques de couleur beige du bâtiment originel), est accolée aux murs sud, nord et est du bâtiment (Fig. 7-8). Son mur repose en partie sur une porte bouchée. Il est tentant d’assigner à cette annexe une fonction comparable à celle des exemples décrits plus haut, à savoir un poste de contrôle installé sommairement au centre du bâtiment B1. Relevons également la présence, plus à l’ouest mais toujours dans l’espace central du bâtiment B1, de deux autres petits espaces (54185 et 54186) dont les fins murs sont eux aussi montés de briques rouges. (2) Aménagements destinés au contrôle de la voirie (Fig. 1, n° 9-10, Fig. 9-11) D’autres annexes, datant de la même époque, attestent d’un souci impérieux de contrôler les axes de circulation des terrasses supérieures de la ville haute. J’ai déjà mentionné les postes de contrôle structurels, notamment ceux disposés dans Main Street (porte de l’Acropole, tour de garde, pièces de contrôle situées au sud du Parvis Sud). À ceux-ci viennent s’ajouter des constructions légères assez comparables aux annexes installées au cœur des bâtiments sensibles. L’exemple le plus éclairant consiste en un ensemble de deux points de contrôle (Fig. 9) situés aux deux extrémités de la rue séparant les Temples B et C au nord et leurs magasins au sud (58071). Tous deux faits de briques rouges, celui le plus à l’ouest est de loin le mieux conservé (Fig. 10). Seul le mur est de la guérite orientale et son retour ont été préservés. Un autre point de contrôle de la voirie a été identifié près du centre de la ville haute. Très érodé, il est situé à l’extérieur de l’angle sud-ouest du Temple A, au voisinage de sa porte d’entrée (Fig. 11). Ce poste permet de surveiller deux rues: l’une au sud du Temple A, l’autre bordant sa façade occidentale. Conservé
12
M. LEBEAU
Fig. 7: Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, Bâtiment B1, en bas à gauche.
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
Fig. 8 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, annexes accolées aux murs du Bâtiment B1.
Fig. 9 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, guérites contrôlant l’accès de la rue bordée par les Temples B et C et leurs magasins.
13
14
M. LEBEAU
Fig. 10 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, au premier plan, le poste de contrôle occidental accolé à la façade du Temple B.
Fig. 11 : Tell Beydar, JA IIIb, le point de contrôle situé à proximité de l’entrée du Temple A.
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
15
Fig. 12 : Accès secondaire au Temple E et sas de contrôle entre le secteur du Temple E et White Hall.
sur une très faible hauteur, ce local, entouré de murs de briques rouges, est placé, comme les autres, à un endroit stratégique. (3) Accès au Temple E et à White Hall (Fig. 1, n° 9, Fig. 12) Les campagnes les plus récentes ont permis de découvrir le plus grand temple de Nabada, dénommé Temple E, un sanctuaire presque identique aux temples FS et SS de la capitale du royaume, Nagar (Tell Brak)9. Sa façade sud a complètement disparu, arasée peut-être par les conquérants de la cité en une sorte de damnatio memoriae (?). Quoi qu’il en soit, la question de l’accès principal à ce sanctuaire se pose (Fig. 12). Par comparaison avec les temples de la capitale 9
Voir à ce sujet LEBEAU 2020.
16
M. LEBEAU
et d’une manière générale avec les temples de type bent axis, on l’attendrait sur sa façade sud. Celle-ci a disparu. Un autre accès a été aménagé sur sa façade est à une époque difficile à estimer avec précision (Beydar IIIb, phase 3a ou 3b), un accès qui fut par la suite rebouché. A partir de la pièce 19513, il menait vers la pièce 13496, au sol dallé de briques carrées. Plus à l’est et bordé au nord par le Parvis Sud, White Hall est un vaste lieu de prestige équipé d’un podium et de banquettes. Nul doute que s’y tenaient des réunions importantes. Deux accès permettent d’y accéder. L’un, principal et orné de décrochements, met en contact White Hall et le Parvis Sud (lui aussi équipé d’un podium). L’autre, traversé par un escalier de trois marches, permet d’accéder à White Hall au départ du petit espace 19553. Cet espace restreint commande également l’accès au secteur voisin de l’entrée principale supposée du Temple E, par l’intermédiaire d’une pièce allongée, l’espace 13591, un véritable nœud de communication ouvrant vers trois directions. Vers l’est-il conduit à White Hall; vers l’ouest, il permet de rejoindre un espace étroit au sud de la façade sud du Temple E; vers le sud, il ouvre sur un très vaste espace ouvert et dallé de briques cuites, une place vraisemblablement comparable au Parvis Sud. Nous pouvons considérer les espaces que nous venons de décrire (19553 et 13591) mais aussi la pièce très allongée (19513) qui sépare l’espace 19553 du Parvis Sud comme des espaces liés – structurellement cette fois – au système mis en place par les architectes de la cité pour assurer un contrôle efficace des accès à la voirie et aux bâtiments vitaux de la cité. Conclusion Les architectes-urbanistes du Royaume de Nagar réussirent à installer au départ d’un schéma urbain concentrique et radial, imposé par l’antique ville en couronne, une architecture mésopotamienne orthogonale et ceci dès le début du JA IIIa. Le plan du cœur de la ville haute de Nabada au JA IIIb est le résultat d’une scénographie précise, très réussie et spectaculaire soulignant, grâce à l’utilisation judicieuse de terrasses étagées, une progression vers le cœur du pouvoir: une architecture monumentale contrastant violemment avec la modestie et la précarité des quartiers d’habitations privées (notamment celui mis en lumière au chantier B), une architecture propre à exalter la grandeur du royaume même en dehors de sa capitale, un urbanisme où les aspects sécuritaires furent pris en compte dès la phase de conception de l’ensemble des quartiers officiels et se manifestent par de nombreux bâtiments ou constructions assurant une circulation intra muros sous contrôle. Vers la fin de l’existence de la cité du JA IIIb, les tensions dans la région contraignent les habitants à renforcer les mesures de sécurité, que ce soit à l’intérieur des bâtiments ou relatives à la circulation dans la cité. C’est ainsi que sont
NOTES SUR L’ARCHITECTURE ET L’URBANISME DU ROYAUME DE NAGAR (4)
17
édifiées, apparemment dans la hâte, des constructions aux murs légers accolés aux solides murs des bâtiments officiels, des points de contrôle qui, manifestement, ne réussirent pas à empêcher, voire à retarder, la prise de la cité par des ennemis résolus à une période qui – nous le savons à présent grâce aux découvertes récentes et à l’utilisation raisonnée des résultats du radiocarbone – précède la conquête de la Haute Mésopotamie par Sargon d’Akkad. Bibliographie ARCHI, A. 1998, ‘The Regional State of Nagar According to the Texts of Ebla’, in M. LEBEAU (ed.), About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia / À propos de Subartu. Études consacrées à la Haute Mésopotamie (Subartu IV/2 : Culture, Society, Image / Culture, Société, Image), Turnhout : Brepols Publishers, 1-15. LEBEAU, M. 2012a, ‘Dating the Destructions of Ebla, Mari and Nagar from Radiocarbon with References to Egypt, Combined with Statigraphy and Historical Data’, in H.D. BAKER, K. KANIUTH, A. OTTO (eds.), Stories of Long Ago. Festschrift für Michael D. Roaf (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 397), Münster : Ugarit-Verlag, 301-321. LEBEAU, M. 2012b, ‘Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (1): Main Street, une « voie royale » à Tell Beydar’, in PH. QUENET, M. AL-MAQDISSI (eds.), « L’heure immobile entre ciel et terre ». Mélanges en l’honneur d’Antoine Souleiman (Subartu XXXI), Turnhout : Brepols Publishers, 49-68. LEBEAU, M. 2016, ‘Dating the Destructions of Ebla and Mari from Radiocarbon: An Update’, in P. CORÒ, E. DEVECCHI, N. DE ZORZI, M. MAIOCCHI (eds.), Libiamo ne’ lieti calici. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 436), Münster : Ugarit-Verlag, 55-64. LEBEAU, M. 2019, ‘Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (2). Une tour de garde d’époque Early Jezirah IIIb à Tell Beydar’, in M. D’ANDREA, M.G. MICALE, D. NADALI, S. PIZZIMENTI, A. VACCA (eds.), Pearls of the Past. Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock (MARRU 8), Münster : Zaphon, 487-508. LEBEAU, M. 2020, ‘Notes sur l’architecture et l’urbanisme du Royaume de Nagar (3). Similarités entre Tell Brak et Tell Beydar à l’époque Early Jezirah 3b’, in C. CASTEL, J.-W. MEYER, PH. QUENET (eds.), Circular Cities of Early Bronze Age Syria (Subartu XLII), Turnhout : Brepols Publishers, 275-293. SALLABERGER, W. 1998, ‘Der antike Name von Tell Beydar: Nabada (Na-ba4-daki/Na-bati-umki)’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 130, 122-125. SALLABERGER, W., UR, J. 2004, ‘Tell Beydar/Nabatium in its Regional Setting’, in L. MILANO, W. SALLABERGER, PH. TALON, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996-2002) (Subartu XII), Turnhout : Brepols Publishers, 51-71.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL Emmanuelle CAPET et Carole ROCHE-HAWLEY*
En témoignage de notre amitié kazéliote pour Eric, nous lui offrons ici une réflexion sur le « trésor » du temple du niveau 6 de Tell Kazel (mi-XIIIe s.) en confrontant son mobilier et son contexte stratigraphique aux données épigraphiques et archéologiques contemporaines, pour mieux en cerner la signification et en estimer la valeur. Pour ce faire, régulièrement nous reviendrons sur des comparaisons de type de matériel (abondance, proportions respectives), type de contexte (temples, palais, tombes, habitat), type d’ensevelissement, confrontation avec les données textuelles et comparaisons régionales. Le temple du niveau 6 : présentation, stratigraphie, datation Le « trésor » du temple 6 de Tell Kazel est un ensemble d’un demi-millier de vases de terre cuite, d’un millier de perles, et d’une cinquantaine d’autres objets fabriqués dans divers matériaux, datant du Bronze récent II1. La pièce du « trésor » (figs. 1-4) Ce matériel a été retrouvé dans un vaste espace couvert rectangulaire (8-9 m par 6,5 m, soit plus de 55 m2) possédant une porte dans l’angle NE2, dans un sédiment de texture homogène variant de 1 m à 1,50 m d’épaisseur. La base de cette couche est constituée par un sol de terre battue irrégulier, à l’altitude de 40,00/40,20 m au-dessus du niveau de la mer. Le sommet de la couche correspond * Paris, CNRS UMR 8167 Orient & Méditerranée. 1 L’ensemble a été fouillé entre 1996 et 2000. Le matériel a été publié pour sa grande majorité dans le troisième rapport de fouilles, avec des compléments dans une synthèse sur la céramique de Tell Kazel : L. Badre dans BADRE et GUBEL 1999-2000, 143-169, avec le CD-Rom, dont les planches 1 à 24 présentent un complément de matériel par rapport à la documentation imprimée et des photographies de la fouille de cet espace ; BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018, passim. Les questions liées aux plans respectifs des deux temples superposés des niveaux 5 et 6 sont exposées et illustrées dans un article spécifique : BADRE 2009, 258-264. 2 Cet espace a été dénommé de façon erronée « courtyard » au début de la fouille. La suite des travaux, notamment le dégagement d’une enfilade de bases de colonnes, a indiqué que l’espace était couvert ; il est possible que cet espace se poursuivait vers le sud (au sud du mur nord du temple du niveau 5). On a retrouvé sous la cella du temple 5 d’autres colonnes à peu près dans l’alignement de celles du temple étudié ici, ainsi que des banquettes avec du mobilier de luxe, beaucoup moins abondant que dans notre lot. Est-ce la suite du temple ou deux temples accolés ? Les murs massifs du temple 5 gênent la lecture pour répondre à cette question et il est possible que l’enceinte du temple du niveau 5 reprenne le plan d’un temple plus ancien. BADRE et GUBEL 19992000, 143-145 et BADRE 2009.
20
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Fig. 1 : Plan 1 - Plan schématique du temple montrant les deux zones principales d’amoncellement des objets : le coin du brasero au sud-ouest et le magasin à l’est. Les murs du temple 6 sont en gros pointillé noir ; les traits gris notent des banquettes et murets. La base du brasero est indiquée par un B dans un cercle et son dessin est reporté à gauche. On a reporté aussi le dessin du brasero-tuyau dans la partie nord, face à la porte. Les objets ne sont pas tous placés (notamment les perles, indiquées par une puce) (montage E. Capet).
à la surface de terre battue qui forme le sol de la cour au nord du temple 5, à l’altitude de 41,50 m. La base des fondations du temple 5 s’enfonce un peu dans la succession des couches de 6 (figs. 5 et 7). Le brasero aux lions, dont la hauteur dépassait 1,10 m3, résume cette stratigraphie : il est calé par des galets sur un sol brûlé à 40,00 m ; sa partie inférieure est intacte sur 45 à 50 cm de haut et porte peu de traces d’érosion en surface ; on a appuyé contre son cylindre des « shaved juglets » entre 40,20 et 40,50 (figs. 5-6) ; son fût s’est brisé à ce niveau et les fragments de sa partie supérieure, dont l’anse décorée d’un lion, ont été retrouvés à l’ouest et au nordouest sur un rayon d’un mètre jusqu’à l’altitude de 41,20 m. 3
Voir BADRE 2008 pour cet objet central du dépôt.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
21
Fig. 2 : Les principales catégories ou éléments représentatifs du « trésor ». De gauche à droite et de haut en bas : jarre, calice, cruchon, shaved Juglet, bilbil, figurine-feuille en bronze ; gobelet miniature, lampe, deux assiettes et un bol, pommeau en faïence, collier de perles en fritte, hache en bronze (montage E. Capet).
Fig. 3 : Plan 2 - Répartition de quelques catégories d’objets : lampes (L), jarres (J), pithoi (Pithos) ; braseros (Br) ; sceaux (Sc), objets en faïence (F), shaved julets avec figurines de bronze (Sh+Br) et autres objets de bronzes (haches, pendentifs et lames) (montage E. Capet).
22
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Fig. 4 : Plan 3 – Répartition de quelques catégories d’objets, suite : assiettes (O), calices (U), shaved juglets (I), bilbils (†) (montage E. Capet).
Entre ces deux sols, on distingua, en cours de fouille, dans le comblement argileux assez uniforme deux phases majeures, appelées « 6 inférieur » (autour de 40,50 m d’altitude) et « 6 supérieur » (autour de 40,90 m), où la concentration de matériel était particulièrement forte ; nous reviendrons sur les deux hypothèses qu’il s’agisse soit de deux phases distinctes d’utilisation de l’espace soit seulement de deux étapes du comblement, avec des dépôts superposés en strates de matériel. Des groupes d’objets ont été retrouvés jusqu’au sommet du comblement, sous le sol du niveau 54. Le matériel était réparti sur toute la surface, mais principalement au sud, et sur plusieurs paliers, avec quelques concentrations, la plus remarquable se situant vers le SO, dans l’angle diamétralement opposé à la porte, autour du grand brasero : amoncellement de cruchons, de plats, de lampes et de perles. Le sud-est formait la partie de magasin où étaient accumulés jarres et plats/ couvercles5, et quelques petits vases et objets plus fins (fig. 1). L’impression 4 Par exemple, un ensemble de deux figurines-feuilles de bronze avec une « shaved juglet », non loin d’un lot d’une dizaine de perles, juste sous le sol du niveau 5. 5 Les plats servent aussi de couvercles de jarres ou de récipients divers.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
23
Fig. 5 : La concentration autour du brasero : shaved juglets, bilbils, supports de vase, assiettes, lampes, gobelets miniatures. Le mur du temple du niveau 5 est à gauche (© Mission archéologique de l’AUB Museum à Tell Kazel).
Fig. 6 : Étape du dépôt : un fragment du haut du brasero, deux shaved juglets, un calice, un objet en os (à gauche) et un petit pommeau en fritte noir et blanc (au centre) (© Mission archéologique de l’AUB Museum à Tell Kazel).
24
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Fig. 7 : Lot d’assiettes et de lampes (noter les ossements animaux) à l’aplomb du mur du temple du niveau 5 (© Mission archéologique de l’AUB Museum à Tell Kazel).
au moment de la fouille6 fut que la plupart des vases avaient été posés et non qu’ils étaient tombés d’étagères ou d’un étage. Des traces de poteaux, de rudimentaires murets de terre légèrement plâtrés, de lâches alignements de pierres indiquent que l’espace était partitionné. En un cas, une concentration d’objets en faïence retrouvée dans une terre plus sombre, sur une petite surface rectangulaire, suggère une conservation dans un coffre ou dans un creux aménagé dans le sol (fig. 8). 6
Notamment la faible dispersion des tessons d’un même vase.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
25
Fig. 8 : Le secteur du magasin : jarres, couvercles et pithos. Noter au fond à gauche la forme rectangulaire sombre qui peut être la trace d’un coffre renfermant des objets en faïence, un calice et une shaved juglet (© Mission archéologique de l’AUB Museum à Tell Kazel).
Les murs sont de facture classique pour l’époque : soubassement de moellons et superstructure de brique crue. Quelques aménagements de terre crue plâtrée ont été dégagés, telles des banquettes ou plates-formes le long des murs, équipements courants dans les pièces de culte des temples proche-orientaux. Les grandes dimensions de cette pièce écartent l’hypothèse d’une sacristie. La fin du niveau 6 du temple Le sol sur lequel est posé le brasero, atteint sur certaines parcelles seulement, est cendreux et contenait un mobilier peu abondant (des plats et des cratères) qui a été exposé aux flammes. En revanche, le brasero lui-même n’a pas été atteint par le feu, pas plus que le reste du matériel récupéré dans le comblement de 1,5 m d’épaisseur ; quant au sédiment qui ennoie ce demi-millier de pièces, il n’est ni cendreux ni charbonneux. C’est un sédiment fin et uni, fait de terre argileuse qu’on peut interpréter comme de la brique fondue (celle des murs environnants)
26
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
ou comme un dépôt volontaire (voir plus bas), mais pas comme des murs de brique crue effondrés ou abattus. On notera que plusieurs objets assez fragiles (en particulier des « bilbils » chypriotes, à la paroi si délicate) ont été retrouvés non seulement complets mais intacts, comme protégés par un enfouissement non brutal (voir par exemple fig. 5). Ce même niveau est encore peu attesté sinon dans des sondages dans les autres chantiers de Tell Kazel ; on n’y a pas non plus retrouvé de trace d’incendie flagrante. Le changement du temple 6 au temple 5 ne semble donc pas avoir été motivé par une destruction massive qui aurait touché le site. Les autres sondages attestent aussi une rupture architecturale après la fin du niveau en question : changements d’orientation de murs, niveaux de chantier. Datation Ce lot du comblement se date par sa céramique locale des phases K4 et K3 du phasage du Akkar, soit grosso modo 1350-1250 av. J.-C., par ses importations mycéniennes, Helladique récent IIIA2 et IIIB17, et chypriotes, Chypriote récent IIB et IIC 8. Pour notre site, ce laps de temps correspond au premier siècle de la domination hittite sur l’Amurru, entre sa conquête par Suppiluliuma et le traité de paix entre l’Égypte et le Ḫatti9. Les quelques vases brûlés retrouvés sur le sol incendié sont de la phase K4 (fin XIVe-début XIIIe s.). Les comparaisons céramologiques à échelle régionale font se tourner en premier lieu vers Kamid el-Loz (niveaux T2bc du temple et P4cd du palais) et Ras Shamra (Ugarit récent 2), puis vers le niveau K12 de Qaṭna, les niveaux A8-9 de Hazor, Megiddo VIII (et VIIB), Lachish VII-VI ou encore Gezer XIII. La fourchette d’un siècle traduit la longévité des vases et des productions et ne suffit pas pour conclure à une utilisation longue de cet espace avec accumulation progressive pendant un siècle de ces objets. En d’autres termes, on pouvait aux alentours de 1250 disposer d’un tel ensemble d’objets et les y avoir déposés en une fois, tout comme ils peuvent être le résultat d’un apport progressif de plusieurs décennies. Le terme est donné par la présence d’objets de l’Helladique récent IIIB moyen (/développé), vers le milieu du XIIIe s.
7 « Late Helladic IIIA Late – Late Helladic IIIB Early/Middle ». Le matériel mycénien de Tell Kazel est étudié par R. Jung ; voir en particulier JUNG 2006, JUNG 2009 et Jung dans BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018, 47-50, 148-155, nos 512, 515, 517, 518, 519, 529, 532. 8 B. Vitale a traité le matériel chypriote de Tell Kazel, en particulier dans BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018, 45-47, 144-147 et 165-234. 9 Les sondages effectués sous ce sol ont livré du matériel de la fin du Bronze moyen, sans que nous ne puissions rien dire de l’architecture associée. Nous n’aurions pas de niveaux conservés du Bronze récent I en cet endroit.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
27
Composition du « trésor » Quelques réflexions sur la typologie du « trésor » de Kazel mis en regard avec des textes syriens contemporains méritent d’être présentées. Textes de Syrie du Bronze récent : composition d’un trésor de temple Plusieurs sites de Syrie ont livré des corpus de textes plus ou moins contemporains de ce trésor kazéliote. Tell Meskene Emar, sur l’Euphrate, offre sans doute le corpus le plus intéressant pour notre propos puisqu’il a fourni, entre autres, des inventaires de trésors des dieux, des textes cultuels et des textes administratifs relatifs aux biens des temples10. Les inventaires de trésors des dieux d’Emar rappellent des inventaires de trésors bien plus anciens comme ceux d’Ur III11. Les sources sont très inégales pour notre propos : Emar présente des inventaires de trésors nombreux et variés (x ša ND, unūtu ND, šukuttu ša ND12) ce qui donne de plus amples informations sur les possessions des dieux, au contraire d’Ugarit où quelques textes seulement peuvent être compris comme des inventaires13. Les inventaires de Qaṭna sont quant à eux plus centrés sur les bijoux et les parures, ce qui rappelle les inventaires mésopotamiens (eux aussi šukuttu) plus tardifs14. Les textes d’Emar nous apprennent ainsi qu’un trésor de dieu (désigné comme šukuttu, unūtu ou ša ND) peut être composé de vaisselle en métal, de braseros (É.IZI : eux aussi en métal), de sceaux-cylindres, de bijoux, d’objets non identifiés en pierre, de tissus, d’armes et de statuettes. Certains objets en matière périssable, tels des perruques, des ceintures en laine pourpre ou des vêtements, ne peuvent être pris en compte dans notre mise en parallèle, puisque le contexte archéologique ne les aurait pas préservés. Certaines catégories se retrouvent dans les inventaires des trésors des dieux et le trésor de Kazel : les perles, les sceauxcylindres et les armes (poignards ou flèches, peu abondants). On note dans ces textes l’absence de vaisselle en terre au contraire de ce que l’on trouve dans le trésor de Kazel, cependant toutes les catégories sont là : vases, cruches, braseros, bassins, coupes, bols. L’identification de cette vaisselle n’est pas toujours sûre mais on peut noter une grande variété. Enfin, concernant la vaisselle, les objets cultuels mentionnés dans les rituels se distinguent nettement des objets enregistrés dans les inventaires des trésors ARNAUD 1986. OWEN 2013, 29-42. 12 Respectivement : « objet x du dieu », « bien du dieu » et « trésor du dieu ». 13 Le plus remarquable est sans doute RS 20.235, mis au jour dans la maison de Rap᾿ānu, et qui donne l’inventaire d’objets probablement cultuels (parfois communs avec Emar) liés à un individu défini comme « serviteur de ῾Aṯtartu ». Pour une bibliographie de la discussion sur ce texte, voir CLEMENS 2001, 886-905. Voir aussi peut-être les textes RS 1.[051]-1.[055]. 14 Voir par exemple JOANNÈS 1992 et BEAULIEU 1999. 10 11
28
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
des dieux. En effet, la vaisselle mentionnée dans les trésors semble ne pas être la même que celle utilisée lors des rituels. Le trésor du temple de Kazel : terre cuite La majorité des objets du « trésor » de Kazel est en terre cuite (fig. 2), la plupart de fabrication locale et de tradition levanto-palestinienne (plus de 300 vases de production locale, une soixantaine de vases chypriotes, quelques vases mycéniens). Ce sont en majorité des vases d’usage commun : quelque 150 assiettes et bols, une centaine de lampes15, au bec brûlé ou pas, une vingtaine de vases miniatures, une vingtaine de cruches et cruchons ; deux pithos seulement, 16 jarres, quatre cratères, et une seule marmite (et de très petit format). D’autres vases renvoient à un matériel de temple : une quinzaine de calices16, deux supports de vase17. Une dizaine de vases n’entre pas dans cet ensemble « commun » : ce sont des vases rares sur le site et uniques (au sens où ils ne sont pas produits en série, individualisés par leur forme ou leur décor) : quatre braseros, quatre vases libatoires, un askos, à quoi on ajoutera trois fragments de figurines animales en terre cuite. Les importations chypriotes sont pour la majorité des shaved juglets (± 40) et des bilbils en Base Ring Ware (± 20), à savoir dans les deux cas de petits flacons à col étroit, dont les premiers, les cruchons « shaved », ont un bec propre à servir une libation, mais les larges bols dans les trois pâtes « classiques » sont aussi bien représentés18. Les bilbils sont souvent groupés par deux. La céramique mycénienne en revanche est peu abondante et consiste en figurines, une petite jarre piriforme, une kylix et des coupes. Les inventaires des temples mis au jour à Emar, Ugarit ou Qaṭna offrent un point de vue différent puisque, par définition, ils mentionnent des biens précieux. La vaisselle est comparable à la vaisselle d’argile mise au jour dans le temple et présentée ci-dessus mais elle l’est en matériaux précieux : or, argent, bronze, pierre… Ainsi nous retrouvons des vases à boire, des contenants de liquide, des vases libatoires, des supports de vase ou encore des braseros.
15
45 entières et 58 grands fragments. Au Bronze récent, à Tell Kazel, contrairement aux siècles suivants, les calices entrent rarement dans la composition des inventaires de maison. 17 Les supports de vases ne font pas partie du répertoire domestique à Tell Kazel. 18 Les 40 et 20 vases mentionnés sont les vases que l’on a pu restaurer. Le décompte de Barbara Vitale dans BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018 fait apparaître un plus grand nombre et une plus grande richesse de vases chypriotes ; par ordre décroissant, nous avons les fragments de : 81 shaved juglets ; 45 bilbils ; 31 bols en Base Ring Ware ; 31 bols White slip (« milk bowl ») ; 31 bols en Monochrome Ware ; 10 cruches en Base Ring Ware, sans mentionner les catégories représentées par moins de 10 spécimens (9 des 14 fragments de Red Lustrous Wheel Made Ware du site viennent du « trésor » du temple). 16
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
29
Matières vitreuses, pierre, os Un millier de perles, en fritte pour l’écrasante majorité (notons une cinquantaine de perles en ambre), ont été retrouvées souvent en lots, traces de colliers assemblés. Une dizaine de sceaux en matière vitreuse, anépigraphes, relèvent du style mittanien commun19. Les sceaux ont été le plus souvent retrouvés parmi des perles de qualité supérieure à la banale petite sphère blanc jaune qui compose le gros des perles (elles sont soit plus grandes, soit ajourées, soit en ambre, en agate, en lapis, en cornaline ou en argent…). Ainsi ces sceaux peuvent plutôt être considérés eux aussi comme des perles, décorées20, en matière vitreuse, faisant partie d’un collier. Ils ont tous une perforation qui le permet. Une dizaine d’autres objets en matière vitreuse21 en proviennent (pommeaux, plaques, coupes, boîtes, jetons)22. On signalera un pommeau en ivoire, un en os, un en albâtre, une masse d’arme en pierre, sept fragments de vases en albâtre, une hache de pierre. Là encore, le parallèle avec les textes d’inventaires de temples ou de biens des dieux peut être souligné. On y retrouve des perles et pierres à profusion, des bijoux, des éléments de décor et des sceaux. Métaux Quinze figurines plates en bronze de tradition levantine, trois pendentifs décorés ainsi que des armes de bronze (une dizaine de pointes de flèche, une pointe de lance, deux haches) se distinguent, à côté de petit mobilier de bronze courant aussi dans les maisons (aiguilles, spatule, ciseau, plaques et lamelles diverses). L’argent n’est représenté que par deux pendentifs et trois petits fragments non identifiables. L’or est totalement absent du « trésor ». Au contraire, les listes de trésors présentent presque exclusivement des objets en matières précieuses (or, argent, bronze, pierres semi-précieuses23…). Cependant, l’inventaire noté sur tablette renvoie à certains éléments qu’on retrouve aussi dans le « trésor » de Kazel : armes (flèches, lances, haches), figurines et représentations divines (animales ou humaines). Voir BADRE et GUBEL 1999-2000, 198-200. Scènes mythologiques, motifs géométriques, frises de cerfs ou de poissons… 21 Voir V. Matoïan dans BADRE et GUBEL 1999-2000, 150-151. 22 On a signalé plus haut qu’une partie de ces objets était regroupée comme dans un coffre (fig. 8). 23 Lapis-lazuli, malachite, cristal… 19 20
30
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Richesse de cet assemblage On l’a dit, les matières précieuses sont soit absentes (or, pierres précieuses) soit en quantité très réduite (argent, ivoire). C’est donc plus par sa quantité que par sa qualité que le « trésor » mérite cette appellation. Encore cette quantité ne concerne-t-elle que les vases en terre cuite, soit les objets les plus vils, les autres produits étant en somme peu nombreux (moins d’une cinquantaine). L’absence d’or et de statues indiquerait-elle qu’on n’a pas voulu abandonner les objets les plus précieux (en valeur commerciale ou en valeur sacrée) ? Le « trésor » serait alors le dépôt et l’abandon volontaire d’un grand nombre d’objets, certains de qualité, mais après prélèvement des plus riches. Les temples de Beth Shan du Bronze récent par exemple sont plus riches ; ils contiennent toutes les catégories de petit matériel de notre temple et en ajoutent d’autres, en métaux précieux, ivoire ou faïence, notamment des amulettes et des bijoux24. Ceux de Kamid el-Loz aussi : ils contenaient de l’or, de l’argent, des boîtes en ivoire, des statuettes de bronze, des maquettes architecturales en terre cuite, et beaucoup plus de chacune des catégories de notre « trésor »25… Toutefois, pas plus que celui de Tell Kazel, aucun temple ne reflète les inventaires livrés par les textes, notamment les vases métalliques. Aussi pourrait-on voir dans ce trésor du temple de Kazel une représentation de trésor, tel qu’il est évoqué dans les textes et tel que les temples en activité devaient se présenter. Comme nous l’avons vu, l’inventaire des objets retrouvés et ceux mis par écrit à Emar notamment sont tout à fait parallèles à l’exception du matériau. Aurait-on à Kazel la reproduction symbolique d’un inventaire de temple destiné à être enterré ? Les anciens Kazéliotes auraient pu pratiquer un rituel de dépôt sans souhaiter condamner la vaisselle de luxe appartenant aux dieux. Les vases en terre cuite joueraient ici le rôle de substituts, procédé qu’on retrouve aussi ailleurs sous la forme d’objets miniatures (vases), ou d’objets factices (en faïence pour des objets qui doivent être résistants). Textes syriens : les biens de luxe en contexte profane et en contexte sacré Deux textes nous informent plus particulièrement sur les biens de luxe en contexte profane : la lettre de Tušratta EA 22, qui est un envoi de cadeaux diplomatiques (XIVe s.)26, et le trousseau de la reine Aḫat-milku princesse d’Amurru (début du XIIIe s.), mariée au roi d’Ugarit Niqmepa῾ VI (RS 16.146+)27. C’est surtout ce dernier qui se révèle le plus intéressant : il recouvre presque toutes ROWE 1940, 11-35. METZGER et BARTHEL 1993 ; PENNER 2006. 26 Ce texte n’est pas repris dans le tableau, car il comprend, en plus des biens de luxe que l’on retrouve ailleurs, un pannel beaucoup plus large et prestigieux de cadeaux (chevaux et chars, matière brute, cuirasses et boucliers…). 27 PRU 3, 182 et suiv. et pl. LI ; LACKENBACHER 2002, 289. 24 25
31
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
les catégories des objets de temples (de Tell Kazel ou des listes de trésors des dieux d’Emar)28. Catégorie de matériel
Trésor de Inventaires de trésors Objets Trousseau de temples cultuels Tell Kazel Emar Ugarit29 Qaṭna30
Vases31 à boire
> 150
Contenants de liquide
10
Vases libatoires
4
x x
x x
x x
x x33
Autre vaisselle Supports de vase
2
x
Braseros
4
x
Emar Ugarit (rituels) RS 16.146+ 32
x
x
x x?
x
x x
Figurines et représentations 3 + 15 + 3 divines/humaines/animales
x
x
Perles
x34
850
x
x
x
Autres bijoux
3
x
x
x
Éléments de décor
6
x
Sceaux
8
x
Lampes
103
x35
Boîtes
x
Masse d’arme pierre/ pommeau
4
Hache
2
Pointes de flèche Pointe de lance Instruments de musique
x36
x37
x
± 10
x
1
x
Poignard
x
x 2 (?)
Tableau 1. Catégories d’objets attestées dans le trésor de Kazel en regard des objets précieux mentionnés dans les textes. 28
Seule exception, les armes ne font pas partie du trousseau de la jeune épouse… RS 20.235. 30 Cf. VIROLLEAUD 1930 et BOTTÉRO 1949. 31 Tous les vases mentionnés dans les textes de ce tableau sont en bronze, non en terre cuite. 32 De nombreux vases (DUG…) contenant des liquides sont mentionnés dans les rituels. Leur identification exacte reste cependant souvent délicate. 33 Bassins : kuninu, grands, petits, ou sans précision. 34 3 KI.NE.NE.MEŠ ZABAR KI.LÁ-šu-nu 2 GUN 1 li-im 6 me-at : 3 braseros de bronze pesant 2 talents 1 600 (sicles). 35 Mobilier plaqué d’or ou d’ivoire. 36 Mobilier en bois qui était peut-être plaqué. 37 7 IZI.GAR ZABAR KI.LÁ 170 : 7 torches de bronze pesant 170 (sicles). 29
32
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Un ensemble très levantin mâtiné d’hourro-mittanien La céramique locale est de tradition côtière syro-palestinienne. Le site de Tell Kazel a livré peu de céramiques attribuables à l’Égypte ou à l’Anatolie, et ces dernières (des jarres) ne viennent ni de cette phase (ils sont plus récents), ni du temple, à une exception38 : il s’agit d’une jarre fusiforme anatolienne, à engobe rouge lustré, TK98 M20NW 5079.146. Dans les textes de rituels d’Emar, un seul objet semble clairement identifiable comme étant d’origine hittite : le DUG ḫuppar39. Les importations de l’Ouest (Mycènes et Chypre) correspondent à ce que livrent les autres cités côtières à cette époque. Les objets en autre matériau font partie du répertoire régional à plus ou moins grande échelle (côte syrienne, ou côte syro-palestinienne, ou Syrie-Palestine jusqu’à l’Euphrate). Les exemplaires luxueux s’inscrivent dans la culture procheorientale qui unissait les élites et se diffusait par les échanges commerciaux ou les cadeaux diplomatiques. Nous ne décelons donc pas de trace d’influence hittite ou égyptienne dans la composition du matériel déposé. Quelques éléments pointent vers l’Est (outre la forme du temple du niveau suivant, en long, de tradition de Syrie-Mésopotamie du Nord), l’Euphrate ou le monde hourrite ou mittanien : l’abondance de faïence, en particulier les plaques, les pommeaux et la « masse d’arme » (comme dans le temple d’Ištar de Nuzi) ; les supports de vases (très courants en Mésopotamie, mais seuls exemplaires de Kazel au Bronze récent) ; les sceaux sont du Mitannian Common style, mais ce style est largement répandu sur la côte et ne porte probablement plus sa signification d’origine. Nous n’avons pas de scarabées, mais, s’ils sont très courants dans les temples du Levant sud, nous ne nous étonnons pas de ne pas en rencontrer à Tell Kazel pour cette période. Les inventaires des trésors des dieux mentionnent presque exclusivement des objets de luxe, dans une culture syrienne commune. En effet on retrouve bien souvent le même lexique dans les inventaires des trésors des dieux de Qaṭna (XVe s.) ou d’Emar (XIIIe s.), qu’hors de la sphère religieuse, dans des inventaires de trousseaux ou de cadeaux comme la lettre du Mittani EA 22 (XIVe s.) ou le trousseau de la reine Aḫat-milku (XIIIe s.). Le vocabulaire est fortement teinté d’hourrite.
38 L’identification anatolienne est due à Tatiana Pedrazzi. BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018, no 323 (illustrée aussi sur la planche couleur IV). Voir dernièrement PEDRAZZI 2019 sur ces rares importations anatoliennes en Syrie. 39 On retrouve cette vaisselle dans plusieurs inventaires hittites sous les formes GIŠḫuppar (KUB 42 :30 et 76) et DUG, GIŠḫupparalli- (KUB 42 :11, 14, 18 et 20). Cf. KOŠAK 1982.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
33
Particularités du contexte de l’assemblage État de conservation On a déjà signalé l’absence de fosses de récupération ou de pillage. Tous les objets sont manufacturés, finis et pour leur majorité en bon état40. Certains sont complets et même intacts (non brisés). Ils entrent dans la catégorie des « de facto refuse »41. On peut douter pour certains autres de l’état dans lequel ils étaient au moment de l’enfouissement : le sommet du brasero, qui nous fait défaut, avait peut-être déjà disparu quand il fut mis en place. Des fragments d’autres braseros de même type, qui eux devaient être déjà lacunaires, ont été enfouis à proximité. Les lacunes dans certains des objets de faïence (notamment ceux qui étaient pourtant serrés dans un coffre) peuvent aussi dater de la période de l’enfouissement. Beaucoup de demi-assiettes mises au jour dans des secteurs très peu perturbés et aux côtés de vases fragiles retrouvés, eux, entiers, sembleraient indiquer qu’elles étaient fragmentaires lors du dépôt. La vaisselle de pierre n’est représentée que par des fragments de coupe, qui sont donc là simplement pour « rappeler », de façon symbolique, l’habituelle vaisselle de pierre des dieux. Parmi le matériel chypriote, si les bilbils ont parfois été retrouvés intacts malgré leur fragilité, les bols en Base ring, Monochrome et White slip Ware, assez nombreux, étaient complètement broyés. Les shaved juglets quant à elles sont protégées par la solidité générale de leur composition (rapport entre l’épaisseur de la paroi et le faible diamètre). Il faut noter l’absence de matière première brute (lingots de verre ou de métal, rebuts métalliques susceptibles d’être remployés, ivoire non travaillé…). Traces de gestes cultuels et disposition du mobilier Outre les objets qui peuvent trouver leur utilisation dans des rites (brûleencens, vases à libation levantins ou mycéniens), on note une quantité d’ossements animaux carbonisés dans les strates supérieures du secteur du brasero (le centre symbolique de ce dépôt) qui correspond peut-être à un ultime sacrifice non récuré (fig. 7). Il n’y a pas de favissa à qui on aurait confié d’anciens objets consacrés et endommagés.
40 Ou, pour le formuler de façon plus exacte : peu d’objets portent des traces évidentes qu’ils étaient abîmés au moment de l’enfouissement. 41 Objets encore utilisables au moment de leur abandon. Voir par exemple KREIMERMAN 2017, 177-178.
34
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
Fig. 9 : Plats, lampes et shaved juglets. Au centre, le poêlon, posé bouche contre sol comme plusieurs assiettes et lampes (© Mission archéologique de l’AUB Museum à Tell Kazel).
Les lampes, on l’a rappelé, étaient tantôt « neuves », tantôt utilisées (bec noirci). Cet ustensile, très courant dans les maisons, est aussi fréquemment retrouvé en quantité dans les temples et témoigne peut-être d’un rite spécifique. Les assiettes et les lampes sont posées à plat ou renversées contre le sol, ou empilées (figs. 7, 9). On retrouve quelques groupes de lampes et d’assiettes qui rappellent les dépôts « lampe-et-bols » signalés en Canaan pour les XIIIe-XIe s.42. Si certains objets sont brisés ou incomplets, rien n’indique de façon évidente qu’il y eût fracture volontaire, mutilation délibérée ou passage par le feu intentionnel, à part le fait que certaines des figurines-feuilles de bronze avaient été enroulées sur elles-mêmes43. BUNIMOWITZ et ZIMHONI 1993. Ces dépôts se retrouvent dans des contextes domestiques, militaires ou publics. Les types d’assiettes sont très proches de ceux de notre temple ; on trouve aussi des bols, des calices ou des saucières. On pourrait imaginer qu’on a là une trace de participations individuelles des habitants de Kazel au rite d’abandon de leur temple. On l’a vu ci-dessus, les lampes ne sont pas (ou peu) mentionnées dans les inventaires officiels de temple. DEPIETRO 2012, 99-124, réanalyse ces dépôts lampe-et-bols et suggère une commémoration de type familial (non un dépôt de fondation), selon un rite proprement cananéen. Il faut toutefois noter qu’on trouve souvent cette association dans les temples, mais qu’elle passe parfois inaperçue, noyée qu’elle est par l’accumulation d’autres objets. 43 Mais voir ce que note BJORKMAN 1994, 109-110, 470-471. Voir aussi KREIMERMAN 2017, 180-181, dans les cas de villes prises. 42
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
35
Le gros de ce lot, par ses ustensiles de la vie courante (assiettes) participait de l’exécution de rites ou constituait des dons, de peu de prix il faut le reconnaître. Les petits flacons chypriotes contenaient peut-être des offrandes (huiles parfumées…). Les colliers de perles ornaient-ils une représentation divine ou avaient-ils été offerts au dieu par ses fidèles ? Sous la catégorie des simulacres nous pouvons placer les figurines-feuilles en bronze et les vases miniatures (gobelets, poêlon). Répartition (figs. 1, 3 et 4) La densité d’objets de petite taille autour du grand brasero aux lions, au fond de la pièce, témoigne d’une mise en scène des objets. C’est là qu’on trouve la totalité des shaved juglets qui ont des figurines de bronze fichées dans leur ouverture (parfois plusieurs dans le même cruchon)44, ainsi que la totalité des bilbils, des calices, des lampes (quelques exceptions) et des objets de faïence, le tout accompagné de plusieurs dizaines d’assiettes. Les perles, notamment les lots avec « sceaux-cylindres », sont disséminées sur toute la moitié sud (donc aussi parmi la zone de stockage), de même que les vases miniatures et les vases spéciaux (poêlon, supports de vases, vase phallique) ; les shaved juglets sans figurines sont massées autour du brasero (comme celles avec figurines), mais on en trouve une demi-douzaine dans l’angle SE qui abrite le stockage, et même quelques-unes dans la moitié nord. Les jarres sont concentrées au sud-est, on l’a vu. La partie nord était donc beaucoup plus vide, mais on y avait aussi déposé quelques jarres, un pithos, des plats, des lampes, des vases miniatures, quelques shaved juglets et deux braseros (d’un type différent du brasero aux lions). Si les figurines plates se trouvaient toutes autour du brasero (une exception), les armes étaient non loin des murs nord (poignard) et est (les deux haches, avec les pendentifs). De nombreux fragments de wall bracket ont été retrouvés dans les rues qui longent le bâtiment et servaient peut-être à illuminer ses façades. Influences hittites ? mittaniennes ? égyptiennes ? Les textes magiques hittites évoquent l’enfouissement en jarres scellées ou l’incinération d’objets de culte endommagés45. La présence d’un conséquent lot de matières vitreuses rappelle le Temple A (temple d’Ištar) de Nuzi, enfoui rituellement au XIVe s.46 mais nous sommes 44
Association dont la signification nous échappe. ALAURA 2001. 46 Masses d’armes, clous muraux, plaques, flacon, figurines, plus de 16 000 perles en plusieurs lots : BJORKMAN 1999. 45
36
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
plutôt tentées d’y voir le reflet de la culture de prestige du Levant. Toutefois, l’exemple de Nuzi est le plus proche du nôtre pour le contexte d’enfouissement et la composition du « trésor »47. L’hypothèse d’une origine égyptienne pour les dépôts « lamp-and-bowl » n’est plus retenue48. Les divinités honorées Il est difficile de se faire une idée de la divinité ou des divinités honorées en ce lieu. Les lions du brasero, un pendentif repoussé de type « Hathor »49, l’abondance des perles50, les vases libatoires en forme de sexe masculin, quelques-uns des motifs sur les sceaux pourraient renvoyer à une Ištar (῾Aṯtart ouest-sémitique ou Šauška hourrite), ou à une divinité de la fertilité. Notons que les figurines en feuille de bronze repoussé détaillent parfois les seins, d’autres fois non. Les textes mentionnant l’Amurru ne nous renseignent guère sur les divinités honorées. Si l’on regarde l’onomastique royale : ῾Abdi-᾿Aṯirta porte le nom d’une déesse levantine parèdre de ᾿Ilu, DU-Tešub renvoie à la forme hourrite du dieu de l’orage et Šauška-muwa à la forme hourrite d’Ištar. Les formules épistolaires ne nous renseignent pas plus sur les divinités ; on trouve seulement des formulations générales du type « que les dieux du pays d’Amurru te protègent ! ». Enfin, on peut noter la présence du Soleil du jour dans une formule de libération commune avec Ugarit dans le traité signé entre ῾Aḏiru roi d’Amurru et Niqmaddu III d’Ugarit. Signification de ce lot Nous avons donc des objets utilitaires et non utilitaires, usés et non usés, uniquement des objets manufacturés et non de la matière première, beaucoup de vaisselle, surtout des plats en terre cuite. Au total, une faible valeur globale. 47 Les objets étaient dispersés dans tout l’espace et sur plusieurs niveaux du comblement. Certains objets de culte étaient brisés. Voici la composition de ce dépôt, qui ne contient pas de statue divine et où les objets en matériau précieux sont en quantité symbolique : outre la faïence mentionnée ci-dessus, le bronze comprend une figurine, des clous, 5 pointes de flèche, des épingles ; la vaisselle de terre cuite consiste en petite vaisselle commune, supports de vases, quelques lampes, de petits vases zoomorphes ; en or, nous trouvons un disque, des feuilles, une boucle ; 15 tablettes ; 4 masses d’arme en pierre ; une figurine en os ; une coupe en bois ; des yeux en coquille ; 3 sceauxcylindres. 48 BUNIMOWITZ et ZIMHONI 1993, 121-124. DEPIETRO 2012, 111-114. 49 BADRE et GUBEL 1999-2000, fig. 29e. 50 À Nuzi, le temple de Tešub recélait 300 perles ; celui d’Ištar, 1600 (BJORKMAN 1999, n. 3).
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
37
Sa dispersion et sa couverture par une chape d’argile impliquent que les objets n’étaient pas récupérables. C’est donc un dépôt délibéré, structuré, et sacrifié. Nous allons le comparer avec d’autres ensembles pour en dégager sa spécificité. Habitat, tombes, temples Habitat Un tel répertoire ne ressemble pas à un inventaire de maison de Tell Kazel. La céramique locale provient des mêmes artisans mais les pourcentages diffèrent. Par rapport à un vaisselier domestique traditionnel, les indispensables de l’économie domestique tels que les vases de stockage51, les gourdes de pèlerin et surtout la vaisselle de cuisson (un seul poêlon52), font défaut ou sont très rares dans le lot du temple53. Une mise en parallèle d’un vaisselier de temple face à un vaisselier séculier donne le même résultat à Tel Qasile, temple 131 et Building 225 (tous deux de la strate X, ca. 1050-980 av. J.-C.) : sur les 140 vases du temple, plus de la moitié consiste en bols ; parmi les 111 vases du « building », 75 sont des jarres et 14 des cruches54. Une gamme d’ustensiles de terre cuite relève plus spécifiquement du culte : les braseros, les vases libatoires (de fabrication locale ou importés d’Argolide), les supports de vase ou encore l’askos. Les perles en fritte se retrouvent dans toutes les maisons de Kazel au Bronze récent, mais pas dans ces quantités55. Les vases en faïence n’ont été retrouvés ailleurs sur le site qu’à l’état de fragments, probablement en position secondaire. Les figurines en feuille de bronze n’ont été trouvées que dans ce chantier. Les armes peuvent être interprétées comme des offrandes, des figurations des attributs divins ou du mobilier intervenant dans les rites ; on en retrouve d’ailleurs 51 Il y a des jarres et pithoi dans le « trésor » (une vingtaine), notamment dans le quart SE. Mais elles ne forment que 7 % de l’ensemble, contre 16 à 30 % dans un inventaire domestique. 52 De 15 cm de diamètre, c’est la seule marmite miniature trouvée sur le site : elle a donc pu être façonnée spécialement pour cette circonstance ; son fond porte de légères traces de passage au-dessus du feu. On peut penser que ses dimensions la destinait à cuire autre chose que de la nourriture : une cassolette à encens ? 53 Voir dans BADRE, CAPET et VITALE 2018, 15-18, le tableau qui compare différents assemblages de Tell Kazel et ses commentaires. 54 MAZAR 1980 et 1985. Dans le Building 225, 6 cratères, une marmite, seulement 4 bols, pas de lampe ; dans le temple 131, 11 cruches, 1 cratère, pas de marmite, et, particularité « philistine » ?, 25 gourdes de pèlerin. 55 Cf. la situation à Beth Shan, strate VII (XIIIe s.) : environ 1500 perles dans le temple contre 44 dans la résidence (et 298 contre 12 dans la strate VIII, XIIIe s. aussi). JAMES et MCGOVERN 1993, vol. 2, 140-141.
38
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
souvent dans les temples du Levant. Les pointes de flèches se retrouvent un peu partout sur le site dans les niveaux de cette période ; si les poignards sont occasionnellement attestés dans les salles de réserve des maisons, les haches et les pommeaux (de char ?) sont jusqu’à présent propres au temple. Tombes La disposition des objets, par terre, et en regroupements si dense qu’ils laissent peu de place à la circulation, fait davantage penser à un dépôt dans une chambre funéraire (mais dans les tombes, les vases sont plus empilés, tassés dans les coins) ; ici, la mise en scène est plus forte. Elle sera scellée, figée pour l’éternité, on ne la verra plus et on ne la fréquentera plus (tandis qu’on fréquentera occasionnellement les caveaux, lors d’une réouverture qui donnera lieu à un nouvel agencement d’objets). Nous n’avons pas retrouvé de tombes du Bronze récent à Tell Kazel. Si l’on compare ce lot du temple au matériel d’accompagnement des tombes de Ras Shamra, tous deux ensembles très « cosmopolites », on notera dans le temple de Kazel la plus grande proportion de petite vaisselle commune locale, la rareté des importations mycéniennes et l’abondance des shaved juglets chypriotes ; mais les tombes de Ras Shamra sont très pillées56. Si on se tourne vers les nombreuses tombes chypriotes, on notera comme différence majeure entre notre assemblage et celles-ci la présence de shaved juglets contre la plus faible représentation des milk bowls. La tombe 1907 d’Enkomi offre un exemple non perturbé de tombe avec un matériel presque entièrement dévolu au banquet et les objets en autre matériau sont rares57. Le monument funéraire princier dit « Schatzhaus » de Kamid el-Loz (P4d, fin de l’époque d’El-Amarna ou ultérieur) offre un assemblage proche dans la proportion de vaisselle mais est plus richement doté d’objets de luxe58. La tombe 216 de Lachish (Bronze récent) renferme plus de 200 vases où la vaisselle commune se répartit en une proportion très comparable à celle de notre 56 S. Marchegay indique qu’à Ras Shamra « Le mobilier funéraire est très varié, et il est semblable au mobilier domestique : il n’existe pas de mobilier spécifiquement funéraire », MARCHEGAY 2008, 109. C’est le cas aussi dans le « trésor » du temple de Kazel, et ce sont les proportions qui distingue chacun de ces deux types d’assemblage. 57 LAGARCE 1985 : une centaine de bols, une cinquantaine de cruches, une vingtaine de cruchons, une vingtaine de cratères. Pour les rares objets, des anneaux de bronze ou d’argent, quelques perles, le tout tassé contre une paroi. 58 Voir MIRON 1990 et ADLER 1994 : 220 vases en terre cuite (avec une majorité de plats, bols et lampes), avec pour différence, à Kamid el-Loz, des gourdes de pèlerin (article proprement domestique), de vraies marmites ; en revanche, pas de shaved juglets, pas de céramique mycénienne, pas de braseros. L’inventaire du Schatzhaus recense en outre plus de cent numéros en or ou en argent, les boîtes à parfum et les éléments de jeu en os ou en ivoire sont plus nombreux mais les perles, elles, sont rares. Les objets sont concentrés au pied des murs de deux des pièces ou autour du coffre de la pièce T.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
39
temple, à l’exception notable des vases miniatures absents de cette tombe ; la cinquantaine d’objets (rien de précieux) plus 300 perles environ en font un concentré de richesse « moyenne », de peu inférieur au temple de Kazel ; ce sont des armes, des éléments de parure, et rien de religieux59. Temples Est-ce censé mimer une cella en cours d’utilisation ? ou une sacristie ? L’élément central et indispensable est le brasero (support fenestré) que l’on retrouve en plusieurs exemplaires dans les temples levantins au Bronze récent et au début du Fer60 ; dans la partie nord, un autre brasero, du type fin et allongé tel que les temples de Kamid el-Loz par exemple en contenaient plusieurs, devait constituer un autre centre de la représentation (voir fig. 1). À Ugarit, un objet – désigné dans les textes par l’écriture logographique dDUG.BUR.ZI.NÍG.DIN / dDUG. BUR.ZI.NÍG.NA, alphabétique úṯḫt et syllabique ú-šu-uḫ-tu4 – est traduit communément « encensoir ». Celui-ci apparaît divinisé dans des listes sacrificielles61 aux côtés des dieux les plus importants ; pourrait-on y voir un objet du type de ce que nous appelons « brasero » ? Et si oui, le rôle central joué par le brasero de Kazel peut-il être celui d’un objet divinisé ? Les éléments incontournables du matériel retrouvé communément dans les temples sont les bols et les calices, les vases miniatures, les lampes, les cruches et les cruchons. Les assemblages cultuels retrouvés dans les temples du sud Levant regroupent souvent aussi des objets plus spécifiques tels des cymbales62, des figurines de serpent, des masques, en plus des offrandes d’armes, des bijoux et des ustensiles de libation communs à tout le Levant ; notre temple du niveau 6, qui n’en a pas, est donc plutôt septentrional63. 59 TUFNELL 1958, 232-234 : 78 bols, 22 lampes, 14 cruches, 9 cruchons ; beaucoup de Base Ring Ware ; la vaisselle de cuisson est aussi absente comme dans notre temple. Une quinzaine de scarabées ancre bien cette tombe dans la zone sud du Levant. 60 Voir dans ZEVIT 2001 des reconstitutions graphiques des secteurs où s’élèvent les supports fenestrés de Lachish, Cult Room 49 (fig. 3.47-48), Megiddo, Locus 2081 (fig. 3.53-55) ou Qasile, Temple 131 (fig. 3.4). 61 Cf. ROCHE-HAWLEY 2012, 156, 169, 170. 62 Les deux coupelles de Tell Kazel présentées comme des plateaux de balance pourraient être des cymbales (BADRE et GUBEL 1999-2000, fig. 36d-e à comparer avec celle de Hazor : YADIN 1960, pl. 152:2-3). 63 DEPIETRO 2012, 126 et tableaux p. 160-165. Autre mobilier de temple signalé par cet auteur absent de notre « trésor » : modèles de foie, statues de culte, stèles, scarabées… Inversement, éléments communs aux sanctuaires septentrionaux et méridionaux, qui ne font pas partie du mobilier domestique ou sont d’un registre luxueux : pièces de jeu, sceptres/pommeaux, figurines en feuille de métal, armes (masse, hache, pointes de lance et de flèche), ciseau, vaisselle zoomorphe, sceaux-cylindres, éléments en ivoire. Voir aussi l’utile inventaire condensé réuni dans LEE 1984.
40
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
L’ensemble des pièces du sanctuaire de Deir Alla (XIIIe s.) a livré un matériel très proche du nôtre, avec une écrasante majorité de plats, beaucoup de lampes, mais plus de matériel domestique (cruches, jarres et marmites) qu’à Kazel64. Autre exemple assez proche, en plus riche : le temple-fosse de Lachish, structure III (mi-XIVe – mi-XIIIe s.) : la vaisselle commune se répartit à peu près comme à Kazel, mais les objets en ivoire (petites sculptures et plaques) et les bijoux en or (ou argent) dépassent la vingtaine65. Kamid el-Loz, pourtant si proche de Kazel par la géographie et par la typologie de ses vases, présente un tableau général très différent. Les mêmes catégories se retrouvent mais dans des proportions bien différentes. Le seul trait marquant commun est la prépondérance des bols et plats66. Kamid el-Loz est ainsi assez proche de Lachish. Banquets/libations Le banquet se pratique chez soi en famille, lors de funérailles et lors de rites religieux. On retrouve les ustensiles nécessaires à cette activité dans ces trois contextes : le contenant (cratère), le vase à puiser et verser (cruche ou cruchon) et le récipient pour boire (bols et coupes de toute taille). Nous avons plusieurs éléments à mettre en rapport avec les libations et les banquets : gobelets miniatures (9 %), bols et assiettes de toute sorte (en céramique locale et importée), quelques vases libatoires (dont les shaved juglets), des restes fauniques, mais peu de cruches, peu de cratères (ce qui le distingue d’un assortiment pour un banquet domestique/familial/funéraire) et pratiquement pas de vaisselle de cuisson. D’une part il est donc vraisemblable qu’il y eut libations ou banquet avant enfouissement, mais, d’autre part, beaucoup d’objets dépassent ce scénario. 64 FRANKEN 1992, 163-165 : quelque 350 vases en terre cuite, dont 115 bols, comprenant aussi un support de vases, 5 braseros, des calices, un askos ; les objets en autre matériau incluent des armes (4 pointes de flèche, une lame, des écailles d’armure), des sceaux-cylindres, des amulettes, 205 perles, une dizaine d’objets en faïence. Un seul objet en or. 65 À la différence de Kazel, on note peu de céramique chypriote, plusieurs gourdes de pèlerin (6), une trentaine de marmites, mais les bols forment près de 90 % de l’ensemble (769 sur 845 vases). TUFNELL et al. 1940. 66 C’est la phase T2bc qui propose le répertoire typologique le plus proche de nos phases K4-K3. On a noté plus haut la richesse nettement supérieure de l’ensemble des temples de Kamid el-Loz. Signalons, dans les proportions de vases, à Kamid el-Loz, le grand nombre de marmites (comme à Lachish), des gourdes de pèlerin (11), la relative abondance de milk bowls (15) ou de céramique mycénienne (55) ; la faible proportion de lampes (20), la quasi-absence de jarres cananéennes, le nombre très bas de Base ring ware chypriote (2) – les chiffres diffèrent un peu entre les publications de METZGER et BARTHEL 1993 et PENNER 2006. On trouve dans PENNER 2006, 34, 104, 154 et 187 d’intéressants tableaux montrant les proportions des catégories de vases respectivement dans le temple, le palais, le Schatzhaus et les ateliers. En outre, il y a relativement peu de perles à Kamid el-Loz, mais cela peut être dû à une différence de divinité honorée : les perles peuvent être liées à Ištar, et les statuettes retrouvées à Kamid el-Loz figurent des divinités masculines.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
41
Une évolution dans la proportion des vases des temples a été constatée entre le Bronze moyen et le Bronze récent au Levant-sud : une étude portant sur 6 temples du BM et 13 du BR du Levant-sud montre une écrasante majorité de vases miniatures (et de bols dans une moindre mesure) au BM, pour plus de variété au BR, mais avec prépondérance encore plus grande pour les bols67. Nos vases miniatures sont des gobelets qui peuvent effectivement servir à la consommation individuelle de liquides. Nous n’avons pas d’amphores miniatures qui elles relèvent de l’offrande ou du banquet symbolique68. Réserve/sacristie, cache, favissa, thésaurisation, dépôts de fondation Si on se restreint au domaine religieux, notre temple et son dépôt rappellent certains aspects de certains secteurs de la maison divine ou des gestes rituels qui s’y faisaient, sans toutefois correspondre vraiment à aucun d’eux. La grande taille de la pièce la différencie des pièces annexes ou sacristies. Au reste, il est condamné, pas récupérable à volonté, ce qui exclut un usage de sacristie. Le dépôt est dispersé et organisé : il ne s’agit pas d’une cache opérée dans l’urgence. Des rituels sont attestés archéologiquement au Proche-Orient sous forme de favissa, de dépôts de fondation ou d’insertion d’objets confiés à la maçonnerie de podiums, barcasses, banquettes ou autels. Là encore, notre trésor ne s’inscrit pas dans ces schémas69. Ces actes, uniques dans la vie d’un temple, se distinguent par la fréquence de masses d’arme et des indices de libations70. Ainsi, des exemples de favissa de Syrie à la fin du Bronze ancien et au Bronze moyen pointent aussi vers un rite de libation ou de banquet : à Ebla une favissa contient, stratifiés, les restes d’un rituel de purification et d’abandon après la destruction du Temple du rocher (Bronze ancien IV) sous la forme de vases 67 SAMET et al. 2017. Pour le Bronze moyen (Lachish Area D, Tell Haror, Strata V, IVB et IVA, Nahariya et Sidon, Room 2 – ce dernier se démarquant nettement de l’ensemble par son matériel) : 15 à 35 % de bols et 20 à 50 % de miniatures. Pour le Bronze récent (Hazor, Area H, III, II, IB et IA, Area C, IB et IA, Lachish Fosse Temple I à III, Tell Mevorakh XI et X, et Beth Shan, Temple 58066 R-2) : 30 à 80 % de bols et 5 à 15 % de miniatures : notre temple de Kazel, avec 42 % de plats et bols et 9 % de miniatures, entre dans cette fourchette mais il se distingue des bâtiments étudiés par son fort pourcentage de lampes (20 %, contre 5 % en moyenne dans l’étude citée). L’article compare aussi ces données aux inventaires de palais de ces périodes. 68 Les dépôts du port sud de Sukas recélaient tout un attirail de banquet (calices, coupes, bols, cruches et cruchons, jarres) et 14 de ces amphoriskoi : RIIS et al. 1996, 16-19 et fig. 22. La favissa du « temple hourrite » de Ras Shamra (Bronze moyen ou récent) en a, elle, livré une centaine (SCHAEFFER 1949, 1978 fig. 106-106A et YON 1997, 26 et 59 pour la discussion de la date). 69 Mais cela semble en revanche le cas du sanctuaire du niveau 5 qui a recouvert le temple du niveau 6 : les deux édifices n’ont pas connu le même traitement. 70 BJORKMAN 2008 ; outre les masses d’armes, on note des sceaux-cylindres, des vases de pierre, des amulettes, de la joaillerie, très peu de vaisselle (des coupelles et autre matériel pour libation).
42
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
en rapport avec des libations et un banquet, tous en terre cuite : 66 gobelets, 20 coupes, 17 cruches, 52 jarres, 17 jarres miniatures, 5 marmites, une quarantaine d’objets divers71. On a parlé également de « termination ritual » (voir plus bas pour ce terme) pour une favissa, à Qatna (BM IIA/B)72 : la fosse 7262 a recueilli le matériel d’un seul événement cultuel : il était composé uniquement de 6 jarres et de 13 cruches, brisées ou intactes, avec quelques restes de faune. Les « trésors » enfouis en fosse ont un contenu particulier, souvent répétitif, un concentré de la richesse des élites urbaines, sacrifié par sa mise en terre, et semblable à celui des tombes de la classe supérieure, avec des substituts (vases miniatures, armes de bronze, parfois elles aussi miniatures, figurines)73. Pratique égyptienne, levantine et mésopotamienne des IIIe-IIe millénaires, les dépôts de fondation mettent en œuvre des objets neufs ou utilisés. Les éléments majeurs des dépôts de fondation mésopotamiens sont des objets miniatures, des symboles de la fondation (clous), et des accessoires de libation ou d’offrandes alimentaires (bols). Ils sont placés en général sous les murs, aux angles du futur bâtiment. Ce n’est pas le cas ici : la zone de dépôt est vaste, remplit le temple 6 sans rapport avec le tracé du futur temple 5. Dépôt d’abandon ? C’est cette notion dont nous privilégions l’hypothèse. Le dépôt d’abandon marque une fin, quand un dépôt de fondation intervient en un début ; les trésors, réserves, favissa/caches s’opèrent pendant la vie du bâtiment. Tous ces types de dépôt se veulent un abandon définitif. Le concept de dépôt d’abandon a déjà été proposé, sous l’appellation « fill deposit » par Judith Bjorkman pour la Mésopotamie des IVe-IIIe millénaires74. Elle avance aussi la notion de « dead temple »75 ; on parle aussi de « termination ritual » et d’opération de « silencing temples »76 : raser un bâtiment public, suivi de l’enfouissement progressif de ses structures en y immisçant des objets ; ROMANO 2015. MORANDI BONACOSSI 2012. 73 C’est le cas des dépôts d’offrandes de Byblos ou de Ras Shamra (Bronze moyen). Voir NEGBI et MOSKOWITZ 1988 et PHILIP 1988, avec des exemples similaires, tous caractérisés par la prépondérance d’armes, outils, figurines et bijoux en bronze (et de faïence dans une moindre mesure). 74 Le concept vient en fait de l’archéologie de l’Amérique du Nord, de méso-Amérique, de l’Europe néolithique et de Chypre chalcolithique. « Fill deposits appear to mark the end of a temple or one of its periods of occupation and involve the ritual abandonment of some temple furnishings on the floor and/or in the fill of the old structure. », BJORKMAN 1994, résumé p. V-VI ; « Fill deposits: These non-utilitarian deposits are most often found in temples and involve the “abandonment” of quantities of whole or fragmentary temple furnishings, statuary, and other paraphernalia, which are simply covered over with fill when that area of the temple is being levelled up for re-building, repair, or deliberate abandonment. », 8, repris 300. 75 BJORKMAN 1999. 76 ZUCKERMAN 2007 ; KREIMERMAN 2017. 71 72
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
43
ceux-ci ne sont pas de grande valeur intrinsèque, la quantité de matière précieuse y est symbolique, ils sont parfois délibérément brisés, leurs fragments dispersés et parfois brûlés et peuvent ne consister qu’en fragments. Dans notre cas, on a noté des traces de feu dans le temple, mais il ne semble pas s’être agi d’un incendie d’une violence destructrice : les murs ne se sont pas effondrés et nous n’avons pas de couche de destruction épaisse : les seules marques en sont la cendre sur le sol et l’état brûlé des seuls vases à son contact direct. Il pourrait ainsi s’agir d’une partie du rituel signalé dans d’autres cas de « termination rituals »77. Nous aurions ainsi un cérémonial où des offrandes, des instruments de cultes et des ustensiles de banquets sont disposés par groupes dans l’espace qui va être condamné, sur plusieurs niveaux, au fur et à mesure que l’on ennoie ses structures sous l’argile. La présence des objets permet de dire qu’il ne s’agit pas d’un nivellement à seul but architectural en vue d’édifier un nouveau temple sur une surface égalisée. L’enfouissement du temple 6 et la construction du temple 5 ont fait partie d’une même opération mais la surface a été laissée vierge de toute construction. On a noté plus haut (note 2) que le temple 5 au contraire est peut-être la reconstruction sur un plan semblable d’un second temple, contemporain du nôtre, accolé à lui, au sud, qui, lui, destiné à être reconstruit, n’aurait pas fait l’objet d’une telle mise en terre cérémonielle. Peut-être est-ce la raison du rituel dont a fait l’objet celui que nous étudions ici : l’abandon concerne les murs et l’espace, qui ne se retrouveront plus dans une nouvelle bâtisse divine. Les raisons de l’abandon Les traces de feu sur le sol et sur le mobilier directement à son contact peuvent être interprétées autrement que comme un incendie accidentel. En revanche, comme on l’a noté plus haut, nulle trace d’incendie ni de destruction violente ne marque le matériel déposé ensuite ni le sédiment qui le couvre, bien au contraire, puisque beaucoup d’objets étaient intacts78. L’absence de fosse montre qu’on n’a pas essayé de récupérer ce qui aurait valu de l’être s’il s’était agi d’un accident. Le temple a vu ses murs arasés jusqu’au sommet du soubassement de pierre ; puis est intervenue la mise en place du mobilier, le brasero d’abord (qui ne fait pas partie du mobilier exposé au feu), en plusieurs couches, avec comblement progressif de terre argileuse ; un peu avant le sommet de ce comblement, les fondations du nouveau temple 5 ont commencé à être ancrées79. Voir par exemple, pour le temple de Nuzi, BJORKMAN 1999, 112-113. C’est le Type 4 de KREIMERMAN 2017, 183-190, qui en détaille l’exemple de Tel Mor VI et en liste d’autres. 79 Cette interprétation atténuerait la distinction dans le phasage de Tell Kazel entre les phases K4 et K3 : le sol inférieur (K4) a accueilli le début du dépôt, tandis que d’autres strates ont été mises 77 78
44
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
L’incendie initial a dû suffisamment fragiliser les murs pour qu’on juge utile de les araser. On n’en a pas reconstruit un nouveau au-dessus. L’enfouissement peut être vu comme une désacralisation, qui scelle d’une chape de terre l’ancien lieu sacré. Mais nous ne semblons pas nous trouver dans le cas des « crisis architecture » avec désacralisation des espaces rituels dans une époque de déclin, telles que les décrit S. Zuckerman en rapport avec les rituels d’abandon80. La cause de l’annulation du temple 6 par le temple 5 n’est donc pas à chercher dans une destruction brutale de la ville. Il s’agit d’histoire locale, la vie architecturale d’un bâtiment, que rien n’invite à lier à un événement dramatique régional d’origine humaine. Mais la vétusté aurait-elle été accélérée par un événement d’origine naturelle, tel le tremblement de terre qui frappa durement Ugarit au milieu du XIIIe s., notamment ses temples81 ? Conclusion Le contexte stratigraphique du trésor du temple de Kazel écarte une destruction violente. Il a été figé dans une ultime mise en scène avant son enfouissement volontaire. Cet ensemble s’inscrit dans le panorama du mobilier de temples fouillés au Levant, avec quelques éléments hérités du monde hourro-mittanien, dont on trouve des échos dans les inventaires de trésor de dieux retrouvés dans les textes. Ces ensembles rappellent aussi les objets de luxe retrouvés dans les tombes ou ceux de trousseaux royaux décrits dans les textes contemporains, à la différence des fournitures proprement religieuses qui ne se trouvent que dans les temples. Mais le « trésor » ne recèle pas en fait l’excellence du luxe de l’époque : or, argent, bronze, ivoire, pierres semi-précieuses sont bien moins représentés que dans les exemples auxquels on vient de le comparer. Il s’agit plus d’une représentation d’un trésor divin, disposant, autour de l’élément central qu’est le support fenestré-brasero, des substituts de biens luxueux. Si les textes de Syrie du Bronze récent restent muets sur les rituels de reconstruction82 ou d’abandon, aussi bien les restes fauniques que la vaisselle retrouvés évoquent banquets et libations à l’occasion des funérailles du temple. en place en cours de remblaiement. Cet ensemble date du début du niveau 5, lors de la condamnation du temple 6 pour bâtir le temple 5. Cela ne change en rien la date de la fin du temple 6, donnée par la céramique mycénienne la plus récente. Dans le temple, K4-K3 sont ainsi une seule phase et les strates sont des étapes du comblement. Seuls dateraient vraiment de K4 les objets brûlés sur le sol. La date de construction du temple 6 en revanche nous échappe. 80 ZUCKERMAN 2007, 6-7, 17-23 ; il s’agit dans son étude du déclin d’Hazor. Voir aussi BENTOR 2000, 248 pour les détails de l’enfouissement du temple en A6-sud à Hazor. 81 Voir CALLOT 2011, ROCHE-HAWLEY 2016 et HAWLEY 2019. 82 ELLIS 1968, Appendix A, texte no 43, mentionne un rituel d’Uruk d’époque séleucide qui intervient lors de la démolition et de la reconstruction d’un temple quand les murs tombent en ruine. On dépose sur une table d’offrande devant la première brique des sacrifices pour le « dieu des fondations ».
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
45
Bibliographie ADLER, W. 1994, Kāmid el-Lōz. 11, Das “Schatzhaus” im Palastbereich. Die Befunde des Königsgrabes, Bonn : R. Habelt. ALAURA, S. 2001, ‘Überlegungen zur Bedeutung der Fundumstände einer fragmentarischen Stierfigur aus dem Winklerschen Grabungen in Boğazköy/Hattuša’, in Th. RICHTER, D. PRECHEL, J. KLINGER (éds.), Kulturgeschichte: Altorientalische Studien für Volker Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken : SDV, 1-17. ARNAUD, D. 1986, Recherches au pays d’Aštata. 6, 3, Textes sumériens et accadiens, Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. BADRE, L. 2008, ‘Le brasero aux lions de Tell Kazel’, in C. ROCHE (éd.), D’Ougarit à Jérusalem : recueil d’études épigraphiques et archéologiques offert à Pierre Bordreuil (Orient & Méditerranée 2), Paris : De Boccard, 97-105. BADRE, L. 2009, ‘The Religious Architecture in the Bronze Age: Middle Bronze Beirut and Late Bronze Tell Kazel’, in Interconnections in the Eastern Mediterranean, Lebanon in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2008 (Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises hors-série 6), Beyrouth : Ministère de la Culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités, 253-270. BADRE, L., CAPET, E., VITALE, B. 2018, Tell Kazel au Bronze récent : études céramiques (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 211), Beyrouth : Beyrouth Institut Français du Proche-Orient. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E. 1999-2000, ‘Tell Kazel, Syria: Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993-1998. Third Preliminary Report’, Berytus 44, 123-203 + CD-Rom. BEAULIEU, P. A. 1999, ‘Un inventaire de joaillerie sacrée de l’eanna d’Uruk’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 93, 141-155. BEN-TOR, A. 2000, ‘Notes and news. Tel Hazor 2000’, Israel Exploration Journal 50, 243-249. BJORKMAN, J. K. 1994, Hoards and Deposits in Bronze Age Mesopotamia (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania), Philadelphia. BJORKMAN, J. K. 2008, ‘Mesopotamian Altar Deposits’, in R. D. BIGGS, J. MYERS, M. T. ROTH. (éds.), Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago July 18–22, 2005 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62), Chicago : The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 361-369. BJORKMAN, J. K. 2009, ‘How to Bury a Temple: The case of Nuzi’s Ishtar Temple A’, in D. I. OWEN, G. WILHELM (éds.), Nuzi at seventy-five (Studies on the civilization and culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians 10), Bethesda : CDL Press, 103-122. BOTTÉRO, J. 1949, ‘Les inventaires de Qatna’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 18, 1-40. BUNIMOWITZ, SH., ZIMHONI, O. 1993, ‘Lamp-and-Bowl Foundation Deposits in Canaan’, Israel Exploration Journal 43, 99-125. CALLOT, O. 2011, Les sanctuaires de l’acropole d’Ougarit : les temples de Baal et de Dagan, Lyon : Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée. CLEMENS, D. M. 2001, Sources for Ugaritic Ritual and Sacrifice: Ugaritic and Ugarit Akkadian Texts (AOAT 284), Münster : Ugarit-Verlag. DEPIETRO, D. D. 2012, Piety, Practice, and Politics: Ritual and Agency in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant (PhD diss., University of California), Berkeley. ELLIS, R. S. 1968, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia, New Haven : Yale University Press. FRANKEN, H. J. 1992, Excavations at Tell Deir ῾Allā. 2, The Late Bronze Age Sanctuary, Leuven : Peeters.
46
E. CAPET ET C. ROCHE-HAWLEY
JAMES F. W., MCGOVERN, P. W. 1993, The Late Bronze Egyptian Garrison at Beth Shan: A study of Levels VII and VIII, Philadelphia : University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. JOANNÈS, F. 1992, ‘Les temples de Sippar et leurs trésors à l’époque néo-babylonienne’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 86, 159-184. JUNG, R. 2006, ‘Die mykenische Keramik von Tell Kazel (Syrien)’, Damaszener Mitteilungen 15, 147-218. JUNG, R. 2019, ‘Mycenae – Tell Kazel: From Aḫḫiyawa to Amurru by Ship’, in F. BRIQUELCHATONNET, E. CAPET, E. GUBEL, C. ROCHE-HAWLEY (éds.), Nuits de pleine lune sur Amurru : mélanges offerts à Leila Badre, Paris : Geuthner, 235-252. KOŠAK, S. 1982, Hittite inventory texts (CTH 241-250), Heidelberg : Winter. KREIMERMAN, I. 2017, ‘A Typology for Destruction Layers: the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant as a Case Study’, in T. CUNNINGHAM, J. DRIESSEN (éds.), Crisis to Collapse: The Archaeology of Social Breakdown (Aegis 11), Louvain-la-Neuve : Presses Universitaires de Louvain, 173-203. KTU3 = MANFRIED, D., LORETZ, O., SANMARTÍN, J. 2013, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und anderen Orten = The Cuneiform alphabetic texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and other places (AOAT 360/1), Münster : Ugarit-Verlag. LACKENBACHER, S. 2002, Textes akkadiens d’Ugarit : textes provenant des vingt-cinq premières campagnes, Paris : Éditions du Cerf. LAGARCE, J., LAGARCE, É. 1985, Alasia. 4, Deux tombes du Chypriote récent d’Enkomi (Chypre) : tombes 1851 et 1907, Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. LEE, TH. G. 1984, The Late Bronze Age Temple in Palestine (MA diss., Wilfrid Laurier University), Waterloo, Ontario. MARCHEGAY, S. 2008, ‘Les pratiques funéraires à Ougarit au IIe millénaire : bilan et perspectives des recherches’, in Y. CALVET, M. YON (éds.), Ougarit au Bronze moyen et au Bronze récent : actes du colloque international tenu à Lyon en novembre 2001 “Ougarit au IIe millénaire av. J.-C. : état des recherches” (Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée 47), Lyon : Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen, 97118. MAZAR, A. 1980-1985, Excavations at Tell Qasile. The Philistine Sanctuary. 1, Architecture and Cult Objects; 2, Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes, Jerusalem : The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. METZGER M., BARTHEL, U.-R. 1993, Kāmid el-Lōz. 8, Die spätbronzezeitlichen Tempelanlagen. Die Kleinfunde, Bonn : R. Habelt. MIRON, R. 1990, Kāmid el-Lōz. 10, Das “Schatzhaus” im Palastbereich. Die Funde, Bonn : R. Habelt. MORAN, W. L. 1987, Les lettres d’El-Amarna. Correspondance diplomatique du pharaon (trad. par D. COLLON et H. CAZELLES) (Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 13), Paris : Éditions du Cerf. MORANDI BONACOSSI, D. 2012, ‘Ritual Offering and Termination Rituals in a Middle Bronze Age Sacred Area in Qatna’s Upper Town’, in G. B. LANFRANCHI, D. MORANDI BONACOSSI, C. PAPPI, S. PONCHIA (éds.), Leggo! Studies Presented to Frederick Mario Fales (Leipziger Altorientalistische Studien 2), Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 539-582. NEGBI, O., MOSKOWITZ, S. 1966 ‘The ‘Foundation deposits’ or ‘Offering deposits’ of Byblos’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184, 21-26. NOUGAYROL, J. 1955, Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit 3. Textes accadiens et hourrites des arhcives Est, Ouest et Centrales (2 vols.) (Mission de Ras Shamra 6), Paris : Imprimerie Nationale.
LES FUNÉRAILLES DU TEMPLE DE TELL KAZEL
47
OWEN, D. I. 2013, ‘Treasures of the sacristy’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 107, 29-42. PEDRAZZI, T. 2019, ‘Syrian One-Handled Fusiform Jars: An Offshoot of the Canaanite Tradition or of Late Bronze Age Connections with Anatolia?’, in M. D’ANDREA, M. G. MICALE, D. NADALI, S. PIZZIMENTI, A. VACCA (éds.), Pearls of the Past: Studies on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honour of Frances Pinnock, Münster : Zaphon, 723-739. PENNER, S. 2006, Kāmid el-Lōz. 19, Die Keramik der Spätbronzezeit: Tempelanlagen T3 bis T1, Palastanlagen P5 bis P1/2, Königsgrab (‚Schatzhaus‘) und ‚Königliche Werkstatt‘, Bonn : R. Habelt. PHILIP, G. 1988, ‘Hoards of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in the Levant’, World Archaeology 20/2 (= Hoards and Hoarding), 190-208. RIIS, P. J. 1996, Sūkās. 10, The Bronze and Early Iron Age Remains at the Southern Harbour, København : Munksgaard. ROCHE-HAWLEY, C., HAWLEY, R. (éds.) 2012, Scribes et érudits dans l’orbite de Babylone (Orient & Méditerranée 9), Paris : De Boccard. ROCHE-HAWLEY, C. 2016, ‘La reconstruction du temple de Ba῾lu à Ougarit au XIIIe siècle av. J.-C. : entre mythe et réalité’, in Y. LAFOND, V. MICHEL (éds.), Espaces sacrés dans la Méditerranée antique, Rennes : Presse Universitaire de Rennes, 83-93. ROMANO, L. 2015, ‘A Temple Lifecycle: Rituals of construction, restoration, and destruction of some ED Mesopotamian and Syrian sacred buildings’, in N. LANERI (éd.), Defining the Sacred: Approaches to the archaeology of religion in the Near East, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 142-150. ROWE, A. 1940, The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan. 1, The Temples and Cult Objects, Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press. SAMET, I., SUSNOW, M., YASUR-LANDAU, A. 2017, ‘Ceramic Assemblages of MB and LB Palaces and Temples: A Comparative Study’, Israel Exploration Journal 67, 129-150. SCHAEFFER, CL. F.-A. 1949, ‘Corpus céramique de Ras Shamra-Ugarit’, in CL. F.-A. SCHAEFFER (éd.), Ugaritica II : nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra (Mission de Ras Shamra 5), Paris : Geuthner, 131-301. TUFNELL, O. 1958, Lachish (Tell ed Duweir) 4: The Bronze Age, London : Oxford University Press. TUFNELL, O., INGE, C. H., HARDING, G. L. 1940, Lachish (Tell ed Duweir) 2: The Fosse Temple, London : Oxford University Press. VIROLLEAUD, CH. 1930, ‘Les tablettes de Mishrifié-Qatna’, Syria 11/4, 311-342. YADIN, Y. 1960, Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956, Jerusalem : Magnes Press, Hebrew University. YON, M. 1997, La cité d’Ougarit sur le tell de Ras Shamra, Paris : Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations. ZEVIT, Z. 2001, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches, London : Continuum. ZUCKERMAN, SH. 2007, ‘Anatomy of a destruction: crisis architecture, termination rituals and the fall of Canaanite Hazor’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20/1, 3-32.
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS FROM TELL KAZEL, SYRIA Lione
DU
PIÊD*
Recent history of the pot During the campaign of 2004 at Tell Kazel, a bag with pottery sherds (perforated body parts, loop-shaped pieces and a loop handle) ended up on my working table. The fragments were excavated by Eric Gubel in the campaign of 1992 in Area I1. After describing the pieces in detail, I realized that the shape of this vessel did not correspond to shapes of other perforated vessels known to me from the Levant. Therefore, I asked our pottery restorer, Anita van der Kloet, to reconstruct the shape by gluing the pieces together and filling in the missing pieces. After that was successfully done, the pot was drawn by Rami Yassine, the draughtsman of Tell Kazel2. Shape, manufacture and fabric The pot has a more or less globular body shape with low carination, a distinctive neck, three loop-shaped legs and one large loop handle from rim to shoulder (Figs. 1, 2). The shape is somewhat irregular and asymmetrical. Three more or less parallel rows of perforated holes can be distinguished on the upper part of the body, although some holes are not in a clear horizontal line and placed more irregularly over the vessel. The upper row is placed in the transition zone between the shoulder of the body and the neck. The body and neck are shaped on the wheel. The lower part of the body and base are very irregular and might have been attached separately to the vessel, possibly by means of turning and placing a slab or coils to close the base. However, this cannot be ascertained because only a very small part of the base was preserved. The loop-shaped legs are separately attached to the vessel, when the clay was still very plastic, and therefore bumps and depressions from the attachment of the legs can be noted underneath and around the attachment points, especially * Amsterdam. 1 I warmly thank Eric Gubel for the pleasant years on ‘the top of the tell’ in Tell Kazel and to be able to study the Iron Age pottery from Area I. I look forward to work together in the coming years on the publication of the material from Tell Kazel Area I. 2 Tell Kazel Complete profiles Plate 184 (2004). The vessel was restored earlier in 1993 and registered as a complete profile (93.238).
50
L. DU PIÊD
scale 1/3
TK 92 T 13 NE 1932.79a,b,c,d
Fig. 1: Drawing of perforated vessel with loop-shaped legs from Tell Kazel, scale 1:3.
under the base. The handle is probably attached to the vessel in the leatherhard stage. The loop-shaped legs and handle are handmade and are not finished with care; they show traces of the force used to attach the separate parts to the vessel. The holes are perforated from outside to inside, and around some holes traces of pulling out a stick-shaped object after piercing the body can be noted. It seems therefore likely that perforations were made when the clay was still relatively plastic. Perforations are most likely made before the handle was attached, because one hole is visible in the zone between the handle and the shoulder. The manufacture traces show that perforations were planned from the start and are part of the original vessel. The vessel was smoothed before being perforated, and therefore marks are visible on the surface. The vessel is undecorated.
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
51
Fig. 2: Photograph of perforated vessel with loop-shaped legs from Tell Kazel. Height: 18 cm (including legs); 15,6 cm (without legs); thickness of wall: 6-7 mm; diameter: 10,5 cm (rim); 15 cm (largest diameter body).
The fabric is pinkish in colour (Munsell chart 10yr 7/3-7/4 surface)3 and fired in a completely oxidizing atmosphere. Added grains are visible on the surface and are generally medium in size, although few large white grains can be noted. White grains are dominant, followed by some grey and black grains, and microfossils. The shape of the added mineral grains is subround to subangular and the number of grains is medium. Especially on the handle, but to a lesser extent on the loop-shaped legs as well, traces of burnt out organic material can be noted. This addition of organic material is a common feature on handles and other separately added parts in the Iron Age pottery repertoire at Tell Kazel. Organic materials are added most likely to reduce differential shrinkage of the separate parts when fired in the oven. The fabric fits well in a common fabric group of Iron Age date at Tell Kazel. This fabric type is also used for other shapes like storage jars, plates, bowls, thin bowls, etc. It is therefore convincing that this pot was produced in or in the near vicinity of Tell Kazel4. 3 4
Munsell Soil Color Chart (New Windsor, 2000), revised washable edition. The fabric groups are identified macroscopically.
52
L. DU PIÊD
Fig. 3: Area I, Iron Age levels 6-9, the ‘jar building’ (BADRE, GUBEL, CAPET and PANAYOT 1994, 273, fig. 13).
The context and dating The vessel comes from square T13NE, level 8-9/9, basketnumber 1932 (pottery numbers 79a-d). On the 15th of July 1992, it was noted in the field book that material from the piercing of the second whitish floor level 8 (with ashes in the east part) was collected as basket number 1932. On the 17th of July, level 9 was further excavated and a wall (W1467) was exposed (Fig. 3).
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
53
In the area east of this wall, a greyish clay floor (floor 9) appeared. To the west of the wall, a storage jar and a few more complete forms were found on an irregular brownish floor. At present, based on this description, it seems most likely that the vessel discussed here comes from the area west of the wall on the brownish floor. This floor belongs to a room within a temple complex. The room is known as the ‘jar-building’, which was in use from the early 1st millennium BCE until the Assyrian conquest in 738 BCE. Fragments of a different type of censer, brasero and storage jars, some filled with animal bones, have been found in association with this room. The clay floor associated with level 9 is probably later than the level with the storage jars and the pebble floor of the earliest phase (jars appeared in T13NE in level 9-10, the pebble floor belongs to level 10), but it cannot be excluded that the clay deposit of level 9-10 is more or less contemporary with the floor of level 9 or only slightly later5. An (earlier) 8th century date for the context of the perforated vessel under study seems most likely at the moment6. Function and use in the Near East Based on the context in Tell Kazel, a cultic or ritual function for the vessel from Tell Kazel can be proposed. A quick survey through the publications from Near Eastern sites reveals that pierced vessels are mainly confined to strainers, which are pierced all over and under the base. There is, however, one special group of so-called tripod cups7 or bowls with perforated (or non-perforated) body and usually one handle or without handle. The perforations are usually exclusively on the upper part of the body8. Based on comparative literature, it is convincing that at least some tripod cups with perforated bodies are used in cultic contexts (temples, house cults and tombs), but a cultic function cannot be proven for all tripod cups9. The usual small size and domestic contexts of the cups led Zwickel to the conclusion that these cups are mainly used in domestic cults and not in official temple cults, except possibly for some larger fragments10. 5
BADRE and GUBEL 1999-2000, 127; BADRE, GUBEL, CAPET and PANAYOT 1994, 276-283. A date before the Assyrian conquest (738 BCE) is ascertained. Further study of the material evidence and the stratigraphy can possibly specify the date of the context. 7 The term tripod cup is used in this article for types with and without perforations and for types that are probably related to the tripod cup, but do not have an actual tripod base; ZWICKEL (1990) uses the general term ‘Räuchergeräte’ for all types. For an overview of the tripod cups and related types in the Near East see ZWICKEL 1990, 41-53. 8 Articles that deal specifically with this tripod cups and related shapes are e.g. PRITCHARD 1969, 427-434, CROWFOOT 1940, 150-153 and, more recently and excessively, ZWICKEL 1990. 9 West of the Jordan, tripod cups are mainly found in house contexts (ZWICKEL 1990, 38), e.g. in Samaria some fragments were also found in non-cultic contexts (TAPPY 1992, 202). 10 ZWICKEL 1990, 39. 6
54
L. DU PIÊD
The function and use of the tripod cup is subject of debate, because not all of them show traces of burning. If traces of burning are absent, the function as a strainer or as an object used in the preparation of cheese and curds has sometimes been suggested11. Most scholars agree, however, that the use as a strainer or in cheese making is not very likely because the holes are usually in the upper part of the vessel and therefore not well suited for that function12. If traces of burning are present, the cups are usually interpreted as censers or braziers, although the small size of most cups makes them less suitable as a brazier or stove13. The perforations possibly facilitate air supply to keep the charcoal burning. Based on the analogy with modern day censers from Rhodes, the Greek islands and Cyprus, Crowfoot suggested already in 1940 that this type of tripod cups and bowls functioned as censers, even when most fragments she described from Palestine did not show traces of burning. In modern times they are used mainly for censing in houses, especially after a death. In Cyprus, it was in modern times clearly confined to a specific function: at funerals. In Skyros and Cyprus they are also used in small shrines14. In 1969, Pritchard published additional evidence for the use as a censer from Tell es-Sa’idiyeh, where tripod cups with perforated bodies were found in association with ashes and a plastered platform15. At present, most scholars agree that these cups are most likely used as censers, even when there are no evident burn traces on the vessel. There is an interesting different distribution pattern of tripod cups with and without perforations in Palestine: the non-perforated cups appear mainly in the region east of the Jordan and are found mainly in tombs, whereas in the region west of the Jordan they are rarely found in tombs and usually in houses or sometimes temples. Zwickel therefore suggests that the ‘new’ types of vessels that started to appear in the 1st millennium BCE in Palestine were adapted differently by different ethnic groups. A similar function and use might be proposed for both types, because many of the non-perforated cups show traces of burning16. Based on modern time analogy of Crowfoot’s study, this seems not unlikely, because 11 DE VAUX in TAPPY 1992, 202; VAN DER KOOIJ and IBRAHIM (eds.) 1989, 97, nr. 61; AMIRAN 1970, 201. 12 For discussions on this matter see e.g. TAPPY 1992, 202; ZWICKEL 1990, 3-4; BEN-TOR and PORTUGALI 1987, 206; RAST 1978, 33-35. Usually perforated vessels are described as censers or braziers in the literature. 13 CROWFOOT shows that in modern times very small braziers are made in the Greek islands and that these are close copies of larger braziers, see CROWFOOT 1940, ‘Some Censer Types’, 152 and fig. 2.2. 14 ZWICKEL 1990, 4, 71 and n. 9; CROWFOOT 1940, ‘Some Censer Types’, 151. 15 PRITCHARD 1969, 427-434. 16 ZWICKEL 1990, 4, 38-39, Karte 6. Tripod cups and bowls without perforations have been found in some sites west of the Jordan, but on these vessels no burning traces have been noted. Therefore it cannot be stated with certainty that these vessels were indeed used in a similar way.
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
55
cups with and without perforations are used as censers as well. The symbolic function of the censers might, however, be different in tombs, house cults and temples. When studied in 2004 the fragment of Tell Kazel did not show traces of burning. Whether this is due to the absence of a large part of the base or the washing and storing of the vessel after excavation in 1992 remains uncertain17. The use of this vessel is, therefore, uncertain and can add little to the discussion above. Parallels, distribution, dating and origin of perforated vessels in the Near East Strainers, braseros and several types of censers have been found in the excavations at Tell Kazel. Large high tubular braseros of different type are known from the temple complex of the Late Bronze Age and fragments of more or less similar braseros are known from Iron Age contexts in Tell Kazel, also in the abovementioned ‘jar building’. A small incense cup with multiple knobs has been found in the ‘jar building’ in level 9-10. Based on a parallel from an Iron Age temple from Tell Mastuma, this fragment might have been part of a cultic chalice and might indeed have been used as an incense burner as well, because the fragment from Mastuma has a perforation in the lower part of the body18. Pottery types with (three) loop-shaped legs are known from Tell Kazel in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age contexts19. A parallel for the vessel under study or other perforated tripod cups in the Near East are, however, not known to me from Tell Kazel. There is quite some variety in types and styles and regional and local variations are noted in the tripod cups and related shapes20. A typo-chronological development is therefore difficult to trace. A classification based on the absence or presence of a handle has been proposed for the vessels in Palestine21. Based on that assumption, it was suggested that types without handles might be slightly earlier and that handles appear in greater numbers on these vessels from the middle of the 9th century onward22. Although some early examples from Tell-el 17
In the Tell Kazel databases of 1992 and 1993 burning traces are not recorded for this vessel, but this type of traces are not systematically registered. 18 BADRE, CAPET and VITALE 2018, 135, pl. XXXVIII; NISHIYAMA 2012, 113-114, fig. 9k; BADRE and GUBEL 1999-2000, figs. 14-15; BADRE, GUBEL, CAPET and PANAYOT 1994, 276-283, fig. 20a-20c. 19 Base types BII D1, BII D2, BII D3, BII D3a in the typology books of Tell Kazel are base fragments with loop-shaped legs. 20 ZWICKEL 1990, 7, 21, 41-53. 21 RAST 1978, 33. 22 TAPPY 1992, 202.
56
L. DU PIÊD
Ghassil and Kamid el-Loz are possibly without handles, it seems that at least at Ghassil early types already have one handle and, therefore, a later appearance of the handle in the Lebanese-Syrian area is not likely. The earliest Late Bronze Age types from Tell el-Ghassil are unpublished, so the shapes are unknown at present. At Ghassil there might be some development in the shapes over time: from a biconical shape to a more rounded type from the 11th century onward23. Most vessels are undecorated but there are some examples with slip or paint (e.g. Kamid el-Loz, Tell el-Ghassil, Megiddo)24. The earliest examples of tripod cups in the Near East date to the Late Bronze Age in Tell el-Ghassil where they continue in the Iron Age I and II periods. At Kamid el-Loz, this type is known from the Early Iron Age period. In northern Palestine this type appears somewhat later, in the 10th century BCE, and in southern Palestine in the 8th century BCE. Zwickel therefore suggests that this type and its practice originate in the north (Lebanese inland sites) and slowly spread to the south. In the south, the tripod cup is most popular in the area east of the Jordan. In southern Palestine it remains a rare item and therefore Zwickel concludes that the Philistines did not use this type. Around 600 BCE the tripod cup is no longer used25. Interestingly, a near absence of tripod perforated cups from coastal sites has been noted26. From north(west) Syrian inland sites there is a fragment of a cup with perforations from Tell Mastuma of Iron Age date (end 10th-late 8th century BCE)27. Another fragment of a perforated bowl comes from an Early Iron Age level (1100-1075 BCE) at Lidar Höyük28. Based on comparative literature it can be concluded that this type of perforated vessels is very rare in north(west) Syrian sites in the Iron Age. Although based on a different argument, Zwickel’s conclusion that this type is not introduced by the Assyrians in Palestine seems therefore convincing at present29. Besides the small tripod cups some large vessels of very different type with pierced holes are known: one from Hama in Syria (3rd millennium BCE), one from Megiddo (10th century BCE) and few from Ugarit (1600-1365 BCE)30. A closed biconical vessel with high neck and perforations on the neck comes 23
ZWICKEL 1990, 36. ZWICKEL 1990, see e.g. 45, nrs. 8, 10, 14, 15 (Tell el-Ghassil), 47, nr. 1 (Kamid el-Loz), 48, nr. 2 (Tell el-Mutesellim/Megiddo), 52, nr. 2 (Sebastiye/Samaria) and references 54-61. 25 ZWICKEL 1990, 16-21. 26 ZWICKEL 1990, 21. 27 WAKITA, WADA and NISHIYAMA in BUNNENS (ed.) 2000, 537-557; LEHMANN 1996, Taf. 88, Form 466, described as ‘Räuchergefäss’; EGAMI 1986, pl. 18.4. 28 MÜLLER in HAUSLEITER and REICHE (eds.) 1999, Abb. 4 Form AF01. 29 ZWICKEL 1990, 12. This conclusion is based on the absence of this type of vessels in Assyrian military sites; for a tripod bowl without perforations see e.g. Tell Ahmar (JAMIESON in HAUSLEITER and REICHE (eds.) 1999, 304, fig. 6.14). 30 ZWICKEL 1990, 39, 53. The fragments from Ugarit are much earlier in date than the tripod cups and very different in shape. According to Zwickel, this might be a prototype of the later types in the Near East and can be related to the trade in incense to Egypt. 24
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
57
from Tell el-Ghassil31. The shape of these specific fragments from Megiddo and Tell el-Ghassil seem less suited for the use as a censer, because of the narrow neck. A vessel (described as a censer) with a high pedestal foot, more or less round body shape, high straight neck, one handle, and perforations in the upper body comes from Tell Arqa, a site close to Tell Kazel, and can be dated to the 8th century BCE. The vessel from Tell Arqa is somewhat smaller than the Tell Kazel vessel, has no loop-legged base, a different body shape and is decorated with red slip32. Parallels for this type of bases are known from southern sites at Tell enNasbeh and Samaria33. Tripod cups in the Near East are often different in shape (cups, bowls) and often much smaller in size than the vessel from Tell Kazel. Some examples are somewhat reminiscent in body shape and distinct neck and/or size to the vessel shape at Tell Kazel, but none are close in overall shape of the body and neck. Types with (short) necks are known from e.g. Beth Shan, Tell Deir Alla, Lachish, Kadesh, Hazor, Samaria, Tell Tanaach34. There are parallels for perforated vessels with loop-shaped legs in the Near East. Based on the non-exhaustive overview of tripod cups above, it can be concluded that in the comparative literature there is no close parallel for the vessel of Tell Kazel in the Near East. There are, however, some characteristics that place this vessel in the tradition of the so-called tripod cups. First of all, the context of the vessel is probably a cultic one, just like many tripod cups. Secondly, the vessel has some similar features, such as the perforated upper body, one handle, high (three-looped instead of tripod) base and is reminiscent in shape to some (often smaller sized) tripod types. Thirdly, the vessel fits well chronologically: the tripod cup reaches its popularity in the 8th century BCE in Palestine and east of the Jordan, and in the 9th century BCE in Tell el-Ghassil. Therefore, its seems reasonable to suggest that this vessel, and the vessel from Tell Arqa alike, is a local variation on the tripod cup and might have had a similar function and use. Perforated vessels in the Mycenaean region Perforated vessels are classified by Furumark as FS 313, FS 314, FS315 and FS 316. FS 313 is an open bowl, FS 314 and FS 315 are globular shapes, 31
ZWICKEL 1990, 45, nr. 11 (Tell el-Ghassil). CHAAYA 1995-1996, 207, pl. 48, identification number 78/325.b1. This fragment is decorated with red slip. 33 ZWICKEL 1990, 49 (Tell en-Nasbeh 3), 52 (Sebastiye 3). 34 ZWICKEL 1990, 43 (Busera 2, Tell Deir Alla 1-3), 44 (Tell ed-Duwer 1, En el-Quderat 1, Tell el-Farah 1), 50 (Tell el-Qedah), 52 (Tell Taanek 1, Tell es-Sultan 1). 32
58
L. DU PIÊD
respectively with and without legs. FS 316 is a Rhodian shape and is much more common than the other shapes. It has legs and has peculiar horizontal rows of knobs on the upper body35. According to Furumark, the Aegean Mycenaean perforated vessels are exclusively found in tomb contexts and are generally interpreted as incense burners or braziers. However, it is important to note that there is no single example with remains of burnt material or even traces of burning. Again according to Furumark, perforated vessels appear in Early Helladic and Middle Helladic contexts36. In comparative literature, some scholars have proposed a Mycenaean origin for the tripod cup in the Near East. General similarities between the perforated tripod cups from Palestine and some Mycenaean perforated vessels from Rhodes (Ialissos) have been noted already by Crowfoot in 194037. The absence of traces of burning on the Mycenaean perforated vessels led Zwickel to the conclusion that, although these vessels are typologically close, they must have had a different function and use than the tripod cups in the Near East, and that an Aegean prototype must therefore be excluded38. As mentioned above, an origin in the Lebanese area (Tell el-Ghassil) seem more likely to him. Rast suggests that the perforated vessel might be an Aegean innovation that came to the East by means of trade with the Levant (e.g. Kamid el-Loz) and was transmitted from there to Palestine39. Tappy, on the other hand, believes that the perforated tripod cup can just as well be a form that developed independently in the Levant, instead of being of Aegean inspiration, – possibly because of the lucrative spice and incense trade developing in South Arabia at this time40. Although it will be impossible to settle this discussion on the origin of the perforated vessels in the Near East with one vessel from Tell Kazel, this specific vessel can contribute to some ‘new’ insights and renewed discussion. As has been concluded above, a close parallel to all features of the vessel of Tell Kazel has not yet been found in the Near East, but there are some characteristics that place this vessel in the tradition of the so-called tripod cups. However, it cannot be excluded that the original inspiration for the vessel of Tell Kazel must be looked for outside the Near East and more specifically in the Mycenaean repertoire of Rhodes. Close parallels for the vessel from Tell Kazel can be found at the cemetery site of Pylona, where five examples come from two tombs. The type fits well in the general ‘Rhodo-Mycenaean shape’ FS 316, of which 54 are known in 35
FURUMARK 1941. See FURUMARK in ZWICKEL 1990, 33-34. 37 CROWFOOT 1940, 153. The pierced vessels in the museum of Ialissos (Rhodes) together with the modern censers on the markets in Rhodes led Crowfoot to the conclusion that the ancient Palestinian forms probably had a similar function, thereby suggesting a link between the Mycenaean types and Palestinian cups. 38 ZWICKEL 1990, 34, 125. 39 RAST 1978, 35. 40 TAPPY 1992, 203. 36
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
59
Fig. 4: Perforated vessels from Pylona, Rhodes (after KARANTZALI 2001, fig. 138).
total from seven Rhodian sites41. The perforated vessels from Pylona are not only similar in general shape of the body, placement of perforations on the shoulder, size, and presence of one handle, but there are also two examples with looplegged bases (Fig. 4). On one example with a loop-legged base, the perforations are in the base part instead of the shoulder. Based on the similarities in shapes and similar context, there seems no reason to suggest a different function or use for the fragment with holes in the lower part of the vessel. At Pylona, the fragments have been found in a funerary context (tombs), just like the majority of tripod cups that surfaced east of the Jordan. In the northern sites (Lebanese-Syrian area), a cultic context has been suggested for at least some vessels from Tell el-Ghassil and is quite certain for Tell Kazel, but in the Syrian-Lebanese region the perforated vessels are not related to tombs. As has been shown above, there is some evidence in modern day Greece and Cyprus for the use of these censers in funerals, houses (especially after a death) and small 41
KARANTZALI 2001, 49, 170, figs. 138 and 213, pl. 37a-37e.
60
L. DU PIÊD
shrines alike. Whether this type of vessels from house and temple contexts can be linked to a cultic function related to death rituals remains at present entirely hypothetical42. The transmission of the shape or the actual export of Pylona vessels, and possibly with it its practices, to Sicily (Scoglio del Tonno) and Turkey (Müsgebi) is in itself a remarkable observation because the type has been found almost exclusively in Rhodes and is not attested at other Mycenaean sites. The fragments from Pylona can be dated to the LHIIIA2/early IIIB, whereas other Rhodian examples were mainly discovered in LHIIIA1-2 contexts and few in LHIIIC43. Although the Rhodian vessels are much earlier in date than the vessel in Tell Kazel (probably 8th century BCE), the striking similarities in type suggest that there might be a connection between the Mycenaean shapes at Rhodes and the vessel from Tell Kazel44. At Pylona perforated types with loop-legged bases and tripod bases are found together in the same tomb and period. It is therefore not unlikely that the inspiration for the tripod cups and bowls from Tell el-Ghassil and slightly later from Kamid el-Loz originally came from Rhodes. The Late Bronze Age perforated shapes from Tell el-Ghassil are, unfortunately, unpublished, so it remains uncertain whether the early shapes are reminiscent of the Mycenaean type FS 316. Chronologically, the types from Tell el-Ghassil and Kamid el-Loz bridge the gap between the vessels from Rhodes and the vessel from Tell Kazel. Tell el-Ghassil yielded the large number of 59 perforated and non-perforated tripod vessels, almost all with burning traces. Zwickel therefore concludes that this must have been a very important center for this use of censers in sacrifices45. As has been suggested above for the tripod cups from Palestine, from there the shape, and with it possibly its cultic character, spread not only more south but also to Tell Kazel, Tell Arqa and possibly more northern Syrian sites (Tell Mastuma, Lidar Höyük). Based on the contextual evidence, a similar cultic function between Tell el-Ghassil and Tell Kazel might be proposed, although at Tell Kazel it was found in a temple context and at Tell el-Ghassil it might be related to a more domestic house cult. Like all perforated vessels from the Mycenaean area, the perforated vessels from Pylona do not show any traces of burning. How these vessels were used in Pylona remains uncertain, as is the case for the perforated vessel from Tell Kazel and probably many perforated tripod cups in the Near East46. Based on the evidence, a similar symbolic or cultic function for this type of perforated vessels in the Near East and Rhodes cannot be ruled out. 42
See e.g. CROWFOOT 1940, 151; ZWICKEL (1990) suggested that most tripod cups are used in domestic cults. 43 KARANTZALI 2001, 49. 44 Although it cannot be excluded at present that the vessel from Tell Kazel developed completely independently from the Rhodian vessels. 45 ZWICKEL 1990, 15-16. 46 KARANTZALI 2001, 49. The perforated vessels from Pylona are made of a coarse cooking ware fabric, which might point at a use in which (re)heating of the vessel is expected.
A PERFORATED VESSEL WITH THREE LOOP-SHAPED LEGS
61
References AMIRAN, R. 1970, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. From its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. BADRE, L., CAPET, E., VITALE, B. 2018, Tell Kazel au Bronze Récent. Études céramiques (Bibliothéque Archéologique et Historique 211), Beirut: Institut français du ProcheOrient. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E. 1999-2000, ‘Tell Kazel Syria. Excavations of the AUB Museum 1993-1998. Third Preliminary Report’, Berytus 44, 123-203. BADRE, L., GUBEL, E., CAPET, E., PANAYOT, N. 1994, ‘Tell Kazel (Syrie). Rapport préliminaire sur les 4e-8e campagnes de fouilles (1988-1992)’, Syria 71, 259-346. BEN-TOR, A., PORTUGALI, Y. (eds.) 1987, Tell Qiri. A Village in the Jezreel Valley. Report of the Archaeological Excavations 1975-1977 (Qedem 24), Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. CHAAYA, A. 1995-1996, La céramique de l’âge du Fer de Tell ‘Arqa (Niveau 10) (unpublished MA thesis, Université Libanaise), Beyouth. CROWFOOT, G.M. 1940, ‘Some Censer Types from Palestine, Israelite Period’, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 72, 150-153. EGAMI, N. 1986, Tell Mastuma, Tokyo: The Ancient Orient Museum. FURUMARK, A. 1941, The Mycenaean Pottery. Analysis and Classification, Stockholm: Victor Petterson. JAMIESON, A.S. 1999, ‘Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Tell Ahmar’, in A. HAUSLEITER, A. REICHE (eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-eastern Anatolia. Papers presented at the Meetings of the International ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborow (1997) and other Contributions (Altertumskunde des vorderen Orients 10), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 287308. KARANTZALI, E. 2001, The Mycenaean Cemetery at Pylona on Rhodes (BAR International Series 988), Oxford: Archaeopress. LEHMANN, G. 1996, Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und Libanon. Stratigraphie und Keramikformen zwischen ca. 720 bis 300 v. Chr. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 5), Münster: Ugarit Verlag. MÜLLER, U. 1999, ‘Die eisenzeitliche Keramik des Lidar Höyük’, in A. Hausleiter, A. Reiche (eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-eastern Anatolia. Papers presented at the Meetings of the International ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborow (1997) and other Contributions (Altertumskunde des vorderen Orients 10), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 403434. NISHIYAMA, S. 2012, ‘A Local Temple in the Iron Age Village? Reassessing a Building Complex at Tell Mastuma in the Northern Levant’, Orient 47, 91-124. PRITCHARD, J.B. 1969, ‘On the Use of the Tripod Cup’, in C.F.A. SCHAEFFER (ed.), Ugaritica VI (Mission de Ras Shamra 17), Paris, 427-434. RAST, W.E. 1978, Taanach I. Studies in the Iron Age Pottery, Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. TAPPY, R.E. 1992, The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. Volume I: Early Iron Age through the Ninth Century BCE (Harvard Semitic Studies 44), Atlanta: Scholars Press. VAN DER KOOIJ, G., IBRAHIM, M.M. (eds.) 1989, Picking up the threads. A continuing review of excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan, Leiden: University of Leiden. WAKITA, S., WADA, H., NISHIYAMA, S. 2000, ‘Tell Mastuma: Change in Settlement Plans and Historical Context during the First Quarter of the First Millennium BCE’, in
62
L. DU PIÊD
G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7), Louvain/Paris: Peeters, 537-557. ZWICKEL, W. 1990, Räucherkult und Räuchergeräte: Exegetische und archäologische Studien zum Räucheropfer im Alten Testament (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 97), Freiburg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA : QUELQUES DOCUMENTS OUBLIÉS Jacques LAGARCE*
J’ai quelque scrupule à présenter, pour rendre hommage à ce prestigieux ami que nous voulons honorer aujourd’hui, de modestes documents illustrant la vie, et surtout la mort, d’humbles habitants du gros village installé sur les ruines oubliées de la brillante Ugarit. Mais lui-même n’a-t’il pas donné l’exemple, en publiant pendant de nombreuses années dans Syria, avec son regretté complice Pierre Bordreuil, la série des BAALIM, qui cherchait souvent à rendre leur place à des antiquités oubliées ? Et puis ces quelques lignes le ramèneront à une période sur laquelle il a beaucoup travaillé et, surtout, sur ce littoral syrien que, comme nous, il a beaucoup aimé, je crois. Les découvertes de la mission française de Ras Shamra concernant l’installation de la deuxième moitié du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. et des premiers siècles de notre ère sur le tell de Ras Shamra ont été excellemment publiées en 1983 par Rolf Stucky1. L’entreprise était méritoire, les premiers vestiges ayant été mis au jour en 1934, et l’accès au mobilier issu des fouilles, même plus récentes, ne lui ayant été possible qu’en partie2. Schaeffer et nous, ses collaborateurs, nous sommes efforcés de lui apporter toute l’aide que nous pouvions, mais il apparaît que cette bonne volonté n’a pas été suffisante. En effet, lorsque, après le décès de Schaeffer en 1982, mon épouse et moimême avons procédé, à la demande de Madame Schaeffer, au transfert progressif des archives de Schaeffer de sa résidence de Saint-Germain-en-Laye au Collège de France, nous avons eu l’occasion de faire des copies de documents qui nous passaient entre les mains et soulevaient notre curiosité. Parmi ces copies, j’ai retrouvé récemment celles que je présente ici, qui permettent d’apporter quelques compléments et corrections, certes mineurs, à ce que nous pouvons savoir du cimetière qui accompagnait l’établissement installé sur la partie haute du tell de Ras Shamra dans la deuxième moitié du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Il s’agit principalement de quatre feuilles (figs. 1-4) portant chacune, à gauche, le schéma d’une sépulture avec son contenu et, à droite, différentes indications : « RS 1934 », le numéro de la tombe et une caractérisation sommaire, orientation, dimensions, état des ossements, enfin la liste des objets trouvés dans la sépulture * Paris, UMR 8167. 1 STUCKY 1983. 2 STUCKY 1983, 1-3.
64
J. LAGARCE
Fig. 1: Ras Shamra, nécropole du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Relevé (très probablement par G. Chenet) du sarcophage 1, accompagné de quelques dessins d’objets.
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
65
ou en rapport avec elle, avec des numéros correspondant à ceux portés sur le plan. En faisant la copie, nous avons ajouté une échelle centimétrique très sommaire, tandis que le dessin original est à l’échelle 1/10, comme indiqué en bas de chaque feuillet. Sur le document concernant le « Sarcophage 1 » (fig. 1) figurent aussi les dessins, à l’échelle 1/1, de trois des objets de ce sarcophage. Toutes les mentions manuscrites semblent être de la main de Georges Chenet, et on peut penser que les relevés le sont aussi, ainsi que les trois dessins d’objets. Identification des sépultures selon les différents documents à notre disposition Dans la publication de Stucky, les sépultures ont reçu des numéros, romains pour les tombes construites en blocs (Grab I à Grab V), arabes pour les sarcophages monolithes (Sarkophag 1 à Sarkophag 6). Cette numérotation, qui a le grand mérite de distinguer entre tombes construites et sarcophages monolithes, ne correspond pas à celle qui avait été attribuée lors de la fouille, mais celle-ci elle-même était confuse dès l’origine, puisque les objets (RS 6.207 à RS 6.212) attribués par l’inventaire de la mission, de la main de Schaeffer, au sarcophage 3, figurent sur le relevé intitulé « Sarcophage 2 ». Quoi qu’il en soit, les équivalences entre numérotation figurant sur les relevés que nous attribuons à Georges Chenet et numérotation de Stucky peuvent être établies comme suit, sur la base de la liste du mobilier accompagnant chaque sépulture : – – – –
Sarcophage 1 = Sarkophag 3 Sarcophage 2 (sarcophage 3 selon l’inventaire) = Sarkophag 5 Sarcophage 4 = Grab III Sarcophage 5 = Grab II3
Ces confusions sont de peu de conséquence, dans la mesure où les tombes sont isolées de l’habitat et ne peuvent être mises chacune en rapport avec une unité domestique. Quelques informations à tirer des relevés Un premier renseignement utile est donné par l’indication que portent les quatre relevés : « pieds à l’ouest »4. Les sépultures documentées avaient donc toutes la tête à l’est, ce qui répond à une question qu’avait posée Stucky5. 3 Les dimensions données par Stucky pour les sarcophages 1 et 2 ne semblent pas, à première vue, correspondre à celles données par les relevés, mais cela est dû au fait que Chenet donne la dimension extérieure, Stucky la dimension intérieure. 4 L’auteur avait d’abord écrit « pieds à l’E », mais il a corrigé en « pieds à l’W », sans ambiguïté. 5 STUCKY 1983, 19, no 3.
66
J. LAGARCE
Fig. 2 : Ras Shamra, nécropole du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Relevé (très probablement par G. Chenet) du sarcophage 2.
Quant à l’aspect des structures funéraires, seul le dessin du sarcophage 4 (en fait, tombe construite en blocs) (fig. 3) nous donne une indication, celle de la façon dont étaient disposées les « rigoles ou cavités » sur les dalles qui constituaient le plancher de la sépulture. Les dessins permettent d’autre part de se faire une idée de l’état des squelettes, confirmant les indications données par Schaeffer : ossements en très mauvais état, mais qui ne semblent pas avoir été dérangés après la fermeture du cercueil,
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
67
Fig. 3 : Ras Shamra, nécropole du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Relevé (très probablement par G. Chenet) du sarcophage 4.
sauf dans le cas du sarcophage 1, dans lequel ce qu’il reste des os des membres inférieurs paraît avoir été quelque peu perturbé. Quant au mobilier de chacune des sépultures, les dessins de Chenet sont conformes, pour les sarcophages 4 et 5 (figs. 3 et 4)6, aux listes données par 6 À propos du sarcophage 4, on peut noter que la position des deux grandes fibules, nos 3 et 7 du relevé, n’est pas favorable à l’idée avancée par Schaeffer (SCHAEFFER 1935, 149) et reprise par Stucky (STUCKY 1983, 85, Schmuck Nr. 5), selon laquelle la chaînette, no 8, les aurait reliées entre elles. Si elles sont restées à peu près en place, les fibules auraient-elles pu servir à tenir fermées les deux extrémités d’un linceul ?
68
J. LAGARCE
Fig. 4 : Ras Shamra, nécropole du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Relevé (très probablement par G. Chenet) du sarcophage 5.
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
69
Stucky, mais ils apportent des compléments ou des corrections à l’inventaire établi par ce dernier en ce qui concerne les sarcophages 1 et 2 (figs. 1 et 2). Ces différences apparaissent dans le tableau ci-dessous : Mobilier selon Stucky
Mobilier selon les relevés (Les objets indiqués en gras sont ceux qui ne figurent pas dans STUCKY 1983)
Sarcophage 1 – Collier perles variées et sceau (Schmuck Nr. 7-11 ; Glyptik Nr. 1) – Coupelle attique à vernis noir (Keramik Nr. 79) – 2 oboles d’Arados (Münzen Nr. 43-44) (ca. 400-350) – Gobelet en bronze orné de feuilles en relief (à la tête du sarcophage, au dehors) (Metall Nr. 4)
(1) : coulant œil de chat [Schmuck 10 de Stucky], RS 6147 (1a) : coulant cornaline [Schmuck 8 de Stucky], RS 6145 (2) : quinaires argent [Münzen 43-44 de Stucky]. Inventoriés sous RS 6150 : « 2 petites monnaies argent » (3) : hachette jade percée [Schmuck 11 de Stucky], RS 6141 (4) : coulant nacre (5) : coulant lapis [Schmuck 9 de Stucky], RS 6148 (6) : cachet lapis, RS 6142 (7) : faux cachet hématite (8) : pendeloque pierre verte (9) : scarabée [Siegel 1 de Stucky], RS 6146 (10) : spirale nacre (11) : 2 coulants pâte jaune égyptienne. Inventoriés sous RS 6150 (12) : bague argent à chaton (semble être le Schmuck 19 de Stucky, attribué par lui, hypothétiquement, au Sarkophag 5, le sarcophage 2 de Chenet), RS 6149 (12a) : cornaline sertie or [Schmuck 7 de Stucky], RS 6143 (13) : tige bronze à olives [cf. dessin dans la marge droite de la fiche] (14) : tige fer altérée (15) : coupelle 6151 [cf. dessin dans la marge supérieure du relevé] [Keramik 79 de Stucky]. (16) : vase rouge pointu, fragment (17) : poinçon os [cf. dessin dans la marge droite du relevé] À la tête du sarcophage au dehors, coupe bronze, RS 6132 [Metall 4 de Stucky]
70
J. LAGARCE
Mobilier selon Stucky
Mobilier selon les relevés (Les objets indiqués en gras sont ceux qui ne figurent pas dans STUCKY 1983)
Sarcophage 2 Liste de mobilier non assurée – Restes d’un collier (Schmuck Nr. 19-23) – [19 = bague en argent 6149, la perle avec sa fixation brisée – 20 = perle ellipsoïde en cristal de roche 6253 – 21 = torque en bronze 6131 avec têtes d’animaux aux extrémités – 22 = fibule en bronze 6082 (Schaeffer, 1935, fig. 7K) – 23 = fibule en bronze 6066 (Schaeffer, 1935, fig. 7L)] – Lécythe pansu attique à figures noires (Keramik Nr. 90) (noir à bande réservée à gros points)
(1) et (2) : fusaïoles pierre verte (3) : en groupe : pendeloque cristal de roche, plaquette cornaline et fragments d’obsidienne, 4 perles de collier (4) : bague en bronze (5) : osselet de mouton (6) et (7) : tiges de bronze à olives (8) : fusaïole en pierre verte (9) : lécythe noir et rouge orangé. Inv. RS 6.208 [Keramik 90 de Stucky] (10) : petite cruche ovoïde blanc jaune
Le mobilier du sarcophage 1 Parmi les objets du sarcophage 1 dont Stucky n’a pas eu connaissance, certains ne nous sont attestés que par la mention que nous en trouvons sur le relevé. Pour quelques autres, cependant, la consultation de l’inventaire de la mission apporte des informations intéressantes. Ainsi, on s’aperçoit que la mention, dans l’inventaire, « Tr. 74, tombe pt. 18 » équivaut à « sarcophage 1 » de Chenet, ce qui permet d’identifier le no 6 du relevé avec l’objet RS 6.142, « cachet lapis cylindro-conique ; 2 génies ailés affrontés, coiffés de tiare ; 21 × 18 (Alaouites7) ». Schaeffer a ajouté plus tard sur l’inventaire : « D’après Delaporte8, néobabylonien (à la rigueur assyrien) (7e-6e s.) ; voir Ward, Seal cylinders of Western Asia9, et les catalogues de Delaporte ». Un autre cas intéressant est celui du no 11 du relevé, car on trouve dans l’inventaire, sous le no 6.150, numéro attribué à un ensemble qui englobe aussi les deux petites monnaies en argent et des « perles minuscules en pierre dure polie », la mention « éléments de collier : 2 en pâte jaune égyptienne dont 7 La mention « Alaouites », ou simplement « A », dans l’inventaire, signifie que l’objet était destiné à être remis au musée des Alaouites, à Lattaquié, musée qui n’était qu’en projet et n’a jamais vu le jour. Les objets étaient gardés dans un entrepôt du vieux quartier du port, quartier qui a été rasé vers la fin du siècle dernier. J’ignore si le matériel archéologique a été transféré à Alep ou au musée finalement installé dans l’ancien « khan » Nasri (appelé aussi « Mandoubiyeh ») à Lattaquié. Ces péripéties expliquent que les objets marqués « Alaouites » n’aient pas été retrouvés par Stucky. 8 Schaeffer pense sans doute ici à DELAPORTE 1910, et à DELAPORTE 1920 et 1923. C’est d’ailleurs à ce dernier ouvrage qu’il renvoie, dans Syria XVI, 1935, 149, n. 1, à propos du cachet conoïde en « calcédoine saphirine » du sarcophage 4 (= Siegel Nr. 6 de Stucky). 9 WARD 1910.
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
71
personnage agenouillé tenant tête dans ses mains, et laie allaitant deux petits ». Si la description du premier élément est trop générale pour permettre l’attribution à une variété précise de perle ou d’amulette, celle du second montre que nous avons affaire à un type connu d’amulette en faïence du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. On pourrait cependant s’étonner de voir ce type apparaître dans une région où le porc devait être généralement considéré comme impur. Mais le patient inventaire qu’a entrepris Günther Hölbl des aegyptiaca, principalement du 1er millénaire avant notre ère, tout autour de la Méditerranée, permet de constater que les amulettes en forme de truie, avec ou sans petits, se rencontrent dans les sanctuaires phéniciens et puniques de déesses de la fertilité ainsi que dans les tombes féminines ou d’enfants et les tophets10. Ainsi l’occupant de notre sarcophage 1 serait probablement une femme. De son côté, Christian Herrmann relève la présence de ce type d’amulettes en faïence en Palestine11. Deux autres objets ne se retrouvent pas dans l’inventaire, malgré mes recherches, mais sont documentés par les dessins tracés par G. Chenet dans la marge de son relevé du sarcophage 1 : une tige en bronze dont chacune des extrémités montre un renflement de forme olivaire (no 13 du relevé) et la pointe d’une tige en os (ou ivoire ?) (no 17 du relevé), qualifiée ici de « poinçon » mais qui pourrait aussi bien avoir appartenu à une grande épingle, épingle à cheveux par exemple. L’étude des « tiges à olives » n’a pas été reprise, à ma connaissance, depuis le travail fondamental de S. Milne en 190712, puis celui de W. Deonna dans sa publication du mobilier de Délos13. Ces instruments sont connus dès l’époque archaïque et se rencontrent couramment aux époques classique, hellénistique et romaine, surtout dans leur version où une seule extrémité est renflée en forme d’olive, l’autre étant aplatie en spatule, comme c’était apparemment le cas pour les deux exemples que nous allons retrouver dans le sarcophage 2. Les usages auxquels ces petits instruments pouvaient être destinés semblent avoir été multiples, dans les domaines de la médecine et de la chirurgie, de la toilette, de la préparation des onguents ou des peintures. La fréquence des découvertes paraît d’ailleurs exclure que les spatules à une extrémité renflée aient été l’apanage d’une seule profession. En revanche, pour les tiges à deux extrémités en olive, l’interprétation comme sonde chirurgicale est peut-être la meilleure14. Pour en finir avec le dossier concernant ce sarcophage 1, je reproduis ici (fig. 5 : a) le dessin fait par Chenet de la coupe en bronze moulé RS 6.132 (numéroté par erreur 6.123, comme sur le relevé, où cela a été corrigé), parce qu’il me semble plus précis que celui qu’en a donné Stucky15. 10 11 12 13 14 15
HÖLBL 1986, passim, notamment 203. En dernier lieu HÖLBL 2017, avec bibliographie. HERRMANN 2016, en particulier 178-180. MILNE 1907, 56-58. DEONNA 1938, 221-222, pl. 599, 600, 601. Voir par exemple les objets cités dans CHAVANE 1975, 175, no 4. STUCKY 1983, pl. 55, no 4.
72
J. LAGARCE
Fig. 5 : a : coupe en bronze moulé, RS 6.132, trouvée à la tête du sarcophage 1 ; b : lécythe sans décor, RS 6.207, du sarcophage 2 ; c : fragment de vase godronné à vernis noir, RS 6.206, du sarcophage 3 ; d : fragment de vase à décor réticulé, du sarcophage 7, RS 6.276 ; e : épingle en bronze à tête moulurée et pointe renflée, du sarcophage VII (?), non inventoriée (Tous les dessins très probablement par G. Chenet).
Le mobilier du sarcophage 2 Stucky signale qu’il a des doutes quant à la liste du mobilier de ce sarcophage telle qu’il a pu la reconstituer. Et, en effet, on peut penser que la bague RS 6.149, qu’il place ici, vient en réalité de notre sarcophage 1, no 12, tandis que rien
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
73
n’indique que la provenance indiquée dans l’inventaire pour le torque en bronze RS 6.131, Tr. 74, pt. 15, corresponde à une tombe. Les deux fibules, RS 6.082 et RS 6.066, sont bien représentées sur la fig. 7 de l’article de Schaeffer dans Syria XVI, 1935, p. 150, mais sans indication de la tombe dont elles sont originaires, et le dessin de Chenet ne confirme pas leur présence dans le sarcophage 2. Enfin la perle ellipsoïde en cristal de roche RS 6.253 fait partie, selon l’inventaire, d’un lot d’éléments de collier ayant pour provenance « Tranchée tablette prolongée, pt. 39 », indication que je ne saurais traduire en localisation sur le plan, mais qui n’évoque nullement une sépulture du premier millénaire. La composition du lot semble d’ailleurs indiquer qu’il date du Bronze récent, période pour laquelle on connaît nombre de perles en pierres dures du type concerné. De cette liste ne reste donc comme provenant réellement de cette sépulture que le lécythe peint RS 6.208. On peut en revanche, grâce au relevé, enrichir l’assemblage de trois fusaïoles en « pierre verte », deux au niveau des bras (nos 1-2) et une au pied (no 8), des éléments de collier – no 3 sur le dessin – que l’on voit placés au niveau de la poitrine, ce qui tendrait à confirmer qu’ils appartenaient bien à une parure ornant cette partie du corps, comme c’était d’ailleurs aussi le cas pour les éléments 1, 1a et 3 à 11 du sarcophage 1 –, d’une bague en bronze (no 4), d’un astragale de mouton (no 5), de deux « tiges à olives » en bronze (nos 6 et 7), et d’une « petite cruche ovoïde blanc jaune » (no 10). Nous avons fait allusion plus haut au fait que les objets du sarcophage 2 de Chenet se trouvaient dans l’inventaire de la mission sous la mention « Sarcophage 3 », plus précisément « Tr. 73, sarcophage 3 ». La consultation de l’inventaire nous fournit donc quelques informations supplémentaires sur ce mobilier. On trouve ainsi : RS 6.207 : bouteille ovoïde terre chamois clair, 114 × 73 (Alaouites). Un dessin, sans doute dû à Chenet, et retrouvé aussi dans les dossiers de Schaeffer, figure sommairement ce vase (fig. 5 : b) ; RS 6.208 : vase ovoïde, couverte noire vernissée et orange, 130 × 80 (Alaouites). C’est le lécythe pansu attique à figures noires, Keramik Nr. 90 de Stucky, dont on connaît ainsi le numéro d’inventaire ; RS 6.209 : deux tiges bronze à olive et spatule plate, 135 (Louvre) ; RS 6.210 : scarabée verre (Louvre) [Pas de dimensions indiquées] ; RS 6.211 : scarabée pierre noire (Louvre) [Pas de dimensions indiquées] ; RS 6.212 : pendeloque cristal de roche (?), perles ambre et verre bleu, plus 3 fusaïoles pierre verte et bague bronze (Louvre). Ces notices, très succinctes, nous fournissent néanmoins quelques dimensions, nous informent sur le fait que les « tiges à olives » ne sont pas du même type que celle du sarcophage 1, puisque l’une de leurs extrémités est en spatule. Elles nous posent aussi une question : pourquoi les deux scarabées, RS 6.210
74
J. LAGARCE
et 6.211, n’apparaissent-ils pas sur le relevé de Chenet, et que sont-ils devenus ? Comme l’inventaire n’indique pas le numéro attribué par le Louvre, ces interrogations risquent fort de rester sans réponse. Deux autres documents concernant la nécropole du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. peuvent encore être mentionnés ici. L’un est un fragment de vase à larges godrons, dessiné par Chenet (fig. 5 : c), avec la légende « 6204 Sarcophage 3, pâte orangée à couverte noir brillant ». Le numéro d’inventaire est erroné, RS 6.204 étant un cylindre-sceau du Bronze récent ; il faut le corriger en RS 6.206, « Tr. 73 Sarcophage 2. Fragment de vase côtelé terre à couverte noir vernissé (Louvre) ». Il semble se confirmer que la numérotation des sarcophages s’était inversée entre Schaeffer et Chenet. Un autre dessin de Chenet (fig. 5 : d) représente un des fragments enregistrés sous le numéro RS 6.276, « Tr. 69 (tombe-sarcophage 7) : 3 tessons de vase rouge peint de quadrillage noir à globules blancs (Louvre) ». Stucky16 a publié un autre fragment, trouvé en 1950, qui semble bien provenir du même vase. Plus intéressant est un autre dessin, qui se trouve sur une feuille comportant aussi la coupe en bronze RS 6.132, vue plus haut (fig. 5 : a), et date donc bien de 1934. Il s’agit d’une longue tige à tête moulurée en une suite de bourrelets doubles étroits, de renflements plus larges et d’une gorge, le tout s’achevant en une sorte de fleuron quadripartite, tandis que l’autre extrémité est renflée en olive striée horizontalement (fig. 5 : e)17. Je n’ai pas retrouvé cet objet dans l’inventaire. La provenance indiquée sur le dessin, « sarcophage VII (?) », laisse penser qu’il provient, comme le reste du matériel présenté ici, d’un contexte funéraire de la fin de l’âge du Fer ou de l’extrême début de l’époque hellénistique. Les quelques notes qui précèdent ne sauraient modifier notre vision de l’établissement qui a occupé une partie du tell de Ras Shamra dans la deuxième moitié du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Il m’a cependant semblé utile qu’elles viennent étoffer un peu la base documentaire sur laquelle fonder notre compréhension du site. Bibliographie CHAVANE, M.-J. 1975, Salamine de Chypre VI. Les petits objets, Paris : De Boccard. CLAIRMONT, C. 1962, ‘Poterie grecque provenant de Ras Shamra’, in C. F. A. SCHAEFFER (éd.), Ugaritica IV. Découvertes des 18e et 19e campagnes, 1954-1955 : fondements préhistoriques d’Ugarit et nouveaux sondages, études anthropologiques, poteries 16 STUCKY 1983, pl. 37, Keramik Nr. 19. Déjà reproduit, avec d’autres fragments, dans CLAIRMONT 1962, fig. 1 : 7, 632 et 635. Aucune provenance n’est indiquée. 17 Je ne sais comment interpréter cette « épingle » : objet de parure (on pourrait imaginer une épingle à cheveux, le renflement de l’extrémité servant à empêcher l’ornement de tomber) ou instrument ? La tête évoque celle d’une épingle en os de Délos, DEONNA 1938, 279 et 281, fig. 317, pl. 725, 14, épingle B 5338, décrite comme ayant « l’apparence d’un petit autel à acrotères ; audessous, des filets et un quadrillage ».
LA NÉCROPOLE POST-UGARITIQUE SUR LE TELL DE RAS SHAMRA
75
grecques et monnaies islamiques de Ras Shamra et environs (Mission de Ras Shamra XV ; BAH LXXIV), Paris : Imprimerie nationale et Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 631-636. DELAPORTE, L. 1910, Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyloniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la Bibliothèque nationale publié sous les auspices de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Paris : Ernest Leroux. DELAPORTE, L. 1920, Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental du musée du Louvre, I, Paris : Hachette. DELAPORTE, L. 1923, Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental du musée du Louvre, II, Paris : Hachette. DEONNA, W. 1938, Exploration archéologique de Délos, 18, Le mobilier délien, Paris : De Boccard. HERRMANN, C. 2016, Ägyptische Amulette aus Palästina/Israel Band IV: Von der Spätbronzezeit IIB bis in römische Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 38), Fribourg/Göttingen : Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. HÖLBL, G. 1986, ‘Egyptian Fertility Magic within Phoenician and Punic Culture’, in A. BONANO (éd.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean, Papers presented at the first International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, The University of Malta 2–5 September 1985, Amsterdam : B.R. Grüner/The University of Malta, 197-205, 345-346, 355. HÖLBL, G. 2017, Aegyptiaca aus Al Mina und Tarsos im Verbande des nordsyrischsüdostanatolischen Raumes (Archäologische Forschungen 28), Vienne : Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften. MILNE, J.S. 1907, Surgical instruments in Greek and Roman Times, Oxford : Clarendon Press. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. 1935, ‘Les fouilles de Ras Shamra-Ugarit, sixième campagne (printemps 1934), rapport sommaire’, Syria XVI, 141-176. STUCKY, R. A. 1983, Ras Shamra Leukos Limen, die nach-ugaritische Besiedlung von Ras Shamra, Paris : Geuthner. WARD, W. H. 1910, The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Washington: Carnegie Institute.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV. « LA FOUILLE DE L’AIRE SACRÉE FUT TERMINÉE LE 22 DÉCEMBRE 1960 ET LE RELEVÉ DE TOUTE CHOSE ACHEVÉ » NOTICE SUR LES PREMIÈRES CAMPAGNES Michel AL-MAQDISSI* et Eva ISHAQ**
Introduction Les archives conservées au Service des Fouilles et Études Archéologiques à la DGAM-Syrie sur les travaux menés à Amrith par la mission syrienne sous la direction de Nassib Saliby (1919/1923-1996) comportent une documentation inédite regroupée durant les campagnes menées sur le terrain1. Ces documents qui ont été soigneusement gardés dans son bureau au troisième étage de la DGAM-Damas, seront déplacés après son décès pour être stocké pendant quatre années dans un sous-sol humide des laboratoires du Musée de Damas. Durant cette période, un des deux auteurs de cette contribution n’était pas à Damas et à son retour en 2000, il remarqua l’ampleur de la catastrophe qui s’est produite. En effet, la mauvaise condition de stockage et la négligence des personnels de la DGAM2 ont gravement endommagé de nombreux documents. Ainsi, nous avons perdu à jamais des informations de première importance3. À partir du mois de juin 2000, nous avons procédé à un travail de sauvegarde des documents restants. Les travaux ont été réalisés durant plusieurs années, suivant des étapes parfois longues et même difficiles. En effet, notre engagement respecta la nature des documents et la fragilité de plusieurs éléments graphiques. Ainsi avons-nous procédé à une action simple, classique mais efficace, et dont nous pouvons présenter les quatre étapes : – Regroupement dans des pochettes et des classeurs des dossiers rangés par campagne ou par année. – Constitution à l’intérieur de chaque dossier de subdivisions suivant la nature du document : rapports, fiches descriptives, inventaires des découvertes, photographies, dessins, plans, correspondances etc. * Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités Orientales. ** Université de Varsovie, Institut d’Archéologie. 1 Pour Amrith, cf. d’une manière générale : SALIBY 1984 ; SALIBY 1989a ; SALIBY 1989b ; AL-MAQDISSI et ISHAQ 2016 ; AL-MAQDISSI et ISHAQ 2017. 2 Particulièrement le directeur général pendant cette période. 3 Plusieurs documents (rapports, notes, plans, photographies etc.) consultés auparavant ont complètement disparus.
78
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
– Analyse préliminaire des données dans le but de constituer un plan d’action pour la publication des différents documents. – Reproduction de ces documents : copie de scannage. Les documents issus de ce travail vont constituer une base solide pour mener une première réflexion mais l’éclatement de la guerre civile le 15 mars 2011 a interrompu ces travaux au moment où nous avons commencé l’analyse des dossiers administratifs : correspondance échangée, ordres de missions, achats du matériel etc. Nous proposons dans cette contribution dédiée à notre cher Éric de donner un premier aperçu de cette documentation pour les premières cinq campagnes qui ont eu lieu de 1954 à 1960 4. Présentation des données L’initiateur de la fouille à Amrith était évidemment Maurice Dunand (18981987) qui a essayé, tout au long de sa carrière au Levant, de suivre et compléter le travail entamé par Ernest Renan en 1860 et 1861 durant sa Mission de Phénicie5. Sur cette base, nous pouvons comprendre son intérêt pour Amrith, que Renan considérait comme le site « qui nous a donné, sur l’art phénicien, les résultats les plus clairs et les plus décisifs »6. Ainsi, M. Dunand sera impliqué dès le 8 février 1926 dans la fouille de la favissa qui se trouve à l’ouest du sanctuaire-Maabed du dieu guérisseur7. Ensuite en 1935, il va reprendre la prospection du site dans le but de « retrouver les restes de l’agglomération qui avait donné vie au temple », où il atteste la présence du tell avec de « nombreux éclats de poteries dont le sol est jonché à l’est de ce sanctuaire » et observe « une épaisseur de terre plus forte qu’ailleurs où presque partout le roc en perce la couche mince. Cette masse de terre » lui apparut « d’une assez faible puissance et de peu d’étendue »8. 4 Le présent texte résume un chapitre d’un mémoire réalisé par un des deux auteurs de cette note à l’Université de Varsovie : ISHAQ 2018, 31-184. 5 Ainsi va-t-il réaliser des travaux de fouilles dans plusieurs sites pour étudier notamment les phases phéniciennes. Nous citons par exemple les sites de Jbeil, Oumm el-‘Amd, Boustan elCheikh… En même temps, il va publier deux synthèses sur la Phénicie, DUNAND 1953b ; DUNAND 1966. 6 RENAN 1864, 102. 7 Il s’agit des travaux réalisés durant une quinzaine de jours suite à une information communiquée par le Capitaine Coux du Service des renseignements de Tartous, cf. VIROLLEAUD 1926a, 57 ; VIROLLEAUD 1926b, 241 ; DUSSAUD 1926, 420 ; DUSSAUD 1927, 188 ; DUNAND 1944-1945, 99 ; DUNAND 1953a, 166-167. Pour la publication des sculptures de cette favissa, cf. DUNAND 1944-1945 ; DUNAND 1946-1948. 8 DUNAND 1953a, 166.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
79
En 1938, il sera en compagnie de Calvin W. Mc Ewan et Robert John Braidwood pour préparer la campagne de terrain de l’Oriental Institute de Chicago à Tell Simirian (Tell Abou Ali) et à Tabbet el-Hammam, à la recherche de la ville amarnienne de Simyra9. Pour la mission américaine, le tell d’Amrith « n’était pas dans leur propos d’exploiter » surtout qu’il s’agit d’« un gisement qui, d’après les fragments épars en surface ne paraissait révéler que des temps hellénistiques et peut-être de l’âge du Fer ». D’ailleurs, il précise clairement qu’« on en voyait … mal les limites »10. Ce même petit tell fera l’objet d’une troisième mission de prospection en 1951. Durant cette action, M. Dunand précise qu’à partir du sud du sanctuaireMaabed il va « apercevoir, nettement découpée, la silhouette d’un tertre régulier avec ses pentes bien marquées et sa plate-forme horizontale »11. Dans son article publié en 1953, il va donner une première photographie de ce tell12 et il propose d’effectuer des sondages, car pour lui « le tertre de Marathus est de peu d’étendue et contigu au temple excisé dans le roc », et que ce tell « doit représenter la partie de l’installation qui participait de la vie du sanctuaire »13. La Direction Générale des Antiquités de Syrie de l’époque ne tardera pas à donner suite au vœu de M. Dunand, et une mission syrienne va effectuer sa première campagne en 1954 sous la responsabilité de N. Saliby, alors attaché technique au Service des fouilles et études archéologiques de Damas. Ce dernier va réaliser à partir de cette date et jusqu’en 1976 douze campagnes sur le terrain marquées par une activité de fouilles et de restaurations ainsi que des études historiques et architecturales (fig. 1). Première campagne (1954) Les fouilles vont commencer le 10 mars avec la participation en moyenne de 150 ouvriers. La mission est composée principalement de M. Dunand (archéologue), N. Saliby (archéologue et architecte), Agop Khirichian (topographe) et Mireille Dunand (archiviste). Un rapport préliminaire a été publiée dans les AAS14 et une note brève accompagnera le guide de la deuxième exposition des découvertes archéologiques des années 1954-1955, organisée par la Direction Générale des Antiquités de Syrie au Musée National de Damas15. Pour les résultats des travaux américains, cf. BRAIDWOOD 1940. DUNAND 1953a, 167. 11 DUNAND 1953a, 167. 12 DUNAND 1953a, 166/fig. 1. 13 DUNAND 1953a, 169. Dunand propose même que Amrith constitue « une base commode pour étudier la région encore assez peu connue qui s’étend de la Méditerranée à l’Oronte », et le point de départ pour retrouver « la ville de Simyra ». 14 DUNAND, SALIBY et KHIRICHIAN 1954-1955. 15 ANONYMUS 1955. 9
10
80
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 1 : Amrith 1954-1960, Plan d’ensemble du site avec la localisation du tell, du sanctuaire-Maabed, de la favissa, la Sources des serpents, la nécropole royale (al-Maghazil) (Amrith/Plan Général/01/009).
Durant cette campagne la mission va réaliser les trois actions suivantes : – Fouilles du tell qui se situe à l’est du sanctuaire-Maabed16. – Travaux d’étude et des fouilles ponctuelles de la nécropole royale (alMaghazil)17. – Travaux de dégagement et de vérification du stade18. Les archives conservées19 de cette campagne comportent deux documents importants rédigés en français : un rapport administratif et un inventaire détaillé de 651 numéros (fig. 2). De même nous attestons la présence de vingt-deux 16 DUNAND, SALIBY et KHIRICHIAN 1954-1955, 189-200. La stratigraphie obtenue prouve la présence de niveaux superposés allant de la fin du troisième millénaire av. J.-C. jusqu’à la période hellénistique. 17 DUNAND, SALIBY et KHIRICHIAN 1954-1955, 200-203. Travaux dans les quatre tombeaux royaux : hypogée à pyramidion, hypogée à superstructure en dôme, hypogée à superstructure prismatique et hypogée à superstructure épargnée dans le roc. Pour une tête masculine trouvée dans le dromos de l’hypogée à pyramidion, cf. AL-MAQDISSI et ISHAQ 2015, 42-44/fig. 5. 18 DUNAND, SALIBY et KHIRICHIAN 1954-1955, 203-204. 19 Notons que le carnet de fouilles de cette campagne reste introuvable parmi les documents inventoriés après la mort de N. Saliby.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
Fig. 2 : Amrith 1954, Première page de l’inventaire des objets trouvés par la fouille du tell (Amrith/Inventaire/1954/01/001).
81
82
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 3 : Amrith 1954, Une planche des photographies avec en haut à gauche Mme Mireille Dunand (Amrith/1954/01/021).
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
83
planches avec 84 photographies en noir et blanc qui présentent la fouille (fig. 3) et une partie des objets trouvés20. Deuxième campagne (1955) Les travaux réalisés durant cette campagne ont fait l’objet d’un rapport préliminaire toujours publié dans les AAS21. Ce qui est regrettable, c’est que la plupart des documents de cette saison ont été perdus et en particulier le carnet de fouilles et l’inventaire des objets. Nous possédons uniquement dix planches avec 32 photographies (fig. 4) qui montrent le déroulement des fouilles dans le sanctuaire-Maabed. Notons que le rapport préliminaire indique clairement que les travaux ont bien commencé le 30 novembre dans la partie nord-est du petit tell. Mais l’intensité de la pluie a entravé le travail, amenant l’équipe à commencer le dégagement du sanctuaire-Maabed par un premier sondage dans la partie occidentale qui sera suivie d’un dégagement du portique oriental là où Renan ouvrit une tranchée en 186122. En même temps un petit sondage fut réalisé au pied du naos central. Il est utile de signaler qu’à la suite de la fouille du tell, N. Saliby va terminer le dessin de trois plans qui précisent les principales séquences stratigraphiques fouillées : Hellénistique, Fer III et Âge du Bronze23. Troisième campagne (1957) Cette campagne se déroulera à l’automne et sera dédiée dans sa totalité au dégagement du sanctuaire-Maabed. Les travaux dirigés par N. Saliby avec en moyenne une centaine d’ouvriers vont faire l’objet d’un rapport préliminaire dans les AAS24, qui publie en même temps les résultats des deux campagnes suivantes de 1959 et 1960. Notons que les documents d’archives issus de cette campagne sont regroupés avec les deux campagnes suivantes celles de 1959 et 1960 à l’exception de quinze planches composées de 36 photographies en noir et blanc qui présentent les grandes lignes des fouilles réalisées (fig. 5). Nous ne pouvons pas préciser avec exactitude la nature de l’action effectuée sur le terrain car le carnet de fouilles demeure introuvable. La documentation 20 En plus les archives comportent une liste de matériel pour la fouille longue de trois pages, et un inventaire de cinq pages des objets destinés à la restauration ou à un traitement particulier. 21 DUNAND et SALIBY 1956. 22 RENAN 1864, 65-67 ; DUNAND et SALIBY 1956, 4-5 ; DUNAND et SALIBY 1985, 9-10. 23 Pour ces plans, cf. AL-MAQDISSI 2014, 465/figs. 4-5 ; AL-MAQDISSI 2015a, 15/fig. 2. 24 DUNAND et SALIBY 1961-1962.
84
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 4 : Amrith 1955, Une planche des photographies de la fouille du portique est du sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/1955/01/001).
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
85
Fig. 5 : Amrith 1957, Une planche des photographies de la fouille du portique sud du sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/1957/02/008).
86
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 6 : Amrith 1957, Vue de la fouille du bassin au nord-est du naos du sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/1957/02/007).
photographique nous indique que la fouille s’est développée d’abord pour le dégagement du portique sud et par la suite c’est la moitié orientale du bassin qui sera fouillée entre le portique est et le naos (fig. 6). Quatrième et cinquième campagnes (1959-1960) Les quatrième et cinquième campagnes qui se sont déroulées durant l’hiver25 seront sous la responsabilité de N. Saliby avec une équipe composée de plusieurs techniciens26 chargés de surveiller le déroulement des fouilles et des travaux du dégagement du sanctuaire-Maabed. Les archives comportent les documents suivants : – Inventaire de vingt-huit pages avec 164 numéros d’objets trouvés au cours des deux campagnes de 1957 et 1959 (fig. 7). – Cent douze fiches de description avec parfois des dessins schématiques des objets de la campagne de 1959 (fig. 8). – Inventaire de cinquante-cinq pages avec 328 numéros d’objets trouvés au cours des campagnes de 1959, 1960, 1961 et 1965. – Deux cents trente-huit fiches de description avec parfois des dessins schématiques des objets de la campagne de 1959. 25 Du 17 novembre au 22 décembre 1959 pour la quatrième campagne, et du 16 novembre au 23 décembre 1960 pour la campagne suivante. 26 Parmi ces techniciens nous signalons Muhamad el-Makki.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
87
Fig. 7 : Amrith 1957-1959, Première page de l’inventaire des objets trouvés dans sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/Inventaire/1957-1959/01/001).
– Soixante-huit planches de 147 photographies en noir et blanc des sculptures trouvées au cours de la fouille de la favissa en 1926, 1957 et 1959. – Huit planches de 21 photographies en noir et blanc de la fouille de 1959. – Inventaire de onze pages avec 92 numéros d’objets trouvés au cours des campagnes de 1959, 1960, 1961 et 1965. – Carnet de fouilles de vingt-deux pages des fouilles réalisées en 1959. – Carnet complémentaire de chantier de cinq pages pour les travaux réalisés avec la poterie dégagée principalement dans le bassin du sanctuaire-Maabed durant la campagne de 1959. – Quatre fiches variées du matériel trouvé durant la fouille de 1959. – Deux carnets de fouilles de la campagne de 1960. Le premier de six pages présente le déroulement des travaux (fig. 9) tandis que le second de trentedeux pages donne une description des éléments architecturaux trouvés et une présentation de la stratification du bassin27.
Les résultats publiés dans le rapport préliminaire des AAS montrent clairement que l’action sur le terrain était menée avec un nombre important d’ouvriers. Les carnets de fouilles de 1959 et 1960 notent en moyenne la présence de 120 ouvriers. 27
2019.
Ces deux carnets ont fait l’objet d’une présentation sommaire dans AL-MAQDISSI et ISHAQ
88
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 8 : Amrith 1959, Quatre fiches de poterie trouvée dans le bassin du sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/1959/05/005-008).
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
89
Fig. 9 : Amrith 1960, Première page du premier carnet de fouilles (Amrith/1960/02/001).
De même, les carnets apportent une information inédite notamment pour ce qui concerne les reconstructions de plusieurs parties du monument (portiques et naos)28 (fig. 10) et des informations en relation avec le matériel archéologique trouvé dans les trois niveaux d’accumulation du bassin29. Cf. l’exemple publié dans SALIBY 1971, pl. LXXXII. Nous remarquons que les notes signalent la réalisation de fouilles partielles dans la région de la favissa. 28 29
90
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 10 : Amrith 1960, Proposition de reconstruction du portique sud du deuxième carnet de fouilles (Amrith/1960/02/031).
Discussion Comme nous avons déjà remarqué, le dégagement du sanctuaire-Maabed est l’œuvre de N. Saliby. Il a mené durant quatre campagnes une action énergique parfois dans des conditions très difficiles. La présence de M. Dunand à Amrith durant les campagnes de terrain était soumise au calendrier de ses préoccupations au Liban et particulièrement à ses fouilles à Jbeil-Byblos, ainsi qu’en Syrie à ‘Ain Dara dans la région d’Afrine30. Mais il est certain qu’il a participé activement à la première campagne alors que sa présence lors des campagnes suivantes a été limitée à des passages parfois très courts. 30
Pour cette fouille, cf. SEIRAFI 1960 ; SEIRAFI, KIRICHIAN et DUNAND 1965.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
91
Fig. 11 : Amrith, Les deux systèmes du carroyage créés par N. Saliby pour le tell et pour le sanctuaire-Maabed (document redessiné des archives de N. Saliby) (Amrith/Plan Général/02/007).
La stratégie suivie reposait sur la fouille successive des différents secteurs du monument. Ainsi, N. Saliby a d’abord exploré le portique est, puis s’est dirigé vers les deux portiques sud et ouest. Ensuite, il a dégagé le bassin et des éléments inférieurs du naos pour terminer durant la dernière campagne de 1960 par la fouille de l’entrée et les structures du quai nord31. De même, N. Saliby va créer un système de carroyage spécial pour ce monument qui s’adapte parfaitement au plan avec une orientation différente de celle appliquée pour le tell. Ce système est composé de trente carrés de 10 m de côté couvrant toutes les structures visibles du monument (fig. 11). Cette stratégie garantira une compréhension précise de chaque partie, où les éléments architecturaux seront soigneusement isolés et localisés avec précision ainsi que les objets archéologiques trouvés au cours de la fouille. Précisons à ce propos que sur le plan d’écroulement de l’ensemble des structures fouillées32 seront numéroté avec une ponctualité étonnante tous les éléments 31 Il est important de noter que cette stratégie facilitera l’évacuation des déblais à travers la partie nord qui est ouverte vers la plaine sans aucune paroi rocheuse. 32 DUNAND et SALIBY 1985, pl. LXI.
92
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
dégagés, ce qui va faciliter la tâche de restauration et de remontage des blocs décoratifs du naos, des portiques et de l’entrée au nord. Notons pour terminer que les dossiers d’archives sauvés nous apportent des indications souvent précieuses pour restituer des informations en relation avec les structures architecturales, et surtout la nature des trouvailles céramique dans chacun des trois niveaux d’accumulation du bassin. Le sanctuaire-Maabed d’Amrith, monument majeur pour la Phénicie À la fin de la cinquième campagne de fouille à Amrith, N. Saliby va terminer le dégagement du monument religieux le plus prestigieux de la Phénicie orientale. Le 22 décembre 1960 est un jour exceptionnel pour notre discipline. C’est un bel aboutissement pour un site côtier depuis le passage de Renan durant sa Mission de Phénicie. Le 31 mars 1861, Renan accompagné du corps expéditeur de l’armée française trépigne d’impatience dans le port d’Arados après plusieurs jours d’un long voyage sur le Colbert33, qui avait commencé son périple à Tyr et était ensuite passé à Sidon et à Byblos. Le lendemain, il ira accoster à Amrith pour camper le 3 avril dans un champ élevé au nord du site qu’on appelle depuis al-Fransawiyat ()الفرنساويات34. Ce jour-là émergèrent les premières illuminations de l’archéologie phénicienne en terre syrienne. Les travaux de dégagement confiés au Docteur Joseph Charles Gaillardot35 pour la fouille, à l’architecte Auguste Thobois36 pour la réalisation des plans et à Edouard Lockroy37 pour la documentation photographique, vont créer une base pour toutes les recherches et les interprétations durant un siècle. 33 « Le 26 mars, après avoir laissé des instructions à M. Brouillet pour la continuation des fouilles de Sour, je m’embarquai sur le Colbert ; je passai deux jours à Saïda pour examiner les beaux sarcophages que venait de trouver M. Gaillardot ; je touchai à Gébeil, où je jetai un rapide coup d’œil sur les travaux que la compagnie avait exécutés durant mon absence. Cette même compagnie prenait passage sur le Colbert, et, le 31 mars au soir, nous entrions dans le port de Ruad », RENAN 1864, 7. 34 Traduction du nom local : « Le lieu des français ». E. Renan va donner à ce lieu une description mythique : « Mais j’ai hâte d’arriver à la partie la plus importante de nos recherches sur le sol arvadite. La compagnie alla camper à Amrit, le 3 avril. La plaine, sillonnée dans tous les sens par des eaux magnifiques, offrait un immense tapis de fleurs. Le camp fut placé sur les bords du NahrAmrit, près d’un îlot de verdure. Le pays est désert à deux lieues à la ronde ; les Ansariés seuls s’approchèrent quelquefois du camp, et toujours dans des intentions pacifiques. Le temps aussi nous fut constamment favorable. Le vent d’ouest, qui régna sans interruption, recula l’époque des fièvres, terribles en ces parages », RENAN 1864, 50. 35 Médecin et botaniste, professeur d’histoire naturelle à l’école de médecine du Caire et chef à l’hôpital militaire de Saïda. 36 Architecte-inspecteur de la Bibliothèque Impériale à Paris. 37 Journaliste et homme politique français.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
93
Ces résultats vont pousser Georges Contenau en 1921 à faire une conclusion vigoureuse sur le temple phénicien où il précise que « ces fouilles ont donné de précieux résultats archéologiques. Elles nous ont fait connaître le vieux temple phénicien. Ce temple, chez les Phéniciens, comme chez les anciens Sémites, n’est pas un vaste bâtiment semblable au temple grec ou à nos églises modernes ; c’est une enceinte sacrée à ciel ouvert au milieu de laquelle s’élève l’autel ou une toute petite chapelle pour la divinité. Le sanctuaire actuel de la Mecque est un bon exemple de ce type. Le temple d’Astarté à Byblos fut représenté sur une monnaie d’époque impériale. Abstraction faite des adjonctions au plan primitif, c’est une cour à portique où se dresse un bétyle, ou pierre sacrée. Il en est de même à Amrit où un naos occupe le centre de la cour. On nomme ainsi de petites chapelles dont la forme est égyptienne et dont les ornements : urœus, disque ailé, font partie de l’art décoratif du pays auquel a été fait cet emprunt »38. Ainsi, les conséquences de cet acte fondateur de l’archéologie phénicienne vont inciter M. Dunand et N. Saliby à procéder à un dégagement complet du sanctuaire-Maabed durant quatre campagnes (1955-1960). Cette entreprise menée avec une précision étonnante va aboutir à une compréhension de tous les détails architecturaux. De plus, la lecture précise de la publication finale39 révèle la nature des cérémonies religieuses chez ces Phéniciens du nord et apporte des conclusions qui confirment ce que Renan avait dit, qu’Amrith est « le trésor des monuments phéniciens »40. Conclusion L’année de 1960 restera l’événement le plus important de l’histoire des travaux archéologiques de la Phénicie orientale. En effet, un siècle après la première mise au point du sanctuaire-Maabed par Renan, une équipe syrienne annoncera en toute solennité que « la fouille de l’aire sacrée fut terminée le 22 décembre 1960 et le relevé de toute chose achevé »41 (fig. 12). Cette brève phrase résume par son style un sentiment spécial de fierté. C’est en quelque sorte la contribution la plus spectaculaire à un travail de longue haleine et la façon la plus éminente de transmettre un message à Renan en utilisant en archéologie la formule rituelle : « mission accomplie » (fig. 13). Cette phrase noble de notre discipline imprimée sur un papier mat, jaunâtre, où les lettres se succèdent majestueusement dans une forme traditionnelle qui sent l’encre du passé, représente le message parfait d’un temps glorieux de l’antiquité. 38 39 40 41
CONTENAU 1922, 225. DUNAND et SALIBY 1985. DUNAND et SALIBY 1985, 101. DUNAND et SALIBY 1961-1962, 3.
94
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Fig. 12 : Amrith 1960, Première page du rapport publié (DUNAND et SALIBY 1961-1962, 3) sur les fouilles du sanctuaire-Maabed avec la fameuse phrase : « La fouille de l’aire sacrée fut terminée le 22 décembre 1960 et le relevé de toute chose achevé ».
Certes, relier ce vieux temps à notre époque actuelle n’est pas une tâche facile surtout quand on sait que Amrith a été exposée récemment à une agression profonde où l’amertume d’une déception venait s’installer au cœur de son destin. Amrith restituée jadis par Renan puis par M. Dunand et N. Saliby n’est pas l’Amrith que nous voyons aujourd’hui, qui souffre seule d’un anéantissement
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
95
Fig. 13 : Amrith 1960, « mission accomplie » : photographie prise vers le 22 décembre de la partie nord-est du sanctuaire-Maabed (Amrith/1960/04/008).
systématique de ses pierres millénaires. Elle soupire de douleur et de chagrin et attend ceux qui la réconforteront. « Mais où en sommes-nous de ces ruines qui nous appellent et nous ne répondons pas et qui nous parlent et nous n’entendons pas »42. Amrith a ainsi révélé la vérité d’une horreur absolue, la vérité sur la volonté d’une autorité patrimoniale de manipuler par peur une cause archéologique pour les intérêts des promoteurs43. Cette attitude montre à quel point l’archéologie peut être prise au piège mortel qui souvent la devance et qui la conduit même à l’anéantissement de ses ruines. L’ampleur de la catastrophe est trop grande pour imaginer ce qu’il restera des messages d’un passé glorieux. Cette gloire est agressée et l’assaillant se cache et même camoufle son action. Il est l’invisible destructeur des valeurs défendues par notre discipline. Malheureusement, en ce moment, nous n’avons qu’à répéter ce que Dominique de Villepin a dit : « Mais qui sont donc les vampires d’aujourd’hui ? Moins les cracheurs d’anathèmes que les peurs elles-mêmes à l’intérieur de nous. Une tache est inscrite depuis toujours au cœur de l’homme et c’est notre honneur que de vouloir sans relâche l’effacer »44.
42 Le texte en arabe est le suivant : « » ولكن أين نحن من آثار تنادي فلا نجيب وتنطق فلا نسمع, AL-MAQDISSI 1968, 5. 43 AL-MAQDISSI 2015b. 44 DE VILLEPIN 2008, 78.
96
M. AL-MAQDISSI ET E. ISHAQ
Abréviations et Bibliographie AAS (AAAS) = Annales Archéologiques de Syrie, puis Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes. BAH = Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique. BMB = Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth. BSFFA = Bulletin de la Société Française des Fouilles Archéologiques. CRAI = Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres. PIHANS = Publications de l’Institut Historique-Archéologique Néerlandais de Stamboul. RSOu = Ras Shamra-Ougarit. SDB = Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible. SVA = Schriften zur Vorderasiatische Archäologie. AL-MAQDISSI, A. 1968, ‘Et nous, nous étions encore à Azerbaïdjan’, Al-Ma‘rifah 82 (7ème année), 3-9 [en arabe]. AL-MAQDISSI, M. 2014, ‘Amrith dans la Pérée d’Arados, nouvelles recherches sur la période phénicienne tardive’, CRAI 158e année N.1, 457-484. AL-MAQDISSI, M. 2015a, ‘Travaux syriens à Amrith I. Introduction et séquence stratigraphique’, in P. CIAFARDONI, D. GIANNESSI (éds.), From the Treasures of Syria, Essays on Art and Archaeology in Honour of Stafania Mazzoni (PIHANS 126), Leiden : Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 13-34. AL-MAQDISSI, M. 2015b, ‘Amrith, où l’archéologie de la peur’, Archéologia 536, 38-39. AL-MAQDISSI, M., ISHAQ, E. 2015, ‘Travaux syriens à Amrith. III. Notice sur deux têtes sculptées’, in B. GEYER, V. MATOÏAN, M. AL-MAQDISSI (éds.), De l’île d’Aphrodite au paradis perdu, itinéraire d’un gentilhomme lyonnais, en hommage à Yves Calvet (RSOu XXII), Leuven/Paris : Peeters, 39-47. AL-MAQDISSI, M., ISHAQ, E. 2016, ‘Amrith/Marathos (Tartous)’, in Y. KANJOU, A. TSUNEKI (éds.), A History of Syria in One Hundred Sites, Oxford : Archaeopress Archaeology, 293-296. AL-MAQDISSI, M., ISHAQ, E. 2017, ‘Amrith in the Late Phoenician Period’, Ash-Sharq, Bulletin of the Ancient Near East 1/1, 1-8 [en arabe]. AL-MAQDISSI, M., ISHAQ, E. 2019, ‘Temple of Amrith/the Fifth Field Season of Archeological Excavations in 1960 ‘Field Written Notes’ by Nassib Saliby’, Ash-Sharq, Bulletin of the Ancient Near East 3/1, 84-94 [en arabe]. ANONYMUS 1955, ‘Les fouilles de la Direction générale des antiquités à Amrith’, Deuxième exposition des découvertes archéologiques des années 1954-1955 organisée par la Direction Générale des Antiquités de Syrie au Musée National de Damas, Damas, 21-22. BRAIDWOOD, R. J. 1940, ‘Report on Two Sondages on the Coast of Syria, South of Tartous’, Syria XXI, 183-226. CONTENAU, G. 1922, ‘Les Fouilles françaises en Phénicie’, BSFFA IV (1914-1921), 222240 (= conférence faite à l’assemblé générale de la Société française des fouilles archéologiques le 27 février 1921). DE VILLEPIN, D. 2008, Hôtel de l’insomnie, Paris : Plon. DUNAND, M. 1944-1945, ‘Les sculptures de la favissa du temple d’Amrit’, BMB VII, 99-107. DUNAND, M. 1946-1948, ‘Les sculptures de la favissa du temple d’Amrit (suite)’, BMB VIII, 81-107.
TRAVAUX SYRIENS À AMRITH, IV
97
DUNAND, M. 1953a, ‘Recherches archéologiques dans la région de Marathus, note préliminaire’, AAS III, 165-170. DUNAND, M. 1953b, De l’Amanus au Sinaï, sites et monuments, Beyrouth : Imprimerie catholique. DUNAND, M. 1966, ‘Phénicie’, SDB VII, col. 1141-1204. DUNAND, M., SALIBY, N. 1956, ‘Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles d’Amrith en 1955’, AAS VI, 3-8. DUNAND, M., SALIBY, N. 1961-1962, ‘Le sanctuaire d’Amrit, rapport préliminaire », AAS XI-XII, 3-12. DUNAND, M., SALIBY, N. 1985, Le temple d’Amrith dans la Pérée d’Aradus (BAH CXXI), Paris : Geuthner. DUNAND, M., SALIBY, N., KIRICHIAN, A. 1954-1955, ‘Les fouilles d’Amrith en 1954, rapport préliminaire’, AAS IV-V, 189-204. DUSSAUD, R. 1926, ‘Nouvelles archéologiques’, Syria VII, 420-421. DUSSAUD, R. 1927, ‘Nouvelles archéologiques’, Syria VIII, 187-192. ISHAQ, E. 2018, Syrian Mission in Amrith-Marathos 1954-1960. An Overview of the Results of Archaeological Excavations Through the Documents in the Archives on Nassib Saliby (MA diss., University of Warsaw), Warsaw. RENAN, E. 1864, Mission de Phénicie, Paris : Imprimerie impériale. SALIBY, N. 1971, ‘Essais de restitution du temple d’Amrit’, AAAS XXI, 283-288 (= Actes du IXème Congrès International d’Archéologie Classique, Damas, 11-20 octobre 1969). SALIBY, N. 1984, Amrith, Damas : DGAM [en arabe]. SALIBY, N. 1989a, ‘‘Amrith’, in J.-M. DENTZER, W. ORTHMANN (éds.), Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II, la Syrie de l’époque achéménide à l’avènement de l’Islam (SVA 1), Saarbrücken : Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 19-30. SALIBY, N. 1989b, ‘Amrith’, in Contribution française à l’archéologie syrienne 19691989, Damas : IFAO, 118-120. SEIRAFI, F. 1960, ‘Fouilles à Ayin-Dara, première campagne de 1956’, AAS X, 87-102 [en arabe]. SEIRAFI, F., KIRICHIAN, A., DUNAND, M. 1965, ‘Recherches archéologiques à Ayin-Dara au N.-O. d’Alep’, AAS XV/2, 3-20. VIROLLEAUD, CH. 1926a, ‘Recherches de M. Maurice Dunand dans le territoire des Alaouites’, CRAI 70e année N.1, 57-59. VIROLLEAUD, CH. 1926a, ‘Fouilles en Syrie au cours de l’année 1925-1926’, CRAI 70e année N.3, 240-242.
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB. CONTRIBUTION TO THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE MOON GOD IN THE NEO-ASSYRIAN PERIOD Guy BUNNENS*
In 1989, during a preliminary visit to the site in order to organize the second excavation season at Tell Ahmar, a Neo-Assyrian relief was spotted, which was being reused as a cornerstone in a building under construction (Fig. 1). In the absence of a representative of the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and not to harm the expedition’s relations with the locals at this early stage of the project, no action was taken to remove the relief. It is only when the Tishrin dam was completed and the village evacuated that the relief became accessible again and could be transferred to the expedition’s house. It was still there, together with other material intended to be deposited in the newly established Qalaat Nejem repository1, when violence erupted in the country preventing from conducting further research and conservation work at the site. The discovery of this stela gives me a good opportunity to offer Eric a new item to include in his already very long list of Iron Age iconographic motifs.
Fig. 1: The new moon god stela reused in a house under construction in 1989.
* Université de Liège. 1 The Qalaat Nejem project is described by its initiator Andrew Jamieson in JAMIESON 2016, 196-202; JAMIESON and KANJOU 2009, 15-26 (esp. 22-23).
100
G. BUNNENS
Fig. 2: The new moon god stela.
The stela under consideration, of which only the upper part is preserved, is carved out of a block of reddish breccia with whitish inclusions. The front face, on which the relief is sculpted, has rounded corners. The three other sides form a kind of flattened oval. The relief shows a deity which can be identified with the moon god in view of the crescent that tops its headgear (Fig. 2). Striking similarities with a stela dedicated to Ishtar of Arbela (Fig. 3a), also discovered at Tell Ahmar2, invites to consider them together. The new stela may have been about the same size or slightly larger, depending on how we reconstruct it. The stela is about 72 cm wide, against 77 cm for the Ishtar stela, and 48 cm thick, against 30 cm for the Ishtar stela. As for their height, the preserved part of the moon god stela is 50 cm high. If we take the Ishtar stela as point of reference, the stela with the complete divine figure may have been about 2.4 times as high as its preserved part, i.e. about 120 cm, almost the same as the 121 cm of the Ishtar stela. However, if the moon god was standing on an animal, as Ishtar on the stela, the entire monument may have been up to 150 cm high. The stone they are made of seems to be the same – a reddish breccia –, which is quite remarkable if we remember that most of the sculpture from Tell Ahmar was made of basalt or, in a few cases, limestone. The shape of the stone 2 THUREAU-DANGIN and DUNAND 1936, 156-157, pl. XIV/1. The stela is now in the Louvre (AO 11503/16083).
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB
101
b
a Fig. 3: (a) The Ishtar stela now in the Louvre (AO 11503/16083) (photo from the late Georges Dossin’s archive); (b) Detail of a modern impression of a cylinder seal showing a god, possibly Ninurta, carrying two bow-cases (after COLLON 2001, pl. XIX, nr. 233).
– a flattened oval with a flat front face –, the rounded top corners of the face, the listel that frames the scene are common to the two monuments. The two reliefs also share common features. Both deities are facing right. Their headgears are similarly shaped and conform to the Assyrian tradition. They are cylindrical with a vertically striated band at the top – a headgear that should be understood as the feathered polos worn by Assyrian deities – and a symbol above it, a star for Ishtar and a crescent for the moon god. A horn, symbol of divinity, is visible on Ishtar’s headgear, and possibly also existed on the moon god’s headgear although the stela is too damaged to make this certain. Both deities’ hair also conform to Assyrian tradition. They fall along the gods’ nape down to their shoulder where they form a thick mass of hair. A skittle-like object – sort of elongated oval with a round head – seems to emanate from their shoulders. Ishtar has two of these objects, one in her back and one in front of her. Only one
102
G. BUNNENS
is visible on the stela of the moon god but traces in front of the god make it likely that another one was there too. Since F. Thureau-Dangin3, it is assumed that these objects are quivers. However, quivers on Assyrian reliefs and cylinder seals are usually quadrangular in shape4. The objects on the two stelae look more like bow-cases as they can be seen on depictions of warlike deities in figurative art (Fig. 3b)5. Normally, the top end of the bow is visible because it is not engaged in the case. The moon god stela is too worn out to still show fine details, but on the Ishtar stela a straight transversal line is still visible on both objects. Anyhow, more details may have been suggested by painting. It can also be hypothesized, due to faint traces, that the moon god was raising his right hand in a greeting gesture in the same manner as Ishtar. Lastly, an inscription – unfortunately almost illegible in the case of the moon god – was carved on either side of the deities’ heads. The inscription on the Ishtar stela reads ‘To Ishtar who resides in Arbela, his lady, Aššur-dūr-pānīya, governor of Kar-Shalmaneser, offered (this stela) for his life’6. Karen Radner has tried to draw chronological conclusions from the mention of Aššur-dūr-pānīya to assign a date to the Ishtar stela7, which, in turn, would also affect the date of the new Tell Ahmar stela. She identifies this Aššur-dūr-pāniya with the high official of which letters addressed to Sargon II have been preserved8. The stela could thus be dated to the reign of Sargon II, i.e. to the period 721-705. However, as she admits, there are difficulties. Sargon’s official Aššurdūr-pāniya was involved in activities conducted at Dur-Sharrukin, the new capital built by Sargon, and in foreign relations with regions to the north of Assyria. His area of competence was thus far from Tell Ahmar. The only argument she uses to associate Sargon’s official with Tell Ahmar consists in the connection she makes between a text that mentions Aššur-dūr-pāniya with a city by the name of Adia, situated on the Tigris, and another text in which the name of the same city occurs together with a mention of a governor of Til Barsib, whose name is lost9. However, this text is so badly damaged that it is impossible to understand the kind of relation existing between Adia and the governor of Til Barsib, the more so as the governor of Raṣappa is also mentioned in the same document immediately before his colleague from Til Barsib. The relation between this Aššur-dūr-pāniya and the homonymous governor of Til Barsib is still unclear. THUREAU-DANGIN and DUNAND 1936, 156. HROUDA 1965, 84-85 and pl. 20/11-21, pl. 21/1-4. 5 See, for instance, COLLON 2001, nr. 232, 233, 245, 256, 340. HROUDA 1965, 80-81 notes that the distinction between quiver and bow-case is difficult to make on Assyrian reliefs, but seems to think of the objects on the Ishtar stela as quivers. 6 RADNER 2006, 186. 7 RADNER 2006, 190-192. 8 BRADLEY 1998, which also records another Aššūr-dūr-pānīja, but neither the printed edition of the Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire nor the updates available on the web (http://oracc. museum.upenn.edu/pnao/updatesbyletter/a/index) register the Aššur-dūr-pānīya of the Ishtar stela. 9 SAA I, nr. 32. 3 4
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB
103
Better evidence concerning the date of the Tell Ahmar stela might be derived from the stone used to carve the two stelae. Sennacherib boasts of having used a stone found at Kapri-Dargila in the region of Til Barsib – the turminabandû stone – that ‘had never been seen before’ to make bowls of the burzigallu type10. He also used it, together with alabaster stone (gišnugallu), to line the walls of his palace11. Turminabandû is usually understood as meaning ‘breccia’12. It was almost certainly mentioned, unfortunately in a broken context, in the eponym chronicle in the year of Metūnu, eponym in 700 BCE13. The text, unfortunately damaged, reads ‘Metūnu, governo[r of Isāna, Aš]šur-nādin-šumi, the son of [Sennacherib…] of the palace, in the city […], great cedar logs […] alabaster in [Ammanānum…] in Kapri-Dargi[li …] the king […]’14. Given that turminabandû is often mentioned together with alabaster, given that both stones are also mentioned after various timbers and given that Kapri-Dargila is the place where turminabandû was discovered, we may hypothesize that turminabandû was mentioned in the lacuna before ‘Kapri-Dargi[li]’ and that 700 was the year when turminabandû – the stone that ‘had never been seen before – was discovered near Til Barsib. Now, can we consider turminabandû as the breccia used to carve the two stelae? Sennacherib compares the turminabandû stone to the wings of a dragonfly15, in accordance with a lexical text from Sultantepe in which turminabandû is said to be like cress or a dragonfly16. This would point to a greenish colour for the stone, rather than the reddish material of the stelae. However, if these texts only refer to the speckled aspect of the stone, whatever its colour, the identification is still possible. Actually, Roger Moorey brings us a step further17. He recalls that slabs of Nebuchadnezzar II’s processional road at Babylon, whose edges were inscribed with the word turminabandû, were made of red breccia. This allows an identification of turminabandû with red breccia. Then, Moorey notices that breccia has been reported somewhere to the north of Birecik. The stone was thus available not too far from Tell Ahmar, as is reported in Sennacherib’s inscriptions. Lastly, he suggests that turminabandû must be related to the ‘close-grained magnesian limestone’ that was lining the walls of Room LIII of Sennacherib’s palace18. If 10 RINAP 3/2, Text 43, 46-49; Text 46, 134-135; Text 49, 8’-12’ (the name of Til Barsib is restored). In other texts Kapri-Dargila is mentioned without reference to Til Barsib (Text 39, 43-45; Text 40, 13’’-17’’; Text 44, 51-52; Text 47, 3’-4’ [restored]). 11 RINAP 3/2, Text 39, 29-33; Text 40, 24’’-25’’, 41’’-42’’; Text 44, 53-54, 67-68; Text 46, 136-138, 150-151; Text 47, 5’-6’. 12 CAD, T, s. v. turminabandû, 486-487. 13 MILLARD 1994, 49. 14 Translation of GLASSNER 2004, 177. 15 RINAP 3/2, Text 49, 8’. 16 CAD, T, 487. 17 MOOREY 1994, 344. 18 The identification of this ‘close-grained magnesian limestone’ of Room LIII with turminabandû was already tentatively made by READE 1970, 94.
104
G. BUNNENS
Fig. 4: Small stela carved on both sides. The upper fragment is in the Aleppo National Museum (M 4526) and the lower part in the Louvre (AO 26555) (photo Anwar Abd el-Ghafour).
correct, this suggestion would substantiate Sennacherib’s accounts of turminabandû decorating his palace in Nineveh. The ultimate proof would come from a petrographic comparison between the stones of the stelae, of Nabuchodonosor’s slabs and of the orthostats of Room LIII of Sennacherib’s palace, but, pending such a test, geography and archaeology seem to concur in allowing the identification of the reddish breccia of the two stelae with the turminabandû discovered at the time of Sennacherib. A date in the seventh century can thus be provisionally accepted for both the new moon god stela and the Ishtar stela. The new stela adds welcome evidence to a poorly documented iconographic tradition19. Anthropomorphic figurations of the moon god are not very common in the first millennium. An interesting comparison can be made with another stela also originating from Tell Ahmar (Fig. 4). This relief, carved from limestone, is smaller in size, being 60 cm high, 39 cm wide and 7 cm thick, and it is sculpted on both sides. It was found in two times. The lower part was discovered by F. Thureau-Dangin20. It joins a fragment of unknown provenance, kept in the The iconography of the moon god is discussed by COLLON 2001, 118-121; THEUER 2000, 336-342; COLLON 1995, 371-376; KEEL 1994, 135-202; COLLON 1992, 19-37; SPYCKET 1973, 384395. 20 THUREAU-DANGIN and DUNAND 1936, I, 159, nr. 9; II, pl. XIV/5. It is now in the Louvre (AO 26555). 19
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB
105
Aleppo Museum21, which forms the upper part of the stela22. On one side, a protective genie with two pairs of wings holds a situla in his left hand and makes a greeting gesture with his right. On the other side, the moon god is portrayed in the Assyrian fashion, like the god on the new Tell Ahmar stela, with a crescent on top of his feathered polos, but without bow-case behind his shoulder. He holds a crescent-staff in his left hand and raises his right hand in a greeting gesture. A sword is attached to his waist on his left side. The sword’s scabbard is decorated with three crescents. Two are antithetically placed immediately behind the back of the god. The third ornates the tip of the scabbard. The god is shown standing on top of a crenellated construction, which is often understood as being part of a fortification system, be it a rampart or a gate23. However, the presence of two standards on either side of the construction shows that it is a free-standing building, which cannot be but the god’s temple as K. Kohlmeyer observed24. Actually, crenellation can be seen on temples depicted in figurative art25. The standards, which consist of a crescent above a pole with tassels issuing from the junction of the pole with the crescent, give an interesting indication. Such symbols, often standing on a stepped pedestal, are found on stelae of which they form the only decoration26. They all come from an area extending from south-eastern Anatolia to northern Syria. One was even discovered on the territory of the modern village of Zerkotak, immediately to the north of Tell Ahmar27. The symbol is also common on seals, both stamp and cylinder seals, especially in Syria-Palestine28. It could refer to the moon god in general. However, their relative scarcity in Mesopotamia, especially in and around the major cult centre of the god in Ur, compared with their relative frequency in the west29, suggests that the motif of a tasselled crescent-pole was more at home in the west. The clue is given by a stela of Bar-Rakib from Zincirli, which associates a staff with crescent and tassels, carved at the top of the stela, with an inscription that relates the symbol to Baal Harran30. There results from this association that the symbol was perceived as the emblem of the moon god of Harran31, one of the main deities worshipped in Iron Age Syria. BISI 1963, 215-221. Accession number M 4526. The join was made by KOHLMEYER 1992, 99-100 and pl. 40-41, as well as by SEIDL 1993, 72, nr. 85. See also GREEN and HAUSLEITER 2001, 161-162. 23 THEUER 2000, 334 n. 64; BISI 1963, 215. 24 KOHLMEYER 1992, 100. 25 COLLON 1987, 172 and 174, nrs. 805 and 806; HROUDA 1965, 60-61, pl. 10/1 and 10/6. 26 THEUER 2000, 330-332; KEEL 1994, 138-140. 27 KOHLMEYER 1992, 94 and pl. 39/3. 28 THEUER 2000, 336-345; KEEL 1994, 148-159; SPYCKET 1973, 384-388. 29 As has been noted by SPYCKET 1973, 391-392. 30 KAI, nr. 218; THEUER 2000, 358-360. 31 THEUER 2000, 330; KEEL 1994, 138-139 and 165-166; BÖRKER-KLÄHN 1985, 210. 21 22
106
G. BUNNENS
Going back to the small stela from Tell Ahmar, the tasselled crescent-standards makes it more than likely that the stela portrays the moon god of Harran standing on his temple and, simultaneously, it raises the possibility that the new Tell Ahmar stela also portrays the god of Harran. Reliefs portraying the moon god were found in Assyria itself near the village of Maltai32. Four almost identical reliefs, each figuring a procession of seven gods, among which is the moon god Sin (Fig. 5b)33, have been carved in the rock at the time of Sennacherib. The god is facing left. He is mounted on a liondragon, i.e. a composite monster with wings, the forelegs and face of a lion, hindlegs like the legs of a bird and the horns of a bull. A crescent, inserted in a disc on relief II, is placed above his headgear, reminding of the crescent on the headgear of the two Tell Ahmar stelae. A sword is attached to the god’s waist on his right. He holds symbols of power in his hands, the rod-and-ring in the left and a curved object, sort of elongated sickle-sword, in the right. There are two remarkable features in these reliefs as far as the moon god is concerned. One is that the god is shown carrying the same symbols – the rod-and-ring and the elongated sickle-sword – as the god Assur himself, who is leading the procession. The other remarkable feature is the place of the moon god in the procession, in the third position immediately after Assur and his consort and before the other gods. Obviously, Sennacherib wanted to pay a special homage to this particular deity by placing him next to the supreme divine pair and by giving him the same symbols of power as to the supreme deity. The main distinction between the two gods concerns the number of horns attached to their headgear – seven for Assur, five for the moon god – and the animals they are standing on. Assur stands on both a lion-dragon and a snake-dragon – the animal of Assur’s Babylonian rival Marduk –, Sin only on a lion-dragon. The junction between this Assyrian portrayal of the moon god and the Tell Ahmar examples is made by a cylinder seal of unknown provenance, possibly from Assyria or Babylonia according to Dominique Collon (Fig. 5d)34. The god, portrayed in Assyrian dress, is facing left. He has in common with both the Maltai reliefs and the Tell Ahmar stelae the headgear topped by a crescent. He holds a crescent-staff in his right hand, as the god on the small Tell Ahmar stela, and, in his left, a curving object, the elongated sickle-sword, as on the Maltai reliefs. He thus combines attributes that are found either at Maltai or at Tell Ahmar, or at both sites. Dominique Collon dates this seal to the late eighth or seventh century35. It is thus roughly contemporary with the reign of Sennacherib and the carving of the Maltai reliefs.
32 33 34 35
BOEHMER 1975, 42-84 (57 for the date). BOEHMER 1975, 50-51, Abb. 11, 76, 77, 83, 85, 87. COLLON 1995, 375, fig. 35; COLLON 2001, nr. 231, 121 and pl. XVIII. COLLON 2001, 121.
107
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB
c
d a
b
Fig. 5: Anthropomorphic representations of the moon god: (a) Stela from Aligör near Sürüç (after BÖRKER-KLÄHN 1985, nr. 240a); (b) Detail of relief II at Maltai (adapted from Wikimedia [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Assyrian_ archaeological_Halamata_reliefs_overlooking_Nohadra,_modern-day_Duhok,_ Kurdistan_Region_of_Iraq_06.jpg]; (c) Detail of a modern impression of a cylinder seal from Boğazköy (after BOEHMER and GÜTERBOCK 1987, pl. XL, nr. 318); (d) Detail of a modern impression of a cylinder seal kept in the British Museum (after COLLON 2001, pl. XVIII, nr. 231).
A stela discovered at Aligör near Sürüç gives a western example of a similar combination of motifs (Fig. 5a)36. The stela portrays a god in Assyrian dress as on the two moon god stelae from Tell Ahmar. The god holds a bow – which, however, is not inserted in a case – as the god on the new stela. His right hand holds a long curving object, a sickle-sword as on the Maltai reliefs but of a different type37. He has a sword attached to his waist on his left side as on the small Tell Ahmar stela, however without the crescent symbols. On top of his 36 37
BÖRKER-KLÄHN 1985, 221-222, nr. 240. HROUDA 1965, 81 and pl. 22/13-14.
108
G. BUNNENS
almost cylindrical headgear, judging from the only available photograph, traces of a crescent inserted in a disc might be recognizable. Quite remarkably, the god is standing on a lion-dragon similar to the dragon of Sin on the Maltai reliefs. He is thus associated with attributes that are visible at Maltai and at Tell Ahmar. Two symbols are carved on the right hand side of the stela. A small winged disc is placed next to the possible disc that is crowning the god’s headgear and a tall tasselled crescent-standard occupies the space between the divine figure and the edge of the stela. As it is much larger than the winged disc, the standard can be seen as the most significant of the two symbols, pointing to the identification of the divine figure with the moon god of Harran whereas the winged disc is presumably here to recall the close association between the two main celestial bodies, the sun and the moon. Finally, a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal discovered at Boğazköy deserves to be mentioned (Fig. 5c)38. A divine figure with a headgear topped by a crescent and two bows in their case emerging from behind his shoulders brings to mind the new Tell Ahmar stela. In addition, the god holds a crescent-staff in one hand and makes a greeting gesture with the other as the god on the small Tell Ahmar stela. The crescent in front of him helps to identify him in the same way as the standards on the small Tell Ahmar stela and the Aligör stela. Similarities with the Tell Ahmar stelae are striking. According to the examples presented above, there seems to exist a consistent group of anthropomorphic depictions of the moon god, which portrays him in Assyrian dress, either standing on the ground or on the back of a lion-dragon. He has a crescent on top of his headgear and he may hold a crescent-staff in one hand and a curved object in the other. His weapons can be a sword and a bow. Even though individual iconographic motifs associated with the moon god in this group are found elsewhere associated with other gods – for instance Ninurta39 or Assur40 –, the consistency of the group is evidenced primarily by the constant presence of a crescent symbol – a crescent on the headgear, a crescent-staff or a tasselled crescent-standard – and, secondarily, by the recurrence of one or another of the other motifs. It is even made more evident by the fact that completely different ways of portraying the moon god exist, for instance as a humanlike figure emerging from a crescent41. Lastly, it is important to note that these representations, on the one hand, conform to the Assyrian style and draw from an Assyrian iconographic repertoire, and, on the other hand, that most of them come from regions to the west of Assyria – the Tell Ahmar stelae, the Aligör stela, the seal from Boğazköy –, 38 39 40 41
COLLON 1995, 375, fig. 33; BOEHMER and GÜTERBOCK 1987, 111, nr. 318 and pl. XL. On the iconography of Ninurta see COLLON 2001, 148-149; MOORTGAT-CORRENS 1988. BERLEJUNG 2007, 17 and Abb. 2; KLENGEL-BRANDT 1992. KÜHNE 1997; COLLON 1995, 375, nrs. 36-38.
A STELA OF THE MOON GOD FROM TELL AHMAR/TIL BARSIB
109
but that the motif was also known in Assyria – the Maltai reliefs and possibly the unprovenanced seal. The association we noticed between these anthropomorphic figures of the moon god and the crescent-standard of the god of Harran suggests that this group is especially related to the moon god of Harran. The Assyrian style of the figures shows that they were devised after Assyrian power had extended to Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia, and the Maltai reliefs lead to believe that Sennacherib may have been instrumental in this process. In view of the above, it is tempting to hypothesize that the new Tell Ahmar stela was intended to portray the moon god of Harran and that it was carved at the time of Sennacherib, together with the Ishtar stela, after a new stone, probably reddish breccia, was discovered in the region of Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib. It was part of the promotion effort of the western moon god that seems to have started under the reign of Sennacherib and culminated under the Neo-Babylonian kings. References BERLEJUNG, A. 2007, ‘Die Reduktion von Komplexität: Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Beispiel des Gottes Aššur im Assyrien des 1. Jt. v. Chr.’, in B. GRONEBERG, H. SPIECKERMANN (eds.), Die Welt der Götterbilder, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 9-50. BISI, A. M. 1963, ‘Un bassorilievo di Aleppo e l’iconografia del dio Sin’, Oriens Antiquus 2, 215-221. BOEHMER, R. M. 1975, ‘Die neuassyrischen Felsreliefs von Maltai (Nord-Irak)’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 90, 42-84. BOEHMER, H. M., GÜTERBOCK, H. G. 1987, Die Glyptik von Bogazköy, II. Teil, Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Bogazköy, Die Grabungskampagnen 1931–1939, 1952–1978 (Bogazköy – Hattusa. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen XIV), Berlin: Gebr. Mann. BÖRKER-KLÄHN, J. 1985, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Baghdader Forschungen 4), Mainz: Von Zabern. BRADLEY, B. J. 1998, ‘Aššūr-dūr-pānīja’, in The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 1/I, Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 180. CAD = The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, 21 vols., Chicago, Oriental Institute, 19562010. COLLON, D. 1987, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London: British Museum Press. COLLON, D. 1992, ‘The Near-Eastern moon god’, in D. J. W. MEIJER (ed.), Natural phenomena: their meaning, depiction and description in the ancient Near East [proceedings of the colloquium Amsterdam, 6-8 July 1989], Amsterdam: U.A. North Holland, 19-37. COLLON, D. 1995, ‘Mondgott. B. In der Bildkunst’, Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 8/5-6, 371-376. COLLON, D. 2001, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals, V, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods, London: British Museum Publications. GLASSNER, J.-J. 2004, Mesopotamian Chronicles (Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 19), Atlanta/Leiden: Scholars Press.
110
G. BUNNENS
GREEN, A., HAUSLEITER, A. 2001, ‘Gottheiten in Til Barsib’, in TH. RICHTER, D. PRECHEL, J. KLINGER (eds.), Kulturgeschichten: Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag, 145-170. HROUDA, B. 1965, Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 2), Bonn: Habelt. JAMIESON, A., KANJOU, Y. 2009, ‘Archaeological research by the University of Melbourne in the middle and upper Euphrates valley, north Syria’, The Artefact: The Journal of the Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria 32, 15-26. JAMIESON, A. 2016, ‘Community engagement and Near Eastern archaeological collections: The Syrian-Australian Archaeological Research Collaboration Project’, Altorientalische Forschungen 43, 196-202. KAI = DONNER, H., RÖLLIG, W. (eds.) 1971-2002, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, 3 vols., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. KEEL, O. 1994, ‘Das Mondemblem von Harran auf Stelen und Siegelamuletten und der Kult der nächtlichen Gestirne bei den Aramäern’, in O. KEEL (ed.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina IV, Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 135-202. KLENGEL-BRANDT, E. 1992, ‘Relief mit Darstellung eines kriegerischen Gottes’, in L. JACOB-ROST, E. KLENGEL-BRANDT (eds.), Das Vorderasiatische Museum, Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 178-179 nr. 115. KOHLMEYER, K. 1992, ‘Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien’, in B. HROUDA, S. KROLL, P. Z. SPANOS (eds.), Von Uruk nach Tuttul: eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger. Studien und Aufsätze von Kollegen und Freunden (Münchener vorderasiatische Studien 12), Munich: Profil Verlag, 91-100. KÜHNE, H. 1997, ‘Der Gott in der Mondsichel’, Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 375-382. MILLARD, A. 1994, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 (State Archives of Assyria Studies II), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. MOOREY, P. R. S. 1994, Ancient Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence, Oxford: Clarendon Press. MOORTGAT-CORRENS, U. 1988, ‘Ein Kultbild Ninurtas aus neuassyrischen Zeit’, Archiv für Orientforschung 35, 117-133. PARKER, B. J. 1998, ‘Aššūr-dūr-pānīja’, The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, I/1, Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 180. RADNER, K. 2006, ‘Aššur-dūr-pānīya, Statthalter von Til-Barsip unter Sargon II. von Assyrien’, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37, 185-195. READE, J. E. 1970, The Design and Decoration of Neo-Assyrian Public Buildings (PhD diss. University of Cambridge), https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.15969 RINAP 3/2 = GRAYSON, A.K., NOVOTNY, J. (eds.) 2012, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2 (The Royal Inscriptions of the NeoAssyrian Period 3/2), Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. SAA I = PARPOLA, S. (ed.), The Correspondance of Sargon II, Part I (State Archives of Assyria I), Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. SEIDL, U. 1993, ‘Kleine Stele aus Til Barsip’, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 85, 72. SPYCKET, A. 1973, ‘Le culte du dieu-lune à Tell Keisan’, Revue biblique 80, 384-395. THEUER, G. 2000, Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 173), Freiburg/ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. THUREAU-DANGIN, F., DUNAND, M. 1936, Til-Barsib (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 23), Paris: Geuthner.
CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY PILLAR FIGURINES FROM TELL AHMAR
Arlette ROOBAERT*
At Tell Ahmar, fragments of clay pillar figurines were found in the Early Bronze Age IV (henceforth EBA) levels on the Acropolis. Iron Age (henceforth IA) pillar figurines, partly broken, are coming from the Assyrian residences located in the Middle and Lower City1. They can be dated to the seventh century BCE. Although they belong to societies separated by more than a millennium, it is surprising how close they are in their conception, even if they differ in details. Here follow some examples emphasizing these similarities and differences. A typical Iron Age head and torso, O.80 (Fig. 1a), was found between C1a and C22, two adjacent buildings from the Middle City. At first glance, it looks as if it had been inspired by the EBA IV head O.27.142 (Fig. 1b), coming from a large pit – about ten meters in diameter – that has destroyed EBA levels on the Acropolis. The front view is very similar with strips applied all around the head, big eyes, a large beaked nose and a necklace. Quite different is their hairstyle. If they share the radiant strips on the front, a thick bun3 can be seen on the back of the EBA head (Fig. 1b), whereas the IA one is flat (Fig. 1a). Furthermore, the face of the IA figurine is framed by five – one is missing – superposed pellets, a smaller one on top of a larger one, which could represent hair curls and be part of the hairstyle, although they might also be interpreted as kinds of beads or some sort of ornament on a headdress4. There is an interesting difference in the way the eyes are rendered. If on the EBA head they are represented by a large perforated * Université de Liège. 1 I would like to thank B. Bolognani for having made a PDF copy of her thesis available to the Tell Ahmar expedition (BOLOGNANI 2017, downloadable from < http://amsdottorato.unibo.it/8222/>). It must be noted that an unauthorized study of the Iron Age clay figurines from Tell Ahmar has been published by V. CLAYTON, The Iron Age Figurines from Tell Ahmar: Catalogue, Formal and Contextual Analysis, Hawthorn, 2014. The author did not have access to all the excavation files. 2 Information on the location and stratigraphy given in BOLOGNANI 2017, 634, catalogue nr. 814, must be corrected. 3 Similar hairstyles with strips on the front and buns or ponytails on the back are well known in the EBA. See for instance figurines from Hama (BADRE 1980, 174, pl. III, 58), Mari (BARRELET 1968, 359-360, pl. LXIV, 696), Habuba (STROMMENGER 1980, Taf. E; BADRE 1980, 357, pl. XLIX, 13). 4 Opinions differ: for PRUSS 2010, 219 it is a hairstyle, while for BOLOGNANI 2017, 634, catalogue nr. 814 it is a “round headdress”. MOOREY 1980, 148 describing an almost identical figurine from Kefrik (nr. 566, fig. 24) speaks of a “wide fan-shaped headdress”.
112
A. ROOBAERT
a
b Fig. 1: a: Head and torso of IA clay pillar figurine, front and back view. Tell Ahmar: Area C/ O.80 (photo Tell Ahmar expedition); b: head of EBA clay pillar figurine, front and side view. Tell Ahmar: Area A/O.27.142 (photo Tell Ahmar expedition).
113
CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY
a
b
Fig. 2: a: Headless EBA clay pillar figurine from Tell Bi’a: 43/24: 37 (after STROMMENGER and MIGLUS 2010, fig. 32: 14); b: complete EBA clay pillar figurine from the Abu Hamed cemetery: grave GHA-J10c (after FALB et al. 2005, Abb. 29: 4).
pellet – one of the many ways eyes are represented during the EBA5 –, it is a pair of superposed pellets, that is used on the IA head6. This last technique, apparently unknown in the EBA, is frequently used on the IA figurines, not only to render the eyes, but also to represent curls or beads. The jewels that both figurines are wearing are slightly different. The IA head has one necklace rendered by a simple strip, applied on the front only – a technique already common in the EBA –, whereas at least three superposed necklaces are visible on the EBA figurine, a simple strip above a row of pellets all around the neck and a band decorated with oblique incisions, only preserved on the back (Fig. 1b). The attitude of figurine O.80, with arms bent on the chest and covering the breasts, is typical of the IA figurines from Carchemish and the neighbouring cemeteries7. The same gesture is well known on third millennium figurines discovered in the Euphrates valley, for instance, at Tell Bi‘a (Fig. 2a)8, Halawa9, SAKAL 2013, 69-74. A large pellet, plain or perforated, also occurs but is less frequent. 7 BOLOGNANI 2017, 143 and catalogue, especially nr. 836, said to be from unknown provenance, but coming from Kefrik according to MOOREY 1980, fig. 24: 566. 8 STROMMENGER and MIGLUS 2010, Taf. 32: 14. 9 MEYER and PRUSS 1994, Abb. 20: 229, 231. 5 6
114
A. ROOBAERT
a
b
Fig. 3: a: Headless IA clay pillar figurine from Tell Ahmar: Area C/O.1511 (photo Tell Ahmar expedition); b: Headless EBA clay pillar figurine from Tell Ahmar: Area A/O.31.13 (photo Tell Ahmar expedition).
or in the Abu Hamed graves (Fig. 2b)10. These figurines do not wear a bracelet around the wrist as does figurine O.80. Another attitude common to EBA and IA figurines from Tell Ahmar can be illustrated by two headless figurines. The first one, O.31.13, (Fig. 3b), was found in a building close to the monumental chamber tomb known as the “Hypogeum” on the Acropolis and the other, O.1511 (Fig. 3a), in an alley separating building C2 from building C5 in the Middle City. On both of them, the arms are bent on the chest, but the breasts are clearly indicated by two thick pellets, partly damaged on the IA figurine. The presence of breasts on EBA figurines is well attested, even though not very frequently. For the IA, however, Bolognani considers that “breasts are generally not rendered”11. If this statement is correct for the Carchemish region according to her catalogue12, it has to be noted that at Tell Ahmar, 10 11 12
FALB et al. 2005, 79, 104, Abb. 29: 4. BOLOGNANI 2017, 143. BOLOGNANI 2017, nrs. 14-58.
CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY
115
the proportion is reversed. Out of the seven pillar figurines excavated – head fragments excepted – the breasts are shown on five of them. This, of course, may be a coincidence, given the very small number of figurines discovered. It has also to be pointed out that the arms and hands of the EBA figurine O.31.13 (Fig. 3b) are technically similar to those of the IA figurine O.80 (Fig. 1a), whereas the arms, slightly worn out, of the IA figurine O.1511 (Fig. 3a) look more rounded, according to another technique widely used during the EBA. An applied strip decorated with oblique incisions, similar to the lowest necklace of the EBA head O.27.142 (Fig. 1b), is still visible on the broken neck of the EBA figurine. The breakage of the IA figurine O.1511 does not allow to say if it was wearing a necklace. As usual with pillar figurines, no feet are visible on neither of them, and their body ends in a slightly flaring base. Although nothing indicates that they were dressed, it is generally accepted that the EBA pillar figurines were wearing a long robe13, an opinion extended to the IA figurines14. The presence of the breasts does not necessarily mean that they were not dressed. The head and torso of a figurine carrying an infant, O.64.14 (Fig. 4a)15, was found in a fill above building C1b in the Middle City16. This type of figurine is poorly attested in the Middle Euphrates valley during the EBA17 and none was found at Tell Ahmar. We shall thus compare the Iron Age example O.64.14 with a figure from Tell Bi‘a18 (Fig. 4b). They are both holding an infant, very crudely made, in their left arm. On the figurine from Tell Bi‘a, the infant, pressed against his mother’s chest, is recognizable by his big eye. On the IA figurine, the infant is seen from the back with his head against his mother’s cheek and his right arm around her neck (Fig. 4a). The right arm of the IA figurine is broken off. It was possibly bent on the chest and joining the other arm as on a similar figurine carrying an infant from Deve Hüyük19, whereas on the Tell Bi‘a figurine the right arm is extended across the body to also hold the infant. Both figurines are wearing necklaces. They are rendered by two superposed simple strips on the IA one, but only marked by superposed horizontal and oblique incisions on the EBA example. Applied strips on the left arm and on the wrist of the Tell Ahmar figurine render an armband and a bracelet, but nothing is visible on the Tell Bi‘a figurine. The EBA figurine’s hairstyle, with two thick strips applied on each side of the face and a possible SAKAL 2013, 99. BOLOGNANI 2017, 64. 15 Figurines of mothers carrying a child and not an infant are also attested at Carchemish (WOOLLEY 1939-1940, pl. 18:a1) and Chatal Hüyük (PRUSS 2010, 290, Taf. 34: 290). 16 Information on the location and stratigraphy given in BOLOGNANI 2017, 634, catalogue nr. 815, must be corrected. 17 SAKAL 2013, 94. Some examples are also known from Tell Chuera (BADRE 1980, 296-297, pl. XXXIV: 31-35). 18 STROMMENGER and MIGLUS 2010, Taf. 11: 14. 19 MOOREY 1980, fig. 17: 487 = BOLOGNANI 2017, 639, catalogue nr. 829. 13 14
116
A. ROOBAERT
a
b Fig. 4: a: Head and torso of IA clay pillar figurine holding an infant, front and side view. Tell Ahmar: Area C/O.64.14 (photo Tell Ahmar expedition); b: head and upper body of EBA clay pillar figurine from Tell Bi‘a: 31/16: 21 (after STROMMENGER and MIGLUS 2010, fig. 11: 14).
small incised diadem on the forehead, is rather simple and quite different from the elaborate coiffure of the IA figurine. The three sets of two vertical strips joining a wide band, with small pellets irregularly laid side by side, applied on the forehead could be a complicated hairstyle with strands of hair and small curls. It is also possible to consider the wide band with the small applied pellets on the forehead as a diadem and the vertical strips as some other ornament applied on the hair and thus a kind of headdress20. As for the head and torso O.80 (Fig. 1a) mentioned above, it is difficult to decide between hairstyle and headdress. Besides the subject, the two figurines have in common the characteristic large nose, partly broken off on the IA figurine, and the big eyes rendered by large holes on the EBA figurine21, and by slightly worn out but typical superposed pellets on the IA figure. BOLOGNANI 2017, 634, catalogue nr. 815 includes it in her “squared headdress” type H1b. Similar heads are known from Carchemish, see BOLOGNANI 2017, 602-603, catalogue nrs. 722, 723, 724 and WOOLLEY 1978, pl. 70c right. 21 This particular type of eyes is associated by SAKAL 2013, 69 to his Type ME-F1. See also Tell Chuera (BADRE 1980, 296-297, pl. XXXIV: 31, 32, 35), Mari (BADRE 1980, 268, pl. XXVI, 9; BARRELET 1968, 697-698, pl. LXV) and Tell Ahmar (forthcoming). 20
CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY
117
From the few comparisons drawn above, similarities may be clearly evidenced. The hand- modelling technique with application of strips and pellets is the same. The pillar shape of the body and the very characteristic head with a beaked nose, big eyes, but usually without mouth22, are similar. Moreover, the arms bent on the chest seem to be the main attitude, even if there are different ways to render it23. The presence of breasts is also attested on figurines from both periods. Even the infrequent attitude of a mother carrying an infant is part of both repertoires. The differences between the hairstyles and the headdresses, the different ways necklaces are rendered and the presence or absence of bracelets are not unexpected, because these features witness the taste and the fashion of two distinct periods. Given these similarities, one would expect some continuity from the EBA down to the IA. However, such a continuity is surprising as there is an obvious discontinuity between the pillar figurines of both periods and the Syrian coroplastic production of the second millennium, particularly of the Middle Bronze Age (henceforth MBA). In the second millennium, the pillar shape is abandoned and a more naturalistic approach, especially of female figurines, is developed24. These figurines (Fig. 5), also hand-modelled, have a very distinctive feminine silhouette emphasizing waist and hips, with the indication of the navel by a perforated pellet and of the pubic area, generally by small incisions. The arms are either horizontal stumps or bent on the chest. The breasts, not always present, are rendered by applied pellets. The legs are separated by a long incision, with the feet sometimes visible. The head, with a large beaked nose, big eyes and perforated ears, is always wearing a kind of high headdress, squarish or trapezoidal, with two perforations at the top. Another characteristic is the large perforated pellet in the middle of the forehead. Even though the characteristic nose and eyes of the pillar figurines are still present, the overall look is totally different. In the MBA the emphasis is placed on the naked feminine body, and the high headdress becomes standardized. On the contrary, it is the head, with a variety of hairstyles and headdresses, as well as the jewels that appear to be the most important features on the EBA and IA pillar figurines. This clearly indicates that it is not only the style of the figurines that is different, but also, and primarily, their conception. The ultimate question is therefore not one of continuity but of revival. Why did IA coroplasts resuscitate an age-old tradition after a hiatus of more than a millennium? The question is puzzling, not easy to answer, but worth considering. The mouth is rarely indicated on the EBA figurines, see SAKAL 2013, 67-68. At Tell Ahmar, one example, O.13.46, was found on the Acropolis, in room 2 of building M10. According to BOLOGNANI 2017, 139, the mouth is not rendered on the IA Euphrates Syrian pillar figurines. 23 Schematic drawings of the different ways the arms are bent in both periods are given respectively by SAKAL 2013, 57, Abb. IV: 14 and BOLOGNANI 2017, 153-157. 24 The MBA Syrian figurines and their evolution have been studied by MARCHETTI 2001. 22
118
A. ROOBAERT
a
b
Fig. 5: a: Complete MBA clay figurine in the Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels (after GUBEL and OVERLAET 2007, 210 nr. 440); b: complete MBA clay figurine in the Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels (after GUBEL and OVERLAET 2007, 210 nr. 439).
References BADRE, L. 1980, Les figurines anthropomorphes en terre cuite à l’Age du Bronze en Syrie (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 103), Paris: Geuthner. BARRELET, M.-Th. 1968, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique (Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 85), Paris: Geuthner. BOLOGNANI, B. 2017, The Iron Age Clay Figurines from Karkemish (2011-2015 Campaigns) and the Coroplastic Art of the Syro-Anatolian Region (PhD diss., Università di Bologna), Bologna.
CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY
119
FALB, C., KRASNIK, K., MEYER, J.-W., VILA, E. 2005, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal. 4. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed (Schriften zur Vorderasiatische Archäologie 8), Saarwellingen: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag. GUBEL, E., OVERLAET, B. 2007, De Gilgamesh à Zénobie. Trésors de l’Antiquité, ProcheOrient et Iran, Brussels: Fonds Mercator. MARCHETTI, N. 2001, La coroplastica eblaita e siriana nel Bronzo Medio. Campagne 1964-1980 (Materiali e studi archeologici di Ebla V), Rome: Universita degli studi di Roma “La Sapienza”. MEYER, J.-W., PRUSS, A. 1994, Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2) (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. MOOREY, P. R. S. 1980, Cemeteries of the First Millennium B.C. at Deve Hüyük, near Carchemish, salvaged by T.E. Lawrence and C.L. Woolley (BAR International Series 87), Oxford. PRUSS, A. 2010, Die Amuq-Terrakotten. Untersuchungen zu den Terrakotta-Figuren des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. aus den Grabungen des Oriental Institute Chicago in der Amuq-Ebene (Subartu XXVI), Turnhout: Brepols. SAKAL, F. 2013, Die anthropomorphen Terrakotten der Region am syrischen Mittleren Euphrat im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Subartu XXXII), Turnhout: Brepols. STROMMENGER, E. 1980, Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren, Mainz am Rhein: P. von Zabern. STROMMENGER, E., MIGLUS, P. A. 2010, Ausgrabungen in Tell Bi’a / Tuttul V, Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 126), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. WOOLLEY, L. 1939-40, ‘The Iron-Age Graves of Carchemish’, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 26, 11-37. WOOLLEY, L. 1978, The Excavations in the Inner Town (Carchemish. Report on the excavations at Jerablus on behalf of the British Museum III), Oxford.
NICHT SCHÖN ABER SELTEN: GEDANKEN ZUR KOROPLASTIK VON TELL TWEINI IM FRÜHEN 1. JAHRTAUSENDS V. CHR. Joachim BRETSCHNEIDER* und Greta JANS**
Dass sich über Schönheitsideale disputieren lässt und diese sich im Laufe der Menschheitsgeschichte häufiger verändert haben, steht außen vor. Unstrittig sind die großen Verdienste unseres hoch verehrten Kollegen Prof. Dr. Eric Gubel für die altorientalische Altertumskunde im Allgemeinen und die kanaanäische und phönikische Archäologie im Besonderen. Mit großer Freude widmen wir ihm diesen kleinen Beitrag zur antiken Koroplastik aus Tell Tweini zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Einleitung Die fruchtbare syrische Küstenebene südlich der modernen Hafenstadt Latakia gehört zu den noch wenig archäologisch erforschten Gebieten des Alten Orients. Im Spannungsfeld zwischen Ost und West, dem nordmesopotamischen und levantinisch-maritimen Kulturraum mit seinem Zentrum um den spätbronzezeitlichen Stadtstaat Ugarit, kann dieser Region aufgrund seiner geopolitischen Lage eine herausragende Bedeutung zugesprochen werden. Die 1999 initiierten und bis zum Ausbrauch des syrischen Bürgerkrieges laufenden Ausgrabungen auf dem Tell Tweini erweiterten erheblich unsere Erkenntnisse zur kulturellen Entwicklung einer küstennahen Stadtanlage aus der Bronze- und Eisenzeit1. Im Gegensatz zu Ugarit ist eine Wiederbesiedlung der Siedlung von Tell Tweini nach der spätbronzezeitlichen Störung um 1190 v. Chr. feststellbar, die durch die Eisen-I-zeitlichen Schichten 6GH und EF sowie durch die EisenII-zeitlichen Schichten 6CD und 6AB dokumentiert ist. Die jüngste großräumige Siedlungsanlage der Schicht 5 wird der Eisen-Zeit III zugewiesen. Die Besiedlung endet gegen 500 v. Chr., das Stadtgebiet wurde dann verlassen. Terrakottafigurine TWE-06-00324-M002 (Abb. 1a-d, 2) Erhaltene Höhe: 7,4 cm; Breite des Unterkörpers: 3,0 cm; Breite des Oberkörpers mit Armen: 3,8 cm; max. Breite Kopf: 3,1 cm; Dicke des Körpers: 1,9 cm; max. Durchmesser des Kopfes 2,5 cm. * Universität Gent. ** Universität Leuven. 1 BRETSCHNEIDER und JANS 2019; BRETSCHNEIDER und VAN LERBERGHE 2008.
122
J. BRETSCHNEIDER UND G. JANS
Abb. 1a-d: Terrakottafigurine aus Tell Tweini (Fotos: Greta Jans).
NICHT SCHÖN ABER SELTEN
123
Abb. 2: Terrakottafigurine aus Tell Tweini (Zeichnung: Evy Cuypers).
Terrakotta-Kleinplastiken sind in den bronze- und eisenzeitlichen Siedlungsschichten im zentralen Stadtgebiet von Tell Tweini (Feld A) eher selten belegt. Das hier vorgestellte Exemplar wurde unter dem aus großen flachen Feldsteinen verlegten Fußboden des Raumes 11 in Haus 6, in einer Füllschicht seitlich der Fundamentmauer, auf einer Höhe von 24,87 m gefunden. Die Auffüllung 00324 datiert in Schicht 6AB in die erste Hälfte der Eisen-Zeit II um 850 v. Chr. Die handgemachte Terrakottafigurine zeigt wenige Reste roter, fleckenförmiger Bemalung und ist bis auf den linken Arm und die Standfläche vollständig erhalten2. Die Figurine stellt eine nackte Frau mit seitlich ausgestreckten stummelförmigen Armen dar. Aus dem leicht nach oben gewanden Gesicht ist der schmale Nasenrücken herausgedrückt. Die großen Augen werden von aufgesetzten Tonscheiben gebildet, Mund und Ohren werden nicht ausgeformt. Der oval gebildete Hinterkopf ist abgeflacht und von einem dünnen Wulstrand umgeben. Acht kleine Tonklumpen bekrönen kranzförmig die Stirnwulst und geben die Frisur wieder. Eine weitere kleine Tonscheibe ist mittig auf die Stirn appliziert. 2
Zur Bemalung von Figuren im Alten Orient siehe NUNN und PIENING 2016, 50-53.
124
J. BRETSCHNEIDER UND G. JANS
Abb. 3: Terrakotte aus Tell Judaidah (nach PRUSS 2010, Nr. 205, Taf. 24).
Der breite Hals wird durch eine aus sechs kleinen Tonscheiben gebildete Kette verziert. Eine flache Tonwulst zwischen den spitzen, kleinen Brüsten zeigt elf eingestochene Vertiefungen und darf wohl als Schmuckanhänger gedeutet werden. Der flache, leicht oval bis brettförmig gebildete Unterkörper bleibt unausgebildet. Die Standfläche der Figur ist verloren. Ton und Magerung entsprechen der orange bis rötlich-grau gebrannten Keramikware F4 von Tell Tweini, die charakteristisch für die lokal produzierte Töpferware der späten Eisen-Zeit I-II ist und somit eine lokale Produktion der Terrakotta-Kleinplastik wahrscheinlich machen. Die handgemachte Terrakottafigurine mit reichem Kopf-, Stirn-, Hals- und Brustschmuck erinnert auf den ersten Blick stilistisch in der Ausformung der stummelförmigen, leicht nach oben gerichtet Armen an ägäische Vorbilder, wie sie unter anderem in West-Syrien (Abb. 3)3, Palästina4, Zypern5 und der Ägäis6 seit dem 12. Jahrhundert v. Chr. belegt sind. Die detaillierten Untersuchungen von Alexander Pruß (2010) zu den Terrakottafigurinen des Amuq-Gebietes aus den Grabungen des Oriental Institute zwischen 1932 und 1938 in den syrischen Fundorten Tell Judaidah, Chatal Hüyük und Tell Ta’yinat bieten weiteres Vergleichsmaterial. Hier sind es die als nordsyrischen ‘Pfeilerfiguren’ klassifizierten weiblichen Terrakotten mit säulenförmiger Basis, summarischer Darstellung des Körpers und einer durch applizierte Tonscheiben aufwendig gestaltete Frisur oder Haarverzierung (Abb. 4-5), die den Pfeiler-Figurinentyp 1C aus der ersten Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. charakterisieren7. Durch die vollständige Ausbildung der vor der Brust gehaltenen PRUSS 2010, 200-202, Nr. 204 (Chatal Hüyük), Nr. 205 (Tell Judaidah); PRUSS 2002, 167, Abb. 6. 4 SCHMITT 1999; DOTHAN 1982, 234-249. 5 KARAGEORGHIS 2000, 258-259; KARAGEORGHIS 1993. 6 FRENCH 1971, 101-187. Eine Übersicht zur Ikonographie und Deutung weiblicher Götterfigurinen im levantinischen Raum bietet BUCHHOLZ 1999, 639-655. 7 PRUSS 2010, 216-223. 3
NICHT SCHÖN ABER SELTEN
Abb. 4: Pfeilerfigurine aus Tell Judaidah (nach PRUSS 2010, Nr. 285, Taf. 34).
125
Abb. 5: Pfeilerfigurine aus Chatal Hüyük (nach PRUSS 2010, Nr. 286; Taf. 34).
Unterarme unterscheiden sie sich jedoch deutlich von der Tweini-Figurine mit Stummelarmen und ausgeformten Brüsten. Die erst kürzlich von Barbara Bolognani unter dem Titel The Iron Age Clay Figurines from Karkemish, 2011-2015 Campaigns (Elektronische Hochschulschriften der Università di Bologna 2017) erschienene Arbeit bietet weiterführendes Vergleichsmaterial und Analysen zu den ‘Pfeilerfiguren’ Nordsyriens, die als Syrian Pillar Figurines (SPF’s) geführt werden8. Der säulenförmige Körper, die Ausformung des Gesichtes und die im Stirnbereich applizierten Tonscheiben sind Kennzeichen eines für die mittlere Euphrat Region bekannten FigurinenTypus9, der für die Eisen-Zeit-II (8.-7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.) belegt ist10. Ihr Verbreitungsgebiet erstreckt sich vom mittleren Euphrat bis nach Nordwestsyrien11. Deutliche Übereinstimmungen zur Tweini-Figurine finden sich im Bereich der Kopf- und Frisurenbildung sowie in der durch applizierte Tonscheiben wiedergegebenen Halsketten (Abb. 6-7). Körperform und Brustbildungen stimmen dagegen eher mit einer weiblichen Figurine aus Tell Afis (8. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) überein12. Für eine ältere Eisen-II-zeitliche (ca. 925-800 v. Chr.), grob geformte Terrakotte aus Periode E2 von Hama sind Stummelarme belegt, wie sie auch bei dem in der Levante weitverbreiteten, ägäisch geprägten Figurentypus anzutreffen sind13. BOLOGNANI 2017, 139-167. BOLOGNANI 2017, 241, Fig. 114 10 Die Autoren möchte an dieser Stelle Dr. Barbara Bolognani für die Begutachtung der TweiniFigurine und die vorgestellten Vergleiche aus Euphrat-Region danken. Eine Gesamtanalyse der Koroplastik von Tell Tweini ist in Bearbeitung (BOLOGNANI und BRETSCHNEIDER in Vorbereitung). 11 BOLOGNANI 2017, 242. 12 BOLOGNANI 2017, 304. 13 PRUSS 2010, 200-202; BEN-SHLOMO und PRESS 2009, 39-74. 8 9
126
J. BRETSCHNEIDER UND G. JANS
Abb. 6: Pfeilerfigurine / Syrian Pillar Figurine aus Karkemisch (nach BOLOGNANI 2017, Nr. 807).
Abb. 7: Pfeilerfigurine / Syrian Pillar Figurine aus Yunus (nach BOLOGNANI 2017, Nr. 8).
Ergebnis Die in einer Eisen-II-zeitlichen Schicht im Bereich eines Wohnhausquartieres aufgefundene Figurine von Tell Tweini repräsentiert eine regionale Variante der nordsyrischen Pfeilerfigurinen, wie sie zwischen Euphrat und der syrischen Küste belegt sind. Für den syrischen Pfeilerfigurentypus ungewöhnlich sind die leicht nach oben gestreckten Stummelarme, die wahrscheinlich ägäischen Vorbildern nachempfunden sind14. 14 Auch in anderen Fundgruppen aus Tell Tweini lässt nach der spätbronzezeitlichen Zerstörung um 1190 v. Chr. und der früheisenzeitlichen Wiederbesiedlung der Stadt ägäischer Einfluss feststellen: Lokal produzierte Keramik im späthelladischen Stil und zylinderförmige Webgewichte (loom weights) sind eindeutig durch ostmediterrane Vorbilder inspiriert (BRETSCHNEIDER und JANS 2019).
NICHT SCHÖN ABER SELTEN
127
Für Tell Tweini lässt sich somit eine eigenständig koroplastische Produktion für die erste Hälfte des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. nachweisen, die kulturell durch nordwest-syrische und ostmediterrane Einflüsse geprägt wird. Bibliographie BEN-SHLOMO, D., PRESS, M. D. 2009, ‘A Re-examination of Aegean-Style Figurines in the Light of New Evidence from Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Ekron’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 353, 39-74. BOLOGNANI, B. 2017, The Iron Age Clay Figurines from Karkemish (2011-2015 Campaigns) and the Coroplastic Art of the Syro-Anatolian Region (unpublished PhD diss., Università di Bologna), Bologna. BOLOGNANI, B., BRETSCHNEIDER, J. (in Vorbereitung), The coroplastic from Tell Tweini. BRETSCHNEIDER, J., JANS, G. (eds.) 2019, About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape. Research Results of the Belgian Mission (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 281), Leuven: Peeters Publishers. BRETSCHNEIDER J., VAN LERBERGHE, K. (eds.) 2008, In Search of Gibala: An Archaeological and Historical Study Based on Eight Seasons of Excavations at Tell Tweini (Syria) in the A and C Fields (1999-2007) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 24), Sabadell: Editorial AUSA. BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und die Ägäis (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 261), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. DOTHAN, T. 1982, The Philistines and Their Material Culture, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. FRENCH, E. 1971, ‘The Development of Mycenaean Terracotta Figures’, British School of Athens 66, 161-187. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1993, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus II. Late Cypriote II Cypro-Geometric III, Nicosia: A.G. Leventis Foundation. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 2000, ‘Cultural Innovations at Cyprus Relating to the Sea Peoples’, in E.D. OREN (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 255-279. NUNN, A., PIENING, H. 2016, ‘Farbige Statuen in Mesopotamien’, Antike Welt 1/2016, 50-53. PRUSS, A. 2002, ‘Ein Licht in der Nacht? Die Amuq-Ebene während der Dark Ages’, in E. A. BRAUN-HOLZINGER, H. MATTHÄUS (eds.), Die nahöstlichen Kulturen und Griechenland an der Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Kontinuität und Wandel von Strukturen und Mechanismen kultureller Interaktion. Kolloquium des Sonderforschungsbereiches 295 „Kulturelle und sprachliche Kontakte“ der Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, 11.-12. Dezember 1998, Paderborn: Bibliopolis, 161-175. PRUSS, A. 2010, Die Amuq-Terrakotten. Untersuchungen zu den Terrakotta-Figuren des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. aus dem Grabungen des Oriental Institute Chicago in der Amuq-Ebene (Subartu 26), Turnhout: Brepols.
TRAVELS IN MESOPOTAMIA AND THE GULF
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES IN THIRD MILLENNIUM MESOPOTAMIAN ICONOGRAPHY Hendrik HAMEEUW*
Museum curator and university professor, archaeologist, art historian, and epicurean; Eric Gubel, whose field work mostly focused on the Levantine region, has always been exploring the horizons of the past in two directions: Mesopotamia in the east and the Mediterranean world to the west. No better person to dedicate a contribution to on the Mesopotamian double-headed bird creatures. The Museum of Art and History in Brussels and the University of Leuven keep 3rd millennium BC cylinder seals that depict this well-known and throughout history widespread motif. They belong to the oldest known examples of this image. Introduction The double-headed (bicephalous) bird, in most cases distinctly an eagle, appears abundantly in European iconography since the High Middle Ages. Heraldic designs from Eastern Europe to Great Britain are adorned with it. Only by the 10th-12th century AD the motif emerges and spreads, believed to be introduced via Byzantine representations (influenced via Asia Minor, (post-)Seljuk and Sassanids) and Al-Andalus (through Islamic influence), in particular on textiles1. The last ruling Byzantine dynasty of the Palaiologos used the motif as their family emblem2. This gave it a grand imperial symbolic importance and undoubtedly initiated its popularity in the Holy Roman Empire, Serbia, Russia and throughout the Habsburgs dynasty. Another presumed axe of influence and adoption might come directly from European travellers and crusaders who saw images of double-headed eagles when travelling through Asia Minor3. That Anatolian inspiration is widely accepted4; depictions of the doubleheaded eagles have been visible for many centuries in open air in a number of ancient sites, the most prominent being the well-known Yazılıkaya, the rock sanctuary of the Hittite capital Hattusa. From the 20th-19th century BC onwards, * KU Leuven; Ghent University. 1 ANDROUDIS 2016; MÜLLER-CHRISTENSEN 1973. 2 KRAUSE 2015. The symbolism given to this design by the Byzantines is understood to be one of authority, the two opposite oriented heads behold the West and the East of their empire (BROWNWORTH 2009). 3 PARKER 1923; D’ALVIELLA 1894. 4 SILVER 2019; CHARITON 2011; PARKER 1923.
132
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 1: Pendant seal (verso) of emperor Charles V, heraldic winged and double-headed shield, attached to a charter from 8 October 1530, KU Leuven (© Archives of the Old University of Leuven, 124, photograph).
Hittite representations start emerging, especially on seals, later on rock reliefs and architectural stone carvings5, manifesting themselves as royal insignia. Their significance has been recognised and discussed by many scholars. To quote one of the most prominent, Anton Moortgat6, under his comments on ‘Fabel- und Mischwezen’: “Ein dem kleinasiatischen Hethiterreich eigentümliches wappenartiges Gebilde ist der Doppeladler, ein in Vorderansicht dargestellter Raubvogel mit ausgebreiteten Schwingen und zwei im Profil gezeichneten Köpfen. So sehen wir ihn auf runden und würfelförmigen hethitischen Stempelsiegln. In Üjük, dem wichtigsten Fundort im Halysbogen neben Boghazköi und Jazylykaya, wovon es etwa 24km in nördlicher Richtung entfernt liegt, kommt der Doppeladler vor auf Torlaibungsblöcken, die auf ihrer Vorderseite Sphingenprotomen tragen. Die Darstellung ist schlecht erhalten. Der Vogel schlägt hier seine Krallen in je einen Hasen und dient zugleich als Stütze für eine Gestalt, die an den Hethitischen Priesterkönig erinnert. In der Götterprozession von Jazylykaya dagegen trägt der Doppeladler zwei weibliche Gottheiten.”
As an imperial insigne, the Hittites paved the path for the use of this powerful visual motif later adopted by the Byzantines, Holy Roman Empire, Austrians 5 LEBRUN 2004 and 2006 has recently discussed in length the Hittite traditions dealing with the bicephalous eagle. 6 MOORTGAT 1932, 72.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
133
and many Slavic dynasties and nations. Nonetheless, the Hittite cannot patent the design. We will explore 3rd millennium BC imagery and shift southwards into Mesopotamia to discover the origins of the double-headed bird creatures. Third millennium BC double-headed bird creatures Most of the bicephalous bird creatures from the Hittite and later Western traditions can be identified as eagles7: wings spread open, large feathers, triangular tail, hooked beak and distinct talons. Double-headed birds are also abundantly attested in 2nd millennium BC (South-)Anatolian, Syrian and Alalakh imagery8, contemporary to – and possibly influenced by – Hittite traditions. The motif appears even further to the west, towards the Mediterranean9, and is still present in the late 2nd millennium BC in Mesopotamia10. However, unlike the ‘classic’ Hittite exemplars, not all bird bodies have bird heads. Thus, other traditions seems to have influenced the double-headed bird creatures’ iconography. Instead of bird heads, two leontocephaline heads face each other, their mouths wide open. On several occasions, the necks are longer and distinctly feathered/furred. Again, this tradition seems to have a 3rd millennium Mesopotamian origin. An overview of the examples presented in this paper is given given in Table 1. The tradition of double-headed bird creatures discussed in the paragraphs below will therefore focus on depictions of animals with the body, tail, legs and wings of a bird and the head of a bird or lion. The best known representations11 of such bi-leontocephaline bird creatures date to the Ur III period (ca. 2112-2004 BC) and have been excavated in the Lagash region (South Mesopotamia). On a bulla (Fig. 2) and a cuneiform tablet two very similar elaborate, archaic iconographic presentations reveal a scene with a seated deity – probably Ningirsu –, followed by an inscription identifying the seal owner; underneath is a double-headed bird creature, engraved with great care, detail, and sense for style and symmetry12. The two heads are unmistakable those of a lion. The position on the seal, neatly in a reserved corner underneath the inscription and behind the throne, gives this feature the appearances of an 7
Iconclass code: 25FF332. Some examples are BUCHANAN 1966, 834 (Cappadocian); PORADA 1948, 901 (Syro-Cappadocian); PORADA 1948, 936 (1st Syrian); BUCHANAN 1966, 899a (Old Syrian); TEISSIER 1984, 551 (Old Syrian); KÜHNE 1980, 31 (Old Syrian), FAVARO 2017, 58 (Old Syrian); EISEN 1940, 135 (1st Syrian?); BEYER 2001, 390 (Syro-Hittite); RAVN 1960, 141 (2nd Syrian); EISEN 1940, 138 (2nd Syrian); COLLON 1982b, 8-9 (Alalakh), TEISSIER 1984, 590 (Mitanni). 9 MET 1992.288 (14th century BC); PARKER 1949: 191 (Gezer, probably from Cyprus). 10 STIEHLER-ALEGRIA DELGADO 1996, 276 (Kassite, Late Bronze Age); BUCHANAN 1966, 562a (Kassite, Late Bronze Age). 11 PARKER 1923. 12 AO 447-448, DELAPORTE 1920, T.110; DE GENOUILLAC 1911, pl. III: 3911; HEUZEY 18911892, 41. 8
134
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 2: Musée du Louvre, AO 447-448 (after DELAPORTE 1920, T.110: adjusted flatbed scan).
emblem or insigne13, much like the later 2nd millennium Hittite use of the motif. This aspect is confirmed by other seal impressions from Lagash that position very similar – in those cases single headed – bird creatures or even other stylized mixed creatures in front, behind, or equally underneath a legend14. One example15 substitutes the bi-leontocephaline bird creatures with that of a bird creature with a single leontocephaline head. A lapis lazuli cylinder seal – unfortunately “im Handel erworben” and stylistically dating to the late Old Akkadian period16 – gives another close parallel for this type of emblem-like element (Fig. 3). Again, but now with eagle heads instead of lions, the depiction of the bicephalous bird creature motif appears immediately below a legend17. These examples seem to suggest both types – the double-headed eagle and lion – are interchangeable. It is nonetheless important to acknowledge that the popularity of single-headed bird creatures is much greater, whereas the double-headed counterparts remain rare. Both birds and lions are popular and common in 3rd millennium Mesopotamian iconography. The lion-headed bird is especially known in the shape of the monster Imdugud (the Anzû-bird)18. This single-headed creature appears as a kind of ‘heraldic animal’ on a range of artistic expressions such as seal 13
This emblem-like motif is defined and differentiated from other iconographic representations throughout the article as being a stylized and isolated element, clearly separated from the rest of the scene. 14 DELAPORTE 1920, T.108, T.130, T.134, T.153, T.156, T.191, T.213, T.215; WARD 1910, 228-228. 15 DELAPORTE 1920, T.129. 16 Note the cylinders seals impressed on the Ur III bulla and tablet (above) were archaic in style as well. Thus, this cylinder seal might equally be dated as Ur III or at least not older than late Old Akkadian period. 17 MOORTGAT 1940, 105: 243 (VA 7968). 18 BLACK and GREEN 1992, 107-108.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
135
Fig. 3: VA 7968 (MOORTGAT 1940, 105: 243, flatbed scan).
impressions, stelae and stone relief plates; the Imdugud Relief (ca. 2500 BC, Tell Al-’Ubaid) and Stele of the Vultures (ca. 2450 BC, Girsu) are the most famous examples from South Mesopotamia. The image was particularly popular in the Lagash region as the creature stood in relation to the local god Ningirsu19, but its popularity stretches all over greater Mesopotamia, to Mari20 (ca. 2500 BC) and Ebla21 (ca. 2400 BC). Bi-leontocephaline (bird-)creatures, whether winged or not, are also known from later Old Assyrian sources (first centuries of the 2nd millennium BC)22, but it is questionable whether these represent a motif related to the Imdugud or even ‘classic’ Hittite double-headed eagle tradition. A number of older representations (i.e. dating before the late Old Akkadian/ Ur III emblem-like bicephalous birds) push the origins of double-headed bird creatures even earlier into the 3rd millennium BC. The main challenge with these engraved seals is the ability to define and identify the heads of those creatures: lion or bird; and if birds, which species? An Old Akkadian or even late Early Dynastic partly preserved seal impression on a lump of clay (perhaps a jar stopper) shows a balanced emblem-like bicephalous bird creature. In this case it takes part23 in a combat scene with what seems to be a standing griffin and a deer (Fig. 4)24. At first sight, the heads look like 19 PARROT 1960, 163B, 165, 167A; WARD 1910, 30 and 407-408 labels the design as ‘the eagle of Lagash’. 20 WEIS 1985, 154 and 164-165. 21 MATTHIAE 1989, pl. III. 22 Acem Hüyük (COLLON 1987, 150); Kultepe (Harvard University Art Museums nr. 2000.197.A-C). 23 The bird creature’s talon do not seem to touch/grasp the deer; but the overall look of the scene very much resembles what is being described as type 1: bird grasping at both sides animals (see below: Meaning). 24 LEGRAIN 1925, 46; LEGRAIN 1923, 135-161 and 140: 46.
136
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 4: CBS 14242, Left: LEGRAIN 1923, 140: 46; right-top: LEGRAIN 1925, 46; right-bottom: Philadelphia University of Pennsylvania Museum: Object Collections (flatbed scans and adapted photograph).
those of lions with open mouth. However, the resemblance of the two heads with the fighting griffin creature is also striking. In another type of composition, as seen on a cylinder seal in the Brussels museum (Fig. 11) dated to the transitional period Old Akkadian/Ur III, an emblem-like bi-leontocephaline bird can be identified with more certainty. Admittedly, with this object we return to the late 3rd millennium BC representations discussed above. Another uncertain (lion or bird) case, and again stylistically to be dated in the transition phase of the Early Dynastic/Old Akkadian period, is a double portrayal on a cylinder seal with two registers (Fig. 5)25. As the rest of the scene, the bird creatures are roughly engraved and especially the seemingly opposite looking heads are completely simplified into a triangular shape. As both bird creatures are placed above animals looking over their shoulder – probably lions –, a relation between the two can be suggested, but a physical interaction cannot be ascertained. Assuring the identification of the heads is probably impossible. After this short discussion on bi-leontocephaline and isolated emblem-like motifs, we now turn to 3rd millennium BC depictions of double-headed bird creatures. One of the oldest representations of a double-headed bird creature in ancient Mesopotamia is found on a cylinder seal excavated at Tell Asmar (Diyala). It stylistically dates to the late Early Dynastic period. The seal itself was found in 25
BUCHANAN 1981, 285.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
137
Fig. 5: Gimbel Collection 3 (BUCHANAN 1981, 284, flatbed scan).
Fig. 6: As.31:32 (FRANKFORT 1955, 604, flatbed scan).
an archaeological context of the Old Akkadian period, together with older, preEarly Dynastic seals26. The scene combines two motifs that are quite common: standing animals in combat and a bird creature grasping two of these animals. Its wings are spread wide open horizontally; the legs have no identifiable characteristics; the tail is a hatched triangle. When compared to all other bicephalous birds creatures, both heads are oriented in the same direction (a unique feature) and they have a long neck. Imdugud/Anzû-birds or birds clutching two animals on either side, belong to a wide-spread iconographic Mesopotamian tradition. It remains unclear why the Tell Asmar bird creature and the examples below have two heads, but these few occasions are certainly the result of a deliberate choice of the seal engraver and/or client to make it part of the design. 26
FRANKFORT 1955, 10, 604.
138
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 7: AMIET 1952, 4 (after PORADA 1948, 57, flatbed scan).
Fig. 8: Musée du Louvre, AO 2398 (DELAPORTE 1920, A.44, photograph).
The cylinder seal designs reproduced in Fig. 727, Fig. 828, Fig. 13 and probably even Fig. 12 are additional examples of the same theme: bicephalous bird creatures grasping animals. They date to the Early dynastic or Old Akkadian periods. A final iconographical type is represented on two very divergent cylinder seals29. The first (Fig. 9) shows a chaotic scene with a single-axle chariot pulled by a quadruped (equid?, antelope?) surrounded by several birds and winged creatures. On the front main frame of the chariot sits a double-headed bird creature 27 The iconography on this seal is a maverick. PORADA (1948, 10) identifies this eagle as ‘lionheaded’. With BUCHANAN 1981, 284 as a parallel and with the AMIET 1952, fig. 4 and AMIET 1961, 1395 drawings of this seal, it is preferable to interpret it as a double-faced head, looking in opposite directions. Note that AMIET 1952, 153 leaves the interpretation open for discussion: “l’oiseau est peut-être même léontocéphale”. Secondly, this bicephalous bird grasps bull-men, no ordinary animals. And thirdly, the tail connects to an upside-down positioned human, equally with the arms spread and grabbing the bull-men in combat with animals. See AMIET 1952 and MAJCHRZAK 2018 for a discussion and extra representations of this type of iconography with bird-men. 28 DELAPORTE 1920, A.44; this bird creature has a very thin neck that splits in two and for which the photographic copy of the modern impression in the Delaporte’s catalogue only seems to visualize the bird head looking to the right. The double neck is nonetheless sufficiently distinctive to identify the bird creature as bicephalous. 29 VON DER OSTEN 1936, 28 and U.15479 (CBS 31-17-130).
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
Fig. 9: VON
DER
139
OSTEN 1936, 28 (flatbed scan).
Fig. 10: U.15479 (CBS 31-17-130, adapted from http://www.ur-online.org/).
with wings lifted upward and heads looking in opposite directions. Dating this seal is problematic and adequate parallels remain wanting. While von der Osten listed the seal among his oldest group, ‘Archaic or Sumerian’, the shape and engraving of the heads resemble an Early Dynastic III prototype30. Engraved in a much different style but showing a similar scene, is a cylinder seal excavated in Ur (U.15479, Fig. 10)31. A human figure stands in front (or behind) a singleaxle chariot; in the field above the pole stands a (probably winged) quadruped, perhaps a dragon; the chariot is pulled by an ox/bull or ass32; and a doubleheaded bird creature perches on the front main frame of the chariot. Unfortunately, the faded design only allows to distinguish two necks; on the impression the head facing left can still be discerned33. EISEN 1940, 26. WOOLLEY 1934, 96. 32 WOOLLEY 1934, 343. 33 In Woolley’s original Catalogue Card (http://www.ur-online.org/media_item/250556/ or BM Archive Number: 194, Box:62 Page:149), he describes the scene as: “Cylinder seal. Black steatite. Chariot drawn by an antelope(?) headed by a man. Emblem-spread eagle.” 30 31
140
H. HAMEEUW
Table 1: Overview of 3rd millennium BC representations of double-headed bird creatures discussed in this paper. Collection, accession number and/or publication Musée du Louvre, AO 447448 (DELAPORTE 1920, T.110) DE GENOUILLAC 1911, pl. III: 3911 VA 7968 (MOORTGAT 1940, 105: 243) RMAH Brussels, O.860 (SPELEERS 1943, 860) KU Leuven, MB.Gl.6 (BAUDOT 1987-1988) RMAH Brussels, O.2722 Gimbel Collection 3 (BUCHANAN 1981, 285) CBS 14242 (B14242) (LEGRAIN 1925, 46) As.31:32 (FRANKFORT 1955, 604) Musée du Louvre, AO 2398 (DELAPORTE 1920, A.44) VON DER OSTEN 1936, 28 PORADA 1948, 57 U.15479 (CBS 31-17-130) (WOOLEY 1934, 96)
Date
Head type
Provenance
Ur III
lion heads
Girsu
Ur III
lion heads
Girsu
late Old Akkadian/Ur III
bird heads
unprovenanced
late Old Akkadian/Ur III late Old Akkadian
lion heads
Girsu
lion heads
unprovenanced
Old Akkadian? late Early Dynastic/early Old Akkadian late Early Dynastic/Old Akkadian late Early Dynastic
bird heads bird or lion heads
unprovenanced unprovenanced
bird heads?
Nippur
bird heads
Tell Asmar
late Early Dynastic
bird heads
unprovenanced
late Early Dynastic Early Dynastic Early Dynastic II
bird heads bird heads bird heads
unprovenanced unprovenanced Ur
When the heads of the bicephalous bird creatures can be identified as those of birds, the question remains as to what species they belong to. In the scholarly literature, the various neck-head combinations with spread wings are nearly always labelled as ‘eagles’. In most cases, the inability to narrow the identification down to particular bird species is due to a lack of (characteristic) details. However, especially the depictions of birds with long necks deviate from the natural silhouette of the eagle, which has a rather short neck. Eagle necks are also unmistakably densely feathered (thus, by far justifying the almost line-like necks in a number of examples, some of which cited in this paper). For the strongly simplified/stylized rendered creatures these arguments can be ignored because artistic conventions and traditions are involved, which rarely disclose such biological details. When the graphic work is sufficiently detailed or expressive, other
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
141
species should be suggested as well, such as vultures and cormorants. Concerning the latter, as Dominique Collon34 notes, a common sight of a cormorant is when it sits still in the sun to dry, with its wings spread. The cormorant has a long neck and a long beak with a distinct front crook. Both characteristics can be distinguished on a few of the known bird representations and this also goes for several of the attested bicephalous bird creatures. The two Brussels exemplars O.860 (Fig. 11) The cylinder seal35 is decorated with a two register composition, showing three geese or swans lifting their wings in the lower section36. The upper section is composed of a legend and a somewhat carelessly rendered group consisting of a standing deity with raised arms, a mongoose or monkey, and an emblem-like bi-leontocephaline bird creature. The creature has sharp claws, a triangular tail, and distinctive horizontally spread wings. The heads look in opposite directions and closely resemble lion heads known already from the Old Akkadian and Ur III periods37. They are also related to the Ur III Girsu iconography38. O.2722 (Fig. 12) This is an eroded and damaged cylinder seal with a double-headed bird creature as the pictorial element that can be identified with certainty. Both heads look in opposite directions, it has quite short legs and wings spread wide open. One of the heads (the right one on the impression) is very distinctive: it has a long beak with a front crook; at the back the head also appears to have a crest. The creature might be grasping two snakes, although this is very hard to determine due to the degree of deterioration of the seal’s surface. A quadruped (lion?) completes the scene. A crescent moon might have stood in the upper part of the scene, between them. The long necks and the head to the right resemble those on seals AO 2398 (Fig. 8) and MB.Gl.6 (Fig. 13), which makes it likely that the bird is to be identified as a cormorant. Dating the COLLON 1982, 107-108: 239. SPELEERS 1943, 860, according to the museum catalogue provenanced in Telloh (Girsu). 36 This style of geese or swans appears on the lower section of similar register compositions on a number of cylinder seals dated to the Old Akkadian/Ur III transition period. See COLLON 1982a, 283-288 and 331-337; LEGRAIN 1953, 247-255; PORADA 1948, 260; SPELEERS 1943, 94:1493. 37 COLLON 1982a, 249; LEGRAIN 1953, 110 (U.3147); PORADA 1948, 284. 38 As seen above: AO 447-448 and DE GENOUILLAC 1911, pl. III: 3911. 34 35
142
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 11: Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, O.860 (SPELEERS 1943, 860, Portable Light Dome renderings).
cylinder seal and its iconography is challenging. The heads point to the Old Akkadian period or earlier39; the way the wings are engraved recall early Ur III period models40. 39 See also LEGRAIN 1953, 115 (U.1646); PORADA 1948, 264E; WOOLLEY 1934, pl. 195: 35; and perhaps AMIET 1961, 410. 40 COLLON 1982a, 322-330; but see also SPELEERS 1943, 48: 672 and 59: 1361 which dates earlier.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
143
Fig. 12: Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels, O.2722 (Portable Light Dome renderings).
The Leuven exemplar MB.Gl.6 (Fig. 13) This serpentinite cylinder seal (measuring 21×12 mm) is engraved with a bicephalous bird creature (best resembling a cormorant) grasping two birds (probably geese). The scene is delimitated by two horizontal strokes. The engraving technique of the wings resembles PORADA 1948, 26441 and LEGRAIN 1953, 11142. The style of the geese has an almost perfect parallel on the late Old Akkadian cylinder seal COLLON 1982a, 249. Single-headed eagles grasping lions, antelopes, goats or snakes are well attested in the repertoire of 3rd millennium glyptic43; the grasping of two birds (goose) is rare44. 41
Seal 264 is catalogued as ‘Post-Akkad’. Seal 111 is catalogued as part of the inventory of Sargonic grave 115. 43 COLLON 1982a, 321-323, 326; BOEHMER 1965, 25, 83, 86-87, 467-470, 634; LEGRAIN 1936, 207-223, 280, 487-488, 517. 44 Accesion nr. MMA 1999.325.2, Early Dynastic III. 42
144
H. HAMEEUW
Fig. 13: KU Leuven Archaeological museum, MB.Gl.6 (Baudot 1987-1988, Portable Light Dome renderings and photograph).
Meaning The introduction and popularity of the symbol of the double-headed eagle in Medieval Europe is generally attributed to the fact that the Byzantine dynasty of the Palaiologos added an extra head to the iconic image of the eagle, the abundantly used state emblem of the old Roman emperors. At the time, the Palaiologos used it as family emblem, not a state symbol, but as they were the last ruling Byzantine dynasty, successor to the Roman empire, all those who positioned themselves in that same historical tradition started using this powerful image. There is no contemporary description by the Byzantines explaining the meaning they attributed to that image, but it is generally accepted the Palaiologos used the duality of the emblem to express both their secular and spiritual power, and to reflect the vastness of their rule, east and west of Constantinople. This is certainly a tempting symbolism for great empires and their dynastic families such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Habsburgs, and Russia, but also Orthodox Christianity. It became a symbol of the universal claim to power over Latin Christendom, and also that of imperial sovereignty: the king of kings45. Projecting this interpretation on the ancient Mesopotamian tradition would be improvident. In the ancient Near East, the class and number of objects showing the double-headed eagle is much more limited46: on a few (Hittite) reliefs, on 45 46
MUTSCHLECHNER 2019; CHEVALIER and GHEERBRANT 1982, 13. CHARITON 2003.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
145
some objects47, and predominantly in glyptic art. For the 3rd millennium BC, they are only known from the latter medium. The distribution and use of the motif trough time and place also complicates our ability to find a common – if such ever was – meaning. As always, the area of greater Mesopotamian disperses and receives influences from many directions and places through a complex web of religious and cultural interchanges. When observing the core region of Mesopotamia, the scattered pieces of evidence provide some insights. Bicephalous bird creatures appear on a number of Ur III and Kassite seal engravings (cf. supra), while Old Babylonian examples remain unattested. Does that reflect a disappearance of the tradition and loss of symbolic importance or meaning, or is it the result of an artistic reduction in the range of compositions? Most ‘Mesopotamian scholars’ merely offer descriptions of bicephalous bird creatures and refrain from formulating interpreting comments. One of the exceptions was Leon Legrain who writes, partly influenced by classical era artistic conventions: “The double head, like the bifrons or Janus head, is a primitive convention, a substitute for perspective, expressing ever watchful activity working on both sides”48. That aspect of extended vision and extra control is also found in an interpretation given by Charlotte Lebrun in assessing the Hittite motif: “Pourquoi le représenter avec deux têtes? Peut-être par souci de symmétrie avec les animaux tenus dans ses serres. Ou bien, pour faire appèl à cette faculté de tout voir”49. Lebrun also connects it to the iconographic framework in which the bicephalous bird creatures are featured. Also in the 3rd millennium, this notion of symmetry is observed in representations of animals grasped on either side by other participants in the scene; these can be labelled as type 150. The reference to power, represented by the eagle as the most feared predatory bird, is strong. In that sense, the motif usually shows single-headed birds; the doubling of the head accentuates this image of strength, power and control. Lebrun also discusses how the bicephalous eagle could be placed in relation to the winged sun-disk. Could that connection with the sun explain why certain bird creatures can be identified as cormorants? The natural behaviour of these birds, with their wings spread open, motionless for tens of minutes, while facing the sun to dry their feathers, suggest a special relation with the sun/sun god. Type 251 shows the isolated bicephalous bird creature, seemingly not interacting with other iconographical elements in the scene. The motif acts as a kind of emblem or insigne, most probably again expressing power. Single-, double-, bird- or lion-headed birds are all represented in such positions, and their intrinsic symbolic value and meaning seem almost to be interchangeable. Especially at Girsu, 47 48 49 50 51
One of these few examples is an Iron Age Luristan bronze stamp (SPELEERS 1943, 174: 923). LEGRAIN 1923, 140. LEBRUN 2006, 163. CBS 14242; As.31:32; PORADA 1948, 57; AO 2398; O.2722; MB.Gl.6. AO 447-448; DE GENOUILLAC 1911, pl. III: 3911; VA 7968; Gimbel Collection 3; O.860.
146
H. HAMEEUW
where the eagle and Imdugud-bird act as a kind of coat of arms for the Lagash city state in the 3rd millennium BC, evidence strongly points that out. Another variant is type 352. Here, both representations place an emblem-like bicephalous bird creature above a chariot, at the exact same position. These belong to the oldest dated examples of the theme, as gathered in Table 1. References AMIET, P. 1952, ‘L’Homme-oiseau dans l’art mésopotamien’, OrNS 21, 149-167. AMIET, P. 1961, La glyptique Mésopotamienne archaïque, Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. ANDROUDIS, P. 2016, ‘Double-Headed Eagles on early (11th-12th c.) medieval textiles: Aspects of their iconography and symbolism’, in M. RAKOCIJA (ed.), Proceedings of the International Congress: Niš and Byzantium XIV, Niš: s.ed., 315-341. BEYER, D. 2001, Emar IV: Les Sceaux (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis - Series Archaeologica 20), Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. CHARITON, J. D. 2011, ‘The Mesopotamian Origins of the Hittite Double-Headed Eagle’, Journal of Undergraduate Research XIV, 1-13. BAUDOT, M. P. 1987-1988, ‘The Ancient Near Eastern Seals and Gems in the Biblical Museum at the Catholic University of Leuven’, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia 26-27, 113-130. BROWNWORTH, L. 2009, Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire that Rescued Western Civilization, New York: Broadway Books. BUCHANAN, B. 1966, Catalogue of ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum, Volume I, Cylinder Seals, Oxford: Clarendon. BUCHANAN, B. 1981, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. CHEVALIER, J., GHEERBRANT, A. 1982, Dictionnaire des Symboles, Paris: Éditions Robert Laffont/Éditions Jupiter. COLLON, D. 1982a, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals II: Akkadian ~ Post Akkadian ~ Ur III Periods, London: British Museum. COLLON, D. 1982b, The Alalakh Cylinder Seals, A new catalogue of the actual seals excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley at Tell Atchana, and from neighbouring sites on the Syrian-Turkish border (BAR International Series 132), Oxford: BAR. D’ALVIELLA, E. G. 1894, The Migration of Symbols, London: Constable. DE GENOUILLAC, H. 1910, Inventaire des tablettes de Tello conservées au Musée Impérial Ottoman, Textes de l’époque d’Agadé et de l’époque d’Ur, Paris: Leroux. DELAPORTE, L. 1920, Catalogue des cylindres, cachets et pierres gravées de style oriental, I. – Fouilles et Missions & II. Acquisitions, Paris: Hachette. EISEN, G. A. 1940, Ancient Oriental Cylinder Seals and Other Seals with a Description of the Collection of Mrs. William H. Moore (Oriental Institute Publications 47), Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute. FRANKFORT, H. 1955, Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region (Oriental Institute Publications 72), Chicago: University of Chicago Oriental Institute. HEUZEY, L. 1891-1892, Les origines orientales de l’art: recueil de mémoires archéologiques et de monuments figures, Paris: Leroux. 52
VON DER OSTEN 1936, 28; U.15479.
DOUBLE-HEADED BIRD CREATURES
147
KÜHNE, H. 1980, Das Rollsiegel in Syrien. Zur Steinschneidekunst in Syrien zwischen 3300 und 330 vor Christus, Tübingen: Universitätsbibliothek. KRAUSE, P. J. 2015, ‘The Mesopotamian Origins of Byzantine Symbolism and Early Christian Iconography’, Valley Humanities Review Spring 2015, 1-13. LEBRUN, CH. 2004, ‘L’aigle bicéphale sur les sceaux inscrits de scribes dans le monde hittite’, Res Antiquae 1, 133-148. LEBRUN, CH. 2006, ‘L’Aigle bicéphale dans le monde Hittite’, in M. MAZOYER, J.P. REY, F. MALBRAN-LABAT, R. LEBRUN (eds.), L’oiseau entre Ciel et Terre, Paris: Harmattan, 161-168. LEGRAIN, L. 1923, ‘Some Seals of the Babylonian Collections’, The Museum Journal XIV/2, 135-161. LEGRAIN, L. 1925, The Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals in the Collections of the Museum (The University Museum: Publications of the Babylonian Section XIV), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. LEGRAIN, L. 1936, Ur Excavations III: Archaic Seal-Impressions, London/Philadelphia/ New York: Oxford University Press. LEGRAIN, L. 1953, Ur Excavations X: Seal Cylinders, London/Philadelphia/New York: Oxford University Press. MAJCHRZAK, D. 2018, ‘Remarks on the Iconographic Motif of the Birdman in Mesopotamian Glyptic Art of the Third Millennium BC’, Études et Travaux XXXI, 219234. MATTHIAE, P. 1989, ‘Masterpieces of Early and Old Syrian Art: Discoveries of the 1988 Ebla Excavations in a Historical Perspective’, Proceedings of the British Academy LXXV, 25-56. MOORTGAT, A. 1932, Die bildende Kunst des alten Orients und die Bergvölker, Berlin: Schoetz. MOORTGAT, A. 1940, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. MÜLLER-CHRISTENSEN, S. 1973, ‘Zwei Seidengewebe als Zeugnisse der Wechselwirkung von Byzanz und Islam’, in M. STETTLER, M. LEMBERG (eds.), Artes Minores – Dank an Werner Abegg, Bern: Verlag Stämpfli & CIE AG, 22-25. MUTSCHLECHNER, M. 2019, ‘Das Haus Österreich - Die Geburt einer Dynastie 1278–1476’, Die Welt der Habsburger, https://www.habsburger.net/de/kapitel/der-doppeladlerhabsburgs-allgegenwaertiges-zeichen (Accessed 12 August 2019). PARKER, A. C. 1923, ‘The Double-Headed Eagle and Whence it Came’, The Builder 9/5 (May 1923). PARKER, B. 1949 ‘The cylinder seals from Palestine’, Iraq 11, 1-43. PORADA, E. 1948, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections, Vol. 1: The Collection of the Piermont Morgan Library (The Bollingen Series XIV), New York: Pantheon. RAVN, O. E. 1960, A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals and Impressions in the Danish National Museum, Kobenhavn: Nationalmuseet. SILVER, C. 2019, ‘How a Two Headed Bird of Prey Ruled Ancient Mesopotamia and Hatti’, Ancient Origins: Reconstructing the Story of Humanity’s Past Blog, 24 January 2019, https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/double-headed-eagle0011375 (Accessed 12 August 2019). SPELEERS, L. 1943, Catalogue des intailles et empreintes orientales des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels : Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. STIEHLER-ALEGRIA DELGADO, G. 1996, Die Kassitische Glyptik (Münchener voderasiatische Studien 18), München/Wien: Profil.
148
H. HAMEEUW
TEISSIER, B. 1984, Ancient Near eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Publications. WARD, W. H. 1910, The seal cylinders of Western Asia, Washington: Carnegie Institute. WEIS, H. (ed.) 1985, Ebla to Damascus: Art and Archaeology of Ancient Syria, Washington: s.ed. WOOLLEY, C. L. 1934, Ur Excavations II: The Royal Cemetery, London/Philadelphia/ New York: Oxford University Press.
DECORUM DIVINUM AN EXTENDED VARIATION OF THE DINGIR SIGN
Michel TANRET*
Introduction The palaeography of Old Babylonian seal legends (and seal legends in general) is a neglected field of study. It is generally accepted that signs in seal legends are written in ‘monumental script’, an archaizing form. In reality there is quite some variation in sign shapes in seal legends. This small study is meant as a contribution to this field, by highlighting one little known sign-shape1. It is a pleasure to dedicate it to Eric Gubel, in gratitude for his important contribution to ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern studies through his academic as well as his curatorial work. I thought it especially fitting to discuss a special shape of the dingir sign, since, by a stretch of etymological imagination, his name might be considered to contain a divine element. G. Colbow, in her excellent study on the late Old Babylonian seal tradition, was the first to identify a variant shape of the dingir sign. She linked this to a new way of producing seal legends. In most cases the signs were cut into the stone but towards the Late Old Babylonian period in some instances signs were carved, producing a much less elegant result. She went on to state that this was not only a different technique but was accompanied by a change in the shape of some signs, a good example being the dingir sign which could be fitted with a supplementary head (“mit einem zusätzlichen Kopf versehen”) for which she refers to the drawing of her nr. 468.12. In its ‘classical’ well known Old Babylonian shape, this sign consists of crossing wedges making an X shape on which a horizontal cross is superimposed. The extended shape (from now on ‘extended dingir’) adds an X to the left of this and connects this to the classical dingir sign via a horizontal line starting at the center point of the X and joining the horizontal wedge of the ‘classical’ dingir. Magnification shows that the X was added after the ‘classical’ dingir was cut or carved (Fig. 1). This shape is little known or referred to. None of the major modern signlists show it; neither Borger (2004) nor Labat (1995)3. Even Ch. Fossey in the * Ghent University. 1 The following abbreviations of names of Old Babylonian kings are used: Ad = Ammiditana; Aṣ = Ammi-ṣaduqa, Sd = Samsu-ditana. 2 COLBOW 2002, 59. 3 In this latest edition of the Manuel, F. Malbran-Labat draws another variant shape of the dingir sign in her Middle Babylonian section, which we will discuss at the end of this article.
150
M. TANRET
Fig. 1: The extended dingir.
second volume of his Manuel (1904) does not give our extended dingir in the Old Babylonian period. The corpus
I have collected attestations of the extended dingir sign and I will present the seal legends in which they were found. I will give the transcription of the legend, a description of the iconographic elements, as well as a discussion of the attestations and the owners or users of the seal. In an effort to pinpoint the origin of the new sign-shape, I will try to find out whether the seal owner was an inhabitant of Sippar-Jaḫrūrum or Sippar-Amnānum. This last point can only be tentative, of course. Both towns were so close that people could be active (or have their seal cut) in either location. One indication favouring an Amnānum localization is the frequent mention of a person in texts from the archive of the gala.maḫs Inanna-mansum and Ur-Utu (henceforth ‘the archive of the gala.maḫs’), excavated in Sippar-Amnānum4. I will not provide a drawing of the seal, since this short contribution is focussed on one sign only, but indicate whether and where the seal was published. It is to be understood that all of the dingir signs in the legends of these seals are extended if not otherwise indicated. The seals are listed in the chronological order of the impressions we have. Seal 1 Transcription
ᵈEN.ZU-iš-me-a-ni
Iconography
No traces of figures on dumu ib-ni ᵈ˹AMAR˺.[UTU] the extant impressions
Publication COLBOW 2002, vol. II, 103, as her 202.85
ìr ᵈNIN.[...] ù ᵈ[...] 4 The distinction between the documents in this archive brought from Sippar-Jaḫrūrum and the ones written in Amnānum is irrelevant since all of the documents discussed here postdate Ad 1 (TANRET 2004). 5 Colbow refers to another impression of this seal as MLC 1620 = YOS 13, 532 with a Transcription of the seal inscription by C. Wilcke on page 453 of his article in Zikir Šumim (WILCKE 1982). The museum number is in fact MLC 1690 and the copy of the (partial) legend is to be found on page 465, the transcription on the next page.
151
DECORUM DIVINUM
Sîn-išmeanni, son of Ibni-Marduk uses two seals successively. First, from Ad 20 to Aṣ 4, he uses our seal 1 on which all four of the dingirs have the extended shape, on nine documents6. From Aṣ 7 to 16 he uses another seal7, dedicated to the king, on eight tablets8, where all dingirs are ‘classical’. He consistently uses the title of judge from Aṣ 3 to Aṣ 16, which he never did from Ad 20 to Aṣ 3. This means that the change of seals (nearly) corresponds to the moment he becomes a judge. Sîn-išmeanni is a member of an important Sippar-Amnānum family, which we know over six generations. Members of this family are the overseer of the merchants Ilšu-bani, great-grandfather of our Sîn-išmeanni, several nadiātum, and an erib bītim, Warad-Sîn. Since he is mostly attested in documents of the gala.maḫ archive, we assign him to Sippar-Amnānum. Seal 2 Transcription dumu-ᵈa.am.[ma] dumu ᵈishkur-˹šar˺-[rum] ìr ᵈnè.[eri.gal]
Iconography A female figure with upheld forearms stands towards the legend from the left, behind her there may be another figure
Publication None
Mār-Ammâ, son of Adad-šarrum, is an Elamite, known as an éren Elam (nimᴷᴵ) in one text (Di 1092) and simply nim.ma in another (Di 1395). He is attested in five texts9, four times he is a debtor, once he is first witness. All of them are sealed by him with this seal. Since he is attested only in documents from the archive of the gala.maḫs, he can be located in Sippar-Amnānum. Seal 3 Transcription ˹ᵈ˺EN.ZU-i-[din-nam] [dumu] nu-úr-ᵈ[utu] ìr ᵈ˹NIN˺.[............]
Iconography A Lamma is turned to the right towards the legend
Publication COLBOW 2002, vol II, 120 as her nr. 229,210
6 Di 690 (Ad 20); Di 674 (Ad 20); Di 2163 (Ad [32]; MHET 895 (Ad 34); Di 1977 (Ad 36); Di 1779 (Ad 37); Di 1256 (Aṣ 3); Di 686 (Aṣ 4). 7 Published in transcription by COLBOW (2002, vol. II, 154) as her number 296.6. A photo is to be found in KLENGEL 1994, 171. 8 Di 1431 (Aṣ 7); VAS 29, 14 (Aṣ 8); CT 8, 3a (Aṣ 11); Di 1197 (Aṣ 11); Di 706 (Aṣ 12); Di 947 (Aṣ 13); BAP 107 (Aṣ 16); VAN LERBERGHE and VOET 1994, 164 (Aṣ 16). 9 Di 1092 (Ad 37); Di 1109 (Ad 37); Di 1134 (Ad year lost); Di 836 (Aṣ 11); Di 1313 (Aṣ year lost). 10 Colbow’s copy is incomplete. Collation shows that the second line is not [...] i-din-ᵈ[...] but dumu nu-úr-ᵈ[...]. For the dingir on the first line, see our remarks in the text.
152
M. TANRET
This seal has a legend to the name of Sîn-iddinam, son of Nūr-Šamaš, servant of a god. It is attested only once, in Aṣ 1, on CT 8, 11c11, a loan, and is used there by his son Sîn-māgir who is first witness in this document. This son is attested on 16 documents, dating from Ad 22 to Aṣ 2. We know of another seal of Sîn-iddinam, son of Nūr-Šamaš, a seal with a legend to his name and patronymic and a servant line devoted to Adad12. It has a normal dingir sign on lines 2 and 3. The first sign of the first line also is a dingir, the very left part of which is damaged on all extant attestations, but traces indicate that it may have been an extended one. This is somewhat visible in the copy of G. Colbow13, where a vertical wedge seems to be placed over the front of the dingir. This seal is attested as used by another son of Sîn-iddinam, Ibni-Adad, a judge, already in Ad 6 (CT 45, 46) and then six times by our Sîn-māgir, from Ad (Di 1006 year broken) to Aṣ 2 (BBVOT 1, 116). This means that he uses our seal 3 only once, in between the use of his other father’s seal. The use of neither of these two seals is attested for their original owner Sîn-iddinam himself. We know that Sîn-iddinam, son of Nūr-Šamaš, was a judge (MHET 882, Si 36), a title apparently inherited by his son Ibni-Adad. Sîn-māgir is never attested with this title. Interesting to us here is that Sîn-iddinam owned a seal before Ad 6 in which one dingir, the first sign of the first line, may have been an extended one. His other seal clearly has extended dingirs. Localizing Sîn-māgir is not straightforward. In five of his 16 texts Utušumundib is mentioned, who must be assigned to Sippar-Jaḫrūrum. In two texts he is a witness to a transaction of a Sippar-Jaḫrūrum house. These attestations would tend to place him in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum. On the other hand, he is mentioned in no less than six documents from the galamaḫ archive: he is witness to the lease of a field belonging to the gala.maḫ Inanna-mansum and to three loans by this same gala.maḫ. These imply presence and probably location in SipparAmnānum. Since the two towns are so close it is to be expected that some people will have been active in both.
11 This text is a copy of CT 48, 119. Both have the seal but the names of the witnesses are broken on CT 48, 119. 12 This seal was published by COLBOW (2002, in vol. II, 55) as her nr. 95.5 and on page 168 as her 317.2. The second one is a mistake. She mentions an earlier publication in AL GAILANIWERR 1988, nr. 251b (copy pl. XXXVI-3). This is the seal impression appearing on CT 45, 46 (Ad 6). 13 COLBOW 2002, 120 sub nr. 229.2.
153
DECORUM DIVINUM
Seal 4 Transcription ì-lí-i-qí-ša-[am] ìr ᵈ[…]
Iconography
Publication
No figure is to be seen on None the extant impression
[…]
This seal is attested only once, on Di 1379, dated Aṣ 7. It has an unusual legend. On the first line there is a name, Ili-iqīšam, and the second one starts with ìr dingir, followed by unreadable traces. The third line may have started with ‘ù’, the rest is also unreadable. This seal is used by Mār-ešrê, as indicated by the kišib written over it. The text informs us that he is the first witness and son of Sîn-[...]. Two years later a Mār-ēšrê, son of Sîn-erībam is mentioned (CT 45, 5814 - Aṣ 9) as second witness, who may be the same. There are no further attestations of a Mār-ešrê, son of Sîn-[...]. Since his only attestation is on a text from the gala.maḫ archive, he probably was located in Sippar-Amnānum. Seal 5 Transcription ?
[...] ti-é [...]
Iconography Vague traces of figures
Publication None
dumu dingir-pi4-ᵈ[...] [ìr ᵈ]˹nin˺.kar.[ra.ak]
The legend of this seal is only attested on Di 923, dated Aṣ 13, where it is unfortunately damaged. It seems to be a three line legend, with the name of its owner, of which only two signs remain, possibly ‘ti é’, which could be part of Qīšti-Ea. His patronymic is Annum-pî-ᵈ[...] and the servant line dedicated to Ninkarrak. We can attribute its use to the scribe Qīšti-Ea, second witness out of 2. Indeed he seals on the left of the reverse. The seal is probably also impressed on MHET 541 and Di 897 (both Aṣ 14) but there nothing of the legend is readable. He is attested in 15 texts, from Aṣ 11 to 1615. In Aṣ 11 his title is dub.sar, from Aṣ 12 onwards he is dumu.é.dub.ba.a. 14
Neither of the two seal inscriptions given in the CT volume corresponds to our seal. CT 8, 03a (Aṣ 11); MHET I, 4 (Aṣ 11); Di 1197 (Aṣ 11); PBS 8/2, 252 (Aṣ 12); Di 706 (Aṣ 12); BE 6/1,95 (Aṣ 13); Di 923 (Aṣ 13); Di 905 (Aṣ 13); MHET, 541 (Aṣ 14); Di 897 (Aṣ 14); Di 770 (Aṣ 14); Di 844 (Aṣ 15); BE 6/1,101 (Aṣ 15); BAP 107 (Aṣ 16); VAN LERBERGE and VOET 1994, 164 (Aṣ 16). 15
154
M. TANRET
Since he is attested on eight texts from the gala.maḫ archive and his other seven attestations do not suggest another location, we assign him to SipparAmnānum. Seal 6 Transcription ᵈak en.[…] dingir X la.˹ni˺ sum.mu ki.˹ti˺ [...] i-din-ᵈ˹na˺-[bi-um]
Iconography
Publication
A praying male figure is turned to the left, with his back to the legend. There probably was another figure facing him16.
COLBOW 2002, vol II, 194, nr. 373.1.
ìr ní.˹tuku˺.[zu]
This is a so-called ‘prayer legend’ which fortunately for us includes the name of its owner, Iddin-Nabium, who is the son of Lu-šalim-beli according to the text. The legend is damaged. It reads: Nabium, lord [...]/ god [...] his [...]/ give a protective spirit (to) / Iddin-Nabium / the servant who reveres you. It is attested on one document only, BM 81310, unpublished and dated Aṣ 17. In her publication, G. Colbow17 drew the ‘dingirs’ as normal ones, whereas collation shows them to be extended in different ways. At the beginning of the first and second lines the dingir sign starts with a vertical wedge, whereas in the middle of the fourth line we find a dingir starting with an X, as an extended dingir should. It is as if the seal engraver wanted to make a distinction between initial dingirs and ones in the middle of a line (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2: The initial dingir on lines 1 and 2 of seal 6.
Iddin-Nabium, son of Lu-šalim-bēli, is attested in Aṣ 13 (Di 1252) and Aṣ 17 (BM 81310), in both instances without a title. There is a clear connection with Sippar-Amnānum: tablets connected to the gala.maḫ Ur-Utu may appear in Iddin-Nabium’s basket according to Di 1252. In BM 81310 Iddin-Nabium lends silver to buy barley from Iškur-mansum 16 COLBOW (2002, vol. II, 194) supposes this may be a single figure in front of a legend, but the impression on BM 81310 has a large blank space to the right of the legend. If it was a single praying figure oriented towards the legend it would be closer to it. 17 COLBOW 2002, vol. II, 194.
155
DECORUM DIVINUM
dumu.é.dub.ba.a son of Sîn-mušallim. The latter is probably connected to SipparAmnānum since e.g. in BM 79878 he lends out silver and the first witness Sîniddinam son of Lu-Asalluḫi is present as witness in more than 80 texts from the gala.maḫ archive. Seal 7 Transcription ta-ri-bu-˹um˺ dumu ì-lí-a-˹wi˺-[lim] ìr ᵈ[…]
Iconography To the right of the legend Adad, holding a lightning rod faces right, his left arm raised.
Publication COLBOW 2002, vol II, 195-196, nr. 374.5
This seal has a legend to the name of Tarībum, son of Ili-awīlim, servant of a god (name broken). In G. Colbow’s copy of the legend she only gave the horizontal wedge a double head. Collation shows that it was a complete extended dingir. This Tarībum is attested on five documents dated from Aṣ 10 to 1718, all leases of fields in the ugārum Silani. He is the brother of a Šumum-libši. His seal is attested only on MHET 553, dated Aṣ 17, where he is second witness. The ugārum Silani is not localized and even if it were, this would not exclude that inhabitants from both Sippars could own fields in it. There is a connection with Sippar-Jaḫrūrum: in Si 72, a text excavated by V. Scheil in Abu Ḫabba19, a field in Silani belonging to Tarību son of Ili-awīlim is mentioned. On the other hand, in the same text, the lessee is Ša-Nabium-kalūma šatam é who is cited in 47 gala. maḫ texts, which links him to Sippar-Amnānum. Seal 8 Transcription ᵈEN.ZU-i-din-nam dumu ᵈEN.ZU-˹iš˺-[me-a-ni]
Iconography
Publication
No figures are visible on None the extant seal impressions
ìr ᵈEN.[ZU]
This seal is owned and used by Sîn-iddinam, son of Sîn-išmeanni, servant of Sîn. 18 BA 5, 34 (Aṣ 10); VAS 29, 36 (Aṣ 11); ARN 169 (Aṣ 16); MHET 551 (Aṣ 17); MHET 553 (Aṣ 17). 19 SCHEIL 1902, 113 and pl. VI.
156
M. TANRET
He is present in four documents published or mentioned by S. Richardson (2010): one is his nr. 8820 and three are mentioned in his table 521. In the index a seal is mentioned for his nr. 88: “slg B” without further specification. Collation shows his seal is present on three of these tablets22. We also find it on the unpublished BM 97614. In all, he is mentioned, mostly as a witness, in 21 documents23 ranging from Ad 25 to Aṣ 18. In VAS 29, 15 - Aṣ (year name broken) he has the title kù.dím. He is mentioned in 12 texts from the gala.maḫ archive, and since he is not attested later than Aṣ 18 we assign him to Sippar-Amnānum. On the other hand, he is a witness in documents from what S. Richardson calls ‘the diviner’s archive’24, a group of texts concerning the acquisition of sacrificial sheep for the Šamaš temple, extending into the reign of Samsu-ditana. This places it in SipparJaḫrūrum. Seal 9 Transcription ˹...˺ ˹x˺ ìr-ki-nu-[ni] [x] EN ᵈ˹AMAR?˺.[UTU]
Iconography A figure with hair knot and raised forearms stands to the right of the legend and is oriented towards it
Publication KLENGEL 2002, 67 as 84.2 (description, no drawing, legend not copied)
˹x˺ da.a.˹x˺ [...]
This seal is attested only once up to now, on VAS 29, 84, dated Sd 13. It has a four-line legend, unfortunately damaged. Since it is impressed on the bottom of the left edge, it must be used by the first witness, Warad-Kinuni ugula é ša é ᵈutu, majordomo of the Šamaš temple. He is attested from Aṣ 7 to Sd 13 in nine texts25, in five of which he procures harvest laborers. He is a witness in most of them. In view of his title, connecting him to the Šamaš temple and the dates of his attestations, he must be located in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum. 20
Commentary on p. 63, copy on p. 210-211. BM 97641, 97494 and 97460 without mention of a seal. 22 We have as yet no information on the sealing of BM 97460. 23 TCLI, 154 (Ad 25); Di 1654 (Ad 37); Di 1152 (Ac 2); Di 513 (Ac 4); Di 1297 (Ac 5); Di 1738 (Ac 5); TLOB Table 5: BM 97460 (Ac 14); Di 829 (Ac 16); Di 1756 (Ac 6); Di 1615 (Ac 12); MHET 902 (Ac 12); Di 756 (Ac 13); Di 948 (Ac 14); BDHP 16 (Aṣ 15); Di 1727 (Ac 16); TLOB 88 (Ac 18); TLOB Table 5: BM 97641 (Ac 18); TLOB Table 5: BM 97494(Ac 18); BM 97614 (Aṣ x); VAS 29, 015 (Ac[...]); Di 810 ([...]). 24 RICHARDSON 2010, 58 sqq. 25 TLOB nr. 41 (Aṣ 7); TLOB Table 2 = BM 78380 (Aṣ 7) and BM 78367 (Aṣ 7); BBVOT I, 106 (Aṣ 10); CT 8, 14b (Aṣ 14); CT 8, 14c (Aṣ 15); VAS 29, 84 (Sd 13); TLOB Table 2 = BM 79999 (d.l.); AbB 12, 92 (probably). 21
157
DECORUM DIVINUM
Seal 10 Transcription
Iconography
Publication
ᵈutu en.gal.la
A figure with raised forearms stands to the left of the legend and is oriented towards it
KLENGEL 2002, 64 as 66.1 (description and incomplete rendering of the legend) drawing on pl. 38 (copy of complete legend)
lugal an ki dingir KA dingir ìr šá UŠ ra
This is a seal with a prayer legend. It reads: Šamaš great lord / king of heaven and earth / ... / the servant who ... for you. It is attested on VAS 29, 66. The copy of the legend on plate 38 shows normal dingirs, whereas collation clearly shows extended ones. F. van Koppen26 proposed to interpret the third line as the name, reading Annum-pi-[...]. The problem is that there is nothing after the second dingir, which could at most yield Annum-pî-ilim. The last line is unclear. In view of the position of the seal on the upper edge and the top of the left edge, it must have been used by the debtor Ḫuzalum, diviner (máš.šu.gíd.gíd), son of Ili-erībam. The text concerns silver to buy barley on a commercial journey. This Ḫuzalum is attested in two more texts dated Aṣ 13 (Di 1740) and 15 (Di 762), on neither of them do we find his seal. Both of these texts are part of the gala.maḫ archive. They are harvest labor contracts in which he is first witness and a list of barley and personal names. In view of these last texts we would assign him to Sippar-Amnānum but the fact that he is attested under Samsuditana places him in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum since we have no documents dated later than Ammiṣaduqa 18 from Sippar-Amnānum. He might have moved from the latter to the former. Seal 1127 Transcription ᵈEN.ZU-re-˹me˺-[ni] dumu ib-ni-ᵈMAR.TU ìr ᵈMAR.TU
26
Iconography
Publication
The god Amurrum, with COLBOW 2002, vol. II, his crooked staff, one foot 237 nr. 468.1 on an animal28, stands to the left of the legend, facing it
VAN KOPPEN 2003-2004, 389a. G. Colbow reads ᵈEN.ZU-a-[...] on the first line. This is contradicted by collation. The MAR. TU on the second line is confirmed and the copy of the legend in G. Colbow can be completed in this sense. 28 This horned animal has been interpreted as a gazelle or a goat (BEAULIEU 2005, 37 with references to earlier studies). 27
158
M. TANRET
Fig. 3: The first sign of the first line of seal 11.
An impression of this seal is attested only on MHET 561, dated Sd 14. G. Colbow remarks concerning the dingir sign in this legend that it has a “zusätzlichen Kopf” and correlates this with the fact that the inscription is carved (“gekerbt”)29. It is in fact an extended dingir. There is a difference between the dingir on the first line and those on lines 2 and 3. The latter are our regular extended dingirs. The former adds to this an extension of the horizontal wedge through the X and past it to the left (Fig. 3). It is as if here too, as in seals 3 and 6, the seal cutter wanted to make a difference between a dingir at the beginning of the line and the ones in the middle of it. Since the impression is to be found on the upper edge, the top of the left edge and of the left margin (as well as on the bottom of the left margin of the reverse), Sîn-rēmēni (or the person using his seal) must have been a party to this contract concerning real estate in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum. The text is broken and does not preserve his name. We know of no other attestations of this person. In view of the date of the attestation and his connection with real estate in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum, we localize him there. Conclusions Summing up the occurrences of the seals with an extended dingir (Table 1), we find that these eleven different seals are attested on thirty documents. Of course, more will hopefully be found in as yet unpublished seal legends as well as in older publications where the extended form may have been copied as a normal one, as shown above. Nevertheless, the present sample indicates that even then the numbers will be limited. No less than sixteen of these attestations are on documents from the gala.maḫ archive. The fourteen other ones come from the Sippar collections of the British Museum (12) or the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin (2). The earliest attestation is Ad 20, but this is the use of the seal by the son. We have no attestations of the seal by the father but these must of course antedate Ad 20. 29
COLBOW 2002, 59.
159
DECORUM DIVINUM
Table 1: Seals with an extended dingir. Seal
Total
Di
BM
1
9
7
2
2
5
5
3
2
4
1
1
5
3
2 1
VAT
Dates Ad 20 - Aṣ 4 Ad 37 - Aṣ 11
2
Aṣ 1 Aṣ 7
1
Aṣ 13 - 14
6
2
1
Aṣ 13 - 17
7
1
1
Aṣ 17
8
4
4
Aṣ 18
9
1
1
Sd 13
10
1
1
Sd 13
11
1
Totals:
30
1 16
12
Sd 14 2
In time we now have a spread from before Ammi-ditana 20 to Samsu-ditana 14, a span of more than seventy years. This shows that the extension of the dingir sign cannot have been the work of a single seal cutter. If it was a characteristic work of a specific workshop then this workshop did not produce many seals of this kind over a long period of existence, so this too seems improbable. In view of the fact that the extension of the sign did not entail any difference in meaning or use, this must have been an occasional embellishment. The fact that Sîn-išmeanni, son of Ibni-Marduk first had a seal with extended dingirs and later had one with ‘classic’ ones furthermore shows that there was no particular prestige attached to the extension, otherwise he would have made sure it was present on his second seal too. Seals with extended dingirs were used by people in different families and with different titles. We have no case of a father and a son with extended dingirs in their seal legend. All of this indicates a scribal whim as the only reason for the existence of these dingirs. To the origins? Although assigning seal owners or users to either of the Sippars is mostly conjectural as can be seen in my endeavours above, there seems to be a majority of Sippar-Amnānum localizations. Since after Aṣ 18 there are no more Amnānum texts, it follows that the ones attested later must be situated in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum. The extended dingirs thus seem to originate in Amnānum and modestly spread to Jaḫrūrum under Samsu-ditana, as can be seen in Table 2.
160
M. TANRET
Table 2: Overview of the localizations of the seal owners or users in Sippar-Jaḫrūrum or Sippar-Amnānum.
Owner/user
S-A
S-J
Dates
1
1000 Sîn-išmeanni, son of Ibni-Marduk
x
Ad 20 - Aṣ 4
2
4080 Mār-Ammâ, son of Adad-šarrum, Elamite
x
Ad 37 - Aṣ 11
3
1063 Sîn-māgir, son of Sîn-iddinam
?
4
5234 Mār-ešrê, son of Sîn-[...]
x
Aṣ 7
5
3457 Qīšti-Ea dumu.é.dub.ba.a
x
Aṣ 13 - 14
6
1406 Iddin-Nabium, son of Lū-šalim-beli
x
Aṣ 13 - 17
7
1411 Tarībum, son of Ili-awīlim
?
Aṣ 17
8
6646 Sîn-iddinam, son of Sîn-išmeanni
x
Aṣ 18
9
1721 Warad-kinūni ugula é ša é ᵈutu
10 1694 Ḫuzalum, son of Ili-erībam, diviner 11 1559 Sîn-rēmēni, son of Ibni-Amurrum Totals:
x
?
Aṣ 1
X
Sd 13
X
Sd 13
X
Sd 14
7+2? 3+1?
Variation within variation We have seen that on three occasions the seal cutter seemingly made an attempt to differentiate between initial and in-line extended dingirs. This was done by either adding a vertical wedge in front of the extended dingir (probably seal 3 and certainly seal 6) or a horizontal one (seal 11). It is clear that here too no trend was set but scribes/seal cutters experimented, from the earliest attestation (seal 3) on. After the Old Babylonian period During the Middle Babylonian period, exceptionally, some extended forms can be found. A superficial search yields some examples. In F. Malbran-Labat’s reedition of her father’s Manuel d’épigraphie Akkadienne (1995), we find on p. 48 in round brackets in the Middle Babylonian section another extended form, which had already been mentioned by Ch. Fossey (1904) who found this on a seal legend. It is a dingir sign where the heads of the crossing wedges are united by a vertical line just like in our example of seal 6. This is his nr. 1006 inscribed on an agate scarab found in Susa30. Another variant is Fossey’s nr. 1009 on a (fragment of a) lapis lazuli tablet from Nippur (BE I, nr. 45, pl. 21). Both 30
Published in SCHEIL 1905, 30.
161
DECORUM DIVINUM
a
b
c
Fig. 4: Middle Babylonian variants (4a redrawn after FOSSEY 1904, nr. 1006; 4b after FOSSEY 1904, nr. 1009; 4c after MATTHEWS 1992, nr. 109).
are dated under Kurigalzu. In D. Matthews’ study of Kassite glyptic31 we find a reference to a glass seal from Nippur, his nr. 10932 with another variant, seemingly a combination of the two previous ones (Fig. 4a, b, c). Our typical extended dingir seems not to have lived beyond the late Old Babylonian period but the practice of exceptionally enlarging a dingir survived. No doubt more examples will be found in the Middle Babylonian period too. Abbreviations and references ARN BA 5 BAP BBVOT 1 BDHP BE I BM CT 8 CT 45 CT 48 Di
= CIG, KIZILYAY, KRAUS 1952. = FRIEDRICH 1906. = MEISSNER 1893. = ARNAUD 1989. = WATERMAN 1916. = HILPRECHT 1893. = museum number of tablets kept in the British Museum. = PINCHES 1899. = PINCHES 1963. = FINKELSTEIN 1968. = excavation number of the tablets resulting from the Belgian Excavations in Tell ed-Dēr, ancient Sippar-Amnānum (see GASCHE 1989). MHET nrs. 467 - 562 = DEKIERE 1995. MHET nrs. 843 - 932 = DEKIERE 1997. MLC = museum number of the Pierpoint Morgan Library. TCL I = THUREAU-DANGIN 1910. TLOB = RICHARDSON 2010. VAS 29 = KLENGEL and KLENGEL-BRANDT 2002. VAT = museum number of the Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin. YOS 13 = FINKELSTEIN 1972. ARNAUD, D. 1989, Altbabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltingsurkunden (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient - Texte I), Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. BEAULIEU, P.-A. 2005, ‘The God Amurru as Emblem of Ethnic and Cultural Identity’, in W. H. VAN SOLDT (ed.), Ethnicity in Ancient Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 31 32
MATTHEWS 1992. Published in LEGRAIN 1925, 568.
162
M. TANRET
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Leiden 1-4 July 2002, Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 31-46. BORGER, R. 2004, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. CIG, M., KIZILYAY, H., KRAUS, F. R. 1952, Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur, Istanbul: Mili Egitim Basimevi. COLBOW, G. 2002, Tradition und Neubeginn. Eine ausführliche Bearbeitung der spätbabylonischen Abrollungen aus Sippar und ihres Beitrags zur Glyptik der Kassiten, München/Wien: Profil. DEKIERE, L. 1995, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Part 4: Documents from the Series 1902-10-11 (from Zabium to Ammiṣaduqa) (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III, Texts II), Gent: The University of Ghent. DEKIERE, L. 1997, Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents from Sippar in the British Museum, Part 6: Post-Samsu-iluna Documents (Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series III, Texts II, vol. II), Gent: The University of Ghent. FINKELSTEIN, J. J. 1968, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum LXVIII, London: Trustees of the British Museum. FINKELSTEIN, J. J. 1972, Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters (Yale Oriental Series XIII), New Haven/London: The University of Chicago Press. FOSSEY, CH. 1904, Manuel d’Assyriologie: fouilles, écriture, langues, littérature, géographie, histoire, religion, institutions, art. Tome II. Evolution des cunéiformes, Paris: Ernest Leroux. FRIEDRICH, TH. 1906, Altbabylonische Urkunden aus Sippara (Beiträge zur Assyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 5), Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung & Johns Hopkins University Press. AL-GAILANI-WERR, L. 1988, Studies in the Chronology and Regional Style of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 23), Malibu: Undena Publications. GASCHE, H. 1989, La Babylonie au 17e siècle avant notre ère: approche archéologique, problèmes et perspectives (Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II, Memoirs 1), Gent: The University of Ghent. HILPRECHT, H. V. 1893, Old Babylonian Inscriptions Chiefly from Nippur. Part I (Babylonian Expedition I), Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. KLENGEL, H. 1994, ‘Richter Sippars in der Zeit des Ammiṣaduqa: ein neuer Text’, in H. GASCHE, M. TANRET, C. JANSSEN, A. DEGRAEVE (eds.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien: offertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer, Leuven: Peeters, 169-174. KLENGEL, H., KLENGEL-BRANDT, E. 2002, Spät-altbabylonische Tontafeln. Texte und Siegelabrollungen (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin XXIX, NF XIII), Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. LABAT, R., MALBRAN-LABAT, F. 1995, Manuel d’épigraphie Akkadienne, Paris: Paul Geuthner. LEGRAIN, L., 1925, The Culture of the Babylonians, from their Seals in the Collections of the Museum (Publications of the Babylonian Section XIV), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. MATTHEWS, D. 1992, The Kassite Glyptic of Nippur (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 116), Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. MEISSNER, B. 1893, Beiträge zum altbabylonischen Privatrecht, Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. PINCHES, TH. G. 1899, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum VIII, London: British Museum Publications.
DECORUM DIVINUM
163
PINCHES, TH. G. 1963, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum LXV, London: British Museum Publications. SCHEIL, V. 1902, Une saison de fouilles à Sippar (Abou Habba), janvier-avril 1894, Paris: L’Institut français d’archéologie Orientale du Caire. SCHEIL,V. 1905, Textes Elamites-Sémitiques. Troisième partie (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse VI), Paris: E. Leroux. RICHARDSON S. 2010, Texts from the Late Old Babylonian Period (The Journal of Cuneiform Studies Supplemental Series 2), Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research. TANRET, M. 2004, ‘Verba Volant, Scripta non manent. Tablettes nomades dans les archives des gala.maḫ à Sippar-Amnānum’, in C. NICOLLE (ed.), Nomades et sédentaires dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Compte-rendu de la XLVIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris 10-13 juillet 2000) (Amurru 3), Paris: CulturesFrance, 249-270. THUREAU-DANGIN, F. 1910, Lettres et Contrats de l’Époque de la Première Dynastie Babylonienne (Textes Cunéiformes du Louvre I), Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. VAN KOPPEN, F. 2003-2004. ‘[Review of] Horst Klengel und Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, Spätaltbabylonische Tontafeln. Texte und Siegelabrollungen’, Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 379-392. VAN LERBERGHE, K., VOET, G. 1994, ‘An Old Babylonian clone’, in H. GASCHE, M. TANRET, C. JANSSEN, A. DEGRAEVE (eds.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien: offertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer, Leuven: Peeters, 159-167. WATERMAN, L. 1916, Business Documents of the Hammurapi Period from the British Museum, London: Luzac & Co. WILCKE, C. 1982, ‘Zwei spät-altbabylonische Kaufverträge aus Kiš’, in G. VAN DRIEL, T. J. H. KRISPIJN, M. STOL (eds.), Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 426-483.
THE WHINING SCRIBE Karel VAN LERBERGHE and Gabriella VOET*
A plea to Marduk More than 3600 years ago, a scribe by the name of Nanna-meša was in distress because the splendid city of Nippur, the centre of learning in Mesopotamia, had fallen into disrepair. Even the holy Ekur, the sacred temple of the Sumerian pantheon’s primary deity, Enlil, was in a dramatic state of decay. The desperate scribe lived during the reign of Ammi-ṣaduqa (1646-1626 BCE), the Babylonian king who was the second successor to King Samsuiluna (1749-1712 BCE). The latter had gradually been losing control over Southern and Central Babylonia, regions that had been conquered for Babylon by his notorious father, King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE). The poor scribe is known to us thanks to the seal that he had inscribed with the following plea: ‘May Nanna-meša, who reveres Marduk, (live to) see the restoration of the Ekur and of Nippur’. Such a dramatic plea, written in Akkadian, is highly unusual in the Old Babylonian period and is evidence for the scribe’s dire condition. In Akkadian, the seal reads: dnanna.me.ša4 ka-ri-ib dmarduk ud-duuš é.kur ù en.lílki li-mu-ur1. Description of the scene: a four-line inscription is flanked on either side by a suppliant goddess with raised hands, turning away from the inscription. Details are carefully executed, including a multi-horned headdress, knotted coiffure, and flounced robe. Nanna-meša, the seal owner, combined his job as a scribe with the function of nešakkum-priest during the reign of Ammi-ṣaduqa. In three tablets from the Cornell collection, he witnesses business transactions of important functionaries living at a place called Dūr-Abiešuḫ2. Since the brief seal inscription gives a hint to the disastrous environmental and social situation of Southern and Central Babylonia during that period, it has been incorporated into the interuniversity research program ‘Greater Mesopotamia’ that was headed between 2012 and 2017 by our good friend and colleague Eric Gubel. Eric has always been interested in interdisciplinary research combining archaeology, art history and philology, sciences that he most fruitfully used in his excavations in Lebanon and Syria. We hope that he will enjoy reading this small contribution to the studies published here in his honor. * University of Leuven. 1 Published in CUSAS 8, 16: seal B; 43: seal A; 45: seal C. 2 CUSAS 8: 16; 43 and 45.
166
K. VAN LERBERGHE AND G. VOET
Fig. 1: Copy of the seal inscription.
As mentioned above, the seal was unrolled on three tablets in the Cornell collection. They belong to a group of approximately 300 cuneiform texts originating from the ancient town of Dūr-Abiešuḫ. More specifically, they are part of a small ‘temple archive’, now dispersed throughout collections in the Rosen collection at Cornell University, the Schøyen collection, the Kunsthistorisches Museum at Vienna and the Lloyd Cotsen collection (UCLA)3. The recent study and publication of a great number of these tablets from Dūr-Abiešuḫ have shown that many residents of Nippur moved north to DūrAbiešuḫ when chaos and military conflicts in Central and Southern Babylonia forced them to leave the once prosperous cities in those regions. In CUSAS 10 (p. 137), Andrew George calculated that ‘the cults of the gods of Nippur, or at the very least, the administrative bureaux that operated them (the sacrificial sheep), moved from Nippur to Dūr-Abiešuḫ sometime in the decade between 1638 and 1628 BCE.’ This estimation is confirmed by our seal, published here, that was unrolled on tablets written in the years Ammi-ṣaduqa 10 (CUSAS 8, 43), 13 (CUSAS 8, 45) and 15 (CUSAS 8, 16), respectively 1636 BCE, 1633 BCE and 1631 BCE. Since CUSAS 8, 43 shows that the seal was already inscribed 3 For the Cornell texts see: CUSAS 8, CUSAS 29; for the Schøyen texts see CUSAS 10, CUSAS 13; for the Vienna text see: FÖLDI 2014; for the Cotsen texts see: BÉRANGER 2018. Some other unpublished tablets from Dūr-Abiešuḫ are now in collections in England, France and Israel.
THE WHINING SCRIBE
167
Fig. 2: Photo of the seal.
in the fifth month of Ammi-ṣaduqa 10, we can now ascertain that refugees left the city of Nippur before that date, either in 1638 or in 1637 BCE. Nippur, ‘the sacred city of Enlil’ It was McGuire Gibson, the excavator of Nippur, who gave this name to the city, which was founded in prehistory (ca. 5000 BCE) and was still bustling in the Islamic period (ca. 800 BCE)4. The sheer size and expanse of the tell is proof enough of the city’s importance, and this was confirmed by McGuire’s excavations. Nippur was never the capital city of a kingdom, but its importance was instead as a ‘sacred city’. Its sacred character contributed to the city’s survival during the many periods of decay, chaos and war that it experienced. Ekur, the temple of Enlil, primary deity of the Sumerian pantheon, made up the centre of the city. For several millennia, the kings reigning over Mesopotamia venerated Enlil and brought offerings to him and the many other gods of the city. Those rulers restored temples, walls and canals. Over one hundred temples and many administrative buildings contributed to the splendour of the city. When, upon the onset of the second millennium BCE, Amorites rose to power and erected palaces and temples in their capital city of Babylon, Nippur still kept its privileged status. Under the great Amorite king, Hammurabi, the city was still thriving, but conditions began to worsen when his son, Samsuiluna, took power. Archaeological evidence for a dramatic abandonment of Nippur was first found by McGuire Gibson when he was excavating an Old Babylonian house lying beneath a Kassite Palace. The debris on the last occupation floor of the house gave the impression that the occupants had left suddenly, and this event could be considered in relation to similar breaks in stratigraphy in other Old Babylonian contexts on the site. Gibson states: 4
McGuire Gibson, Research Project of The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 2019.
168
K. VAN LERBERGHE AND G. VOET
‘I began to suggest in lectures, as early as 1973-74, that there may have been a general catastrophe in Babylonia at that time, due to a major environmental crisis, probably the shifting of water away from the main branch of the Euphrates that has passed through Nippur. Elizabeth Stone, in an important restudy of Tablet Hill, summarized the available evidence for the crisis and abandonment at Nippur. Hermann Gasche subsequently laid out evidence, in very graphic form, for a general collapse of central and southern Babylonia during the period. The catastrophic abandonment of the heart of Babylonia, with a subsequent formation of dunes, was not to be reversed until about 1300 BC when irrigation water was brought back to the center of the country by the Kassite dynasty.’ (M. GIBSON, Research Project of The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 2019).
He suggested that the site of Nippur may not have been completely abandoned but that a skeleton of the former temple staff may have remained at the Ekur, continuing their duties to Nippur’s chief deity, Enlil5. The newly published DūrAbiešuḫ texts are in accordance with this statement and give more explicit evidence on how life continued in the region during those times of hardship. They also provide insight as to how the successors of Hammurabi dealt with the lack of water in southern Mesopotamia. The cuneiform tablets The tablets from Dūr-Abiešuḫ reveal the dramatic events that happened in Babylonia when the once-splendid empire of the renowned King Hammurabi abruptly declined under his son Samsuiluna. Babylonian central authorities could no longer control the entire South, including the religious capital of Nippur down to the Persian Gulf. The archive originates from Dūr-Abiešuḫ, the ‘walled fortress of Abiešuḫ’, a name given by the grandson of King Hammurabi, Abiešuḫ (ca. 1711-1684 BCE). The fortress was built on the canal Hammurabi-nuhušniši (‘Hammurabi provides the people’s prosperity’), a canal that connected the Euphrates with the Tigris and which provided perennial water for the cities of Nippur down to the Persian Gulf. Not far from this fortress, a second town by the same name was erected on the Tigris, upstream of Abiešuḫ’s legendary dam. The archive describes life in the military forts that were built along the Euphrates and enumerates all foreign mercenaries who populated these forts. Some of them are said to come from far-away regions such as Iran, northeast Syria and even Aleppo. Ration lists for troops stationed in the military garrisons, disbursements to military personnel and letters concerning the chaotic Central and Southern areas of Babylonia make up a significant part of the archive. Once Nippur fell out of control, the Temple of Enlil and its personnel moved from Nippur to Dūr-Abiešuḫ. The cult centre of Nippur had fallen into disrepair at that time, as demonstrated by the prayer so plaintively written on the scribe’s seal to his 5
GIBSON 1992, 44-45.
THE WHINING SCRIBE
169
private deity, Marduk: ‘May [the scribe] Nanna-meša, who reveres the god Marduk, (live to) see the restoration of the Ekur temple and of Nippur’. During this period of chaos and famine, the kings Samsuiluna and Abiešuḫ were confronted with an unstoppable enemy: Sealand. One of the Sealand’s kings, Ilima-ilum, even invaded Nippur. To defeat this frightening enemy whose homeland was in the Mesopotamian Marshes, Abiešuḫ built a dam on the Tigris to dry up the wetlands and, strategically, the food and water source used by these people. This daring project, never equaled by any other Babylonian king, was still remembered by the Babylonians a thousand years later. The Cornell archive gives unexpected and amazing evidence on how and where the dam was built and how the South of Babylonia was militarized all along the Euphrates River. Based on the recent publication of a great number of cuneiform tablets from the First Sealand dynasty by Stephanie Dalley6, Odette Boivin7 wrote a most remarkable study on the society and the political and religious history of the First Sealand Dynasty. Military forts The Cornell archive firstly shows that, faced with chaos and rebellion in the South, King Abiešuḫ created an important network of military forts (birtum in Babylonian) all along the Euphrates River and the adjoining Hammurabi-nuhušnišī canal in order to control the water system that flows to the South and feeds the Mesopotamian Marshes (Fig. 3). These military camps (near Dūr-Sinmuballiṭ, Nippur, Dūr- Abiešuḫ, Baganna and Uruk) had to ensure perennial water for important central Babylonian cities, such as Nippur and Isin, and the southern cities of Uruk, Larsa, Ur and Eridu. Mercenaries living in these camps originated from settlements along the Euphrates such as Kiš, Damrum, Nukar, Nippur, Isin and Larsa (Fig. 3). However, the Tigris was exclusively protected by one military fort, Maškan-šāpir. The southern cities watered by the Tigris, such as Adab, Umma, Girsu and Lagaš, are not once referred to as having fortified outposts or as providing mercenaries, even though these areas were very important during the preceding Ur III Dynasty (ca. 2100-2000 BCE) and the early Old Babylonian period (ca. 2000-1750 BCE). Apparently, these cities were completely abandoned by their inhabitants. A dam on the Tigris The more insidious control of the Tigris’ flow would have taken place just south of Maškan-šāpir. In the 19th year of his reign, King Abiešuḫ constructed 6 7
DALLEY 2009. BOIVIN 2018.
170
K. VAN LERBERGHE AND G. VOET
Fig. 3: Map of Central and Southern Mesopotamia in Abiešuḫ’s time.
a dam on the Tigris. A late historiographical text and an oracle enquiry show that the damming of the Tigris was a military strategy of Abiešuḫ in his war with the Sealand enemy. This was considered a key event of his reign. By diverting the waters of the Tigris towards the Euphrates, the king intended to dry up the Mesopotamian Marshes and starve out the population of the Sealand enemy. The dam was also built to establish a more reliable water supply, via the Euphrates, for the southern territories that were under his military control. A few years later, the king built a fortress called Dūr-Abiešuḫ a few miles above the dam. A second walled town by the same name of Dūr-Abiešuḫ was constructed at the outlet of the Hammurabi-nuḫuš-nišī canal (Fig. 3). Both Dūr-Abišuḫ’s were located close to one another: one at the inlet of the canal near the famous dam on the Tigris, and one at the outlet of the Hammurabi-nuḫuš-nišī canal. Canal workers from Babylon were employed to mix the waters of the Euphrates with the Tigris. The best place to divert the waters from the Tigris to mix them with the Euphrates would be at the inlet of a canal linking both rivers. Such a canal, just to the south of the fort of Maškan-šāpir, is attested in the Ur III and Old Babylonian period. This watercourse has been identified by Piotr Steinkeller as the KA.SAḪAR canal8. 8
STEINKELLER 2017.
THE WHINING SCRIBE
171
In the seal under discussion here, the scribe is decrying the decay of Nippur and the Ekur temple in ca. 1636 BCE as he prays for its restoration. Invasions by marauding enemies began however many years earlier as we are informed by a dramatic letter sent to King Ammiditana by people who fled from Nippur in 1672 BCE9: To our Lord speak. Thus report your servants. Our Lord’s city and troops are well. In the eleventh month on the twenty-eight day, the citizens of Nippur who fled from Nippur to Zibbat-Nārim, spoke to us as follows: In the eleventh month on the nineteenth day five hundred enemies with equids and conscripts arrived at Nippur. They entered the Ekur-temple … The walls of the temple were pierced (?) ... They robbed ... They became afraid. The horsemen (?) took cover and took off. In the eleventh month on the twenty-fifth day three hundred enemies with equids entered the Ekur again. Several lines missing. The enemy has been defeated. However, the enemy is still arriving at Nippur daily. This is what they have told us. We have written down the report by Etelpû. This is a copy. Via Ilšu-ibnišu, the express-messenger and via Šumum-libši, the overseer of the express-messengers. Dated to the twenty-ninth day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year of Ammiditana.
Zibbat-Nārim most probably refers to Dūr-Abiešuḫ at the outlet of the canal Ḫammurabi-nuḫuš-nišī. In a final point, our scribe Nanna-meša, who most probably lived at DūrAbiešuḫ and who aspired to see the restoration of the nearby sacred city of Nippur and the Ekur, calls himself a ‘scribe who reveres Marduk’, the chief God of the capital city of Babylon. At his time of writing, the Amorite dynasty was ruling, and this dynasty had created a new sacred center in Babylon with Marduk as its chief deity, thus replacing Nippur’s Sumerian god Enlil. Bearing a Sumerian name, must we conclude that our devoted scribe had adapted to the theological circumstances of the then-ruling Amorite dynasty? References ABRAHAM, K., VAN LERBERGHE, K. 2017, A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuḫ. The Sequel (CUSAS 29), Bethesda: CDL Press. BÉRANGER, M. 2018, ‘Trois tablettes de Dur-Abi-ešuh dans la Lloyd Cotsen Cuneiform Tablet Collection (UCLA)’, N.A.B.U. 2018/4, 161-163. BOIVIN, O. 2018, The First Dynasty of the Sealand in Mesopotamia (SANER 20), Boston/ Berlin: De Gruyter. 9
This letter has been published in CUSAS 29 as nr. 205.
172
K. VAN LERBERGHE AND G. VOET
DALLEY, S. 2009, Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 9), Bethesda: CDL Press. FÖLDI, Z. 2014, ‘Cuneiform Texts in the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Part IV: A New Text from Dūr-Abī-ešuḫ’, WZKM 104, 31-55. GEORGE, A. R. 2009, Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 10), Bethesda: CDL Press. GEORGE, A. R. 2013, Babylonian Divinatory Texts in the Schøyen Collection (CUSAS 18), Bethesda: CDL Press. GIBSON M. G. 1992, ‘Patterns of Occupation at Nippur’, in M. DE JONG ELLIS (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial, Philadelphia: The University Museum, 33-54. STEINKELLER, P. 2017, ‘The location of the Canal Hammurabi-nuhuš-nišī and of the Fortress Dur-Abi-ešuh: A New Proposal’ [paper presented at the 63rd RAI held at Marburg, 24-28 July 2017]. VAN LERBERGHE, K., VOET, G. 2009, A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from DūrAbiešuḫ (CUSAS 8), Bethesda: CDL Press.
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE Francis JOANNÈS*
Le contrat de vente provenant de Maʻallānāte ACP no 9 présente plusieurs particularités formelles et il peut être versé dans un dossier tout à fait intéressant, celui des contrats babyloniens de ventes de personnes qui utilisent le verbe paṭāru « délier, délivrer » pour rendre compte de l’action juridique de transfert de propriété qui s’y déroule1. Je dois à la générosité d’Eric Gubel d’avoir pu reprendre la publication, longtemps interrompue, des tablettes néo-assyriennes de Maʻallānāte, et d’avoir mené à terme, avec son accord et celui de D. HomèsFrédéricq, le projet initié dans les années 70 par Paul Garelli. L’accueil chaleureux d’E. Gubel et des conservateurs du Musée du Cinquantenaire, ainsi que son soutien pour la publication du manuscrit dans un supplément récent d’Akkadica dans le cadre du projet de recherche Greater Mesopotamia : Reconstruction of its Environment and History (BELSPO 2012-2017) m’ont laissé un très agréable souvenir. Je lui dédie donc avec grand plaisir cette courte étude sur le dossier du verbe akkadien paṭāru, que j’avais seulement évoqué dans la publication des tablettes cunéiformes, en remerciement pour cette collaboration entre Bruxelles et Paris, qu’il a favorisée et soutenue. Dans le volume du CAD consacré à la lettre P, le verbe paṭāru comporte un paragraphe entier (paṭāru § 5 a-b) qui traite du sens particulier qu’il acquiert dans les contextes de transferts de personne ou de biens2: « to ransom, to release (prisoners, captives), to redeem (slaves, pledges), to reclaim, redeem (previously sold property) ». Le sens général est celui d’un rachat d’un bien ou d’une personne qui se trouve en la possession d’un individu et qu’il accepte – ou bien qu’on lui demande d’accepter – de rendre contre versement d’une indemnité, en argent le plus souvent, à son propriétaire ou ayant-droit originel. Paṭāru = « libérer par versement d’une rançon » Une première série de textes de Babylonie documente ainsi les pratiques de rachat de prisonniers de guerre ou de personnes raptées sur les grands chemins. Dans une lettre à Assurbanipal, Bêl-ibni, son général en Babylonie du sud, lui indique ainsi: * Paris, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne. 1 HOMÈS-FREDERICQ et GARELLI 2018, no 9. 2 CAD P, 292-294.
174
F. JOANNÈS
« Les Assyriens, tous ceux qui se trouvaient prisonniers chez eux (= les gens du Pays de la Mer), ils vont les libérer et ils les renverront au Seigneur des rois (= Assurbanipal) » 3.
Cette pratique de la rançon est bien attestée en Mésopotamie à toutes époques; elle s’applique non seulement aux prisonniers de guerre, mais aussi à tous ceux qui ont été saisis de manière violente, très souvent au cours d’un déplacement à l’extérieur des villes. L’initiale d’une lettre néo-babylonienne montre que ce rachat est une obligation morale qui entre dans le cadre des relations sociales impliquant une prise en charge mutuelle par les membres d’une même communauté4. « Comment donc, si je viens, moi, à mourir, vas-tu bien agir envers mes enfants après mon décès? Et si tu les trouves pris en butin, est-ce que tu vas payer l’argent de leur libération? »
Les lettres de Nippur du VIIIe siècle éditées par S. Cole sont très explicites de ce point de vue5: on y trouve des cas fréquents de serviteurs et de servantes qui sont kidnappés ou emportés en butin lors de leurs déplacements en Babylonie. Certains étaient en train de s’enfuir, mais d’autres ont fait l’objet d’une saisie illicite. Manifestement, les routes sont loin d’être sûres et ceux qui en ont le contrôle de fait y exercent un droit de saisie sur des personnes qui peuvent être ensuite envoyées dans le circuit du commerce des esclaves, avec toutefois une possibilité de les racheter qui est reconnue à des intermédiaires. L’expression couramment employée est alors: « délivrer contre argent » (ana kaspi paṭāru). « Cinq dromadaires et trois hommes sont arr[ivés] là-bas, venant du territoire du Bīt Yakīn. On doit les surveiller avant qu’ils ne tombent aux mains des marchands. (Sinon), écris moi, que je vienne, et que je les libère s’il y a lieu de les libérer… »6. « Erība-Marduk, le fils de Šum-uṣur, quand je l’ai envoyé pour (obtenir) des informations, [NP] l’a incarcéré et on l’a vendu à Hindānu: et moi, je l’ai libéré contre 1 mine ½ d’argent »7.
Les marchands itinérants sont ainsi tenus de racheter quand ils en ont la possibilité leurs compatriotes qui se trouvent à l’étranger en situation d’esclavage. 3 ABL 460, rev. 1-2 : ù lú aš-šurki-a-a ma-la ina pa-ni-šú-nu ṣab-tu, ú-paṭ-ṭa-ru-ma a-na en lugal-meš en-ia i-ša-pa-ru. 4 TCL 9, no 141: 4-8 (lettre de fSaggil’a et Rimut à Zakir): ak-ka-’i-i ki-i a-na-ka a-mut-tu-úma sig5-há ina ku-tal-li-ia a-na dumu-meš tep-pu-uš ù ina ḫu-ub-ti tam-mar-ru-ma a-na kù-babbar ta-paṭ-ṭar-ru. 5 COLE 1996. 6 COLE 1996, no 4:4-18 : 5 anše a-ab-ba-meš ù 3 érin-meš ul-tu ta-mir-tu é ia-ki-nu a-kan-naka it-ta-[al-ku] li-mur-šú-nu-tu a-di la šuII lú dam-gàr i-kaš-ša-du šup-ram-ma lul-li-kam-ma ki-i šá pu-ṭu-ru-[šú-nu] lu-up-ṭur-áš-šú-nu-tu. 7 COLE 1996, no 7 2:15-22 : Isu-damar-utu dumu, Imu-ur[ì ana] man-de-si, ki-i áš-pur I x x x ], ip-te-si-[šú-ma i-na], uru hi-in-da-[a-nu], id-di-nu-šú a-n[a-ku], a-na 1 ½ ma-na [kù-babbar], ap-ta-ṭar-šú (…).
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE
175
La tablette de vente de terre publiée dans la RA 77 par S. Lackenbacher documente, sous le règne de Nabû-šuma-lībur (ca. 1034-1027 av. J.-C.), une libération contre argent: « Mudammiqu, descendant d’Ulamgadida, l’ennemi l’avait pris en butin; Bêltu-zēriddina, le gouverneur-šandabakku, l’a libéré de la main de l’ennemi (…) »8.
À la suite de cette transaction, Bêltu-zēr-iddina « achète » à Mudammiqu et à son frère Ninurtaia six terres agricoles, un demi-village et une palmeraie, pour une valeur de 3 mines et 20 sicles d’argent, qui sont payés en nature. Il est possible, mais pas absolument sûr, que les terres cédées au šandabakku le soient pour le rembourser en partie de la rançon qu’il a versée. Dans ce cas, le prix versé par Bêltu-zēr-iddina vient en complément, pour permettre aux deux frères de s’installer ailleurs, ou pour compenser une perte qu’ils auraient subie lorsque Mudammiqu a été enlevé. Mais certains de ces marchands ont une attitude ambiguë, comme l’illustre un texte daté du règne de Melišipak9 qui est interprété par J. A. Brinkman comme documentant l’activité de marchands d’esclaves qui enferment des gens saisis ou raptés dans un bâtiment appelé « maison des marchands »10: « Murānu, Kabtiya et Mušallimu, les trois fils de Bêl-usātu se trouvaient en résidence forcée dans la “maison des marchands”. Tabnēa fils d’Erib-Sīn a libéré (ipṭur) Murānu des mains de Bêl-apla-iddina descendant d’Arrabti, le brasseur de Marduk pour 500 (sicles) d’argent, son frère Kabtiya des mains d’Ea-zēr-iqīša descendant de Nam[…], le prêtre (ērib bīti) du dieu Ea, [……] pour 400 (sicles) d’argent, [……] et Mušallimu leur frère des mains de Zākiru, descendant d’Esagili, le collecteur de taxes de la ville de Kissik pour 400 (sicles) d’argent, soit au total 1300 (sicles) d’argent que Tabnēa fils d’Erib-Sīn a versés dans la « maison des marchands ».
À l’époque néo-babylonienne, la documentation administrative des temples et les contrats privés n’utilisent pratiquement jamais le verbe paṭāru pour évoquer la rançon des prisonniers de guerre. Par contre, on trouve ce verbe à plusieurs reprises s’appliquant à des gens qui ont été saisis comme gages pour des dettes ou qui ont été incarcérés par des marchands d’esclaves. Ainsi, le contrat BE 8 no 2, rédigé à Borsippa et daté du 13-vii de l’an 13 du règne de Šamaš-šum-ukīn (ca. 656 av. J.-C.), parle de huit personnes libérées contre versement d’une somme de 5 mines d’argent: « Bêl-uballiṭ, descendant de Sîn-šadūnu, prêtre ērib bīti du dieu Marduk, a intenté un procès à Nabû-usalli, fils de Mār-bīti-dayyānu, descendant de Nur-Papsukkal, 8 LACKENBACHER 1983: 1-3: [I]mu-dam-mi-qu dumu Iú-lam-ga-di-da, [lú kú]r-meš ih-bu-suma Idnin-numun-sì-na, [gú]-en-na ina šu lú kúr-meš ip-ṭu-ur-šu-ma. 9 KING 1912, no 27, avec les collations de BRINKMAN 1989. 10 BRINKMAN 1989: « Though we are not as yet informed about the character or role of the “House of the Merchants” in such transactions, it is probably not coincidental that one of the better-attested roles of Middle Babylonian merchants in earlier centuries was that of “slave” trader ».
176
F. JOANNÈS
et à Šamaš-nāṣir, descendant de Ṣillaia, en déclarant: “fLē’ītu et sa famille, qui sont mes gens, sont chez vous”. Nabu-usalli et Šamaš-nāṣir ont déclaré à Bêl-uballiṭ: “Nous (les) avons libéré contre argent”11. Ils ont prêté serment tous ensemble, à la suite de quoi Bêl-uballiṭ a pesé 5 mines d’argent, le prix de fLē’ītu, Amēl-Nanaia, Nergal-nāṣir, fŠusītu, fKaštinnam-tabni, fHašda’ītu, et des deux fils de fŠusītu, et les a remises à Nabu-usalli et Šamaš-nāṣir ».
Il s’agit ici d’une famille de domestiques (nīšī bīti) peut-être de statut servile à l’origine, mais qui résidaient manifestement dans une autre maison que celle de leur propriétaire, et qui ont été « libérées » (paṭāru) par Nabû-usalli et par Šamaš-nāṣir. S’ils ont donc procédé à une « libération », c’est par une procédure qui équivaut juridiquement à un achat, qui leur a donné le droit de disposer des personnes libérées, peut-être dans la perspective d’une possible récupération par leur propriétaire initial (Bêl-uballiṭ), à condition que celui-ci accepte. Mais l’accord ne s’est pas fait et il a fallu que Bêl-uballliṭ aille jusqu’au procès pour que la loi s’applique. paṭāru = « libérer de prison » Dans les textes babyloniens du VIe et du Ve siècle, ces occurrences s’appliquent à des travailleurs des temples ou du palais qui ont commis une faute, en général un abandon de leur poste de travail, mais aussi à des débiteurs qui n’ont pas remboursé leur dette à l’échéance. Les archives du temple d’Ištar d’Uruk enregistrent ainsi un dialogue entre responsables administratifs12: « Gimillu a déclaré (aux autorités de l’Eanna): “(…) les travailleurs que j’ai amenés et que je vous ai présentés, ils doivent accomplir leur tâche dans l’Eanna, jusqu’à ce que vous ayez connaissance d’une instruction de Gobryas13 à leur sujet. Concernant les travailleurs, parmi eux, que j’ai libérés de leurs fers en assumant leur garantie, selon (les règles du) registre d’Ištar d’Uruk, je continue à être leur garant en cas de fuite” ».
La discussion entre les autorités du temple et Gimillu, qui apparaît ici comme subordonné du gouverneur Gobryas porte sur la question de savoir qui devrait assumer la responsabilité des travailleurs mis à la disposition du temple, qui s’enfuiraient. Ce n’est pas sur le temple que porte cette responsabilité mais sur 11 BE 8, n° 2: 4-13: fle-’e-i-tú u lú qin-ni-šú un-meš é-iá ina pa-ni-ku-nu Iden-ú-sal-li u Idutuuri3-ir a-na Iden--iṭ ki-a-am iq-bu-ú um-ma a-na kù-babbar ni-ip-ta!-ṭár a-ḫa-míš il-tim-muú-ma 5 ma-na kù-babbar šám fle-’e-i-tú (+7 personnes) ana Iden-din-iṭ i-ḫi-iṭ-ma ana Iden-ú-sal-li u Idutu-uri3-ir id-din. 12 YOS 7 no 70: 11-17: Igi-mil-lu iq-bi um-ma mìm-ma [ṭ]è-e-me Igu-ba-ru a-na muh-hi-šú-nu ul iš-ku-na-an-na [ù] lú erin2-me šá a-bu-kam-ma ú-kal-li-mu-ku-nu-ši dul-lu ina é-an-na li-pu-šu a-di muh-hi ṭè-e-me šá Igu-ba-ru a-na muh-hi-šú-nu ta-šem-ma-a’ lú erin2-me šá ina lìb-bi-šú-nu ul-tu si-me-re ap-ṭu-ru-ma pu-us-su-nu áš-šu-ú a-ki-i gišda šá dinnin unugki pu-us-su-nu a-na la ha-la-qu na-šá-a-ka. 13 Le gouverneur perse de Babylonie sous les règnes de Cyrus et de Cambyse.
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE
177
Gimillu. Le risque de fuite est naturellement pris en compte parce qu’il s’agit de gens qui étaient incarcérés et qui ont été libérés de leurs fers pour travailler au service du temple. Il s’agit donc d’une « libération » au sens matériel du terme. Le dossier le plus explicite sur ce genre de libération est celui que l’on trouve, à la fin du Ve siècle, dans les archives de la famille Murašû de Nippur. Il s’agit en général de débiteurs insolvables qui ont été emprisonnés dans la prisonergastule (bīt kīli) de leur créancier, en l’occurrence les Murašû. Des membres de leur famille viennent demander leur libération en se portant garants, contre une forte pénalité en argent, que le détenu libéré n’en profitera pas pour disparaître. Dans la Babylonie de la seconde moitié du 1er millénaire av. J.-C., l’esclavage pour dette n’est plus autorisé, mais on trouve encore des cas d’emprisonnement pour dette: le débiteur qui ne peut rembourser est astreint à un travail forcé qui compense la dette ou le solde de celle-ci. Mais plusieurs cas montrent que les créanciers ne libèrent pas toujours leur prisonnier à expiration de leur peine. Il est probable que le calcul du produit du travail du débiteur et de l’arriéré de la dette à couvrir n’est pas fait de la même façon par les deux parties. Un débiteur emprisonné chez les Murašû pouvait donc continuer d’être détenu dans le bīt kīli en dépendant du bon vouloir du patron de la firme. C’est là que se situent les contrats de ce dossier, qui débouchent sur une remise en liberté, mais avec une astreinte à résidence. Le débiteur libéré devait donc continuer d’être astreint à une forme de travail, si nécessaire, pour les Murašû. Le vocabulaire utilisé dans ces contrats s’articule sur le doublet paṭāru « libérer »/muššuru ina pāni « laisser à la disposition de ». Dans un cas, c’est le verbe šûṣu « faire sortir » qui est utilisé à la place de paṭāru. Emploi combiné de paṭāru+muššuru « Šita’ et Mammitu-ṭābat, les enfants de Bêl-eṭir, avec Amat-Esi’ fille d’Illulata, de leur plein gré, ont parlé ainsi à Rēmūt-Ninurta, fils de Murašû,: “Illulata et Ililindar, les fils de Nabû-ēṭir, nos frères, qu’Enlil-šum-iddin a mis en détention dans la prison, libère-les et laisse-les à notre disposition! Nous assumons leur garantie!”. Rēmūt-Ninurta les a écoutés et leur a mis Illulata et Ili-lindar à leur disposition. Si à l’avenir, Illulata et Ili-lintar s’enfuient vers un autre endroit, Šita’, Mammitu-ṭābat et Amat-Eši’ devront verser 30 mines d’argent, sans autre forme de procès à RēmūtNinurta »14. 14 PBS 2/1 no 17: Iši-ṭa-a’ u fdma-am-mi-tu4-du10-ga a-meš šá den-sur ù fam-mat-de-si-i’ dam il-lu-la-ta-a’ ina ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú-nu a-na Ire-mut-dmaš a šá Imu-ra-šu-ú iq-bu-ú um-ma Iil-lu-lata-a’ u Idingir-meš-li-in-dar dumu-meš šá Idnà-sur šeš-meš-e-nu šá Iden-líl-mu-mu ina é ki-il iṣ-ṣab-bat pu-ṭár ina igi-an!-ni! muš-šìr ⌜pu⌝-ut-su-šú-nu ni-iš-šú ár-ku Ire-mut- dmaš iš-me-šú-nu[ti-ma] Iil-lu-la-ta-a’ [u Idingir]-meš-li-in-dar ina igi-šú-nu [ú-maš]-šìr! ina u4-mu Iil-lu-la-ta-a’ u ⌜Idingir˺-[meš-li]-in-dar a-na a-šar šá-nam-mait-⌜ta⌝-lik-ka ½ gun kù-babbar šá la di-i-ni u {du-um} ra-! Iši-ṭa-a’ fdma-am-mi-tu4-du10-ga u fam-mat-de-si-i’ a-na Ire-mut- dmaš i-nam-din-nu-u’. I
178
F. JOANNÈS
« Zimbaia fils de Bêl-eṭir, de son plein gré, a parlé ainsi à Enlil-šum-iddin, fils de Murašu : “Aḫ-iddin fils de Zuziaa, que tu as mis en prison à cause de tes biens (qu’il te doit), sachant qu’il t’a rendu tout (ce qu’il pouvait) sur (l’ensemble de) tes biens et que, (pour) le reliquat de tes biens, tu l’en as tenu quitte, libère-le et laisse-le à ma disposition. Moi, je me porte garant qu’Aḫ-iddin n’intentera auprès du roi, du satrape ou du juge, à ton encontre aucune sorte de procès, de réclamation ou d’accusation”. Enlil-šum-iddin l’a écouté et a remis Aḫ-iddin, fils de Zuzaia, à la disposition de Zimbaia. Le jour où Ah-iddin porterait plainte contre Enlil-šum-iddin, auprès du roi, du satrape ou du juge, Zimbaia versera 5 talents d’argent à Enlil-šumiddin »15.
Emploi de muššuru seul « Bêl-ittannu fils de Bêl-bullissu, Šum-iddin fils d’Ubar et Ardi-Gula fils de Ninurtaiddin ont parlé en ces termes à Rēmūt-Ninurta fils de Murašû: “Ninurta-uballiṭ, fils d’Enlil-iqiša, qui se trouve détenu dans la prison (bīt kīli), laisse-le à notre disposition ! Nous sommes garants qu’il ne s’enfuira pas vers un autre endroit.” RēmūtNinurta les a écoutés et a libéré et mis à leur disposition Ninurta-uballiṭ qui était détenu dans la prison. Si Ninurta-uballiṭ vient à s’enfuir vers un autre lieu, Bêlittannu, Šum-iddin et Ardi-Gula devront verser un demi talent d’argent à RēmūtNinurta »16. « Enlil-aḫ-idddin, fils d’Enlil-na’id, de son plein gré, a parlé ainsi à Enlil-šum-iddin, fils de Murašû: “Nidinti-Enlil, fils de Tēši-ēṭir, mon frère, qui est détenu dans la prison (bīt kīli), laisse-le à ma disposition! J’assumerai sa garantie, comme quoi il ne quittera pas Nippur pour un autre endroit!” Après qu’Enlil-šum-iddin, fils de Murašû, l’eut écouté, il a laissé à sa disposition Nidinti-Enlil, fils de Tēši-ēṭir, son frère, qui est détenu dans la prison. Le jour où Nidinti-Enlil quitterait Nippur pour un autre endroit, Enlil-aḫ-iddin devra verser 10 mines d’argent à Enlil-šum-iddin sans autre forme de procès »17. 15 PBS 2/1 no 21: Izi-im-ba-a a šá Iden-sur ina hu-ud lìb-bi-šú a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu a šá Imura-šu-ú ki-a-am iq-bi um-ma Išeš-mu a šá Izu-za- šá a-na muḫ-ḫi níg-ka9-ka ina é ki-lu ⌜tak⌝lu-ú mim-ma níg-ka9 ina níg-ka9-ka id-dak-ku u ri-ih-tu níg-ka9-ka tu-maš-ši-raš-šú pu-ṭur ina igi-ia muš-šìr a-na-ku pu-ut mim-ma di-i-ni u ra-ga-mu u la šu-mu-du šá Išeš-mu a-na lugal lú áh-šá-ad-ra-pa-nu u lú di-ku5 a-na muh-hi-ku la ú-šá-ma-du na-šá-a-ku egir Iden-líl-mu-mu iš-mešu-ma Išeš-mu a šá Izu-za-a ina igi Izi-im-ba-a un-daš-šìr ina u4-mu Išeš-mu a-na lugal lú áh-šáad-ra-pa-nu u da-a-a-nu ana ugu Iden-líl-mu-mu ul-ta-mi-du 5 gú-un kù-babbar šá la di-i-ni Iziim-ba-a a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu i-nam-din. 16 PBS 2/1 no 23: Iden-it-tan-nu a šá Iden-din-su Imu-mu [a šá] Iú-bar u Iìr-dgu-la a šá Idmaš-mu a-na Ire-mut-dmaš a šá Imu-ra-šu-ú e-ú um-ma Idmaš-din-iṭ a šá Iden-líl-ba-šá šá ina é ki-lu ṣa-ab-ti ina igi-i-ni muš-šìr-ma pu-ut la ⌜záh⌝-šú šá a-na a-šar šá-nam-ma la i-hal-li-qu ni-iš-ši Ire-mutd maš iš-me-šu-nu-ti-ma Idmaš-din-iṭ šá ina é ki-lu ṣa-ab-ti ina igi-šú-nu ú-maš-šìr ina u4-mu Idmašdin-iṭ a-na a-šar šá-nam-ma ih-te-el-qu ½ gun kù-babbar Iden-it-tan-nu Imu-mu u Iìr-dgu-la a-na I re-mut-dmaš i-nam-di-nu-u’. 17 BE 9 no 57: Iden-líl-šeš-mu a šá Iden-líl-i ina ḫu-ud lìb-bi-šú a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu a šá Imura-šu-ú ki-a-am iq-bi um-ma Ini-din-tu4-den-líl a šá Isùh-sur šeš-ia šá ina é ki-lu ṣab-ti ina igi-ia muš-šìr pu-ut-su lu-uš-ši šá ta nibruki a-na a-⌜šar⌝ šá-nam-ma la il-la-ku ár-ki Iden-líl-mu-mu a šá Imu-ra-šu-ú iš-me-šú-ma Ini-din-tu4-den-líl a šá Isùh-sur šeš-šú šá ina é ki-lu ṣab-ti ina igi-šú un-daš-šìr ina u4-mu Ini-din-tu4-den-líl a šá Isùh-sur ta nibruki a-na a-šar šá-nam-ma it-ta-al-ku šá la di-ku5 u ra-ga-mu Iden-líl-šeš-mu 10 ma-na kù-babbar a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu ina-an-din.
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE
179
« Ša-pi-kalbi fils de Ninurta-aḫ-iddin, Ninurta-ēṭir fils de Bulṭaia, Isinnaia fils de Bêl-bullissu et Enlil-aḫḫē-iddin, fils de Ninurta-uballiṭ, de leur plein gré, ont parlé ainsi à Enlil-šum-iddin, fils de Murašû: “Nous sommes garants que Rēšukunnu ne s’enfuira pas, du mois d’aiaru de l’an 38 (d’Artaxerxès Ier) jusqu’au mois de nisannu de l’an 39”. Après qu’Enlil-šum-iddin les eut écoutés, il a laissé Rešukunnu à leur disposition. Le jour où Rēšukunnu s’enfuirait, ils devront verser 1 talent d’argent à Enlil-šum-iddin »18.
Emploi de šûṣû « laisser sortir » « Ili-lindar fils d’Iddin-Enlil, de son plein gré, a parlé ainsi à Tīrikāma, l’intendant d’Enlil-šum-iddin: “Iddin-Enlil, fils d’Aḫ-iddin, laisse-le sortir de la prison (bīt kīli)! J’assumerai sa garantie!”. Après que Tīrikāma l’eut écouté, il a laissé sortir IddinEnlil de la prison et l’a donné à Ili-lindar. Si jamais il s’enfuit, Ili-lindar devra verser 1 mine d’argent »19.
D’autres textes des archives des Murašû évoquent des personnes détenues qui font ensuite l’objet d’un transfert, mais il ne s’agit pas forcément d’une libération de même nature que celle présentée ci-dessus, et le verbe paṭāru n’y figure pas20. paṭāru = vendre L’intérêt du contrat de Maʻallānāte ACP no 9 est de documenter un sens particulier que peut prendre le verbe paṭāru « délier, libérer », quand il est associé à l’expression ana šīmi ḫariṣ « pour le prix définitif ». Les textes concernés sont des contrats de vente de personne. « Ḫandīa a libéré Attāria, servante, des mains de Dannāia contre ½ mine d’argent, pour son prix définitif. (3 empreintes du même cachet ) (Le vendeur) a reçu (l’argent), il est satisfait; (l’acheteur) est quitte. Il n’y aura ni recours ni contestation. Dannāia se porte garant contre tout ayant-droit ou revendicateur de (cette) femme. Par devant Ḫanāna; par devant Zakkâ; par devant Aḫū’a-lāmur; par devant Nabûna’di; par devant Bābilāiu; par devant Nanīa; et scribe : Erība-Marduk; Kapri–Ilkat. Mois d’addaru, le 6. Année 25 de Sīn-aḫḫē-erība, roi d’Assyrie »21.
18 STOLPER 1985, no 103 (CBS 6126): [Išá]-pi4-kal-bi a šá Idmaš-šeš-mu Idmaš-[sur] [a] šá bul-ṭá-a Iisinki-a- a šá Iden-bul-liṭ-su u Iden-líl-šeš-meš-mu a šá Idmas-din-iṭ ina ḫu-ud lib-bišú-nu a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu a šá Imu-ra-šu-u iq-bu-ú um-ma pu-ut la ḫa--qu šá Ire-šu-kun-nu šá iti gu4 šá mu 38-kam a-di-i iti bár šá mu 39-kam na-šá-áš-a-ši ár-ki Iden-líl-mu-mu iš-šu-šešú-nu-tú Ire-šu-kun- ina igi-šú-nu ú-maš!-áš-ri ina u4-mu Ire-šu-kun-nu i-ḫa-al-qu 1 gú-un kù-babbar a-na Iden-líl-mu-mu i-nam-di-nu. 19 BE 10 no 10 : Idingir-li-in-dar a šá Imu-den-líl ina hu-ud lìb-bi- a-na Itir-ra-ka-am-ma dumu-é šá Iden-líl-mu-mu iq-⌜bi⌝ um-ma Imu-den-líl a šá Išeš-mu ul-tu é kil-lu šú-ṣa-am-ma puut-su lu-uš-šú ár-ku Itir-ra-ka-am-ma iš-[me]-šu-ma Imu-den-líl ul-tu é kil-lu [ú-še]- ṣa-am-ma a-na Idingir-
-in-dar id-din [ki-i] i-hal-liq 1 ma-na kù-babbar Idingir-li-in-dar [i]-nam-din. 20 TUM 2/3 no 203; STOLPER 1985, no 100, 101. 21 HOMÈS-FREDERICQ et GARELLI 2018, no 9 = ACP no 9 . I
180
F. JOANNÈS
Outre l’emploi de la formule ana šīmi ḫariṣ paṭāru, le contrat présente plusieurs particularités: il est rédigé selon un formulaire babylonien et non assyrien, et le ductus des signes est babylonien et non assyrien22. La datation suit également le formulaire babylonien (année de règne du souverain) et non celui en usage dans la sphère assyrienne (datation par éponyme). Enfin, les noms propres sont donnés avec une forme babylonienne (Ḫandīa), et non la forme assyrienne que l’on trouve dans le reste des archives (Ḫandî). On peut donc considérer que le contrat ressort de la sphère juridique babylonienne plus que de l’Assyrie, même s’il présente des empreintes de cachet à la place habituelle dans les contrats assyriens. Le contrat est organisé de manière simple: partie opératoire et enregistrement de la transaction (lignes 1 à 7) – empreintes du cachet du vendeur – et garanties (lignes 7 à 13) – témoins et date (lignes 14 à 24). Avant de le commenter plus en détail, on peut le comparer à deux textes babyloniens qui présentent le même formulaire, VS 5 no 1 (formules restituées) et no 2 datés également de la période de la domination assyrienne en Babylonie. « Bêl-ibni a libéré pour son prix définitif Sipparītu, la femme de Ša-Nabû-šū, de son [……] pour [x mines d’argent] d’entre les mains de Marduk et de Murānu, en (versant) la totalité de l’argent. Marduk et Murānu se portent garant contre toute revendication ou contestation à l’égard de Sipparītu. Témoins: Iddin-aḫi, descendant de [……]; Ea-ibni, descendant du Journalier; Bêl-ibni, descendant d’Arrabu; Bêl-uballiṭ, descendant de Bāliḫu; Nabû-ušallim, descendant de Šumaia; Bêl-aḫḫē-bulliṭ, descendant du Journalier; Balāssu, descendant de Riḫimmu; Nabû-zēr-ibni, descendant de [……]; Nabû-bēl-šumāte, descendant de [……]; et scribe: Nabû-šum-uṣur. (Fait à) Hursag-kalamma, le 24 simannu de l’an 24 de Sīn-aḫḫē-erība, roi d’Assyrie »23. « Bibbēa a libéré pour son prix définitif Kidinnitu d’entre les mains de Nabû-šumiškun pour 43 sicles d’argent. Nabû-šum-iškun se porte garant contre toute revendication ou contestation à l’égard de Kiddinitu. Témoins: Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, représentant du roi (ša qurbūti) en charge des ports fluviaux; Aššur-ālik-pāni, représentant du roi (ša qurbūti) en charge des forteresses; Mukīn-zēri, Bêl-upaqqu et Bêl-iddina, les oiseleurs royaux; Iddinaia. Scribe: Marduk-nāṣir. (Fait à) Sippar, le 2 addaru de l’an 6 d’Aššur-aḫa-iddina, roi de la totalité »24. 22 La lettre ACP no 18 et la reconnaissance de dette ACP no 15 partagent cette particularité avec ACP no 9: cf. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ et GARELLI 2018, 35. 23 VS 5 no 1: Iden-ib-ni fsip-parki-[i-tu4] dam-[šú šá] Išá-dnà-šú-[u] šá ti-[ x x x ]-šú ki-i [ x ma-na kù-babbar] šám [ha-ri-iṣ] ina šuII Imar-duk-a u I[mu-ra-nu] ki-i kù-babbar til-ti [ip-ṭur] pu-ut si-hi-i u pa-[qir-ra-nu] Imar-duk-a u Imu-ra-nu [na-šu-ú] lú mu-kin-nu Isì-na-šeš a [………] Idé-a-ib-ni dumu lú hun-[gá] Iden-ib-ni dumu Iár-rab Iden-din-iṭ dumu Idkaskal-kur-i Idnàsilim-im dumu-šú šá Išu-ma-a Iden-šeš-me-bul-liṭ dumu lú hun-gá Iba-laṭ-su dumu Ii:ri-hi-im-mu Id nà-numun-ib-ni dumu-šú [šá I………] Idnà-en-mu-meš dumu [……] u lú dub-sar Idnà-mu-uri3 hur-sag-kalam-maki iti s[ig4] u4 24-kam mu 24 d30-šeš-me-su lugal kur aš-šur. 24 VS 5 no 2: Ibi-bé-e-a i-na šuII Idnà-mu-gar-un fki-di-ni-ti ki-i 2/3 ma-na 3 gín kù-babbar a-na šám ḫa-ri-iṣ ip-ṭúr pu-ut si-hi-i u pa-qir-ra-nu šá fki-di-ni-ti Idnà-mu-gar-un na-ši lú mu-kin-nu Id nà-din-su-iq-bi lú qur-ru-bu-ú-tu šá muḫ-ḫi kar-ra-nu Ian-šár-a-lik-pa-ni lú qur-ru-bu-ú-tu šá
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE
181
Les trois textes ne viennent pas des mêmes lieux, mais ils reprennent un formulaire quasi identique et datent d’une période commune: 681 av. J.-C. pour VS 5 no 1, 680 pour ACP no 9, 675 pour VS 5 no 2. On observe également que dans les trois cas les personnes qui font l’objet de la transaction sont des femmes. Enfin, comme dans une vente d’esclave classique, les vendeurs garantissent l’acheteur contre une revendication ultérieure de la part d’un ayant-droit. L’acheteur doit donc être considéré comme un véritable propriétaire. Grâce au contexte général que fournit ACP no 9, on peut exclure qu’il s’agisse d’un rachat de personne détenue, comme dans les cas précédents. On sait en effet que Ḫandî, qui administrait le domaine de Maʻallānāte, a procédé à toute une série d’achats d’esclaves, masculins et féminins, au cours de son séjour à Maʻallānāte: les contrats qu’il a fait alors établir suivaient le formulaire assyrien classique, sauf ACP no 9 . Mais du point de vue de l’objet, ce texte est identique aux autres contrats d’achats de personnes de Maʻallānāte. On peut donc penser que les textes VS 5 no 1 et 2 sont bien eux aussi des contrats d’achat d’esclave. Mais cela n’explique pas pourquoi l’on utilise le verbe paṭāru « délier, délivrer », pour ces actes de vente. Il faut alors évoquer un dernier dossier, celui qu’a publié L. Oppenheim en 1955 dans ce qu’il a appelé les Siege-Documents de Nippur. Il s’agit d’un groupe de contrats de ventes d’enfants par leurs parents au cours du siège de la ville de Nippur par l’armée de Sîn-šum-līšir contre l’autre prétendant au trône d’Assyrie (et futur roi) Sîn-šar-iškun. Selon la norme juridique en Babylonie au 1er millénaire av. J.-C., les parents en situation de détresse matérielle, étaient autorisés à vendre leurs enfants25. C’est ce qui se passa à Nippur en 626 av. J.-C. Parmi les neuf contrats conservés, trois utilisent la formulaire ana šīmi ḫariṣ paṭāru; les autres ont recours au plus classique ana kaspi nadānu « vendre contre argent ». Mais dans tous les cas ce sont des parents qui se séparent de leurs enfants contre une somme d’argent en général assez minime. Dans tous les cas sauf un (2 NT 301, ci-dessous) l’enfant vendu est une fille. « Ninurta-uballiṭ, fils de Bêl-usâtu, Arad-Gula et Danni-Nergal ont libéré d’entre les mains de Ba’u-asīti, fille de Šamaš-iddina, sa petite fille fTuqnītu pour son prix définitif de 22 sicles d’argent. Ba’u-asīti se porte garante contre toute revendication ou contestation). (Témoins et scribes)26. (Fait à) Nippur, le 13 simannu de l’an 3 de Sîn-šar-iškun, roi d’Assyrie »27. muḫ-ḫi uru bir-ra-na-a-ti Igin-numun Iden-ú-pa-qu Iden-sì-na lú gal mušen-dù-meš šá lugal Isì-na lú dub-sar Idamar-utu-uri3-ir zimbirki iti še u4 2-kam mu 6-kam an-šár-šeš-mu lugal šú. 25 C’est ce qui est dit crûment dans le contrat 2 NT 297 (IM 57915) par le père à l’acheteur: «Prends ma fille Re’indu et assure sa subsistance. Qu’elle soit ton esclave. Et donne-moi [x] sicles d’argent pour que je puisse manger…» (fre-’i-in-du dumu.mí-a[…a-bu-uk-ma bul]-liṭ-ma lu ge[me2-ka ši-i] [x] gín kù-babbar bi-nam-ma lu-ku-[ul). 26 Les noms ne sont pas indiqués dans l’édition de L. Oppenheim. 27 OPPENHEIM 1955, 2NT 298 (IM 57918): Idmaš-din-iṭ a Iden-u-sa-tu Iìr-dgu-la u Idan-ni-dugur ina šuII Idba-ba6-a-si-ti dumu-mí Idutu-mu (4) ftuq-ni-i-ti munus ṣa-ḫir-ta-šu a-na 1/3 2 gín
182
F. JOANNÈS
« Ninurta-uballiṭ, fils de Bêl-usâtu, Arad-Gula et Danni-Nergal ont libéré d’entre les mains de Nabû-aḫ-uṣur, fils de Nabû-rē’ī, sa petite fille fEṭirtu pour son prix définitif de 22 sicles d’argent. Nabû-aḫ-uṣur se porte garant contre toute revendication ou contestation. (Témoins et scribes). (Fait à) Nippur, le 18 simannu de l’an 3 de Sîn-šar-iškun, roi d’Assyrie »28. « Arad-Gula et Iddin-Nergal ont libéré Kalbi-Ba’u, fils de Bam[…], natif de la ville de Marad, d’entre les mains de fNippur-rīšat et de sa (=Kalbi-Ba’u) mère fBêlit pour son prix définitif de 12 sicles d’argent. fNippur-rīšat et fBêlit se portent garantes contre toute revendication ou contestation sur Kalbi-Ba’u. Au moment de la “fermeture de la (grand’)porte”, lorsqu’à Nippur le cours du marché était de 1 sūtu (du grain) pour chaque (sicle d’argent)29, elles ont accepté de leur plein gré le prix d’achat complet de leur fils. (Témoins et scribes). (Fait à) Nippur, le 10 […] de l’an 3 de Sîn-šar-iškun, roi d’Assyrie »30.
L’emploi de l’expression « délier/libérer pour son prix définitif » permet en fait de préciser la situation juridique des contractants: les parents ne sont pas propriétaires de leurs enfants; on leur en reconnaît la tutelle et une forme d’autorité, que l’on pourrait qualifier avec la terminologie contemporaine, de « parentale ». En les soustrayant à cette autorité, les acheteurs les « délient » de cette tutelle. Mais ils en sont eux-mêmes ensuite légalement propriétaires et ont sur eux les droits d’un maître sur son esclave. Il ne s’agit donc jamais d’une adoption, mais d’une vente avec réduction en esclavage. La situation de Nippur permet de comprendre les textes du temps de Sennachérib et d’Assarhaddon, dont ACP no 9 : les acheteurs « délient » des femmes de l’autorité qu’ont sur elles des gens qui en ont la possession sans en avoir la propriété légale. On ne peut malheureusement pas savoir de quelle manière et dans quelles circonstances s’est effectuée cette prise de possession. Ce peut être aussi bien par un rapt que par l’accueil d’une personne en fuite. On a vu plus haut que les personnes en errance sur les grands chemins couraient le risque d’être saisies et réduites en esclavage. C’est sans doute de cela qu’il s’agit ici et les détenteurs de ces personnes avaient tout intérêt à les vendre. Mais comme kù-babbar [a-na šá]m ḫa-ri-iṣ ip-ṭu-ru pu-ut lú [si]-ḫi-i [u] lú pa-qir-a-nu šá ftuq-ni-i-ti (8) Idba-ba6a-si-ti na-šá-a-ti (Témoins et scribes).: nibruki iti sig4 u4 13-kam mu 3-kam Id30-lugal-gar lugal kur aš-šurki. 28 OPPENHEIM 1955, 2 NT 295 (IM 57915): Idmaš-din-iṭ a Iden-u-sa-tu Iìr-dgu-la u Idan-ni-dugur ina šuII Idnà-šeš-u-ṣur a Idpa-sipa fe-ṭir-ti munus ṣa-ḫir-ta-šú a-na 1/3 2 gín kù-babbar a-na šám ḫa-ri-iṣ ip-ṭu-ru pu-ut si-ḫi-i u lú pa-qí-ra-nu Idpa-pap-u-ṣur na-ši (témoins et scribes) nibruki iti sig4 u4 18-kam mu 3-kam rId30-lugal-gar lugal kur aš-šurki. 29 Soit 1 sicle (8,33 g.) d’argent pour 6 litres de grain. Le cours normal est de 1 sicle pour 1 kurru (180 litres) de grain. 30 OPPENHEIM 1955, 2 NT 301 (IM 57921): Ikal-ba-dká a Iba-am-x-[x] (2) uru marad-da-ú-a I d ìr- gu-la (3) ù Imu-du-gur ina šuII (4) fnibruki-ri-šat u fbe-lit (5) ama-šú a-na 12 gin kù-babbar a-na (6) šám ḫa-ri-ṣi ip-ṭur (7) [pu]-ut si-ḫi-i ù lú pa-qir-a-ni (8) šá Ikal-ba-dká (9) nibruki-ri-šat u fbelit (10) na-šá-a ina e-di-li ká (11) šá nibruki ma-ḫi-ri šá 0,0.1-ta-àm (12) šám dumu-šú-nu gam-rutu ina ḫu-ud (13) lìb-bi-[šu-n]u [it-t]a-šá-a (witnesses and scribe) nibruki iti [NM ] u4 10-kam mu 3-kam Id30-lugal-[gar] lugal aš-šurki.
PAṬĀRU « ACHETER » DANS UN TEXTE DE MAʻALLĀNĀTE
183
ils ne pouvaient justifier leur droit de propriété, on avait recours à cette formulation particulière de « délier » de la possession (et non de la propriété) de quelqu’un. Dans le cas des enfants de Nippur vendus par leurs parents, il est possible que la vente, effectuée sous contrainte, ait été réversible et que les parents aient pu être prioritaires pour obtenir le retour de leur enfant contre argent. Mais ils devaient payer et ne pouvaient faire purement et simplement annuler la transaction. C’est donc ici aussi une certaine forme du système de la rançon qui s’exerce: celui qui paye la rançon peut se faire rembourser par le possesseur initial; ici la situation est particulière en ce que le possesseur initial et le possesseur final ne font qu’un: pour que le parent puisse faire valoir un droit de rachat auprès de celui qui a libéré son enfant, il faut qu’il ait accepté d’abord de le lui vendre. Pourquoi cette fiction juridique? Probablement parce que le système de la libération des esclaves pour dettes par le biais d’édits de justice royaux n’existe plus dans la Babylonie du 1er millénaire av. J.-C. Effectivement, on ne trouve aucune trace d’abolition des dettes dans l’histoire de la Babylonie de cette période. Par contre, les mentions dans certains contrats de vente de la pression des événements (mention de sièges, etc.) permettaient de maintenir une réversibilité des transactions au moment même où une forme personnalisée du droit de propriété se met en place, qui aboutit, selon l’analyse de G. Cardascia, à la disparition du droit de retrait lignager dans les ventes immobilières, remplacé par le paiement d’un supplément-atru. Il n’est pas sûr cependant que cette innovation juridique ait eu un grand succès puisqu’on ne la trouve qu’au VIIe siècle, entre 681 et 675 puis en 626, et toujours au moment où le pouvoir assyrien s’exerçait sur la Babylonie. Abréviations et Bibliographie 2NT ABL ACP BE 8 BE 9 BE 10
= Sigle des tablettes de Nippur découvertes lors de la deuxième Joint Expedition et conservées au Musée National d’Iraq. = HARPER, R. F. 1892-1914, Assyrian and Babylonian letters belonging to the Kouyunjik collections of the British museum, London/Chicago : The University of Chicago Press. = HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, D., GARELLI, P. 2018, Maʻallānāte, archives d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien (Akkadica Supplementum XIII ; Greater Mesopotamia Studies 2), Bruxelles : Centre Assyriologique Georges Dossin. = CLAY, A. T. 1908, Legal and commercial transactions dated in the Assyrian, Neo-babylonian and Persian Periods chiefly from Nippur (Babylonian Expedition 8), Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania. = CLAY, A. T., HILPRECHT, H. 1898, Business documents of Murashu sons of Nippur dated in the reign of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.C.) (Babylonian Expedition 9) Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania. = CLAY, A. T. 1904, Business documents of Murashu sons of Nippur dated in the reign of Darius II (424-404 B.C.) (Babylonian Expedition 10), Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania.
184
F. JOANNÈS
= ROTH, M. T. (éd.) 2005, Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, volume 12 (P), Chicago : The Oriental Institute. IM = Sigle des tablettes du Musée National d’Iraq. NABU = Notes Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires, Paris : Sépoa. PBS 2/1 = CLAY, A. T. 1912, Business documents of Murashu sons of Nippur dated in the reign of Darius II (Publications of the Babylonian Section II/1), Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Museum. TCL 9 = CONTENAU, G. 1926, Contrats et lettres d’Assyrie et de Babylonie (Textes cunéiformes du Louvre 9), Paris : Geuthner. TuM 2/3 = KRÜCKMANN, G. 1933, Neubabylonische Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte (Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena II/III), Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs. VS 5 = UNGNAD, A. 1908, Neubabylonische und achämenidische Urkunden (Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmaler der Koniglichen Museen zu Berlin V), Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs. YOS 7 = TREMAYNE, A. 1925, Records from Erech, time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538521 B.C.) (Yale Oriental Series 7), New Haven : Yale University Press. CAD P
BRINKMAN, J. A. 1989, ‘Comments on L. W. King, Babylonian Boundary Stones no 27 (BM 90937)’, NABU 1989/3, 70. COLE, S. W. 1996, The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur (OIP 114), Chicago : The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, D., GARELLI, P. 2018, Maʻallānāte, archives d’un centre provincial de l’empire assyrien (Akkadica Supplementum XIII ; Greater Mesopotamia Studies 2), Bruxelles : Centre Assyriologique Georges Dossin. KING, L. W. 1912, Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum, London: The British Museum Publications. LACKENBACHER, S. 1983, ‘Vente de terres à un « Šandabakku » sous la IIe dynastie d’Isin’, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 77, 143-154. OPPENHEIM, A. L. 1955, ‘«Siege-Documents» from Nippur’, Iraq 17, 69-89. STOLPER, M. W. 1985, Entrepreneurs and Empire. The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (PIHANS 54), Istanbul/Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD John CURTIS*, Nigel TALLIS** and Ann SEARIGHT**
Introduction This article is concerned with a highly distinctive bronze bowl with bird handles that was found by A.H. Layard at Nimrud, and is offered to Eric Gubel in recognition of his longstanding interest in the Nimrud bowls and his great contribution to Phoenician studies. While it is recognised that many of the Nimrud bowls are Phoenician, however, there is no suggestion that the bird-handled bowl is necessarily Phoenician. There are a number of parallels from different parts of the Ancient Near East, and we shall examine these and see if it is possible to draw any general conclusions. In this article, however, it should be made plain that we are only dealing with bronze bowls that have rigid ‘lifting handles’ projecting above the rim and which incorporate animal or human figures in their design; we will not attempt to review other types of attachment, sometimes supporting rings, particularly in association with cauldrons, that are often birdshaped1. The collection now known as ‘the Nimrud bowls’ was found by A.H. Layard in Room AB of the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal II on 5th January 1850 and is now in the British Museum. Today nearly 140 bowls can be accounted for, but many of them are plain and some are represented only by fragments. Others have interesting incised and chased decoration. These decorated bowls have received a great deal of attention2 and all the most interesting examples have now been published. In the midst of all this, however, little attention has been paid to the bronze bowl with bird handles.
* Iran Heritage Foundation, formerly British Museum, London. ** Formerly British Museum, London. 1 The point of having upstanding handles on opposite sides of the bowl is rather unclear, but it is not a unique feature. There are, for example, plain bronze bowls from tumuli at Gordion in central Anatolia which have angular shaped handles formed of rods that are described in the excavation report as “lifting handles” (YOUNG 1981, pls. 8/J-K, 64/E-F, 65/A). There are also bowls with upstanding lotus handles (i.e. semi-circular handles with a lotus shape on the top) from Nuri in Sudan (MATTHÄUS 2009, figs. 9-10) and from Crete (MATTHÄUS 2016, fig. 3). Rod-formed handles are also attested in Crete (MATTHÄUS 2016, fig. 4). Then, there are also what Barnett calls “swinging handle bowls”, bowls with bar-shaped attachments with swing handles. 2 E.g. MATTHÄUS 2009; ONNIS 2009; MARKOE 1985; BARNETT 1974; BARNETT 1967; LAYARD 1853b.
186
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
To revert to the original discovery, in Room AB Layard found twelve bronze cauldrons, some of them apparently standing on tripods. He continued his account as follows3: “Behind the caldrons (sic) was a heap of curious and interesting objects. In one place were piled without order, one above the other, bronze cups, bowls, and dishes of various sizes and shapes. The upper vessels having been most exposed to damp, the metal had been eaten away by rust, and was crumbling into fragments, or into a green powder. As they were cleared away, more perfect specimens were taken out, until, near the pavement of the chamber, some were found almost entire. Many of the bowls and plates fitted so closely, one within the other, that they have only been detached in England. It required the greatest care and patience to separate them from the tenacious soil in which they were embedded. Although a green crystalline deposit, arising from the decomposition of the metal, encrusted all the vessels, I could distinguish upon many of them traces of embossed and engraved ornaments… The bronze objects thus discovered may be classed under four heads – dishes with handles, plates, deep bowls, and cups. Some are plain, others have a simple rosette, scarab, or star in the centre, and many are most elaborately ornamented with the figures of men and animals, and with elegant fancy designs, either embossed or incised… Other dishes were found still better preserved than those just described, but perfectly plain, or having only a star, more or less elaborate, embossed or engraved in the centre. Many fragments were also discovered with elegant handles, some formed by the figures of rams and bulls”4.
In a letter to Edward Hawkins5, the Keeper of the Department of Antiquities at the British Museum, dated 21st January 1850, Layard encloses “a list of utensils and ornaments, with a few exceptions in metal, which have recently been discovered at Nimroud and have been packed by me ready to be sent to England.” The bowl with the bird handles was in Box 13: “Box 13 Bowl with plate adhering Bowl richly embossed with bulls &c. 1 bowl 4 small bowls adhering 1 smaller [bowl] Do. of elegant shape – engraved in centre Elegant dish, with 2 handles formed by rams heads – one detached [our emphasis] Part of dish with star in high relief embossed in centre 1 bowl entire – embossed 2. with wild goats round margin 1 [bowl] Do. scarabaeus raising globe embossed in centre Part of plate very richly engraved…”
These boxes were not sent to England until May 1851, arriving in Liverpool on the 6th July. Layard had eventually decided to send the smaller cases of vases 3 4 5
LAYARD 1853a, 182-185. LAYARD 1853a, 182-185. British Museum, Original Papers and Letters, Vol. XLIII, November 1849 - May 1850.
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
187
and vessels in the sole charge of his assistant, Hormuzd Rassam, via Iskenderun (Alexandretta). Rassam sailed on the 28th or 29th May in the steamship ‘Pirate’ bound for Liverpool, escorting 23 cases of small antiquities. Layard left a little later, apparently sailing from Beirut in June and arriving in London in July, evidently before the ‘Pirate’ docked at Liverpool. Exactly why Layard did not travel with Rassam, but chose to come back on a different ship, is not now clear, but it did mean he arrived in London first. The “elegant dish, with 2 handles formed by rams heads – one detached” is in fact illustrated in two rather crude sketches in Nineveh and Babylon6 and there is no doubt that it is in fact the bowl discussed here and that Layard mistook the birds for rams. In the accompanying account, as we have seen, Layard refers to “fragments … with elegant handles, some formed by the figures of rams and bulls”7, and although we now understand what he means by the reference to handles formed by the figures of rams, there is no trace of a handle formed by the figure of a bull. Layard’s misidentification likely influenced both Muscarella8 and Winter9 in describing the birds as “double rams and bulls”, and “a pair of horses”, while even the British Museum register describes the birds as “dogs”. The Nimrud Bowl (N127 + N131 + N149; BM 91261 + BM 124596) (Figs. 1-2) Description Parts of a bronze bowl with two handle attachments (height 7.15 cm, rim diam. ca. 19.7 cm, max diam. ca. 20.5 cm, max diam. with handle attachments ca. 25.3 cm). The bowl is now in three parts, a large fragment of bowl with the handle still attached (ca. 20.5 cm × 22.0 cm; N127 = BM 91261), and a nonattached handle in two pieces which join together (N131+N149 = BM 124596). The attachment N127 is width 8.6 cm overall and the height of the birds is 4.9 cm (left) and 4.5 cm (right). The attachment N131+N149 is overall width 8.88 cm and the height of the birds is 5.0 cm (left) and 4.95 cm (right). The bowl is of medium depth with curving sides, is slightly carinated and has an everted, club-shaped rim. Between one quarter and one third of the rim is preserved, and about three-quarters of the body of the bowl. The bowl is goldenbrown in colour on interior and exterior surfaces. The handle attachments are hollowed out at the back and not solid castings. Each handle attachment is held in place by four rivets. These rivets have rounded 6 7 8 9
LAYARD 1853a, 185. LAYARD 1853a, 184-185. MUSCARELLA 1988, 27. WINTER 1980, 25.
188
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
Fig. 1: British Museum bowl and handle attachments (N127, N131, N149).
shanks, and rounded heads on the inside of the bowl, with slightly squared ends on the outside. The attachments consist of an oblong plate formed by two birds of prey with conjoined bodies and outspread wings and tails. Their wings form the bottom part of the handle. The upper part of the handle consists of a shaped rod with four indentations, the two in the centre rounded to accommodate fingers. At the junction of the upper and lower parts of the handle attachment there
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
189
Fig. 2: Drawings by Ann Searight of British Museum bowl (N127, N131, N149).
are bead and reel mouldings. Although because of the broken condition of the bowl the two handles are not physically associated with each other, there is little doubt that they belong to the same bowl. Lang et al. report that “although the analyses are not identical, the rivets used to attach the handles have virtually the same composition and are stylistically similar”10 (see below). The birds have hooked beaks and bulbous eyes outlined with an incised circle. There is no incised decoration on the wings. They have their legs and feet held up as if ready to strike or land. When in flight, birds of prey have their legs trailing and mostly covered by feathers. Their feet consist of four talons, three at the front and one behind. The bird could either be a raptor or a scavenger (eagles, hawks, vultures, buzzards, ravens). The necks are arched as if the birds are poised to strike. The attachments are quite plain, with no attempt having been made to delineate features such as feathers. 10
LANG et al. 1986, 109.
190
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
Analysis and metallographic examination The metal was analysed by atomic absorption spectrometry11 and the bowl and attachments were examined visually with an optical microscope, both in the British Museum Research Laboratory. Results were published in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology12. Analysis of the bowl itself (see below, N127) showed that it was a tin-bronze with 89.2% copper and 11.8% tin, with a lead content of 0.62%. The handle attachments had slightly lower copper contents of 87.0% and 88.2%, but higher tin contents of 12.7% and 11.9% and higher lead contents of 1.55% and 0.86%. Metallographic examination showed that this bowl, like others in the Nimrud collection, was made by casting a blank probably into a disc or bun shape, and raising it by hammering, with clear evidence of working and annealing13. The two hawk-headed handles were each cast with the handle and the attaching plate in a single mould. However, there are slight differences in the measurements of the handles, and this, combined with the fact that the analyses are similar but not identical, suggests that the handles were not made at the same time and were not made from the same mould. By contrast, the two sets of rivets securing the handles had almost identical compositions and had chamfered ends which were not observed elsewhere amongst the Nimrud bowls. Therefore, it seems likely that the rivets were made at the same time and that the handles were attached at the same time. The rivets themselves were made by a reverse extrusion process; this was probably achieved “by placing small buttons or pellets into a hollow rounded die, like a doming block, and then hammering a tube, which had a square section with rounded comers, down into the button so that the metal was forced up the tube to form the stalk”. In normal extrusion, metal is forced through a die by a ram. Table 1: N127 (bowl + handle attachment + rivet). Analysis Cu Sn 89.2 11.8 Bowl Attachment 87.0 12.7 89.7 8.8 Rivet
Pb 0.62 1.55 1.02
Zn 0.030 0.020 0.027
Fe 0.37 0.31 0.58
Ag 0.005 0.011 0.012
Ni 0.039 0.037 0.054
Co 0.014 0.011 0.081
Sb As 0.014 0.063 0.055 0.78 0.029 0.44
Co 0.014 0.084
Sb 0.033 0.028
Table 2: N131 (handle attachment). Analysis Attachment Rivet 11 12 13
Cu 88.2 91.2
Sn 11.9 8.9
Pb 0.86 1.04
HUGHES et al. 1976. LANG et al. 1986. LANG et al. 1986, 113-114.
Zn 0.021 0.017
Fe 0.18 0.63
Ag 0.0075 0.0098
Ni 0.052 0.056
As 0.25 0.53
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
191
Similar examples Beirut (Fig. 3, top) This bowl (diam. 20.4 cm, height 7.4 cm) is in the AUB museum (inventory nr. 68.102) and a sketch of it was published by R.D. Barnett14. There is no information about provenance or date of acquisition in the museum records15. The bowl has also been referred to, following Barnett, by Winter and Muscarella16. The shape of the bowl is very similar to the damaged Nimrud example and it also has a slight lip around the rim. There are two handles each featuring two birds fixed in place with four rivets like the Nimrud example. The handle attachments themselves are also very similar to the Nimrud examples, with the birds holding their legs and talons up ready to strike, but here the birds appear to have crests on the tops of their heads. Like the Nimrud handles there are bead and reel mouldings at the base of the handle, and the same number of indentations for the fingers (i.e. four) but these are less pronounced than the Nimrud handles, and the tops of the handles are less angular. It seems certain then that although these handle attachments are very similar, they do not come from the same mould as the Nimrud attachments. Lori Berd (Fig. 3, bottom) A bronze bowl with two bird handles was found in 1989 in grave nr. 59 at Lori Berd in Northern Armenia17. Lori Berd is near the town of Stepanavan and is one of the most significant Iron Age sites in Armenia. The bowl is now in the History Museum of Armenia, inventory nr. 3146-143, and was recently exhibited in loan exhibitions at the National Museum of Iran in Tehran18 and at the British Museum19. The bowl is well preserved, and has a slight lip around the rim. There is a pair of handles on opposite sides of the bowl. The diameter of the bowl is 27 cm, and the height 12 cm; each handle is height 5.5 cm and width 10 cm20. The handles show a single bird, again with its legs raised and held against its chest as if ready to swoop. Unlike the Nimrud examples, the feet are not represented in detail – appearing as flattened circles – and the claws are not shown individually. The eyes appeared to be outlined with circles, but there is no incised BARNETT 1974, 24 fig. 3. We are most grateful to Leila Badre and Reine Mady for providing information about this bowl and a photograph of it. 16 MUSCARELLA 1988, 27; WINTER 1980, 25 n. 128. 17 CASTELLUCCIA 2014, 87, fig IV, nr. 1; DEVEDJYAN 2010, 81-82, fig. 7. 18 HASSANZADEH and GRIGORYAN 2017, nr. 202. 19 BRERETON 2018, fig. 182. 20 DEVEDJYAN 2010, 81. 14 15
192
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
Fig. 3: Bowl in AUB Museum, Beirut (nr. 68.102) (top) and bowl from Lori Berd (Armenian National Museum, nr. 3146-143) (bottom).
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
193
decoration on the wings. There are rivets on either side of the wing and in the tail. Each handle has four finger indentations and triple rib mouldings at the base of the handles. There are many points of similarity with the Nimrud bowl, except of course that each handle features one bird rather than two. The shape and size of the bowl itself are also similar. The similarities are so close that it is tempting to believe they are the products of the same workshop. Grave nr. 59 contained a cremation burial accompanied by four horses which had been buried complete with their harness. There was also “a hemispheric bowl or tub” and the bronze bowl was thought to have been covered with a wooden lid, remains of which were inside it. Seda Devedjyan, the excavator, dates this grave to Armenian Iron Age II21 which corresponds to the 8th to 7th centuries BCE22. In the exhibition catalogues, however, both Hassanzadeh and Grigoryan, and Brereton date the bowl to the 7th to 6th century BCE23. Hasanlu (Fig. 4) From Hasanlu in North-West Iran there are a number of objects that are of interest to us in this enquiry from the destruction level IVB, that is usually dated to 800 BCE24. First and foremost is a bronze basin that has “a matched pair of bird protome attachments, here birds of prey, cast as one unit with a fixed handle (HAS 58240)”25. To our knowledge, only one of these handles has been published (Fig. 4, top left)26. Of the Hasanlu attachments, this is the closest to the Nimrud bowl. It shows a bird with outstretched wings, claws held up ready to strike, and a handle grip with three indentations (width ca. 11.5 cm). There are ribbed mouldings at the base of the handle, and the attachment was secured to a vessel by three rivets. There is no incised decoration on the wings. The shape of the head, with a slightly more conical beak, seems closest to the examples from Lori Berd in Armenia (above), while the shape of the bird’s upper legs is similar to those shown on the Beirut attachments (below). Another handle attachment from Hasanlu also has an indented finger-grip, but this time with provision for four fingers rather than three (Fig. 4, top right; DEVEDJYAN 2010, 81. SMITH et al. 2009, 34, fig. 2. 23 BRERETON 2018, 164; HASSANZADEH and GRIGORYAN 2017, 158. 24 DYSON and MUSCARELLA 1989. 25 MUSCARELLA 1988, 27; Irene WINTER (1980, 25, n. 126) records that she was informed by Maude de Schauensee that when found the handles were still attached to the vessel. 26 MUSCARELLA 1988, 28, fig. 4; MUSCARELLA 1970, 115, fig. 9; DYSON 1967, 1486, 486, pl. D; PORADA 1965, pl. 9, right; DYSON 1959, 13, top left. It is now (2018) on display in the National Museum of Iran in Tehran. The hollow in its back was filled with lead (DYSON 1967, 1486). 21 22
194
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
Fig. 4: Handles of bowls from Hasanlu. Top left: from MUSCARELLA 1970, 115, fig. 9; top right: Tehran National Museum nr. 5935, from HELWING 2017: 245, fig. 153; bottom: MMA 61.100.3a,b, from MUSCARELLA 1988, 26-29.
HAS 72-135). It was found in room 1 of the Corridor Building. It shows a kneeling bearded figure with arms outstretched grasping in either hand the rear leg of a small goat27. There are the usual ribbed mouldings at the base of the handle. It measures 15.5 cm × 14.9 cm × 3.2 cm, and has the museum number 593528. 27 28
HELWING 2017, 245, fig. 153; WINTER 1980, 25-26, 93, fig. 63. HELWING 2017, 274.
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
195
Lastly, there is from Hasanlu a bronze basin that had rigid rectangular handles at the top, outspread wings and tail at the bottom and a bird’s head standing proud above the wings (Fig. 4, bottom)29. The body of the bird is not shown, but there is incised decoration on the wings. The fitting was secured by three rivets. The rectangular shape of the handle, the fact that only the bird’s head is shown, and the lack of ribbed mouldings at the base of the handle, differentiate these handle attachments from our bird handles and they are clearly part of a different tradition. The bronze basin (HAS 61.100.3a, b, c) was approximately 40 cm in diameter and 8 cm. in height. The attachments were 10.8 - 11.0 cm in height, and 10.0 cm in width. Gordion A bronze handle attachment from Gordion shows a bird-like creature with legs and claws upraised and a head with gaping mouth and curved beak, and two horns. There is also a protuberance on the top of the head which may have been a crest. The creature has outspread wings which have incised feather decoration and on the tops of the wing tips are the stumps of a broken off handle. There are triple rib mouldings at the base of the stumps. It is unknown if the handle would have been straight at the top or if it would have been indented. This attachment was found in the destruction level of Megaron 3 during the 1961 campaign at Gordion30. The drawing is composite, recording details of the attachment both before and after conservation. The date of the destruction level at Gordion is problematic. It was originally dated by Rodney S. Young to ca. 700 BCE, but based on dendrochronology and radiocarbon dates, the date has been revised on the University of Pennsylvania website31 to the late 9th century BCE. It is interesting that the griffin handle attachment has been cited in support of an early date on the grounds that there is a comparable bird handle from Hasanlu period IVb, the destruction of which is usually dated to 800 BCE. In the case of Gordion, however, Muscarella (2013) has argued in favour of a date for the destruction at the end of the Early Phrygian period to +/- 700 BCE, on the basis of the fibulae and socketed arrowheads. The main difference between this attachment and the Nimrud attachments are the form of the animal, which here seems to be a griffin with horns and a crest on the top of its head, and the feathering on the wings. Points of similarity are the position of the legs and claws and the ribbed mouldings at the base of the handle. It is noteworthy that the birds on the Beirut bowl attachments also have crests. 29 30 31
MUSCARELLA 1988, 26-29 (with illustrations). YOUNG 1961, 163, pl. 43, fig. 15; reproduced in MUSCARELLA 1970, fig. 9. http://sites.museum.upenn.edu/gordion/history/chronology/ (Accessed 4/9/2018).
196
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
Israel Museum There is a handle attachment in the Israel Museum (inventory nr. OS 2019.66) which shows a winged bird surmounted by a handle with a straight top32. There is incised feather decoration on the wings. Merhav believes that the attachment comes from north-western Iran as “the style and decorative linear technique are characteristic of the ninth- to seventh-century bronzes from Luristan and Azerbaidjan” but this is speculative and the attachment is presumably without provenance. This attachment is published only in a drawing and a number of details are unclear. Susa handles (Fig. 5) From Susa is a pair of bronze bowl or cauldron handles that are now in the Louvre (inventory nr. Sb 3748A-B). Each handle has at the top four indentations for the fingers, and in the lower part of the handle, separated from the top part by a horizontal bar, there is openwork decoration showing a kneeling bull facing left with its tail aloft and touching the bar. To the right of the bull is a space-filling geometric design. At the bottom of the handle grip and just above the horizontal bar are on one of the pieces triple ribbed mouldings; on the other piece these mouldings are poorly articulated, and appear as swellings. This is possibly a result of poor casting techniques. Without a detailed first-hand examination, it is not possible to say whether the two pieces are made from the same mould. Neither can it be established whether the pieces were fixed in position with rivets. Each has only a sight curvature at the back, supporting the view that the handles come from a cauldron or very large vessel rather than a regularsized bowl. The handles are 10.5 cm - 11.17 cm in height, and 10.6 cm - 10.9 cm in width33. The two handles were found by Roland de Mecquenem at Susa in 1925 in a level to the east of the Palace of Darius in the Ville Royale mound that he describes as (contemporary with) the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In this level, described by Amiet as “néo-élamite récente” and dated by him to the 8th-7th centuries BCE, de Mecquenem found many burials, some simple inhumation graves and some baked brick vaulted tombs. In the brick vaults were many glazed pottery vases, moulded glass phials (“des fioles de verre moulé”), jewellery, cylinder seals, and some very oxidised copper vessels. The two handles come from a large bowl (“plateau”) of this type34. The two handles are now on exhibition in the Louvre, and are dated to the Neo-Elamite period, 8th - mid 6th century BCE. Amiet35 32 33 34 35
MERHAV 1976, 77, pl. IV, fig. 5. AMIET 1966, 477. AMIET 1997, 164; AMIET 1966, 466-467, figs. 358A-B; DE MECQUENEM 1934, 207-209, fig. 51. AMIET 1966, 477.
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
Fig. 5: Two handles with openwork decoration from Susa (Louvre Sb 3748).
197
198
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
compares the kneeling bull on the handles to the decoration on a glazed pottery vase allegedly from Ziwiyeh36. Discussion In conclusion we can say that particularly close parallels to the Nimrud bowl are the unprovenanced bowl in the American University Museum in Beirut (with double bird handles), the bowl from a grave in Lori Berd in Armenia (but with single bird handles), and the bowl from the destruction level IVB at Hasanlu (but with single bird handles and three indentations rather than four). Close parallels are handles with similar finger grips but featuring different motifs such as two handle attachments from Susa (with kneeling bulls) and a handle attachment from Hasanlu (with a kneeling hero). All these handle attachments have indentations for fingers at the top and they have ribbed mouldings at the bottom of the handle grip. None of these handle attachments (even on the same bowl) has been made in the same mould, but the similarities between all of them are so close that it is difficult to believe that they have not been made in the same workshop. Furthermore, it is unlikely that production would have continued in that workshop for a very long time – we are probably looking at a maximum period of 25 years or so. So, where was that workshop located and what period are we suggesting for the production of these bowls? In terms of provenance, we have one bowl found at Nimrud (probably Assyrian booty and not in its original context), one bowl from a possibly Urartian grave in Armenia, one bowl from a Neo-Elamite grave at Susa, and two bowls from the IVB destruction level at Hasanlu. Edith Porada compares the Hasanlu handle with bird and indented finger grip with a small gold bird with blue inlays from a 2nd millennium BCE grave at Susa37. This also, in her words, “has its claws pulled up close to the body as if the bird is seen in flight from below”. She believes this a recurrent feature of Iranian art, and see the same feature on the Hasanlu gold bowl where an eagle or falcon carries a goddess and on a beak-spouted jar from Tappeh Sialk38. She claims that “this rendering of the bird of prey is a criterion of style which prevailed for many centuries in many regions of Iran”39. Apart from the fact that the birds are not represented in flight, but are shown as about to swoop on their prey or to land, Barnett was rightly sceptical of Porada’s claim that this motif is “typically Iranian”, and pointed to at least one non-Iranian example40. So, 36 37 38 39 40
GODARD 1950, figs. 55-56. PORADA 1965, 54, pl. 9 left. PORADA 1965, 101, 106, pls. 24 and 26. PORADA 1965, 106. BARNETT 1974, 24.
A BRONZE BOWL WITH BIRD HANDLES FROM NIMRUD
199
where could the centre of production have been? The hoard of Nimrud bowls to which our example belonged is generally believed to have been brought from Syria or Phoenicia, which would also be a possible provenance for the unprovenanced bowl in the AUB museum. However, the centre of production is just as likely to have been Urartu or Iran as Syria-Phoenicia. At the moment, no conclusion is possible. With regard to the date, we are on unsure ground. The deposition of the Nimrud bowls is generally dated to the 8th century BCE41, and it could have been even later than this. The Lori Berd grave is given bracket dates of 8th-6th century BCE, and the Neo-Elamite grave at Susa is also dated 8th6th century BCE. It seems most probable, however, that the workshop producing these bowls was active in the 8th century BCE. The problem is that the Hasanlu bowls are dated to the 9th century BCE, i.e. before the supposed date of the destruction in 800 BCE. This must mean that either the Hasanlu bowls pre-date the other bowls in this group or that the date of the destruction of Hasanlu IVB needs to be reconsidered. References AMIET, P. 1966, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise: Archée. AMIET, P. 1997, ‘La période Roland de Mecquenem (1912-1946)’, in N. CHEVALIER (ed.), Une Mission en Perse 1897-1912, Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 162-167. BARNETT, R. D. 1967, ‘Layard’s Nimrud bronzes and their inscriptions’, Eretz-Israel VIII, 1-7. BARNETT, R. D. 1974, ‘The Nimrud bowls in the British Museum’, Rivista di Studi Fenici II, 11-33. BRERETON, G. (ed.) 2018, I am Ashurbanipal, King of the World, King of Assyria, London: British Museum. CASTELLUCCIA, M. 2014, ‘Urartian metalwork in Caucasian graves’, Studies in Caucasian Archaeology II, 83-101. DE MECQUENEM, R. 1934, ‘Fouilles de Suse 1929-1933’, in R. DE MECQUENEM, V. SCHEIL (eds.), Mission en Susiane (Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique de Perse XXV), Paris: Leroux, 177-237. DEVEDJYAN, S. G. 2010, ‘Some Urartian objects from the tombs of Lori Berd’, Armenian Journal for Near Eastern Studies - Aramazd 5, 76-89. DYSON, R. H. 1959, ‘Digging in Iran: Hasanlu, 1958’, Expedition I/3, 4-13. DYSON, R. H. 1967, ‘Early cultures of Solduz, Azerbaijan’, A Survey of Persian Art XIV, 2951-2970. DYSON, R. H., MUSCARELLA, O. W. 1989, ‘Constructing the chronology and historical implications of Hasanlu IV’, Iran XXVII, 1-27. GODARD, A. 1950, Le Trésor de Ziwiyè (Kurdistan), Haarlem: J. Enschedé. HASSANZADEH, Y., GRIGORYAN, A. (eds.), 2017, Armenia and Iran: Memory of the Land. From the Bronze Age to Post Urartu (4th Millennium BCE - 1st Century BCE). Joint Exhibition of Archaeological Finds from the History Museum of Armenia and the National Museum of Iran, Tehran: s.ed. 41
BARNETT 1974, 25-28.
200
J. CURTIS, N. TALLIS AND A. SEARIGHT
HELWING, B. (ed.), 2017, Iran: Frühe Kulturen zwischen Wasser und Wüste, Bonn: Hirmer. HUGHES, M. J., COWELL, M. R., CRADDOCK, P. T. 1976, ‘Atomic absorption techniques in archaeology’, Archaeometry 18, 19-37. LAYARD, A. H. 1853a, Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, London: J. Murray. LAYARD, A. H. 1853b, The Monuments of Nineveh: Second Series, London: J. Murray. MARKOE, G. 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean (University of California Classical Studies 26), Berkeley: University of California Press. MATTHÄUS, H. 2009, ‘Phoenician metal-work up to date: Phoenician metal bowls with figural decoration in the Eastern Mediterranean, Near and Middle East and North Africa’, BAAL Hors-Série VI, 439-452. MATTHÄUS, H. 2016, ‘Metalwork from the Levant to Iberia during the early first millennium BCE’, in J. ARUZ, M. SEYMOUR (eds.), Assyria to Iberia: Art and Culture in the Iron Age, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 273-282. MERHAV, R. 1976, ‘Ceremonial and everyday Use of the bucket in Mesopotamia and neighbouring lands’, Israel Museum News 11, 67-81. MUSCARELLA, O. W. 1970, ‘Near Eastern bronzes in the West: the question of origin’, in S. DOEHRINGER, D. G. MITTEN, A. STEINBERG (eds.), Art and Technology: A Symposium on Classical Bronzes, Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 109-128. MUSCARELLA, O. W. 1988, Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. MUSCARELLA, O. W. 2013, ‘Again Gordion’s Early Phrygian destruction date’, in O. W. MUSCARELLA, Archaeology, Artifacts and Antiquities of the Ancient Near East: sites, cultures and proveniences, Leiden: Brill, 601-619. ONNIS, F. 2009, ‘The Nimrud bowls: new data from an analysis of the objects’, Iraq LXXI, 139-150. PORADA, E. 1965, Ancient Iran: the art of pre-Islamic times, London: Methuen. SMITH, A. T., RUBEN, S., BADALYAN, S., AVETISIYAN, P. 2009, The Archaeology and Geography of Ancient Transcaucasian Societies, Volume 1: The Foundations of Research and Regional Survey in the Tsaghkahovit Plain, Armenia (Oriental Institute Publications 134), Chicago: Oriental Institute. WINTER, I. J. 1980, A Decorated Breastplate from Hasanlu, Iran (Hasanlu Special Studies I), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. YOUNG, R. S. 1962, ‘The 1961 campaign at Gordion’, American Journal of Archaeology 66, 153-168. YOUNG, R. S. 1981, Three Great Early Tumuli (Gordon Excavations Final Reports I), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES Georgina HERRMANN and Stuart LAIDLAW*
From the time of his pioneering work, Phoenician Furniture, a Typology based on Iron Age Representations with reference to the Iconographical Context1, my distinguished colleague, Eric Gubel, has dominated Phoenician studies, writing on a wide variety of topics. We both share a deep interest in furniture, not only in the materials, techniques and forms but also in the complex relationships between furniture, architecture and social customs. Professor Gubel has written extensively on the Nimrud ivories, which, of course, are often employed to decorate furniture. In this short paper, I should like to discuss those ivories decorated with colourful inlays of glass or paste and offer it to Eric, wishing we could discuss it, sitting at an agreeable table sipping a glass of wine. It was the incomparable Austen Henry Layard who first commented in 1849 on inlaid ivories: “Blue opaque glass, lapis lazuli, and other substances of various colours, are let into the ivory tablets from Nimrud”2. Layard had found the first examples in Rooms V/W of the North West Palace. Many more, heavily burnt, ivories were found in 1855 by one of his successors, W.K. Loftus (1821?1858), in the South East Palace, now known as the Burnt Palace. Some of these were enhanced by gilding and enamel3. However, the first serious study of the ivories was not undertaken for another sixty years. Although Fredrik Poulsen4 was working on only a limited amount of material, he was able to determine that the ivories could be arranged into three principal groupings, those in the easily recognizable Assyrian style, Phoenician ivories – that is those with links to the art of Egypt –, and North Syrian ivories, many of which had been found by Loftus and could be compared to sculptures found along the Syro-Turkish border. These basic divisions, although amplified, still hold today. In 1932, the young Richard Barnett (1909-1986) was appointed an Assistant Keeper in the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum. He was given the daunting task of conserving and recording not only the relatively few ivories found by Layard, but the hundreds of burnt and broken pieces found by Loftus. This resulted in his magisterial catalogue, Catalogue of * Institute of Archaeology, University College London. Stuart Laidlaw sadly passed away in November 2019. 1 GUBEL 1987, based on his PhD thesis submitted in 1983 to the V.U.B.-Free University of Brussels. 2 LAYARD 1849, 420-421. 3 BARNETT 1975, 23. 4 POULSEN 1968.
202
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
the Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum. In this he noted that inlaying glass or paste into wood was a typically Egyptian technique, which had been borrowed by the Phoenicians for embellishing some of their finest ivories5. While the best work can be seen on ivories attributed to the Phoenician tradition, Barnett also noted that some ivories of the North Syrian school were embellished with inlays. These were very different technically: they were large inlays, held in position by pegs and glue. In the 1970s, Irene Winter suggested that there should be an additional South Syrian group, one with links to both Phoenician and North Syrian ivories, a group now known as Syro-Phoenician6. These combine ‘traditional Phoenician iconography in squat un-Phoenician proportions’7 and are easy to identify, thanks to their squatter proportions and their misunderstanding or corruption of Egyptian motifs. As usual, the group consists of a number of style-groups, only one of which, the ‘Crown and Scale’ group, has a few inlaid ivories8. In an article in a volume celebrating Barnett’s 75th birthday, Dan Barag wrote that Phoenician ivories could be either modelled or inlaid and suggested that “the distinction between non-inlaid and inlaid Phoenician ivories may have a bearing on their chronology, the former perhaps dating from the late ninthearly eighth century BC and the latter only from the eighth century BC”9. This interesting hypothesis affected the arrangement of the catalogue of ivories from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser: all the non-inlaid ivories were catalogued first, before the inlaid ivories10. Arranging the ivories in this way immediately made it evident that such a division was artificial11. Publication of the ivories The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, re-named the British Institute for the Study of Iraq, has published thousands of the ivories found at Nimrud: these have been organized in different ways, by function (bridle harness and furniture), by style (Assyrian style) or by provenance (locations in Fort Shalmaneser or the North West Palace)12. By 2008, with many of the ivories recorded, the time was right to begin an analysis of the imported ivories found both in Fort Shalmaneser and in the North West Palace: many of these had been stripped of their BARNETT 1975, 156. WINTER 1973. 7 WINTER 2010, 285. 8 HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2009, 88, n. 21. 9 BARAG 1983, 166-167. 10 HERRMANN 1986. 11 This separation was not followed in later volumes. 12 HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2009 and 2013; HERRMANN 1992; HERRMANN 1986; MALLOWAN and HERRMANN 1974; MALLOWAN and DAVIES 1970; ORCHARD 1967. 5 6
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
203
valuable gold overlays and thrown into storage magazines. Assyrian style ivories, on the other hand, had a different distribution, with many clearly in use and found in elite contexts13. The imported ivories were first assembled into their ‘traditions’, i.e. whether they belonged to the Phoenician, Syro-Phoenician or North Syrian traditions14, and then into their various style-groups within the traditions15. It immediately became obvious that the majority, more than a thousand, belonged to the Phoenician tradition. There are at least twice as many Phoenician ivories as all those of the Syro-Phoenician, the North Syrian and the Assyrian traditions combined. This establishes the pre-eminence of the Phoenician ivory worker, both in the sheer numbers of ivories and in their exquisite workmanship. Phoenician ivories are united by their Egyptian-looking iconography, elegant style and sophisticated techniques and can be divided in two, Classic and Standard Phoenician ivories16. The finest belong to the Classic Phoenician group17, and it is noteworthy that it is only Classic Phoenician ivories that are inlaid, although, as usual there are similar examples, which are just modelled. All originally would have been partially highlighted with gold foil. Among the inlaid ivories there are sub-sets, defined by variations in technique. These are: a. Egyptianizing ivories; b. Ornate Group ivories: i. decorated with polychrome inlays; ii. worked with very fine inlays; iii. carved on thinner panels, coloured only with blue; and, finally c. the champlevé group. The most elaborate Classic Phoenician ivories are the Egyptianizing group, of which there are about a hundred examples. These form a coherent group, often unique in design, shape and style, many of which, but not all, are decorated with gold overlays and coloured inlays. Each panel contains a complete design, it is not made up from a number of pieces, as often occurs with Ornate Group ivories. One such complex design, ND 1070218, consists of a series of religious motifs, piled up, one above the other (Fig. 1). A central sun disc is rising over the horizon, contains a wedjat eye, is flanked by crowned uraei and is itself crowned by the hmhm or ‘triple crown’, made up of three tall atef crowns, flanked by more 13
HERRMANN 1992, 24-25 and HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2009a, 101-102. See HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, Phoenician ivories, Chapters Two and Three, 26-78, Ivories of the Syrian-Intermediate (now Syro-Phoenician) tradition, Chapter Four, 79-94, and Ivories of the North Syrian Tradition and Other Centres, Chapter Five, 95-112. 15 The ivories attributed to each tradition are listed at the ends of the four chapters: these lists are not exhaustive as they do not include pieces that are too fragmentary or of uncertain attribution. 16 HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, 26-27. 17 HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, 26-56. 18 HERRMANN 1986, nr. 992. 14
204
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 1: An Egyptianizing ivory, ND 10702, with a piling up of theological motifs, from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 992).
crowned uraei. This extraordinary motif is saluted by crowned and humanheaded ba-birds and is riding in a boat with papyrus prows. The inlay is superbly worked with some pieces being shaped to fit the prepared cloison, such as the wigs of the birds or the papyrus prows: other sections were made up from strips of glass19. The walls of the cloisons would once have been covered with gold, and the inlays would have been set on a paste bedding, although these rarely survive. Remarkably, these are preserved in one Ornate Group panel, found to the west of Room SW7, ND 632820, a fine winged, falcon-headed deity (Fig. 2). Many of the cloison walls retain their gold foil overlays, and there are traces of dark blue bedding, with some actual pieces of inlay surviving in the lower wings. Paste of a yellowish-green inlay survives in the crown. While the design of ND 10702 is unique, some panels share motifs, such as the fragmentary panels, ND 1053521 and ND 1300022, which show lionesses in semi-circular fields of papyrus flowers (Figs. 3 and 4). The lioness of ND 10535 is maned and is suckling her cubs: the stalks of the papyrus are inlaid alternately, a distinctive type of inlay, occurring not only on some Egyptianizing panels but also on Ornate Group examples. Only the head of the lioness of ND 13000 19 In 18th dynasty Egypt, glass inlays replaced the less readily available stone: BARNETT 1975, 156. Only the famous pair of ivories found in Well NN by Mallowan with a lioness mauling a fallen figure is decorated with stone inlays of lapis lazuli and carnelian: HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2009, nr. 356 (ND 2547 and 2548). 20 HERRMANN 1992, nr. 496. 21 HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1015. 22 HERRMANN 1986, nr. 968.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
205
Fig. 2: A rare Ornate Group panel, ND 6328, found near the surface near Room SW7. Much of the gold on the cloison walls is preserved, as well as the blue bedding and some of the glass inlays (HERRMANN 1992, nr. 496).
survives: it is a modelled version with wedjat eyes in the upper corners, as opposed to the flying ducks of ND 10535. These panels are close in style and design. The same pattern can be observed more consistently in the openwork panels of the Ornate Group, with their tall elegant figures, pleasingly located within their frames. In addition to the standard Phoenician features of style and proportion, typical characteristics include ‘pegged wigs’ and fine inlay work, as well as the use of double frames. The ‘pegged wig’ is one of the diagnostics of the
206
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 3: An inlaid Ornate Group panel, ND 10535, with a lioness and her cubs set in a semi-circular field of papyrus, from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1015).
Fig. 4: A modeled Ornate Group panel, ND 13000, with the head of a lioness set in a semi-circular field of papyrus, from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 968).
Ornate Group. Blue glass cylinders were set on blue paste and held in position by raised pegs of ivory, which would once have been overlaid with gold foil. By far the most popular subject is a deity or a youth, usually shown standing, sometimes winged, sometimes crowned and sometimes with a falcon headdress. The winged deity of ND 806823 was found in the Residency of Fort Shalmaneser (Fig. 5). He has a short, pegged wig, a collar with pendant droplets and a tassel down the back, a short tunic and a long open overskirt, inlaid alternately with red and blue. Flowers bloom beside him, and a hawk with a flail over its shoulder is perched between his wings. 23
HERRMANN 1992, nr. 177.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
Fig. 5: An Ornate Group openwork panel, ND 8068, with many traces of red and blue bedding, from Room X3 in the Residency, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1992, nr. 177).
207
208
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 6: A long Egyptianizing panel, ND 11023. The sphinx’s hair, collar and apron and the central cartouche were inlaid, although no traces of colour survive. The frame was alternately inlaid. From Room SW12, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, nr. 38).
Fig. 7: A long, inlaid Ornate Group panel, ND 10705. Only one fragment of inlay survives, no trace of colour. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1107).
Sphinxes were a popular motif across the area. Two fine examples carved on long panels were an Egyptianizing example, ND 11023 from SW 1224 and an Ornate Group panel, ND 1070525, from SW37 (Figs. 6 and 7). The Egyptianizing ivory showed a pair of human-headed sphinxes with shaved heads and the sidelocks of childhood flanking a central crowned cartouche. The other shows a pair of winged, human-headed sphinxes advancing towards a central stylized tree, with additional stylized trees behind them. The trees are a complicated, typically Phoenician type, with lily and papyrus flowers and buds blooming above and below the wide, voluted branches. Another common motif was conflict – between sphinxes and humans or humans and griffins, symbolizing victory (Figs. 8 and 9). The inlaid and modelled versions, ND 13013 and ND 1070626, show sphinxes striding over recumbent male figures, but with a remarkable absence of violence. The men look 24 25 26
HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, nr. 38. HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1107. HERRMANN 1986, nrs. 1111 and 656.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
209
Fig. 8: Fragment of an inlaid Ornate Group panel, ND 13013; part of a procession of falcon-headed sphinxes striding towards a djed pillar, and stepping over a male figure in a high hat tied with a diadem and with long curl on shoulder. Traces of discoloured paste and one piece of blue inlay. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1111).
Fig. 9: Part of a modeled Ornate Group panel, ND 10706, with two winged falcon-headed sphinxes, stepping on and over two bearded male figures, their long hair tied with diadems and ending in long curls on shoulders. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 656).
forward, resting on their elbows, their other arms resting on their raised knees by the sphinx’s hind legs. There is equally little tension in the Phoenician versions of a battle between a winged deity or ‘hero’ and a griffin, the so-called George and Dragon motif. This design may have originated in Cyprus and was popular on both inlaid and modelled Phoenician ivories, as well as on a few Syro-Phoenician examples, such
210
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 10: A powerful Syro-Phoenician version of the ‘George and Dragon’ motif, ND 10471, one of four panels found in Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 316).
as ND 10471 (Fig. 10)27. It is salutary to compare the thrusting power of the Syro-Phoenician panel with the elegant Phoenician versions, the polychrome ND 1050028 from SW37 and the modelled ND 1103629 (Figs. 11-12), from the adjacent SW11/12. This popular combat scene was also worked in a different technique, champlevé, where the actual design was excised and filled with paste, while the background was left high, as in ND 10449 (Fig. 13)30. Many champlevé pieces were small plaques rather than panels. Initially these seem technically quite different, especially as all the backs of these pieces are deeply striated. However, just as the alternate inlay technique can be seen on both Egyptianizing and Ornate Group ivories, so can this form of reverse inlay be seen on hieroglyphs incorporated into Egyptianizing or Ornate Group panels, such as the fragment of the 27 28 29 30
HERRMANN 1986, nr. 316. HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1051. HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, nr. 190. HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1176.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
Fig. 11: An Ornate Group inlaid version of the ‘George and Dragon’ motif, ND 10500. Many traces survive of red and blue inlays, laid alternately, except for the wing ends, which were just blue. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1051).
211
Fig. 12: A modeled Ornate Group version of the ‘George and Dragon’ motif, ND 11036, from Room SW12, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, nr. 190).
crown of a goddess from SW37, ND 13048 (Fig. 14)31. Hieroglyphs might also be worked in the more familiar method, with the hieroglyphs raised and the background inlaid, as in ND 13142 (Fig. 15)32. Among Ornate Group ivories there are two small sets, one worked with exceptionally fine inlays, the other with just blue. The actual surface of the Red Crown in the charming, kneeling pharaoh of ND 7589 is decorated with circular inlays of blue (Fig. 16)33. The remains of the collar, bracelets and belt are also exceptionally fine. It was found as part of a mixed collection of ivories in the rab ekalli’s suite. A group found on the floor of Room SW2 included a youth crowned with a sun disc, a superb example of a cow suckling her calf in a field of papyrus flowers and buds and two fragmentary stylized trees: traces 31 32 33
HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1036. HERRMANN 1986, nr. 979. HERRMANN 1992, nr. 224.
212
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 13: An Ornate Group champlevé version of the ‘George and Dragon’ motif, ND 10449, from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1176).
Fig. 14: An Ornate Group fragment from the top of a panel with a crowned goddess, ND 13048. The hieroglyphs are excised and the background left high. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1036).
Fig. 15: An Egyptianizing fragment, ND 13142. The hieroglyphs, with surviving traces of gold, are worked in relief, and the background inlaid. Some blue glass inlays survive. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 979).
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
213
Fig. 16: An Ornate Group kneeling pharaoh figure, ND 7589, with very fine inlays. Many traces of pale blue survive on the crown. From Room SE3, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1992, nr. 224).
of the gold overlays survive, as do some of the blue inlays and a little of the red34. A few more panels belonging to this group were found in the great storeroom, SW3735. The other set was inlaid with blue and was carved on thinner panels, often only 0.5 cm. thick. Some were openwork, like that of the deity of ND 13070 (Fig. 17)36: he is holding lily buds. The deity of ND 13524 (Fig. 18)37 is set in a dense floral background, has a winged uraeus balanced between his wings and is saluting a central cartouche on a stand38. While most inlaid ivories can be attributed to the Classic Phoenician tradition, there are a few non-Phoenician examples. There are some Crown and Scale 34
HERRMANN 1992, nrs. 479, ND 6310, 480, ND 6309, 481-482, ND 6452-6453. HERRMANN 1986, nrs. 1081-1084, ND 9541, 9513, 13278 and 13343. 36 HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1086. 37 HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1096. 38 Other examples include HERRMANN 1986, nrs. 1095-1100, 1101-1105, HERRMANN 1992, nrs. 90 from S16 and 484 from SW21, and HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2013, 139-140. 35
214
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
Fig. 17: An Ornate Group winged deity, ND 13070, crowned with the solar disc on a pegged wig; many traces of blue inlay. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1086).
Fig. 18: An Ornate Group deity, ND 13524, with a winged uraeus between his wings, set in a dense floral field; many traces of blue inlay. From Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser (HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1096).
panels of the Syro-Phoenician tradition, such as the forequarters of a sphinx, ND 10522, which was decorated with relatively coarse inlays39. And, as first noted by Barnett, some North Syrian ivories were inlaid40. These inlays were large and are said to be of burnt or coloured ivory, set on a bedding41. They were set in deep cloisons with one or two peg holes to hold the inlays. This technique is entirely different from Phoenician examples and came from a different world. Syro-Phoenician ivories, on the other hand, borrowed both designs and techniques from their technically more sophisticated neighbours. 39 40 41
HERRMANN 1986, nr. 1127. BARNETT 1975, 156-157. HERRMANN and LAIDLAW 2009, 92.
GLASS INLAYS IN PHOENICIAN IVORIES
215
Final remarks The Phoenicians were famous as merchant seamen and as craftsmen. Thanks to plentiful supplies of high quality woods, they had a long tradition of woodworking, which, of course, rarely survives. The preservation of the thousands of ivories at Nimrud at last gives an idea of their artistry and volume of production. In close contact with Egypt for centuries, the Phoenicians borrowed heavily, both designs, which they adapted to their own purposes, and the techniques of inlaying wood with gold, glass and paste, already common in 18th dynasty Egypt. It may have been a Phoenician innovation to extend this practice to ivory. There is an overall technical unity across Phoenician inlaid ivories42, and many inlaid ivories are similar to modelled versions. It is reasonable, therefore, to ignore Barag’s suggestion that modelled and inlaid ivories should be dated differently. It is probable that both inlaid and modelled Classic Phoenician ivories were contemporary and worked in a single centre, but not necessarily in a single workshop. There is little evidence to identify this centre’s location, although the principal Phoenician centre in the early first millennium was Tyre, which has to be a candidate. References BARAG, D. 1983, ‘Glass inlays and the classification and dating of ivories from the nintheighth centuries BC’, Anatolian Studies XXXIII, 163-167. BARNETT, R. D. 1975 (19571), Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum, London: The British Museum. GUBEL, E. 1987, Phoenician Furniture, a Typology based on Iron Age Representations with reference to the Iconographical Context (Studia Phoenicia VII), Leuven: Peeters Publishers. HERRMANN, G. 1986, Ivories from Nimrud IV. Ivories from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. HERRMANN, G. 1992, Ivories from Nimrud V. The Small Collections from Fort Shalmaneser, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. HERRMANN, G., LAIDLAW, S. 2009, Ivories from Nimrud VI. Ivories from the North West Palace (1845-1992), London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. HERRMANN, G., LAIDLAW, S. 2013, Ivories from Nimrud VII. Ivories from Rooms SW11/12 and T10, Fort Shalmaneser, London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq. LAYARD, A. H. 1849, Nineveh and its Remains II, London: Murray. MALLOWAN, M. E. L., DAVIES, L. G. 1970, Ivories from Nimrud II. Ivories in Assyrian Style, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. MALLOWAN, M. E. L., HERRMANN, G. 1974, Ivories from Nimrud III. Furniture from SW7, Fort Shalmaneser, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. ORCHARD, J. J. 1967, Ivories from Nimrud I. Equestrian Bridle Harness Ornaments, London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. POULSEN, F. 1968, Der Orient und die Frühgriechische Kunst, Leipzig: Teubner. 42
HERRMANN 1986, 59.
216
G. HERRMANN AND S. LAIDLAW
WINTER, I. J. 1973, North Syria in the early first millennium B.C. with special reference to ivory carving (PhD diss. Columbia University, New York; facsimile produced by University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1981), New York. WINTER, I. J. 2010, On Art in the Ancient Near East. Volume I: Of the First Millennium BCE (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 34/1), Leiden/Boston: Brill.
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN AU CABINET DES MÉDAILLES DE LA BIBLIOTHÈQUE ROYALE DE BELGIQUE Véronique VAN
DER
STEDE*
Le Cabinet des Médailles de la Bibliothèque Royale de Belgique abrite un artefact qui, bien que circulaire et brillant, se démarque en toutes choses des monnaies et autres médailles habituellement conservées en ces lieux1. Connu des spécialistes du Proche-Orient ancien sous l’appellation trompeuse « d’œil votif », cet objet, longtemps caché au regard du public, a été exposé aux Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire en 2007 à l’occasion de l’exposition « De Gilgamesh à Zénobie, arts anciens du Proche-Orient et de l’Iran »2 (fig. 1). Eric Gubel m’avait en ce temps confié la rédaction de sa notice de catalogue et je lui en avais promis une publication plus détaillée. C’est aujourd’hui chose faite avec toute mon amitié et ma gratitude pour le bout de chemin que nous avons pu parcourir ensemble dans le labyrinthe de l’orientalisme ! Comme la plupart d’entre eux, l’œil du Cabinet des Médailles a été taillé avec soin dans une variété d’agate autrefois dite « œillée » en raison des couches concentriques de couleur qui la compose en l’occurrence ici : une couche vitreuse dorée pour la base plane de l’objet, suivie d’une couche opaque nacrée délimitant le blanc de l’œil et enfin une couche translucide brun-roux à reflets plus foncés définissant l’iris3. L’inscription, rédigée en caractères archaïsant finement gravés, court sur le bord de l’iris : d
AG-NÍG.DU-ŠEŠ LUGAL TIN.TIR.KI DUMU dPA-A-ŠEŠ ana DIN-šú a-na AMAR.UTU U-šú BA
d
Nabû-kudurri-uṣur šar Bābili mār Nabû-aplu-uṣur ana balātišū ana Marduk bēlišu iqīš
« Nabuchodonosor, roi de Babylone, fils de Nabopolassar, a offert (ceci) pour sa vie à Marduk, son seigneur ».
Notons que le graveur n’a pas su évaluer convenablement la surface nécessaire à la mise en place de son texte et s’est vu obligé de créer une seconde ligne * Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique ; Université Libre de Bruxelles. 1 Je remercie le Pr. Johan Van Heesch, conservateur de la section « Monnaies et médailles, trouvailles monétaires » de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, de m’avoir reçu à deux reprises pour examiner et photographier l’œil votif. Je remercie également le Pr. Ph. Talon (ULB) d’avoir attiré mon attention sur cet objet. 2 VAN DER STEDE 2007, 32. 3 Cette agate circulaire présente un diamètre de 35 mm, une épaisseur de 17 mm et un poids de 29.951 gr.
218
V. VAN DER STEDE
Fig. 1: Œil votif du Cabinet des Médailles, Bruxelles.
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN
219
pour noter le signe BA. Dans la mesure où, à la relecture, il s’est rendu compte qu’il manquait également un signe – šú – après le signe DIN, il a choisi de commencer sa seconde ligne à cet endroit, quitte à ce que le BA final soit décalé. Bien que leur fonction demeure largement énigmatique, les objets de ce type ne sont pas rares et l’œil votif de la Bibliothèque royale de Belgique vient enrichir la liste quasi exhaustive de ces artefacts dressée en 2009 par T. Clayden4. Cet inventaire comprend six autres agates votives dédiées au dieu Marduk : la plus ancienne, remontant à l’époque kassite, lui a été offerte par Kurigalzu II (1332 - 1308 av. J.-C.), une autre l’a été par le souverain néo-assyrien Assarhaddon (680 - 669 av. J.-C.) et, sans surprise, c’est à Nabuchodonosor II de Babylone (605 - 562 av. J.-C.) que l’on doit le plus grand nombre d’exemplaires. D’autres agates votives peuvent encore être rajoutées à l’inventaire de Clayden. L’une d’elles, également dédiée à Marduk par Nabuchodonosor II, a été retrouvée par hasard en 1975 au cours de travaux d’aménagement urbain entrepris dans les environs de Jbeil (Byblos) au Liban. Cette agate, malheureusement trouvée hors contexte, était encore détenue par un collectionneur privé en 19875. Assez semblable à celle du Cabinet des Médailles, son inscription se déroule sur tout le pourtour de l’iris : Nabû-kudurri-uṣur šar Bābili apil Nabû-aplu-uṣur ana Marduk bēlišu iqêš, soit « Nabuchodonosor, roi de Babylone, fils de Nabopolassar, a offert (ceci) à Marduk, son seigneur ». Une autre agate polie, dédiée par Nabuchodonosor II au patron des scribes, le dieu Nabû, est décrite par le pasteur et orientaliste américain W. H. Ward comme étant « en sa possession » dans une notice publiée en 18876. Ce qu’il est advenu de cette pièce par la suite nous échappe complètement mais, compte-tenu du texte cunéiforme qui y figurait (ana Nabû bêlišu Nabû-kudurri-uṣur šar Bābili ana balāti iškun) et de ses dimensions (diam. : 23 mm), il ne s’agit d’aucune des trois agates dédiées à Nabû figurant dans le catalogue de Clayden. À la liste proposée par Clayden, il faut encore ajouter une agate inscrite découverte en 2013 sur le site de Daba Al-Bayah dans la péninsule du Musandam, petit bout du Sultanat d’Oman enclavé à la pointe NE des Émirats Arabes Unis7. Trouvée par tamisage parmi les ossements d’une tombe collective (LCG-1) remontant à une période comprise entre la fin de l’âge du Bronze et l’âge du Fer I (ca. 1500 - 700 av. J.-C.), cette agate percée est gravée de trois signes cunéiformes se répartissant sur le blanc de l’œil et l’iris en deux lignes séparées par un trait horizontal. On y reconnaît le nom de la déesse de la médecine dGu-la qui apparaît également sur une agate votive remontant au règne du roi kassite Šagarakti-šuriaš (ca. 1255 - 1242 av. J.-C.)8. 4 5 6 7 8
CLAYDEN 2009, 55-61. Voir aussi KNOTT 2019. GUBEL et TALON 1987. WARD 1887, 338-339. FRENEZ et al. 2017. CLAYDEN 2009, 58, no 34.
220
V. VAN DER STEDE
En 1994, le Metropolitan Museum of Art fait l’acquisition sur le marché de l’art d’une agate votive dédiée à la déesse Ninlil par le roi kassite Kurigalzu I/II9. Ce n’est pas le seul œil votif offert par ce roi à Ninlil puisque Clayden en mentionne un autre conservé au Louvre10. Ninlil s’est également vu attribuer un œil votif par le roi d’Isin, Lipit-Eštar, au début du second millénaire et son nom figure seul sur trois autres yeux difficilement datables11. Enfin, pour clore la liste des agates votives disponibles à ce jour, mentionnons encore un œil en calcédoine conservé à Jérusalem dans une collection privée12. Percé verticalement à hauteur de l’iris, il porte une inscription dédiée à la déesse Aya pour la sauvegarde du roi Hammurapi. Le British Museum possède un œil dont l’inscription poursuit un objectif semblable à ceci près que c’est à Šamaš, époux de la déesse Aya, que l’on demande de garantir la vie du roi de Babylone13. Malheureusement, malgré un nombre toujours plus important d’exemplaires disponibles, le mystère des « yeux » mésopotamiens reste entier. Nombreux sont ceux qui se sont interrogés sur la fonction de ces artefacts qui, par le passé, ont souvent été identifiés comme des éléments d’incrustation servant à matérialiser les yeux des statues divines ou des amulettes destinées à chasser le mauvais œil14. Les sources textuelles actuellement disponibles semblent montrer que ces pierres, considérées comme précieuses, étaient mises en œuvre dans la fabrication d’éléments de parures ou de mobiliers cultuels. Comme d’autres objets de valeur, elles auraient également été thésaurisées dans les temples. Notons enfin que l’usage de ces pierres ne se limite pas au domaine cultuel puisqu’elles apparaissent également comme composante de dotes, cadeaux ou encore tributs royaux. De Constantinople au Cabinet des Médailles Si le mystère de la fonction des yeux mésopotamiens est loin d’être résolu, l’histoire du chemin parcouru par notre exemplaire avant d’aboutir au Cabinet des Médailles de Bruxelles se précise davantage. En effet, bien qu’il ait été présenté comme tel, il ne s’agit pas d’un inédit mais bien d’un objet dont la publication est tombée dans l’oubli et pour cause. En avril 1887, le baron et la baronne de Hirsch perdent leur fils unique, Lucien de Hirsch de Gereuth, emporté en quelques jours par la fièvre typhoïde. La notice 9
1994.433 : https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1994.433/ au 29.03.2019. CLAYDEN 2009, 57, no 19. 11 CLAYDEN 2009, 55, no 3 et 59, nos 45 (?), 46, 47. 12 SIGRIST et al. 2017, 317 et figs. 8-9. 13 CLAYDEN 2009, 56, no 6. 14 Au sujet de la fonction des agates votives : voir CLAYDEN 2009, 52-55 ; MÜLLER-KLIESER 2016. Pour leur utilisation en tant qu’amulette contre le mauvais œil : voir MOUTON 2009, 435 et note 52. 10
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN
221
nécrologique publiée par l’archéologue W. Froehner témoigne de la passion de Lucien pour les monnaies et, plus particulièrement, pour les monnaies grecques dont il avait réuni dans son cabinet de travail l’une des plus belles collections particulières d’Europe15. Le jeune baron n’est pas seulement un riche amateur d’antiquités comme on en compte beaucoup, mais un numismate averti dont les publications sont reconnues par ses pairs. En 1889, la baronne de Hirsch lègue à l’État belge la formidable collection de son fils et le Cabinet des Médailles en devient le dépositaire16. En plus des monnaies, ce legs comprend des pièces archéologiques parmi lesquelles des vases grecs, des terres cuites, le fameux poignard du pharaon Kamose et l’œil votif de Nabuchodonosor II17. Ce dernier est repris dans l’inventaire manuscrit de Lucien de Hirsch sous l’appellation de « pierre avec inscription »18. D’aucuns peuvent s’étonner de la présence d’un œil votif dans la collection d’un numismate mais, en réalité, de par leur beauté et, peut-être, la valeur symbolique qu’on pensait pouvoir leur attribuer, ces pièces, voire leurs copies en pâte de verre, étaient fort courues des collectionneurs en tout genre. Mais revenons à l’histoire de l’œil votif. Par une courte phrase écrite en 1886 dans son ouvrage intitulé « Les pierres gravées de la Haute-Asie : recherches sur la glyptique orientale », J. Menant fait progresser notre compréhension de la « biographie » de l’œil en agate du Cabinet des Médailles19. En effet, dans un passage consacré à un camé en pâte de verre qui n’est, en réalité, rien d’autre que la copie d’une agate votive ayant appartenu au Cabinet du Grand-Duc de Toscane, il cite plusieurs parallèles à cette pièce en disant : « Nous pouvons en citer un autre avec une inscription identique, qui faisait partie de la Collection Gobineau, et qui doit se trouver aujourd’hui dans celle de M. Hirsch […] ». Avant d’appartenir à Lucien de Hirsch, l’agate votive du Cabinet des Médailles aurait donc été en possession du très controversé Joseph Arthur Gobineau (18161882) dit « comte de Gobineau » alors même qu’il ne possédait pas le moindre quartier de noblesse. De fait, le catalogue de la collection d’intailles asiatiques de ce personnage, publié en 1874, reprend au no 60 une onyx à deux couches décrite de la manière suivante : « Disque rond à base pierreuse. Légende cunéiforme courant autour de la ligne circulaire ; les lettres sont très finement 15 FROEHNER 1887, 225-227. Communication reprise par C. Gaspar (1901, 602-605) dans un article consacré au legs de la baronne de Hirsch à l’État Belge. Au sujet de Lucien de Hirsch de Gereuth : voir aussi REINACH 1887, 195-198 ; NASTER 1959, 7-10. 16 DE CALLATAŸ 2013. 17 Étrangement, l’œil votif ne figure pas dans l’inventaire du legs établi par Georges MontefioreLevi à l’attention du ministre de l’intérieur et de l’instruction publique Jules de Trooz. Cet inventaire fait partie du dossier 532 du Fonds Séquestre Édouard Balser conservé aux Archives Générales du Royaume. 18 Cabinet des Médailles, INV. 36, objet 93. 19 MENANT 1886, 147. Cette information est relayée par W. H. Ward (1887, 339) dans une note consacrée à un autre œil votif en agate.
222
V. VAN DER STEDE
tracées »20. Mieux encore, comme le montre le catalogue de la vente Gobineau, cette pièce, toujours reprise au no 60, est proposée à la vente le 7 juin 1882 à l’Hôtel des Commissaires-Priseurs, rue Drouot; vente aux enchères publiques placée sous la tutelle d’un certain H. Hoffmann, expert de son état21. Or, le dossier no 319 du Fonds Séquestre Edouard Balser conservé aux Archives Générales du Royaume comprend un « relevé du compte de M. le Baron Lucien de Hirsch chez M. Hoffmann » du 24 janvier au 15 septembre 1882 montrant que le baron a acquis deux pierres gravées au cours de cette vente pour la somme de 517.50 francs22. Compte-tenu du témoignage de J. Menant et parce que le catalogue de vente de la collection Gobineau ne comptait qu’un objet de ce type, tout porte à croire que l’œil votif du Cabinet des Médailles est l’une des deux pierres gravées acquises par H. Hoffmann pour le compte du baron de Hirsch. Ce qu’il advint de la seconde pierre demeure un mystère. Malheureusement, le baron de Gobineau est peu prolixe en ce qui concerne la provenance de son œil qui, d’après le catalogue de sa collection, aurait transité par Constantinople. Gobineau, l’orientaliste incompris Josèphe Arthur de Gobineau doit avant tout sa notoriété posthume à ses théories raciales principalement explicitées dans un ouvrage intitulé « Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines »23. Sans entrer dans les détails de la pensée gobinienne, il y développe une théorie selon laquelle toute civilisation est immanquablement vouée à la décadence et cela principalement en raison des effets négatifs du métissage. Écrivain, diplomate et homme politique, Gobineau se voulait également orientaliste et, à cet effet, suit de près les avancées en matière de déchiffrement des écritures cunéiformes24. Envoyé en Perse en 1855, où il occupe diverses fonctions diplomatiques, l’homme occupe son temps libre en étudiant les inscriptions cunéiformes. Ce qui aurait pu être un simple passe-temps devient rapidement une passion, voir comme le décrit J. Boissel « une véritable obsession »25. Ainsi, dans une lettre du 16 juillet 1857 adressée au baron autrichien Anton de Prokesch-Osten, Gobineau affirme qu’il a « trouvé le secret des inscriptions cunéiformes de la seconde espèce », soit celles rédigées en élamite26. Il ajoute sans modestie aucune : « Il y a dix ans et plus que Sir H. Rawlinson, Norris, DE GOBINEAU 1874, 36. Catalogue de la vente Gobineau, 8. 22 DE CALLATAŸ 2013, 25 et Tab. 4. 23 DE GOBINEAU 1853. 24 Au sujet de Gobineau orientaliste : voir GAULMIER 1964, 58-78 ; BOISSEL 1973, 355-381 ; GAULMIER 1983, XXXVIII-XLVII ; IRWIN 2016, 321-332. 25 BOISSEL 1973, 356. 26 BOISSEL 1973, 360 ; GAULMIER 1983, XXXIX. 20 21
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN
223
Holtzmann et tous les autres se cassent les dents sur cette noix. C’est moi qui l’ait ouverte ». Convaincu de l’exactitude de ses découvertes, Gobineau publie un premier essai sur le sujet en juin 1858. Dans cet ouvrage intitulé « Lectures des textes cunéiformes », il explique que « toute écriture cunéiforme, quelle qu’elle soit, est toujours phonétique et rien que phonétique. Les signes qu’elle emploie n’ont jamais ni la valeur syllabique, ni la valeur idéographique […] »27. Par ailleurs, contrairement à l’opinion des autres savants impliqués dans l’aventure du déchiffrement du cunéiforme, il affirme que les trois systèmes cunéiformes identifiées à Behistun ont servi à transcrire des langues encore connues et bien vivantes : soit de l’huzwaresch, né du mélange de l’arabe avec le persan, pour ce qui concerne les textes de la deuxième espèce et de l’arabe pour ce qui est des textes de la troisième espèce28. Enfin, il évoque une méthode de déchiffrement alternative qu’il s’empresse de mettre en application en proposant une nouvelle traduction des deuxième et troisième colonnes de l’inscription de Behistun. Il est peu de dire que Gobineau se heurte à une hostilité générale et cela d’autant plus, que quelques mois avant la parution de son ouvrage, en 1857, les savants qu’il critique âprement ont pu démontrer l’efficacité de leur méthode de lecture du cunéiforme. En effet, dès 1850, plusieurs érudits proclament qu’ils sont capables de déchiffrer les écritures cunéiformes mais la communauté scientifique n’y prête pas foi. Le système cunéiforme tel qu’il était interprété par ces spécialistes paraissait trop complexe et l’on ne pouvait imaginer qu’un même signe puisse avoir tant de valeurs différentes. À la demande de H. Fox Talbot, une sorte de concours est finalement organisé par la Royal Asiatic Society. J. Mohl en parle en ces termes29 : « La société asiatique de Londres avait proposé aux savants qui s’occupent de cette étude, de fournir des traductions, entièrement indépendantes l’une de l’autre, d’une même inscription assyrienne, pour obtenir ainsi une mesure commune des progrès faits et des différences qui pouvaient se trouver dans les méthodes et les résultats. On choisit une longue inscription de Tiglatpilesar, et MM. Fox Talbot, Rawlinson, Hinks et Oppert envoyèrent des traductions scellées, qui furent ouvertes le même jour par une commission et publiées par elle en colonnes parallèles pour faciliter la comparaison. Le résultat a été favorable ; la concordance entre les quatre traductions est suffisante pour justifier la méthode employée dans le déchiffrement et pour ne laisser guère de doute quant à la réalité de la base sur laquelle repose la lecture. » Nombreux sont donc ceux qui refusent de soutenir Gobineau ou qui se réfugient dans le silence, tandis que d’autres, comme J. Mohl, lui reprochent de ne pas expliquer la méthode par laquelle il arrive à une nouvelle lecture des inscriptions 27 28 29
DE GOBINEAU 1858, 37. DE GOBINEAU 1858, 37. MOHL 1880, 178. Voir aussi au sujet de ce concours : LION et MICHEL 2009, 89-91.
224
V. VAN DER STEDE
de Behistun : « personne ne prendra la peine d’examiner des résultats qui ont l’air d’être fondés sur une inspiration »30. D’autres encore, comme J. Oppert, quelque peu agacé par la vantardise de Gobineau, se moquent ouvertement de ses traductions31 : « S’ils (les rois de Ninive et de Babylone) avaient, au moins, attendu la révélation faite à M. de Gobineau, ils ne se seraient pas intitulés en tête de leurs monuments : ‘rois du sol sablonneux et des étendus’ ». Loin de s’avouer vaincu, Gobineau poursuit ses travaux qu’il synthétise dans son « Traité des écritures cunéiformes », rédigé en deux volumes et publié en 1864. Il y réaffirme que l’assyrien des textes de Khorsabad n’est rien d’autre que de l’arabe ; un dialecte arabe qu’il se propose d’appeler « arabe mésopotamien ancien »32. Après les avoir longuement examinées et traduites, il en arrive également à la conclusion que ces inscriptions « ne sont que des reproductions multiples d’un texte unique, tantôt donné in extenso, tantôt avec des coupures plus ou moins larges »33. Enfin, pour couronner le tout, il affirme que la vocation première des textes cunéiformes est d’offrir une protection sous forme de talismans34 : « Les écrits du genre de ceux qui nous occupent sont ce qu’on appelle les Talismans ». Personne « ne s’est jamais imaginé que les caractères creusés sur la pierre vive, par une main mystérieuse, pussent avoir servi à fixer le souvenir des événements historiques […]. On a cru plus naturel d’admettre que les usages qui s’observent actuellement trouvaient également crédit à ces époques; que dans les temples, dans les jardins et les palais des grands, sur les fondements des citadelles, on jugeait utile, même indispensable, de tracer, d’une manière à jamais durable, des formules talismaniques qui fussent des gages d’immuable solidité, de puissance et de bonheur. » C’est dans cet ouvrage que l’agate votive du « Cabinet des Médailles » est publié pour la première fois. Il en propose diverses traductions35 : 30 Cette remarque de J. Mohl est rapportée dans une lettre de Prosper Mérimée à Gobineau datée du 6 juillet 1859. Voir CORRESPONDANCE MÉRIMÉE, 739. Voir aussi MOHL 1880, 257 ; OPPERT 1859, 6. Au grand dam des autres érudits impliqués dans le déchiffrement du cunéiforme, Gobineau semble considérer que rédiger une synthèse analytique de sa méthode est tout à fait accessoire. Comme il l’explique dans une lettre à Ernest Renan datée du 1er avril 1859, pour lui, rien ne vaut la pratique (BÉZIAU 1988, 118) : « je vous avoue qu’en cette affaire, l’analyse me paraît d’un intérêt secondaire, […]. Lorsque j’aurai achevé et publié […] tout l’échafaudage analytique de ma méthode et qu’elle aura été appréciée par les gens qui s’intéressent à ces choses, il n’en résultera au mieux que ceci : une probabilité plus ou moins forte que j’aie raison et la nécessité de recourir à la pratique pour vérifier la théorie ; il faudra indispensablement se mettre à traduire des textes et c’est alors seulement que l’on pourra conclure. Pourquoi ne pas débuter par-là ? C’est épargner beaucoup de temps, beaucoup de peines, et beaucoup d’arguments pour et contre. » 31 Ce passage est extrait d’un conte-rendu du livre de Gobineau fait par J. Oppert (1859, 7) et intitulé avec sarcasme : « Nnnemmmresus roi de Babylone. Les inscriptions cunéiformes déchiffrées une seconde fois ». 32 DE GOBINEAU 1864/I, 8-18. 33 DE GOBINEAU 1864/I, 26 et 135. 34 DE GOBINEAU 1864/II, 32-33. 35 DE GOBINEAU 1864/I, 180-181 ; DE GOBINEAU 1864/II, 52-54.
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN
225
– « Le dirigeant, le pur, le bon (c’est) lui ! Salut à lui, lui, la Providence, l’heureux, le sage, le pur, le beau, le pur ! le rapide ! » – « Le déchu, le grossier, l’abondant (c’est) lui ! Ruine à lui, lui, le rapace, le terrifié, le vorace, le grossier, le vide, le grossier ! le lascif ! » – « À l’Être suprême, au bienfaiteur sublime, à Lui la Victoire ! » « Il est la voix, le cœur de tout ce qui existe ! C’est lui qui parle de toutes choses aux êtres existants ! » – « À celui qui emporte, qui ruine, qui fait oublier, qui est la plaie ! » « La ténuité qui appartient à ce ver le fait pulluler pour la destruction ! » Comment Gobineau en arrive-t-il à de telles traductions et pourquoi y en a-t-il plusieurs ? Sans entrer dans les détails de son mode de déchiffrement qui, il faut bien l’avouer, est particulièrement tiré par les cheveux, il faut savoir que d’après l’original baron chaque texte véhicule deux messages, l’un obtenu en le lisant de droite à gauche et, l’autre, en l’abordant de gauche à droite36. Plus encore, il affirme que, comme la plupart des mots sont pourvus de quatre significations différentes, deux positives et deux négatives, chaque texte peut véhiculer au moins deux messages favorables ou propitiatoires et deux messages néfastes ou imprécatoires. Rien ne l’arrête car, influencé par certains érudits orientaux, il considère également que chaque lettre possède une valeur numérique et que celle-ci permet de percevoir le sens mystique caché des textes qui lui aussi peut être favorable ou défavorable37. Il n’est presque pas besoin de préciser quel sort fut réservé à cet ouvrage ! E. Botta se refuse à commenter les arguments de Gobineau pour éviter dit-il « une discussion interminable » 38. Quant à J. Mohl, il sonne le glas des ambitions assyriologiques du comte en écrivant dans son rapport à la société asiatique39 : « Quant à moi, je ne crois pas que cette méthode soit démontrée avec rigueur nécessaire ; je doute que la supposition d’un alphabet qui offrirait jusqu’à cinquante forme pour la même lettre soit acceptable […], et je ne crois pas que la critique que M. de Gobineau fait de la lecture actuelle des cunéiformes perses ait réellement ébranlé cette lecture […]. » L’aventure assyriologique de Gobineau n’ira pas plus loin et seuls quelques gobinistes avertis gardent le souvenir de son travail que d’aucun qualifieront de « chimère »40. Ses ouvrages sur les « cunéiformes » sont rapidement tombés dans l’oubli et sa collection de pierres gravées, assemblée avec passion, fut dispersée peu avant son décès. Reste les archives de cet enthousiaste épistolaire qui permettront peut-être de mieux comprendre dans quelles circonstances le comte de Gobineau a fait l’acquisition de l’agate votive du Cabinet des Médailles. 36 37 38 39 40
DE GOBINEAU 1864/I, 119-123. DE GOBINEAU 1864/II, 2-40. À ce sujet, voir GAULMIER 1983, XLV. MOHL 1880, 567-568. GAULMIER 1983, XXXVIII, n. 3.
226
V. VAN DER STEDE
Bibliographie BEZIAU, R. 1988, ‘Lettres inédites de Gobineau à Renan’, Revue d’histoire littéraire de la France 88/1, 101-121. BOISSEL, J. 1973, Gobineau. L’Orient et l’Iran I. 1816 - 1860. Prolégomènes et essai d’analyse, Paris : Klincksiek. CATALOGUE DE LA VENTE GOBINEAU 1882, Intailles asiatiques : collection de M. le Comte de Gobineau : antiquités, poterie, bronzes, verres, argenterie, terres cuites, figurines de Tanagra, dont la vente aux enchères publiques aura lieu à l’Hôtel des Commissaires-Priseurs, rue Drouot, no 5, salle no 7, au premier étage, les mardi 6 et mercredi 7 juin 1882 à deux heures précises, Paris, 1882. CORRESPONDANCE MÉRIMÉE, ‘Une correspondance inédite de Prosper Mérimée’, Revue des Deux Mondes 11/5 (1902), 721-752. CLAYDEN, T. 2009, ‘Eye-stones’, Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 2, 36-86. DE CALLATAŸ, F. 2013, ‘Lucien de Hirsch numismate, et le fonds séquestre Edouard Balser (Archives Générales du Royaume)’, In Monte Artium 6, 7-40. DE GOBINEAU, A. 1853, Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines, Paris : Firmin-Didot. DE GOBINEAU, A. 1858, Lecture des textes cunéiformes, Paris : Firmin-Didot. DE GOBINEAU, A. 1864, Traité des écritures cunéiformes, 2 tomes, Paris : Firmin-Didot. DE GOBINEAU, A. 1874, Catalogue d’une collections d’intailles asiatiques, Paris : Didier et Ce. FRENEZ, D., GENCHI, F., AL-WARDI, M., AL-BAKRI, S. 2017, An inscribed Kassite eye-stone amulet bead from the Early Iron Age grave LCG-1 at Daba, Sultanate of Oman [poster 51st Seminar for Arabian Studies, The British Museum, London, August 4-6, 2017], DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11718.98885. FROEHNER, W. 1887, ‘Lucien de Hirsch’, Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’archéologie 11, 225-227. GASPAR, C. 1901, ‘Le legs de la Baronne de Hirsch à la Nation belge’, Durendal 8, 602605. GUBEL, E., TALON, PH. 1987, ‘Œil votif de Nabuchodonosor II’, Syria 64, 316-318. GAULMIER, J. 1964, ‘Un mythe : la science orientaliste de Gobineau’, Australian Journal of French Studies I/1, 58-78. GAULMIER, J. 1983, Arthur de Gobineau. Œuvres. Tome II, Paris : Gallimard. IRWIN, R. 2016, ‘Gobineau, the Would-be Orientalist’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26/1-2, 321-332. KNOTT, E. 2019, ‘Eye-Stone, Natural and Man-made’, in A. AMRHEIN, CL. FITZGERALD, E. KNOTT (éds.), A Wonder to behold. Craftsmanship and the Creation of Babylon’s Ishtar Gate, New York : Princeton University Press, 105-110. LION, B., MICHEL, C. 2009, ‘Jules Oppert et le syllabaire akkadien’, in B. LION, C. MICHEL (éds.), Histoires de déchiffrements. Les écritures du Proche-Orient à l’Égée, Paris : Errances-Actes Sud, 81-94. MENANT, J. 1886, Recherches sur la glyptique orientale 2. Cylindres de l’Assyrie, Médie, Asie-Mineure, Perse, Égypte et Phénicie, Paris : Maisonneuve. MOHL, J. 1880, Vingt-sept ans d’histoire des études orientales II. Rapports faits à la société asiatique de Paris de 1840 à 1867, Paris : C. Reinwald, Libraire-Éditeur. MOUTON, A. 2009, ‘Le « mauvais œil » d’après les textes cunéiformes hittites et mésopotamiens’, in M.A. AMIR-MOEZZI, J.-D. DUBOIS, C. JULLIEN, F. JULLIEN (éds.), Pensée grecque et sagesse d’Orient. Hommage à Michel Tardieu (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 142), Turnhout : Brepols, 425439.
UN « ŒIL VOTIF » MÉSOPOTAMIEN
227
MÜLLER-KLIESER, J. 2016, ‘Augensteine im 3. und frühen 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Eine Funktionsanalyse’, in T. A. BALKE, CHR. TSOUPAROPOULOU (éds.), Materiality of Writing in Early Mesopotamia (Materiale Textkulturen 13), Boston/Berlin : De Gruyter. NASTER, P. 1959, La collection Lucien de Hirsch. Catalogue des monnaies grecques, Bruxelles. OPPERT, J. 1859, ‘Nnnemmmresus roi de Babylone. Les inscriptions cunéiformes déchiffrées une seconde fois’, Revue orientale et américaine 4, 5-13. REINACH, TH. 1887, ‘Lucien de Hirsch’, Revue Numismatique 3/5, 195-198. SIGRIST, M., GABBAY, U., AVILA, M. 2017, ‘Cuneiform Tablets and Other Inscribed Objects from Collections in Jerusalem’, in L. FELIU, F. KARAHASHI, G. RUBIO (éds.), The First Ninety Years. A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil (Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 12), Boston/Berlin : De Gruyter, 311-336. VAN DER STEDE, V. 2007, ‘Œil’, in E. GUBEL, B. OVERLAET (éds), Trésors de l’antiquité: Proche-Orient et Iran. De Gilgamesh à Zénobie, Bruxelles : Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire/Fonds Mercator, 32. WARD, W. H. 1887, ‘Notes on Oriental Antiquities: IV. An Eye of Nabu; V. A Babylonian Pendant; VI. The Stone Tablet at Abu-Habba’, The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts 3, 338-343.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA Bruno OVERLAET*
Phoenician art runs like a red thread through Eric Gubel’s long career. He always had a strong interest in the highly decorated bronze drinking bowls that originated in the Levant and ended up all over the ancient Near East and the Mediterranean. It is a topic he corresponded on with colleagues and collectors and as a real life Hercule Poirot, the Belgian detective of one of his favourite writers Agatha Christie, he keeps track of any such bowls that are kept in public and private collections or surface on the antiquities markets, looking for their provenance, their history, and trying to decipher messages hidden in its iconography. When we excavated similar decorated bowls in a much later Arabian context, the Mleiha period or the so-called Late Pre-Islamic Period in the Oman Peninsula (3rd century BCE – 3rd century CE), a vivid exchange of ideas and references followed... This short paper discusses some of the bronze bowls found at Mleiha and ed-Dur (United Arab Emirates) that represent the final stage of a tradition that started in “Eric Gubel’s” Iron Age Phoenicia. This short paper is but a small token of my respect and gratitude for his long-time collaboration, support and friendship. The Mleiha period in the Oman Peninsula Whereas most of the Near East was divided up between the Seleucid rulers following the death of Alexander the Great, Arabia was largely left out of the equation. The Oman Peninsula remained an independent entity and Mleiha, an oasis located at its centre developed in the 3rd century BCE into a trading hub for caravans from North and South Arabia. A late 3rd century BCE inscription discovered at the site in 2015 confirmed the existence of a king of Oman1. Mleiha (Sharjah Emirate) was at the time the main and largest settlement in the region, it is considered to have been the kingdom’s capital, controlling an area covering the modern UAE and parts of the Sultanate of Oman2. Ed-Dur, on the coast of Umm al-Qawain became a site of importance about 200 years later, in the 1st century BCE, in the wake of the rise to power of the South Mesopotamian * Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels. 1 OVERLAET, MACDONALD and STEIN 2016; MULTHOFF and STEIN 2018. 2 OVERLAET 2018.
230
B. OVERLAET
trading kingdom of Characene. This Parthian client kingdom came to dominate the Gulf’s sea trade and it was along the sea routes that the bulk of trade goods then reached the Oman peninsula. Coastal sites such as ed-Dur on the West coast and Sohar and Dibba on the East coast were crucial stopovers in the international trade. Ed-Dur relied strongly on Characene’s success and lost its importance when the wars of the Roman emperor Trajan (116/117 CE) ended the dominant position of its Mesopotamian trade partner. Mleiha’s fame ended much later, in the 3rd century CE. The site seems to have been deserted on short notice, as evidenced by the unusually large proportion of luxurious and valuable goods left at the site. The so-called “palace”, a fortified manor at Mleiha, was besieged and burned down3. This event more or less coincides with the rise to power of the Sasanians in Iran, a dynasty that aspired to dominate the long-distance trade by controlling the main routes passing through the Gulf and the Red Sea and those passing through Central-Asia and the Caucasus. Table 1: Chronology of SE-Arabia. Period Mleiha period
Time-span
PIR (Pré-Islamique récent)
Early Mleiha phase
early 3rd – mid/late 1st c. BCE
A&B
Ed-Dur phase
mid/late 1st c. BCE – early 2nd c. CE
C
Late Mleiha phase
early 2nd – mid 3rd c. CE
D
Phase
Wine and wine sets as burial deposits in the Mleiha period The importance of wine – or more correctly of fermented drinks – in ancient Arabia is well documented. Grapes, dates or cereals were used to produce local wines, but wine was also imported from e.g. the Levant and from Rhodes4. It is thus not surprising to see that wine and associated items also played a significant role in burial traditions. Wine amphora and wine sets were deposited in tombs as burial gifts. Wine sets, usually consisting of a ladle, a sieve or strainer and drinking cups, have a long history in Near Eastern funerary contexts. Moorey was one of the first authors to draw attention to their widespread presence from the Iron Age onwards in various cultures around the Mediterranean, in Egypt, the Near East and Iran5. Strainers or sieves were a crucial part of these sets as impurities needed to be removed from the wine. This could be done by using drinking straws with strainers at their tip or by filtering the wine beforehand. Straws with strainers are well known from the Near East, the straws (made of actual reeds or metal) are shown on banqueting scenes since the 3rd millennium BCE 3 4 5
MOUTON et al. 2012, 205. CASSON 1989, 154, 270; MARAQTEN 1993, 95-96, 105; OVERLAET et al. 2019. MOOREY 1980.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
231
Fig. 1: Map of SE-Arabia with the main sites mentioned in the text.
and both straws and strainers are well documented in excavations6. Xenophon described their use: “…barley wine in large bowls. Floating on the top of this drink were the barley-grains and in it were straws, some larger and others smaller, without joints; and when one was thirsty, he had to take these straws into his mouth and suck. It was an extremely strong drink unless one diluted it with water, and extremely good when one was used to it”7. Straws are not documented during the Mleiha period in SE-Arabia but large sieves and pouring vessels with an integrated strainer are. The excavations at ed-Dur have resulted in the discovery of several wine sets with large two handled sieves familiar from the Mediterranean, Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia8 that could be placed on top of a vessel or a drinking bowl when pouring the wine, OVERLAET 2003, 193, fig. 160. Anabasis 4.5.26-28 (consulted 02.15.2019). 8 QUERTINMONT 2013-2015. 6 7
232
B. OVERLAET
Fig. 2: Bronze wine utensils from ed-Dur and Mleiha. Top: sieves, ladle and pouring bowl from ed-Dur (after HAERINCK 2001, pl. 93-95); Bottom: pouring bowl with bullhead spout and separate horse protome shaped spout from Mleiha (after OVERLAET 2018; photo K. Kamyab, Sharjah Archaeology Authority).
sometimes in combination with a bronze ladle (Fig. 2). Haerinck suggested the ed-Dur sets were Roman imports, an opinion supported by their metal analysis9. Characteristic for SE-Arabia are, however, a series of low bowls that have a small sieve for filtering the liquid behind a tubular conical spout in the shape of a bull’s head or a tube running between the legs of a horse protome or in one unique case at Salut, of a sphinx. Such spouted bowls have been found in tombs from the Early Mleiha and ed-Dur phases at Mleiha, ed-Dur and Dibba in the UAE10 and at al-Rustaq, Samad, Sama’il/al-Baruni, Salut and Sumhuram in Oman11. Their distribution and the discovery of a miscast horse spout at HAERINCK 1994; HAERINCK 2001, 41-47, see particularly pls. 89a, 93-95, 115-120; DELRUE 2008, 213-215, 246, fig. 43. 10 BENOIST, MOKADDEM and MOUTON 1994, fig. 11 nr. 6; MOUTON, MOKADDEM and GARCZYNSKI 1997, 47, fig. 25 nr. 4; JASIM 1999, 83, fig. 33 nr. 2-3; MOUTON 2008, fig. 88-90; JASIM 2006, fig. 55: 7-8; OVERLAET 2018, 22-26, fig. 17. 11 YULE 2001c, Taf. 240, 447, 533, 534; AVANZINI 2007, fig. 5. 9
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
233
Mleiha12 points to the local production of these strainer vessels in SE-Arabia. Associated with them are drinking bowls, ladles to scoop the wine and wine containers (Fig. 2). Of special interest among the wine containers are the Rhodian wine amphorae, commonly found in the larger of the early 3rd to mid-1st century BCE tombs at Mleiha13. Rhodian amphoras of this period are systematically stamped on both handles, one handle with the name of an annually elected official and the other with the name of the amphora manufacturer. This practice that lasted from about 304 BCE until Rhodes was sacked by Cassius in 43 BCE provides a reliable way to date the amphora’s production, providing thus a datum post quem for its deposition in the Mleiha tombs. Some of these Rhodian amphorae at Mleiha had additionally been glazed, presumedly in Mesopotamia14, and thus could not have contained their original Rhodian wine when they arrived at the site. In view of this and since some of the amphorae also show repairs and may have been kept as heirlooms or may have been reused over many years, the time between their production and deposition may be significant. Nevertheless, the stamps still provide valuable chronological indications for the dating of the Early Mleiha phase tombs. It is unfortunate that all the tombs discovered up to now at Mleiha had been plundered. Our information is thus fragmentary at best, but the association of the Rhodian amphorae with bronze vessels and strainers is well established. Many of the tombs have cut out cavities in their floor that were used to position these amphorae. At least in one case there was a bronze vessel placed (probably a drinking bowl) on the opening of the amphora. Fragments of it are still stuck on top of the rim of a mid-3rd century BCE amphora from one of the monumental tombs in area FA on display in the Sharjah Archaeological Museum. These drinking bowls are of special interest, as many of them are highly decorated and present unique information on the daily life, mythology and religion in this part of Arabia. The amount of decorated bowls and bowl fragments from the large monumental tombs at Mleiha, all dated from the 3rd to 1st century BCE, is remarkable. It shows that such bowls were a characteristic burial good. Given the occasional presence of names15, they can also be regarded to be personalised items, linked to the deceased. Whereas such bowls are strikingly present during the Early Mleiha phase at Mleiha, they are as good as absent at ed-Dur, the type site for the ed-Dur phase or PIR C. Apart from a small decorated fragment that may have been from a 12 Mleiha area CI, found in association with copper slag, see PLOQUIN and ORZECHOWSKI 1994, 27, 31, fig. 10 nr. 6. 13 MONSIEUR et al. 2013; OVERLAET, MONSIEUR, JASIM and YOUSIF 2019. 14 OVERLAET, MONSIEUR, JASIM and YOUSIF 2019, 244-245, Fig. 4. 15 STEIN 2019, Mleiha 3.
234
B. OVERLAET
bowl16, only one bowl was discovered by a metal detectorist at ed-Dur (Fig. 3 left). This contrasts with the large number of Mediterranean glass bowls and bowl fragments reported from ed-Dur. It seems that with the availability of Roman imports, glass had become the preferred material for drinking bowls, replacing the use of locally produced bronze bowls. In general, the layout of the decorations on the SE-Arabian bronze bowls is reminiscent of Iron Age Levantine (“Phoenician”) bowls: a central rosette surrounded by concentric bands. This is more than simply a coincidence or merely a stylistic parallel. The decorated bronze bowl from ed-Dur17 demonstrates that the decoration is closely linked to Levantine/Mesopotamian traditions. A close parallel for the ed-Dur bowl is present amongst the Nimrud bowl collection at the British Museum, a series of luxury metal bowls of Levantine origin discovered at the neo-Assyrian palace at Nimrud (Fig. 3 right). It represents a sphinx and a lion hunt and is almost a mirror image of the ed-Dur bowl. The only difference is that a hunter on horseback and an additional lion replace the second hunter on foot of the Nimrud bowl. The chariot/lion hunt scene has a long history in Mesopotamia and is e.g. also well known from Neo-Assyrian palace reliefs (Fig. 3 bottom). The focus of attention in the Nimrud hunting scene is obviously the chariot hunter who aims his arrow at the lion. It seems the ed-Dur artist was not familiar with chariots and may have been loosely copying the image from an heirloom or from another already inaccurately copied scene. The pole standing in the middle of the chariot house is reminiscent of a spear that stands in the chariot house in some of the Iron Age Mesopotamian scenes and the wheels of the chariot have lost their functionality. They are drawn as if they were decorations on the side of the chariot house. Several comparable “Arabian” bronze bowls are reported from the antiquities markets, usually labelled “South-Arabian” because of inscriptions or style characteristics. Everything points to local artists in Arabia producing such bowls between the 6th and 1st century BCE rather than to traveling craftsmen from Mesopotamia or the Levant. The artists’ inspiration derived from Levantine examples. These are known to have travelled well beyond the nearby Mediterranean basin or Mesopotamia. Such decorative luxury items travelled as trade goods, war booty, parts of dowries or as diplomatic gifts and reached Upper Egypt, Eastern Africa and South Arabia18. Some were preserved as heirlooms or temple treasures and may have been inspiring local artists for many centuries. A 9th-8th century Levantine “bull-bowl with rose-bud medallion” was e.g. found in a sixth-century BCE tomb in Sudan19. Another one was associated with a 5th century BCE South Arabian statue and Meroitic bronze bowls 16 17 18 19
HAERINCK et al. (forthcoming), pl. 20. OVERLAET and YULE 2018. MARKOE 1985. LOHWASSER 2002.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
235
Fig. 3: The ed-Dur bowl and its comparisons (after OVERLAET and YULE 2018). Top left: bronze bowl from ed-Dur (drawing P. Hudson); Top right: bronze Levantine bowl from Nimrud, British Museum inv. BM.118780 (after CURTIS and TALLIS 2012, 116) ; Bottom: wall relief from Nimrud, reign of king Ashurnasirpal II, 865-860 BCE, British Museum, inv. BM.124534 (photo © The Trustees of the British Museum).
Fig. 4: Rock engraving with North Arabian Safaitic inscription at al-Isawi (Syria) commemorating the successful raid of an Arab horseman (after MACDONALD et al. 1996, fig. 19).
236
B. OVERLAET
of 1st-2nd century CE date at Addi Gelamo, a site some 100 km to the east of Aksum in NE-Ethiopia20. Whereas the ed-Dur bowl and some of its Arabian comparisons closely imitate the Levantine themes, most of the SE-Arabian bowls have a more eclectic or local iconography21. Many display a mixture of the familiar “Levantine subjects” (sphinxes, gryphons, rows of bulls…), with the specific Hellenistic imagery of its own era (fighting centaurs or ichtyocentaurs…), local and (sometimes exotic) animals (camels, oryx, rhinoceros, African elephant, hyena, pelicans…) or scenes from Arabian daily life (warfare, lion hunt, people climbing palm trees to harvest dates…). Camelids and camel hybridisation Since the camel is an inseparable part of life in Arabia, camelids appear on a series of these Arabian bowls, several of which were discovered at Mleiha. Before discussing these representations, however, it is necessary to address the differences between the various camelids. The first and most straightforward distinction is obviously the difference between the local one-humped dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) and the “Bactrian camel” (Camelus bactrianus) or twohumped species that originated in China/Central Asia. The Bactrian camel was probably introduced in Persia and the Caucasus as early as the 3rd millennium BCE from where they arrived in Mesopotamia in Neo-Assyrian times. Dan Potts discussed in detail the iconographic and literary evidence for their arrival in Mesopotamia and Iran during the Iron Age22. Bactrian camels were particularly valued. The annals of Assur-bel-kala (1074-1057 BCE) mention that he send out envoys to acquire Bactrian camels. Furthermore, they appear twice as gifts on the Black Obelisk of Salmanasar III (825 BCE) and as war plunder on his Balawat gates. Salmanasar’s Khurkh stele reveals his troops brought back 7 Bactrian camels from Gilzanu. The Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727 BCE) demands them as yearly tribute and both his successors Sennacherib (705-681 BCE) and Esarhaddon (681-669 BCE) specifically mention them among their military booty. Their use in Mesopotamia remains a matter of debate, however. They were apparently not systematically used as beast of burden, which led Potts to suggest that they were specifically sought to crossbreed with dromedary camels23. The archaeozoological evidence for the widespread presence of crossbreeds in the Hellenistic Near East (cf. infra) supports his hypothesis. Planned hybridisation is meant to bring selected characteristics of specific breeds together to obtain animals with specific economic or aesthetic advantages. In this case, the primary goal would be to absorb the robustness and workload capacity of the Bactrian camel into the dromedary, an animal that is well adapted 20 21 22 23
LOHWASSER 2004; TÖRÖK 2011, 102. YULE 2001a; 2001b; OVERLAET, DEPREZ and PINCÉ 2018; OVERLAET and YULE 2018. POTTS 2004; 2005. POTTS 2004, 155; 2005, 54.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
237
to the hot climate of the Middle East and Arabia. The Bactrian’s capability to carry much heavier loads is a major economic advantage as beast of burden for the caravan trade. Crossbreeding the two species allowed overcoming the Bactrian’s main weakness, its inability to withstand high temperatures over a long period. Whereas a large sized and sturdy hybrid would be a valuable asset for use in caravans, selective crossbreeding could also have other goals. In the Caucasus and Turkey male hybrids are e.g. specifically bred for camel wrestling24. In modern Kazakhstan camels have no longer economic importance as riding or draught animals but they kept their importance as providers of milk, wool and meat. A detailed study of camel crossbreeds (and backbreeds) in Kazakhstan illustrates the specialisation and complexity of the local breeding programs that target specific yields (Table 2)25. Two hybridizing methods are attested, Bactrian male × dromedary female and Bactrian female × dromedary male. This is followed by back crossing of their offspring with either dromedary or Bactrian camels depending on whether increased meat, milk or wool production is the desired outcome26. Further back crossing is usually refrained from as second generation hybrids are often reported to be degenerated in physiology and behaviour27. Table 2: Hybridisation schemes and average economic yield of camelids in Kazakhstan (after FAYE and KONUSPAYEVA 2012, tables 3 and 4). ♂ name
♀ name
Weight
Milk Wool L/year - fat % (kg)
Bactrian
610
1750 - 5.8
6.0
Dromedary
557
4000 - 3.5
3.1
Type of hybrid ♀ Bactrian × ♂ dromedary
Nar
Nar-maya
670
2955 - 4.6
4.9
♂ Bactrian × ♀ dromedary
Iner
Iner-maya
605
3563 - 3.5
3.5
643
1925 - 4.6
5.2
535
2544 - 4.1
3.2
Nar × Nar-maya Nar / Nar-Maya × Bactrian Bal-Kospak × Bactrian Myrza-Kospak × Bactrian
Jarbaï
Jarbaï
Bal-Kospak
Bal-Kospak
Myrza-Kospak Myrza-Kospak Bactrian
Bactrian
Nar / Nar-Maya × Dromedary
Jun
Jun
Jun × dromedary
Kurt
Kurt
Iner-Maya ♂ Dromedary
Kurt
Kurt
Dromedary
Dromedary
Kurt × dromedary ♀Bal-Kospak × ♂ Dromedary
Kez-Nar
Kez-Nar
650
3875 - 4.6
5.0
♀ Kurt × ♂ Bactrian
Kurt-nar
Kurt-Nar
640
4565 - 4.5
3.7
ÇAKIRLAR and BERTHON 2014. For a survey of cross- and back-breeding schemes and their names see BULLIET 1975, 144145 and TAPPER s.d. 26 FAYE and KONUSPAYEVA 2012. 27 ÇAKIRLAR and BERTHON 2014, 240-241. 24 25
238
B. OVERLAET
Information on hybridization schemes in the Near East, Arabia and Africa was collected by Dan Potts. Bactrian camels were imported to breed with the local Arabian dromedary but small herds of Bactrians were sometimes kept to ensure the availability of studs for crossbreeding28. It explains the presence of a Bactrian camel on a Syrian rock engraving that depicts a raid by an Arab tribesman. It shows a man on horseback driving a Bactrian camel and a single-humped camelid with his long spear. This is a significant gesture, touching the animals with one’s spear meant claiming them as spoils of war29. The single humped crossbreeds between the Camelus bactrianus and the Camelus dromedarius are referred to in Arabia as bukht (plural bukhti). Their size and build make it possible to identify them in the archaeological record. Camelids and occasionally horses were sometimes slaughtered and buried next to the tombs of important persons. This practice known as baliya is well documented at ed-Dur and Mleiha30. Of the 12 camelids that were buried at the socalled “horse-cemetery” (now labelled Mleiha 2)31, 3 were identified by HansPeter Uerpmann as bukhti and the others as Arabian dromedaries. He suggested the area to the East of Mleiha may have been a potential breeding centre for camel hybrids given its access to cooler pastures up in the mountains and given the evidence indicates that the large hybrids were part of the local meat producing domestic stock32. Uerpmann identified the breeding scheme as male Bactrian camel × female Arabian dromedary. His analysis was based on osteological studies; additional DNA research may reveal to what extend more complex cross- and backbreeding practices reported on elsewhere may also have existed in this part of Arabia. Camel representations on drinking bowls Recognising crossbreeds in the pictorial evidence may not be evident, particularly on small-scale representations. Artists may not always have been interested in distinguishing between the various breeds or they may not have been able to accurately depict the sometimes minor anatomical differences. Sometimes it is possible, however. Bulliet recognised a small indentation in the hump on some Parthian camel figurines from Seleucia-on-the-Tigris as a mark of a hybrid and these figurines thus testify to the presence of crossbreeds in Mesopotamia33. POTTS 2004; 2005, 52-53. MACDONALD 1990; MACDONALD et al. 1996, 467-473, fig. 18-19; 2019, 150-151, fig. 3a. 30 MASHKOUR 1997; UERPMANN 1999; DAEMS and DE WAELE 2008; King 2009. 31 JASIM 1999. 32 UERPMANN 1999, 114. 33 Crossbreeds may have an elongated, somewhat flattened hump or can have an indentation of 4 to 12 cm deep at about 1/3rd from the front of the hump. See BULLIET 1975, fig. 80; POTTS 2004, 156; 2005, 53. 28 29
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
239
The pictorial evidence on camelids at Mleiha is limited but at least some of the depictions at hand seem to represent crossbreeds. The first depiction of a camelid is on a small bowl fragment (Fig. 6a) discovered by French archaeologists in graveyard C at Mleiha and dated to the Early Mleiha phase34. It depicts a war scene with a horseman and a camel rider attacking a foot soldier holding an oval shield. It is not possible to objectively recognise pure- or crossbreed characteristics given the unnatural proportions of riders and animals in the scene; note e.g. the exaggerated long leg of the horse rider and the massive neck and head of the horse compared to its hindquarters. The second depiction is present on a complete bowl (Diam. 18.3 cm, H. 5.1 cm) that was discovered on the floor of the burial chamber of the “Tomb of Amud” (Fig. 5)35. This large tomb is part of a cluster of 5 tombs in area FA and is named after the above-mentioned funerary inscription. Amud was an inspector of the King of Oman who died at the end of the 3rd century BCE. Although the tomb was plundered and reused, a 3rd century BCE date can be suggested for the bowl. The bowl is exceptional, it was reworked and the original decorations were significantly altered. Distinct styles and workmanship can be recognised. The decoration has its roots in the Iron Age Levantine tradition but centaurs and ichtyocentaurs reflect its Hellenistic date. Unusual is the interest in an exotic African fauna with the (added at a later stage) African elephant, mating rhinoceros and hyena. The pattern on the bowl follows the traditional layout of the Levantine bowls: a central rosette surrounded by concentric bands with rows of animals and fighting scenes. Of interest in the present discussion is the fighting scene of a man and his camel with a lion in the outer circular band (Fig. 5). The man stands next to his camel while he stabs a lion in the chest with his sword. Apparently, the animal had been shot already since an arrow is visible in his back (a traditional representation in lion hunts). Somewhat surprisingly, the man also holds a lasso in his left hand. A lasso is as a rule used to hunt animals with fleeing reflexes such as ostriches or onagers, but it was rarely used in warfare36 or hunts of lions and bears37. The size of the representations is simply adapted to the height of the available space in each register, the camel, the lion, the hunter, an elephant... all the figures in the outer register have more or less the same height (see Fig. 5). The camel’s size or proportions may therefore not be a reliable reference, but its elongated hump on the other hand is – although not decisive – a strong indication that this could be a bukht. MOUTON 2008, fig. 24-7; OVERLAET 2018, cat. 17, fig. 16. OVERLAET, DE PREZ and PINCÉ 2018, 39-46, fig. 16-24. 36 HERODOTUS 7.85; AYMARD 1951, 459-463. 37 Lion hunt on Gandharan stair-riser, see ZWALF 1996, 315; bear hunt on Sasanian bowl, see HARPER and MEYERS 1981, 50, pl. 9. 34 35
240
B. OVERLAET
Fig. 5: Bowl from the “Tomb of Amud” at Mleiha and detail of the lion hunter with lasso and camel. The vertical view is a screenshot of the 3D model with radiance scaling filter of Meshlab v2016.12.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
241
The situation is much more evident on another bowl from Mleiha, discovered by the Belgian team in 2017 (Fig. 6b and 7a)38. Here the camelids have proportions that set them well apart from the Arabian dromedary. The unusually short legs (for a dromedary), the low positioned shoulders and elongated hump are characteristics that can be associated with crossbreeds. Similar proportions can be seen on other bowls. The two camels in Fig. 6c are part of a series of 7 such animals on a bowl from al-Fuwaydah in Oman (Fig. 7b)39. Its general pattern with palm trees running across the concentric registers is very similar to the Mleiha bowl in Fig. 7a and another contemporary plate from Mleiha FA40. Fig. 6d is one of two camels on an unprovenanced Arabian bowl that is dated to the Hellenistic era by the presence of an ichtyocentaur41. Noteworthy is the marked preference to depict these camels with an upcurving tail. Although this “tail cocking” is known to occur in young females when alarmed by a male, it is first and foremost the diagnostic reaction of a pregnant she-camel when approached by a male. It appears when she is about 15 to 17 days pregnant42. Why the camels on the bowls are systematically shown in this way is not clear, possibly it was a sign of wealth, fertility or good fortune or simply an aesthetic preference. Final remarks The iconography on these drinking bowls is very diverse and most of its significance is hardly understood. Much of it may merely be decorative but some themes and symbols would have been references to generally understood myths, stories or practices, possibly of special significance to its owner. Camels were an important part of Arab life and it is not surprising to see them appear prominently on these prestigious drinking bowls. Details of the camel’s anatomy seem to indicate that most were crossbreeds or bukhti, the most valuable of the camelids. As a status symbol, they may be proportionally overrepresented in our pictorial evidence. It does support the idea, however, that OVERLAET 2018, cat. 16, fig. 3. YULE 2001a, 267, 280-281, fig. 6. 40 MOUTON, BOUCHARLAT and GARCZYNSKI 1989, figs. 24, 40; YULE 2001, fig. 14; OVERLAET et al. 2016, pl. 2. 41 OVERLAET and YULE 2018, 180-181, fig. 11. 42 Skidmore of The Camel Reproduction Centre in Dubai confirms this traditional knowledge: “Several Bedouin have asserted that it is possible to detect pregnancy in camels from as early as 15 days by observing an erect and coiled tail in the pregnant animal when approached by a male camel. This is true, however, this response has been noted in unmated animals treated with exogenous progesterone and also in younger animals that maybe alarmed by the male.” (SKIDMORE 2000). “A bull parade is being routinely used to detect pregnancy in camels by observing an erect and coiled tail (Tail Cocking) in the pregnant animal when approached by a male camel” (WANI, VETTICAL and HONG 2017). 38 39
242
B. OVERLAET
Fig. 6: Camel representations on bronze bowls. a. Rim fragment with war scene, Mleiha graveyard C (screenshot of the 3D model with radiance scaling filter of Meshlab v2016.12). b. Walking camels on a bowl from Mleiha, UAE, detail from fig. 7a. c. Walking camels on a bowl from al-Fuwaydah, Oman, detail from fig. 7b (after YULE 2001a, 267, fig. 6). d. Walking camel, detail from an unprovenanced “Arabian” bowl auctioned in 2011 (after OVERLAET and YULE 2018, fig. 11).
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
Fig. 7: a. Bronze bowl from Mleiha graveyard FK (after OVERLAET 2018, fig. 3; photo K. Kamyab, SAA); b. Bronze bowl from al-Fuwaydah, Oman (after YULE 2001a, 267, fig. 6).
243
244
B. OVERLAET
SE-Arabia and the Mleiha area in particular43 took actively part in the crossbreeding that seem to have been common practice in most parts of the Middle East by the Hellenistic era. References AVANZINI, A. 2007, ‘Sumharum: A Hadrami Port on the Indian Ocean’, in E. H. SELAND (ed.), The Indian Ocean in the Ancient Period. Definite Places, Translocal Exchange (BAR International Series 1593), Oxford: Archeopress, 23-31. AYMARD, J. 1951, Essai sur les chasses romaines, Paris: De Boccard. BENOIST, A., MOKADDEM, K., MOUTON, M. 1994, ‘Excavations at Mleiha Site – The 1993 and 1994 Seasons’, in M. MOUTON (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1993 and 1994, A Seventh Interim Report, Sharjah: Directorate of Antiquities and Heritage, Department of Culture, 11-19. BULLIET, R. W. 1975, The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University. CASSON, L. 1989, The Periplus Maris Erythraei. Text with introduction, translation, and commentary, Princeton: Princeton University Press. ÇAKIRLAR, C., BERTHON, R. 2014, ‘Caravans, camel wrestling and cowrie shells: towards a social zooarchaeology of camel hybridization in Anatolia and adjacent regions’, Anthropozoologica 49/2, 237-252. CURTIS, J., TALLIS, N. 2012, The horse from Arabia to Royal Ascot, London: The British Museum Press. DAEMS, A., DE WAELE, A. 2008, ‘Some Reflexions on human-animal burials from preIslamic south-east Arabia (poster)’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 38, 137-140. DELRUE, P. 2008, Archaeometallurgical Analyses of Pre-Islamic Artefacts from ed-Dur (Emirate of Umm al-Qaiwain, U.A.E.) (unpublished PhD diss., Ghent University), Gent. FAYE, B., KONUSPAYEVA, G. 2012, ‘The Encounter between Bactrian and Dromedary Camels in Central Asia’, in P. BURGER, E.-M. KNOLL (eds.), Camels in Asia and North Africa: interdisciplinary perspectives on their past and present significance (Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 451), Wien: ÖAW, 28-35. HAERINCK, E. 1994, ‘Un service à boire décoré. À propos d’iconographie arabique préislamique’, in H. GASCHE, M. TANRET, C. JANSSEN, A. DEGRAEVE (eds.), Cinquantedeux reflections sur le Proche-Orient Ancien offertes en hommage à Leon De Meyer (Mesopotamian History and Environment. Occasional Publications III), Leuven: Peeters, 401-426. HAERINCK, E. 2001, Excavations at ed-Dur, vol. II. The Tombs, Leuven: Peeters. HAERINCK, E., OVERLAET, B., DE WAELE, A., DELRUE, P. (forthcoming), Small Finds from ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, UAE. (Late 1st century BCE to Early 2nd century CE), (Excavations at ed-Dur, Umm al-Qaiwain, United Arab Emirates IV), Leuven: Peeters. HARPER, P., MEYERS, P. 1981, Silver Vessels of the Sasanian Period – Volume One: Royal Imagery, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. JASIM, S. A. 1999, ‘The excavation of a camel cemetery at Mleiha, Sharjah, U.A.E.’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10, 69-101. 43
UERPMANN 1999, 114.
WINE, DRINKING BOWLS AND CAMELS IN PRE-ISLAMIC SE-ARABIA
245
JASIM, S. A. 2006, ‘Trade centres and commercial routes in the Arabian Gulf: PostHellenistic discoveries at Dibba, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 17, 214-237. KING, G. 2009, Camels and Arabian balîya and other forms of sacrifice: a review of archaeological and literary evidence, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 20, 81-93. LOHWASSER, A. 2002, ‘Eine phönizische Bronzeschale aus dem Sudan’, Ägypten und Levante 12, 221-234. LOHWASSER, A. 2004, ‘Umlaufzeit und Deponierung. Eine phönizische Bronzeschale im Aksumitischen Reich’, Ägypten und Levante 14, 121-124. MACDONALD, M. C. A. 1990, ‘Camel hunting or camel raiding?’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 1, 24-28. MACDONALD, M. C. A., AL-MU᾿AZZIN, M., NEHMÉ, L. 1996, ‘Les inscriptions safaïtiques de Syrie, cent quarante ans après leur découverte’, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 140e année N.1, 435-492. MACDONALD, M. C. A. 2019, ‘Horses, Asses, Hybrids, and their Use as revealed in the Ancient Rock Art of the Syro-Arabian Desert’, in P. RAULWING, K. M. LINDUFF, J. H. CROUWEL (eds.), Equids and Wheeled Vehicles in the Ancient World (BAR International Series 2923), Oxford: Archeopress, 149-168. MARAQTEN, M. 1993, ‘Wine drinking and wine prohibition in Arabia before Islam’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 23, 95-116. MARKOE, G. 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean, Berkeley: University of California Press. MASHKOUR, M. 1997, ‘The Funeral Rites at Mleiha (Sharja-U.A.E.) – The Camelid Graves’, Anthropozoologica 25-26, 725-736. MONSIEUR, P., OVERLAET, B., JASIM, S. A., YOUSIF, E., HAERINCK, E. 2013, ‘Rhodian amphora stamps found in Mleiha (Sharjah, UAE): old and recent finds’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 24, 208-223. MOOREY, P. R. S. 1980, ‘Metal wine-sets in the Ancient Near East’, Iranica Antiqua XV, 181-197. MOUTON, M. 2008, La Péninsule d’Oman de la fin de l’Âge du Fer au début de la période sassanide (250 av.-350 ap. JC) (BAR International Series 1776 ; Society for Arabian Studies Monographs 6), Oxford: Archeopress. MOUTON, M., TENGBERG, M., BERNARD, V., LE MAGUER, S., REDDY, A., SOULIÉ, D., LE GRAND, M., GOY, J. 2012, ‘Building H at Mleiha: new evidence of the late preIslamic period D phase (PIR.D) in the Oman peninsula (second to mid-third century AD)’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 42, 205-222. MOUTON, M., BOUCHARLAT, R., GARCZYNSKI, P. 1989, ‘Excavations at Mleiha, The Third Season’, in Archaeological Surveys in Sharjah Emirate (U.A.E.). Fifth Report (1989), Sharjah Archaeology 5, 39-54. MOUTON, M., MOKADDEM, K., GARCZYNSKI, P. 1997, ‘Excavations at Mleiha 1990 and 1992 Campaigns’, in Archaeological Surveys in Sharjah Emirate (U.A.E.), Sixth Report (1990-1992), Sharjah, 24-48. MULTHOFF, A., STEIN, P. 2018, ‘The bilingual tomb inscription from Mleiha, Sharjah, UAE — palaeographical and philological remarks’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 29, 55-64. OVERLAET, B. 2003, The Early Iron Age in the Pusht-i Kuh, Luristan, Leuven: Peeters. OVERLAET, B. 2018, Mleiha, an Arab kingdom on the caravan trails, Sharjah: Sharjah Archaeology Authority. OVERLAET, B., DE PREZ, B., PINCÉ, P. 2018, ‘Report on the 2016 Belgian Excavations of Mleiha Area F and the “Tomb of Amud”’, Annual Sharjah Archaeology 16, 25-48.
246
B. OVERLAET
OVERLAET, B., HAERINCK, E., DE PREZ, B., PINCÉ, P., VAN GOETHEM, L., STEIN, P. 2016, ‘The Mleiha Area F Graveyard, Sharjah (U.A.E.), Preliminary Report on the 2015 Belgian Excavations’, Sharjah Antiquities 15, 89-107. OVERLAET, B., MACDONALD, M., STEIN, P. 2016, ‘An Aramaic – Hasaitic bilingual inscription from a monumental tomb at Mleiha, Sharjah, U.A.E.’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 27, 127-142. OVERLAET, B., MONSIEUR, P., JASIM, S., YOUSIF, E. 2019, ‘Rhodian amphora trade in Arabia’, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 49, 241-246. OVERLAET, B., YULE, P. 2018, ‘A Late Pre-Islamic bowl with Levantine-inspired decoration from ed-Dur (UAE)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 29, 172-184. PLOQUIN, A., ORZECHOWSKI, S. 1994, ‘Palaeo-metallurgy at Mleiha – Preliminary Notes’, in M. MOUTON (ed.), Archaeological Surveys and Excavations in the Sharjah Emirate, 1993 and 1994 – A Seventh Interim Report, Sharjah: s.ed., 25-32. POTTS, D. 2004, ‘Camel hybridization and the role of Camelus bactrianus in the Ancient Near East’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 47, 143-165. POTTS, D. 2005, ‘Bactrian Camels and Bactrian-Dromedary Hybrids’, The Silkroad Foundation Newsletter 3, 49-58 (accessed 11.09.2019) QUERTINMONT, A. 2013-2015, ‘La vaisselle métallique des tombes de Méroe, rite de la libation de vin à l’époque hellénistique’, in D. DEVAUCHELLE, G. WIDMER (eds.), De Méroé à Memphis (CRIPEL 30), Lille: Institut de Papyrologie et d’Égyptologie, 223-231. SKIDMORE, J.A. 2000, ‘Pregnancy Diagnosis in Camels’, in J. A. SKIDMORE, G. P. ADAMS (ed.), Recent Advances in Camelid Reproduction, International Veterinary Information Service (www.ivis.org) (accessed 11.09.2019). STEIN, P. 2019, ‘Languages and Scripts in the Arabian Gulf in the Hellenistic Period: The Epigraphic Evidence from Mleiha (Sharjah, U.A.E.)’, in G. HATKE, R. RUZICKA (eds.), Ancient South Arabia through History, Kingdoms, Tribes, and Traders, Newcastleupon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 118-142. TAPPER, R. s.d.. One hump or two? Hybrid camels and pastoral cultures: an update (accessed 11.09.2019). TÖRÖK, L. 2011. Hellenizing Art in Ancient Nubia 300 BC – AD 250 and its Egyptian Models, A Study in “Acculturation”, Leiden: Brill. UERPMANN, H.-P. 1999, ‘Camel and horse skeletons from protohistoric graves at Mleiha in the Emirate of Sharjah (U.A.E.)’, Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10, 102-118. WANI, N. A., VETTICAL, B. S., HONG, S. B. 2017, ‘First cloned Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus) calf produced by interspecies somatic cell nuclear transfer: A step towards preserving the critically endangered wild Bactrian camels’, PLoS One 12/5, e0177800 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177800). YULE, P. 2001a, ‘Recently discovered Bronze Bowls from ‘Amlah, al-Zahirah Province and the Late Pre-Islamic Assemblages of Oman’, Baghdader Mitteilungen 32, 255-287. YULE, P. 2001b, ‘A Bronze Bowl from the Back Country of the Sultanate of Oman’, in J.-W. MEYER, M. NOVÁK, A. PRUSS (eds.), Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, Frankfurt-am-Main: Johann Wolfgang GoetheUniversität, 494-509. YULE, P. 2001c, Die Gräberfelder in Samad al Shān (Sultanat Oman): Materialien zu einer Kulturgeschichte, Rahden/Westf.: Verlag Marie Leidorf. ZWALF, W. 1996, A Catalogue of the Gandhara Sculpture in the British Museum, London: British Museum Publications.
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD). OBSERVATIONS ON EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND DECOLONISATION THROUGH COMICS Vanessa BOSCHLOOS* Dedicated with great appreciation to Eric Gubel, my doctoral thesis supervisor, colleague, and mentor.
Introduction This is a contribution on the topic of the first conversation we ever had, 20 years ago in the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels, which was going to result in a three-volume Master thesis on the ancient Middle East in Belgo-French comics1 – and of which Eric always claimed that he read it entirely. It all began with a shared passion for Le Neuvième Art, long before our discussions would become dominated by scarabs and Phoenician art. Comics are part of Belgian culture. In comics historiography, Belgium is internationally recognised for its major impact on European comic strip culture. It takes pride in its long tradition of comics art, comic studies, and museums dedicated to the medium, such as the Comics Art Museum Brussels and the Hergé Museum2. Since the late 1990s, not only in Europe but globally, the medium gained cultural credibility and has increasingly and more widely been accepted as a subject of academic research, through the emergence of international comics studies journals3 and further stimulated by initiatives for the promotion of the academic study of this * Ghent University. 1 Submitted at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2002-2003 for the degree of Lic. in Archaeology and Art History. Eric Gubel and Denyse Homès, who introduced us, were among the few professors who immediately received it as a proper academic subject and accepted my ‘unconventional’ proposal. 2 Eric’s interest in comics is well known among his students and colleagues. I like to remind the reader that, during his tenure as head of the Department of Antiquity at the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels, the ancient Middle East in comics was featured in the exhibitions Persepolis: de réalité à reconstruction (2003) and De Gilgamesh à Zénobie (2007). 3 On an international scale, comics studies have come a long way since the early 20th century, compare for instance the ascertainments by: GROENSTEEN 2000; MASSART, NICKS, TILLEUIL 1984; and see HATFIELD 2017 on its academic institutionalisation. For overviews of academic journals, see: NYU Libraries – Graphic Novels and Comics Research Guide , and Comics Research – Academic Resources (both accessed 15 January 2020).
248
V. BOSCHLOOS
type of cultural heritage4. As will be illustrated by the examples given below, scholarly interest is expressed, among other aspects, in: the relationship between the artists’ inspiration (source) and its representation (interpretation); in the influence from and impact on contemporary society (reception); in their use in education and for public outreach; and in the potential and limitations of comics as a visual tool (medium) to combine images with more or less complex narratives. Presenting and representing the Middle East In the early 2000s, I scrutinised references to the ancient Middle East in Belgian and French comic albums for my thesis, and analysed the imag(in)ed architecture, landscapes and cityscapes, economy, military, means of transport, peoples, dress, objects (furniture, pottery, statues…), social and political aspects, historical events, religion, onomastica, languages and writing, science and technology. The research questions pertained to archaeology, history, and modern and contemporary art. In essence: what is shown, why, and how? This contribution revisits the topic: what is the status of comics studies on the ancient Middle East now, nearly two decades later? Which questions are being asked? What are the directions for future research? Education and public outreach Research questions no longer focus, at least not exclusively, on identifying the archaeological, literary and/or historical sources and the manner in which comic artists find, interpret, re-imagine, or represent them. Ever more since the end of the 20th century, comics are recognised for their versatility, as unique pedagogical tools5. We use comics in the classroom to introduce complex narratives and concepts, or to make a topic captivating or memorable. For example, the 4 The best critical studies of comics are awarded prizes. For example, in Germany the University of Hamburg awards the Roland Faelske-Preis since 2010 () and the Gesellschaft für Comicforschung and the Gesellschaft für Medienwissenschaft award the Martin Schüwer-Publikationspreis since 2019 (). Since 2015, the Mu’taz and Rada Sawwaf Arab Comics Initiative of the American University of Beirut aims “to elevate and facilitate the interdisciplinary research of Arab Comics, promote the production, scholarship, and teaching of Comics, as well as develop and maintain a repository of Arab Comics literature” and, among others, awards the Comics Guardian Award to comics publishers, scholars and promotors in the Arab world (). Well known in the United States are the Comics Studies Society Prizes, awarded since 2017 (/). In Belgium, Stripgids awards the Comics Thesis Prize to the best Belgian Master thesis on comics since 2019 (see , and a trilingual description at ) (all accessed 20 January 2020). 5 The literature on this topic is vast, but see assessments and examples in GROENINGER 2019; TILLEY and WEINER 2017; MARTEL and BOUTIN 2015; ROUVIÈRE (ed.) 2012.
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD)
249
heroic adventures of Gilgamesh (in homonymous comics6 and in the Marvel Universe7) or Inana’s descent into the Underworld (e.g. in Bruno Bellamy’s 2007 comic Showergate, Editions Delcourt8) can be used as an incentive to learn about Mesopotamian myths. A proliferation of public outreach projects in which comics are used to connect to a public that otherwise might not engage with the results of archaeological research, furthermore underscores the comics’ exceptional ability to raise awareness on contemporary issues related to excavations and heritage, and to dissimate information to a much wider and non-specialist audience. Admitedly, the target audience and the scope of outreach projects are defined (and limited), and their impact is therefore often only measurable on a local scale. Nevertheless, comics are useful to communicate about multifaceted subjects: they can graphically present research data – or even the summary of an academic paper9 –, can visualise the archaeological process and can draw attention to the preservation of heritage10. Thus far, this has been applied to a limited extent for the archaeology of the Middle East: comics have served as ‘points of entry’ for introducing archaeological fieldwork (e.g. John Swogger’s 2005 webcomic Çatalhöyük Nedir?11) or modern archives (e.g. the interactive Gertrude Bell Comics, 201512). Though reaching and engaging their target audience differently and with other objectives than museum objects and art, mediums such as movies, television, the internet, comics, and videogames play a significant role in shaping our view and our understanding of the past13. This is as pertinent as it was two decades ago, perhaps even more now, for underscoring the relevance of archaeological research of the Middle East while the region suffers from political instability, loss of lives and its heritage is under threat, and while European and American universities and institutions are re-evaluating the extent of their investments in the future of the discipline as it faces a dwindling interest among prospective students14. 6 For example: Jean-Yves Mitton & Franck Zimmermann’s Gilgamesh (1996, Soleil), Gwen de Bonneval & Frantz Duchazeau’s Gilgamesh (2004-2005, Poisson Pilote), Julien Blondel & Alain Brion’s L’Epopée de Gilgamesh (2010, Soleil), Andrew Winegarners’ Gilgamesh: A Graphic Novel (2011, Soft Skull Press), Kinko Evans’ The Epic of Gilgamesh (2014, eBook), Jens Harder’s Gilgamesh (2018, Actes Sud), Vivianne Koenig & Sarah Loulendo’s La mythologie en BD: Gilgamesh (2019, Casterman), Luc Ferry’s La Sagesse des Mythes: Gilgamesh (2019, Glénat). 7 PRYCKE 2019. 8 For the author’s sources, see the corresponding entry on his website: BELLAMY 2014. 9 SWOGGER 2014. Noteworthy, though not related to archaeology, is the French-Italian project ERCcOMICS launched in 2015 to present ERC-funded research as comics (, accessed 2 August 2020). 10 E.g. projects in BROPHY and SACKETT 2019, 238-246 and SWOGGER 2012. 11 SWOGGER 2018a. 12 WYSOCKI et al. 2019. 13 As a case in point, essays on diverse ‘modern media’ and the manner in which they communicate and imag(in)e the past – in this case Classical Antiquity – to the audiences of contemporary mass culture, are gathered in LOWE and SHAHABUDIN (eds.) 2009. 14 LIVERANI 2016, 351-359 and addressed in a workshop at the Bern-Geneva RAI 2015 (FRANKE 2016).
250
V. BOSCHLOOS
Decolonisation and comics This brings me to my second point, namely decolonisation in, through, and of comics. In recent years, the Eurocentric construction of the image of ‘the Near East’ has been discussed in the context of the decolonisation of museums and archaeology15, with the revision of terminology and narratives in exibitions and galleries. As visual art forms embedded in the cultures that produce them, comics in the Western world16 predominantly reflect Western worldviews and constructed cultural memory. Considering the influences on comics writers and illustrators17, we may posit that they are shaped by the culture and society (Zeitgeist) in which they grow up and work, and rely on the sources available to them, at that time. As J. Baudry noted in his essays Tendences de recherche [francophone sur la bande dessinée]18: “L’intérêt grandissant des historiens universitaires pour la bande dessinée a débouché moins sur le développement de recherches sur l’histoire du média que par une utilisation plus fréquente de la bande dessinée comme document historique, témoin d’un mode de pensée ou d’une époque, ou support de représentations historiques.” This tendency is found, for example, in the articles by J. Mynářová and P. Kořínek (2020) regarding the ancient Middle East in Czech comics, and by H. Verreth (2012) on ancient Troy in comics. Future study on comics on the Middle East will address more systematically and profoundly the evolution of Eurocentric and Americocentric narratives in comics art of the 20th and early 21st century for the impact political and societal changes leave on: 1) the representation of the ancient Middle East in comic books (at the level of artists and writers), 2) comics studies (the scholars) and 3) the comics industry (the editors and distributors). Since comics can in turn be influential, a fourth ‘group of interest’ can be added, namely the target audience or market (the readers as part of society). Politico-historical and anthropological approaches to the portrayal of cultures and peoples have brought the study of colonialism and decolonisation in comics to the fore19. For the region under consideration here, this is being discussed 15 For current points of view see especially: COLLINS 2020a; EMBERLING and PETIT (eds.) 2018; MARINO 2014. In archaeology, see PORTER 2010. 16 Here defined restrictively (and, admittedly, problematic in its biases), namely comics created by artists with a Western/Westernised cultural background, regardless of the publication format or drawing style (comic, comic album, comic strip, cartoon, gag, graphic novel, webcomic, international manga). Scholarship has distinguished three main cultural traditions in 20th century comics: (Anglo-)American, European and Japanese (for example LEFÈVRE 2000), but the boundaries are blurring (DOLLE-WEINKAUFF 2006). 17 On the complexity of comics authorship see, however, AHMED 2017. 18 The first essay of six in Le Carnet de Comicalité: BAUDRY 2018. 19 A selection of publications raising these issues: AMAN 2018; MEHTA and MUKHERJI (eds.) 2015; and for comics on and by Indigenous American and Canadian people see e.g. ATALAY et al. 2019 on the NAGPRA Comics (and , accessed 15 February 2020) and MORRIS 2019.
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD)
251
but with regards to depictions of the contemporary Middle East20. On the other 19th and (early) 20th century archaeologists: a larger number of comics show the ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, or Medieval world rather than the ancient Middle East – with the exception of Biblical subjects21. As for the ancient Middle East in comics, it is strongly influenced by the traditional Cradle-of-EuropeanCivilisation narrative and Biblical stories, i.e. fascination with the ‘great civilisations’, major cities and archaeological discoveries, and with a predilection for Mesopotamia and monumental architecture. It is not a coincidence that the Tower of Babel/Babylon (or ziggurats in general)22 and the site of Petra23 are among the most frequently represented subjects. The complex pre-Hellenistic history of the region was reduced to some ‘main’ civilisations that are, moreover, ‘ranked’: Phoenician and Hittite cities and objects24 are less commonly featured in comics than Mesopotamian, while Urartean and Sabaean culture are as good as absent. Whereas the creators’ interest in the Middle East may be rooted in books, ‘orientalistic’ art or literature they came into contact with during their youth25, On subverting stereotypes in the depiction of Arab people and culture, see DAVIES 2017; SHAHEEN 1994. On the potential and pitfalls in using comics on the contemporary Middle East as pedagogical tools to encourage discussions or to address complex topics, see GROENINGER 2019. 21 Contra PITCHER 2009, 29 who states that “The cultures of the Ancient Near East are thus well-represented in the background of comic-book magic” when he reflects on Mesopotamian and Cabbalistic inspiration in evoking the occult and ancient magic in North-American superhero comics. For a general introduction on the public reception of the ancient Middle East in the West, and how popular culture consumes and constructs these views, see COLLINS 2020b. 22 Often anecdotic, but most prominent in Jacques Martin’s Alix: La Tour de Babel (1981, Casterman) and François Schuiten & Benoît Peeters’s Les Cités Obscures: La Tour (1982, Casterman). The latter, together with comics in which it is part of alternative universes or futuristic scenery (e.g. the Tower of Babel storyline in Marc Waid & Howard Porter’s DC Comics’ Justice Leage of America nrs. 43-46, 2000, DC Comics; or the tower in Mitsuteru Yokoyama’s manga Babel Nisei, 1971-1973, Akita Shoten), illustrates how The Tower has been inspiring artists for centuries, during which it underwent transformations and lost its connection to Babylon (cf. SEYMOUR 2008). 23 For example in Hergé’s Tintin: Coke en Stock (1958, Casterman), Willy Vandersteen’s Suske & Wiske: Sjeik el-Rojebiet (1964, Standaard Uitgeverij), Jacques Martin & Vincent Hénin’s Les Voyages d’Alix: Pétra (2003, Casterman), Daphné Collignon & Isabelle Dethan’s Le rêve de pierres: Pétra (2004, Vents d’Ouest), Merho’s De Kiekeboes: De Potloodmummie (2004, Standaard Uitgeverij). 24 However, Phoenicia is the main theme in Jacques Debruyne’s Corian: Les fous de Baal (1989, Glénat), Lucien De Gieter’s Papyrus: De Purperen Hand (2001, Dupuis), and Sussi Bech’s Nofret: Slave i Levanten (2019, Eudor); Phoenicians appear in Albert Uderzo & René Goscinny’s Astérix Gladiateur (1964, Dargaud), L’Odyssée d’Astérix (1981, Albert René) and Astérix chez Rahàzade (1987, Albert René), Jacques Martin’s Alix: Les proies du volcan (1978, Casterman), Marina Albert & Leandro Oliveira & Allison Rodriguez’ digital comic Jezebel (2014-2020), and in Karl Sharro’s cartoon Abdeshmun and Hanno (, accessed 2 August 2020). Hittite sites are present, for example, in Jean-Luc Vernal & Franz’ Jugurtha: Les Loups de la Steppe (1980, Lombard) and Sussi Bech’s Nofret: Rejsen til Hattusas (1991, Carlsen). 25 Sussi Bech mentioned the 1001 Nights as influential for her interest in the Middle East (Sussi Bech – About, , accessed 25 March 2020). Jacques Martin 20
252
V. BOSCHLOOS
there is great variation throughout generations and among comics artists in the cultures, locations and objects they choose for their stories. As mentioned above, comics reveal the interests and prevailing attitudes of the socio-cultural context in which they come about, as a mirror to society. This holds true for comics studies, which reflect the interests of contemporary scholarship. Comics scholars, too, are grounded in cultural traditions that influence how they look at comics, and attention has been drawn to the decolonisation of comics studies26. More research has been conducted into the history and nature of comics from Europe, North America and Japan, where comics studies receive institutional support. The regrettable absence of chapters on comics from the MENA region in handbooks such as The Routledge Companion to Comics (2017, edited by F. Bramlett, R.T. Cook and A. Meskin) exemplifies this point, whereas The Cambridge History of the Graphic Novel (2018, edited by J. Baetens, H. Frey and S.E. Tabachnick) includes a contribution on graphic novels on and from the Middle East27; maybe they will be acknowledged in the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Comic Book Studies (in press, edited by F.L. Aldama). In this case, too, the modern-day Middle East has received most scholarly attention (mainly in the fields of cultural studies, literature and media), even more so since the Arab Spring of the early 2010s, and particularly with regards to gender relations, resistance to authoritarianism, religious tensions, war, and refugee stories in comics28. Can this be explained by the involved academic disciplines? The study of the ancient Middle East in comics is, likewise, at an intersection between disciplines. On the one hand, research into its depiction in popular media is primarily initiated by scholars who study the ancient Middle East, be it from the viewpoint of its archaeology, its art history or history29. On the other hand, scholars in sociology, media studies, linguistics or literature examine the representation of the past in popular fiction such as comics30, but few have looked at the ancient Middle East31. A final note pertains to developments in the comics industry. In his article on comics in Postcolonial countries and territories – even though focus is on African, Indian and Indigenous American comics –, Chr. Dony exposes “cultural pointed out that the realistic oriental paintings of Jean-Léon Gérôme and Gustave Flaubert’s novel Salammbô had a major impact on his interest in Antiquity (in an interview with the author in 2003 and in DE SWAEF 1998); several albums in his series Alix and Les Voyages d’Alix are situated in the ancient Middle East (Babylon, Assur, Petra, Jerusalem, Persepolis…). 26 See HOWES 2010 on decolonising comics historiography and visual traditions. 27 REYNS and BEN LAZREG 2018. 28 Studies on comics from and on the Middle East pertain to these subjects of topical interest or to local comic historiography, cf. MICKWITZ 2020; HØIGILT 2018; GHAIBEH 2015; and further references in footnotes 20 and 34. 29 VERDERAME and GARCIA-VENTURA (eds.) 2020; MYNÁŘOVÁ and KOŘÍNEK 2020; PRYCKE 2019; SWOGGER 2018a; VERRETH 2012. 30 E.g. CHUTE 2008; MCKINNEY (ed.) 2008. 31 REY MIMOSO-RUIZ 2015.
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD)
253
and media imperialism” in the continued European and North-American influence on artists, on the market, and on the industry32. The Westernisation of comics from and on the (contemporary) Middle East33, in graphic style as well as in language, cannot be ignored, but since the 2000s, local efforts and initiatives have considerably increased, especially in comics aimed at the adult audience. These changes are most noticeable in the growing number of (Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian…) comic artists collectives, comics awards and research grants, festivals, magazines, workshops, academic degrees in Comics and Illustration, conferences, exhibitions, and the publication of adult comics in colloquial Arabic34. Final remark Unravelling the motives behind the representation of the ancient Middle East in comics is beyond the scope of this short essay, and so is comprehensiveness or exhaustiveness in the cited comics and comic studies. This contribution aimed to highlight tendencies observed in recent academic work and in objectives for the future. These are related to education and public outreach, and to the decolonisation of narratives, of research and of the industry. As demonstrated by the examples given above, the medium is far from having reached its full potential for our discipline. Informational comics can be a powerful medium to share ideas and information on the archaeology of the ancient Middle East to a wide audience, surpassing ‘boundaries’ set by age, education, language or cultural background. Archaeological illustrator and comic artist John Swogger, following up on his 2018 article ‘Comics, Narrative and the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East’, concludes that comics offer a means to (re)present complex archaeological stories in a different way: “(…) in outreach about Near Eastern archaeology, it often boils down to trying to decide what you aren’t going to talk about, more than what you are. (…) Despite decades of new and interesting DONY 2014, 12: “Notwithstanding a few disparate projects and cartoonist cooperatives, many postcolonial spaces indeed lack schools, government funding, and/or publishing structures that gather and legitimize to a certain extent the works of indigenous comics artists and, by the same token, the development of various local comics fields that might challenge some of the structuring forces of leading comics industries worldwide. Because of this quasi non-existent institutional support, a poor publishing industry, and sometimes politically adverse environments, postcolonial artists wishing to finetune their craftsmanship and/or find more financially-viable projects have often turned to more established and generally Western environments, industries, markets, and influences.” 33 REYNS and BEN LAZREG 2018. 34 DI RICCO 2015; GHAIBEH 2015, 328; and resources gathered on the webpages of the American University of Beirut’s library (AUB University Libraries – Arabic Comic Books ) fostered by the Mu’taz and Rada Sawwaf Arabic Comics Initiative that was launched in 2014 (AUB – The Mu’taz and Rada Sawwaf Arabic Comics Initiative ) (both accessed 15 Feburary 2020). 32
254
V. BOSCHLOOS
research, most archaeological explanations of Near Eastern archaeology conform to recognisable patterns because it’s simply too difficult to tell such stories any other way within the narrative restrictions imposed by a museum interpretation panel or a site guide book (…)”35. Comics enable voices. Thus, to do justice to the bande dessinnée tradition, I conclude this paper with à suivre… References AHMED, M. 2017, ‘Comics and Authorship: An Introduction’, Authorship 6/2, s.p. (DOI: https://doi.org/10.21825/aj.v6i2.7702). AMAN, R., 2018, ‘When the Phantom Became an Anticolonialist: Socialist Ideology, Swedish Exceptionalism, and the Embodiment of Foreign Policy’, Journal of Graphic Novels and Comics 9/4, 391-408. ATALAY, S., BONANNO, L., CAMPBELL GALMAN, S., JACQZ, S., RYBKA, R., SHANNON, J., SPECK, C., SWOGGER, J., WOLENCHECK, E. 2019, ‘Ethno/Graphic Storytelling: Communicating Research and Exploring Pedagogical Approaches Through Graphic Narratives, Drawings, and Zines’, American Anthropologist 121/3 (September 2019), 769-772. BAUDRY, J. 2018, ‘Tendances de Recherche (1/6) : Quand les historiens lisent des bandes dessinnées’, Le Carnet de Comicalité, 14 Feburary 2018, (accessed 20 February 2020). BELLAMY, B. 2014, ‘Intertextualité : Sumer. Ou l’influence discrète du mythe d’Ishtar sur le « parcours initiatique » de Ludivine...’, Bellaminettes, 10 January 2014, (accessed 18 February 2020). BROPHY, K., SACKETT, H. 2019, Visualising Heritage Complexity: Comic Books, Prehistoric Rock-art and the Cochno Stone’, in H. WILLIAMS, C. PUDNEY, A. EZZELDIN (eds.), Public Archaeology: Arts of Engagement, Oxford: Archaeopress, 228-252. CHUTE, H. 2008, ‘Comics as Literature? Reading Graphic Narrative’, Proceedings of the Modern Language Association of America 123/2 (March 2008), 452-465. COLLINS, P. 2020a, ‘Museums as Vehicles for Defining Artistic Canons’, in A.R. GANSELL, A. SHAFER (eds.), Testing the Canon of Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232-252. COLLINS, P. 2020b, ‘Foreword. Receptions of the Ancient Near East in Popular Culture and Beyond’, in L. VERDERAME, A. GARCIA-VENTURA (eds.), Reflections of the Ancient Near East in Popular Culture and Beyond, Atlanta (GA): Lockwood Press, vii-xii. DAVIES, D. 2017, ‘Postcolonial Comics: Representing the Subaltern’, in J. J. GARSHA (ed.), Critical Insights: Postcolonial Literature, Ipswich (Mass.): Salem Press, 3-22. DE SWAEF, N. 1998, ‘Alex: 50 jaar een klassieke thriller’, Dossiers van het BCB 11, 3-16. DI RICCO, M. 2015, ‘Drawing for a New Public. Middle Eastern 9th Art and the Emergence of a Transnational Graphic Movement’, in B. MEHTA, P. MUKHERJI (eds.), Postcolonial Comics. Texts, Events, Identities, New York/London: Routledge, 187203.
35
In a blog post: SWOGGER 2018b.
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD)
255
DOLLE-WEINKAUFF, B. 2006, ‘Comics und kulturelle Globalisierung. Historische und aktuelle Tendenzen’, in GESELLSCHAFT FÜR COMICFORSCHUNG (COMFOR) (ed.), 1. Jahrestagung, ‚Forschungsberichte zu Struktur und Geschichte der Comics in Deutschland‘, Universität Koblenz-Landau, 17. und 18. November 2006, s.p., (accessed 10 January 2020). DONY, Chr. 2014, ‘What is a Postcolonial Comic?’, Mixed Zone: Chronique de littérature internationale 7 (Hors-série), 12-13. EMBERLING, G., PETIT L. P. (eds.) 2018, Museums and the Ancient Middle East. Curatorial Practices and Audiences, London/New York: Routledge. FRANKE, S. 2016, ‘Die Zukunft der Alterorientalistik. Editorial’, Altorientalische Forschungen 43/1-2, 159-160 (DOI: 10.1515/aofo-2016-0008). GHAIBEH, L. 2015, ‘Telling Graphic Stories of the Region: Arab Comics After the Revolution’, European Institute of the Mediterranean Yearbook 2015, 324-329. GROENINGER, F. 2019, La question sensible des conflits du Moyen-Orient confrontée à l’humour de la BD autobiographique, Tréma 51, s.p. (DOI : 10.4000/trema.5093). GROENSTEEN, T. 2000, ‘Why are Comics Still in Search of Cultural Legitimization?’, in A. MAGNUSSEN, H.-C. CHRISTIANSEN (eds.), Comics & Culture. Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2942. HATFIELD, J. 2017, ‘Foreword: Comics Studies, the Anti-Discipline’, in M. J. SMITH, R. DUNCAN (eds.), The Secret Origins of Comics Studies, New York: Routledge, ix-xx. HØIGILT, J. 2018, Comics in Contemporary Arab Culture. Politics, Language and Resistance, London: I.B. Tauris. HOWES F. A. 2010, ‘Imagining a Multiplicity of Visual Rhetorical Traditions: Comics Lessons from Rhetoric Histories’, ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies 5/3, s.p., (accessed 15 February 2020). LEFÈVRE, P. 2000, ‘The Importance of Being ‘Published’. A Comparative Study of Different Comics Formats’, in A. MAGNUSSEN, H.-C. CHRISTIANSEN (eds.), Comics & Culture. Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 91-106. LIVERANI, M. 2016, Imagining Babylon. The Modern Story of an Ancient City, Berlin: De Gruyter. LOWE, D., SHAHABUDIN, K. (eds.) 2009, Classics For All: Reworking Antiquity in Mass Culture, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. MARINO, A. 2014, ‘Orientalism and the Politics of Contemporary Art Exhibitions’, in I. CHAMBERS, A. DE ANGELIS, C. IANNICIELLO, M. ORABONA, M. QUADRARO (eds.), The Postcolonial Museum. The Arts of Memory and the Pressures of Histories, Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 185-194. MARTEL, V., BOUTIN, J.-F. 2015, ‘La classe d’histoire de l’Antiquité : réflexion didactique préliminaire sur les apports et limites du recours à la bande dessinée’, in J. GALLEGO (ed.), La bande dessinée historique. Premier cycle : l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international 23 au 26 novembre 2011, Pau: Presses de l’Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, 115-116. MASSART, P., NICKS, J.-L., TILLEUIL, J.-L. 1984, La bande dessinée à l’Université… et ailleurs : Études sémiotiques et bibliographiques, Louvain-la-Neuve : Presses Universitaires.
256
V. BOSCHLOOS
MCKINNEY, M. (ed.) 2008, History and Politics in French-Language Comics and Graphic Novels, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi. MEHTA, B., MUKHERJI, P. (eds.) 2015, Postcolonial Comics. Texts, Events, Identities, New York/London: Routledge. MICKWITZ, N. 2020, ‘Comics Telling Refugee Stories’, in D. DAVIES, C. RIFKIND (eds), Documenting Trauma in Comics, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 277-296 (DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-37998-8_16). MORRIS, A. 2019, ‘Decolonizing the Medium: How Indigenous Creators are Defying “Sidekickery” and Centering Indigenous Stories and Characters in the Comics Landscape’, The Journal of American Culture 42/4, 326-334. MYNÁŘOVÁ, J., KOŘÍNEK, P. 2020, ‘The Ancient Near East in Czech Comics and Popular Culture. The Case of Jáchym and the Printer’s Devil’, in L. VERDERAME, A. GARCIAVENTURA (eds.), Reflections of the Ancient Near East in Popular Culture and Beyond, Atlanta (GA): Lockwood Press, 181-195. PITCHER, L. V. 2009, ‘Saying ‘Shazam’: The Magic of Antiquity in Superhero Comics’, New Voices in Classical Reception Studies 4, 27-43. PORTER, B. W. 2010, ‘Near Eastern Archaeology: Imperial Pasts, Postcolonial Presents, and the Possibilities of a Decolonized Future’, in J. LYDON, U. Z. RIZVI (eds.), Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology, Abingdon: Routledge, 51-60. PRYCKE, L. M. 2019, ‘Marvel Meets Mesopotamia: How Modern Comics Preserve Ancient Myths’, The Ancient Near East Today VII/1 (January 2019), s.p., (accessed 20 December 2019). REY MIMOSO-RUIZ, B. 2015, ‘Des tablettes de l’épopée aux planches de la bande dessinée : Gilgamesh’, in J. GALLEGO (ed.), La bande dessinée historique. Premier cycle : l’Antiquité. Actes du colloque international 23 au 26 novembre 2011, Pau: Presses de l’Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, 51-64. REYNS, C., BEN LAZREG, H. 2018, ‘The Discovery of Marjane Satrapi and the Translation of Works From and About the Middle East’, in J. BAETENS, H. FREY, S. E. TABACHNICK (eds.), The Cambridge History of the Graphic Novel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 405-425. ROUVIÈRE, N. (ed.) 2012, Bande dessinée et enseignement des humanités, Grenoble: UGA Éditions. SEYMOUR, M. 2008, ‘Babylon in Contemporary Art and Culture’, in I. L. FINKEL, M. SEYMOUR (eds.), Babylon: Myth and Reality, London: British Museum Press, 203-212. SHAHEEN, J. G. 1994, ‘Arab Images in American Comic Books’, Journal of Popular Culture 28/1, 123-133 (DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-3840.1994.2801_123.x). SWOGGER, J. G 2012, ‘The Sequential Art of the Past: Archaeology, Comics and the Dynamics of an Emerging Genre’, Comics Forum, 29 June 2012, (accessed 20 January 2020). SWOGGER, J. G. 2014, ‘Ceramics, Polity, and Comics: Visually Re-Presenting Formal Archaeological Publication’, Advances in Archaeological Practice 3/1, 16-28 (DOI: 10.7183/2326-3768.3.1.16). SWOGGER, J. G. 2018a, ‘Comics, Narrative and the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East’, The Ancient Near East Today VI/10 (October 2018), s.p., (accessed 17 December 2019). SWOGGER, J. G 2018b, ‘Old Archaeology – New Tricks?’, John G. Swogger Archaeological Illustration and Comics, 5 October 2018, (accessed 17 December 2019).
THE ‘ANCIENT NEAR EAST’ IN THE EARLY 21ST CENTURY (AD)
257
TILLEY, C. L., WEINER, R. G. 2017, ‘Teaching and Learning with Comics’, in F. BRAMLETT, R. T. COOK, A. MESKIN (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Comics, New York/ London: Routledge, 358-366. VERDERAME, L., GARCIA-VENTURA, A. (eds.) 2020, Reflections of the Ancient Near East in Popular Culture and Beyond, Atlanta (GA): Lockwood Press. VERRETH, H. 2012, ‘Stripverhalen over Troje’, in P. RETÈL (ed.), Troje : stad, Homerus en Turkije, Zwolle: W Books, 174-175. WYSOCKI, L., JACKSON, M., MIERS, J., WEBSTER, J., COXON, B. 2019, ‘Making the Invisible Visible: Hyperlinked Webcomics as Alternative Points of Entry to the Digitised Gertrude Bell Archive’, International Journal of Heritage Studies 26/5, 480-497.
REISE IN DIE LEVANTE
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BELGIAN EXCAVATIONS AT AL-LAHUN IN CENTRAL JORDAN Denyse HOMÈS-FREDERICQ*
Introduction It is a great pleasure to write an article in the Festschrift for Eric Gubel, one of my first students at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. He was an excellent student and very interested in the history of the Near East. I was also very happy that he could succeed me in both the Section of the Near East and as Head of the Department of Antiquities in the Royal Museums of Art and History Brussels, as well as professor for the Ancient Near East at the university. I also appreciated that we both liked to excavate, he in Lebanon and myself in Jordan. It is the reason why I chose to write about the excavations of al-Lahun (Lehun) in central Jordan, the ancient Moab region, 7 km from Dhiban and some 30 km south of Madaba1. Jordan is a beautiful country, full of contrasts, including the fertile valley of the Jordan (in the north), the high plateaus and mountains (in the center and the south) and finally the desert with its oases (2/3 of the surface of the territory). This configuration, with different climates, had repercussions on the history of Jordan: the Bedouin nomads moved since antiquity from the desert to summer pastures. Sometimes there was a temporary settling process, as in al-Lahun. The site is located on the Moabite plateau, in an extraordinary landscape, well protected by the steep cliffs towards the Wadi Mujib (Arnon river in the Bible)2. Prospection Before the prospection (1977), Profs. P. Naster, H. De Meulenaere and myself have studied many documents on Jordan available in Belgium. We wanted to examine the region east of the Dead Sea, the antique Moab. Thanks to the generous collaboration of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan and their inspectors, we were able to study very carefully about thirty sites spread over an area of about hundred square km3. * Director of the Belgian Excavations at al-Lahun (Jordan) – Prof. Dr. Em. Vrije Universiteit Brussel. 1 The site is sometimes also called Khirbet al-Lahun. 2 The altitude ranges from 740 to 719 m above sea level. The site is divided N-S by the Wadi Lahun, E-W by various small seasonal wadis, delimitating natural areas (Sectors A-D) which influenced the ancient settlements (Fig. 1). 3 The exhaustive list of the visited sites is enumerated in the exhibition catalogue at the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels (HOMES-FREDERICQ 1997, 24).
262
D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ
After three weeks of prospection, two sites seemed to us particularly interesting: al-Lahun4 and Mezna. We finally chose al-Lahun because of its geographical position, not far from the antique ‘King’s Highway’ as well as for its diversity and rich pottery from various periods5 and multiple historical remains. The prospection revealed that two kinds of population settled at al-Lahun: during periods of peace, an agricultural and commercial minded population preferred the northern part of al-Lahun, near the trade roads6, while the others choose the southern part, from where they could dominate the whole environment in periods of trouble and war7. Excavations A topographical mission has been accomplished by Prof. F. Depuydt et Ph. Roselle to map the site at a scale of 1/10008. This was of course essential to exactly locate the finds on the map. The global work plan of the site, with sectors and historical periods was then established (Fig. 1). The first proofs of settling have been observed in the geomorphological study from Prof. M. De Dapper9. The site has been inhabited since the Paleolithic period (ca. 17000-8500 BCE). The hunters were attracted by the shelters in the cliffs of the Wadi Mujib or by the flint layers to produce their tools. Nearly one thousands of those implements have been collected10 over an area of 225,000 m2 in Sector C1. The Chalcolithic period (ca. 4500-3200 BCE) is only represented at al-Lahun by some lithic tools and some surface sherds. Our investigations proved that the site was inhabited during several periods. In the Early Bronze I Age (ca. 3200-3000 BCE)11, a family tomb was discovered in Sector B3, which was separated from Sector C1 by the Wadi al-Lahun, a seasonal river. The tomb contained about 130 homogeneous handmade ceramics (Fig. 2) similar to those found at Bab edh-Dhra’. Once more, the site was abandoned for a long period of time. 4 The site is also mentioned in GLUECK 1970, 147; GLUECK 1965, 62, 574, nr. 72; SAVIGNAC 1936, 241; GLUECK 1933, 48-49 (nr. 99), pl.10; BRÜNNOW and VON DOMASEWSKI 1904, 32. 5 The region has always been temporarily inhabited in the Early Bronze, Late Bronze, Iron Age, Nabataean period, Muslim and modern times. In between these periods, we have no proof of permanent settlement. 6 HOMES-FREDERICQ 1997, 16-17. 7 Bronze and Iron Ages. 8 F. Depuydt (University of Leuven), in 1978-1980, 1982, 1986; Ph. Roselle in 1986, 1988-1989. For more details on the other topographical maps see HOMES-FREDERICQ 1997, 33-39. 9 DE DAPPER and DE VLIEGER 1997, 57-65, 20 figs. 10 The range of tools is impressive, including scrapers and chisels. 11 HOMES-FREDERICQ 1997, 46.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BELGIAN EXCAVATIONS AT AL-LAHUN
263
Fig. 1: Topographical map with all sectors and periods represented in the site.
264
D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ
Fig. 2: Early Bronze pottery found in a family tomb in Sector B3.
In the Early Bronze II and III (ca. 3000-2250 BCE) the first permanent inhabitants came to live in Sector C1. They built a large settlement, well-protected by a high wall, with two impressive water reservoirs. In the Iron Age I (ca. 1200-1000 BCE) a fortified village was built in Sector D. By choosing this location, the settlers took advantage of the southern part of the plateau, which was well protected by the steep cliffs of the Wadi Mujib (Fig. 3). During this period, the Moabite kings were developing and defending their kingdom. The inhabitants seem to have been farmers, as their wheel-made pottery and the artifacts (storage jars, a pilgrim flask, grinding stones and pestles) indicate an agricultural environment. Once more abandoned, the southern part of the plateau was leveled and the ancient walls were used as foundations for a later Iron Age Fortress (Fig. 3). This stronghold, which could be dated to the Iron Age II, was probably part of the belt of military installations along the northern Moabite plateau. It controlled all the traffic on the King’s Highway, but also the neighboring roads and the southern part of the plateau. Evidence of destroyed parts of the fortress wall attest that the site had been attacked. The wheel-made pottery, some silos and ovens suggest that this settlement served probably as a fortified storage reserve, for supplying grain as well as wheat to the garrisons of Aroër, Dhiban, al-Lahun and others. The site seems to have been afterwards neglected for a long period as we have no proofs of any settlement, neither through architecture nor ceramic material. In the Nabataean period al-Lahun seemed to be prosperous again. At that time, international trade of transit and exchange were intensive along the ‘Kings’ Highway’, the north-south road, connecting Syria, via Philadelphia (Amman), Dhiban (Dhibon) and ‘Kerak with the Nabataean capital of Petra in the country
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BELGIAN EXCAVATIONS AT AL-LAHUN
265
Fig. 3: Sector D, general view with the fortified village in the front, the fortress dominating the Wadi Mujib in the back-ground and the southern Kerak plateau on the other side of the Wadi Mujib river.
266
D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ
Fig. 4: The Nabataean temple before excavation in 1979.
of Edom. Afterwards the caravans continued to Arabia from where they imported spices, myrrh, incense, iron and cupper, slaves and animals. The rich Nabataean hawkers exported these products to Rome, Greece, Egypt and Syria. The fine pottery shows that the culture of the Nabataeans underwent numerous influences. Ancient important centers have been found east of this road, one of which is al-Lahun. A transversal road connected Dhiban with villages of the Moabite plateau. The area shows some antique ruins with temples, rich tombs with fine Nabataean pottery and jewelry, as in Aroër, al-Lahun, Msheirfeh, Um er Rasas, Jumeil, Museitba. In this period al-Lahun seems to have been an agricultural village of some importance, as well as a religious center where the nomads installed their tents during religious feasts. The most peaceful and attractive monument of al-Lahun surely is the small square Nabataean temple, in the Northern part (Sector B2) of the site, east of the Wadi Lahun. It gives an impression of peace and prosperity. It was first mentioned by N. Glueck12, who located it on a draft of the site, during his visit on 3rd June 1933. Only the external walls were visible at that moment. Through the pottery fragments found in its surroundings, it was possible to date the temple to the first century. In autumn 197913, we began the first excavation in this very small and disturbed building (Fig. 4). It has a square plan of 6.25 m by 6.25 m with a central cella of 4 m by 4 m. The entrance is oriented west-south-west. It corresponds to the 12
GLUECK 1933, 48-49 (nr. 99). NASTER and HOMES-FREDERICQ 1979, 51-56, 1 fig.; see also HOMES-FREDERICQ and NASTER 1997, 85. 13
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BELGIAN EXCAVATIONS AT AL-LAHUN
267
single-chambered Nabataean sanctuaries and is very different from the larger religious monuments with an adyton consisting of three rooms. The temple is of oriental origin and can be found in the Hauran, in Lejja and in Jordan, as well as in Mesopotamian and Iranian centers of the same period. The first aim of the excavation was to identify this construction. It was necessary to clear the interior of the building, to evacuate the earth and the big calcareous blocks. The walls had a thickness of 1.10 m to 1.15 m and two facings. Most of the external walls were decorated with a bossage with a projection of 1 to 3 cm, sometimes very eroded. This decoration technique used in the Near East from the beginning of the 1st millennium BCE was often found in Palestine and Syria. Seen from the inside the walls are less carefully built: the interior stones were irregular, badly cut, and not well adjusted. They must have been covered with a layer of stucco, plaster or lime, to hide the irregularities. Two trenches along the northern façade (including the north-west angle of the building) and the eastern wall (including the north-east angle) allowed to discover the foundations. They rested on the slope of the rock leading to the Wadi al-Lahun. The interior of the temple was covered with a layer of earth, stones and pottery fragments mixed with the collapsed walls. Some blocks weighed many tons: they were all numbered, photographed, drawn and listed carefully for future restoration work. Under the layer of rubble, a beautiful, intact pavement appeared, with rectangular stone slabs from different sizes. The doorway is made of a monolith (1.35 m × 0.70 m × 50 m) cut into two steps. In the southern corner of the first step, a socket of 4 cm deep and 8 cm diameter was found. A groove of about 30 cm had been cut obliquely in the step. It enabled the door-panel to glide to the socket where the hinge fastened itself. In front of the entrance, an altar of 2 m × 1.25 × 50 cm is leaning against the east wall. The back of several stones shows the oblique traces of the used tools. Around the altar, other blocks were found; two of which are corner-stones. They should have been used as the crowning of the altar. The pavement did not continue beneath the altar, thus showing that it has been planned from the beginning of the construction. Most of the ceramic material discovered in the temple belongs to the Nabataean period (second part of the 1st century). Some sherds were smooth or ribbed, other fragments were beautifully painted, like for example the typical egg-shell pottery fragments. The others are of a later period14. In 1988, the temple of al-Lahun has been restored to a height of 3.40 m (Fig. 5). Many blocks found in the rubble could be replaced in their original position as the strata are almost regular and their height between 25 and 50 cm. 14 Roman, Byzantine, exceptionally Umayyad or Ottoman. We want to thank here Dr. Jim Sauer, former Director of the American Center of Oriental Research of Amman who examined all the pottery in 1979.
268
D. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ
Fig. 5: The Nabataean temple after restoration in 1988.
It was impossible to reconstruct the temple to its original height as many blocks were missing or were reused by the contemporary villagers for their modern constructions. However, the restauration gives a good idea of a Nabataean sanctuary with unique cella. If al-Lahun has been inhabited in the Roman or Byzantine period, it must have been very temporarily, as only very few pottery examples were found. In the Islamic period the site seems once more to have been temporarily inhabited. A hamlet of four houses near a Mameluke mosque of the 15th century CE has partly been excavated not far from the Nabataean Temple. Thanks to an international collaboration, the mosque was excavated with the help of Prof. D. Whitcomb of the Oriental Institute of Chicago. As a specialist of the Islamic period, he identified the building in 1985 and 1987: half of the mosque was excavated from the western entrance to the mihrab15. It would be important to completely restore this ancient mosque. It is a beautiful addition to the openair Museum of al-Lahun. In modern times, the Belgian excavations allowed to discover an interesting aspect of the history of Jordan, as well as the evolution of a modern settlement. During 17 years we saw the expansion of the village. When we started 15 We want to thank Prof. Dr. Donald Whitcomb for his help and advice during this dig, which he was leading (see also his report in HOMES-FREDERICQ 1987, 68-89: Archaeological Work in Sector A 2, pl. 24-26).
AN OVERVIEW OF THE BELGIAN EXCAVATIONS AT AL-LAHUN
269
to excavate in 1975, the village counted only 10 houses, by the time we stopped our work in 2000, there were 40 houses. In 1978, there was no school; now there are four. The dig house was transformed into a regional Archaeological Museum, but unfortunately it is not yet open to the public. I would like to thank all those who helped us during our many years of excavations at al-Lahun, all my friends in the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, the American Center of Oriental Research, my colleagues, my team, and the inhabitants of al-Lahun, who were always very cooperative. References BRÜNNOW, R., VON DOMASEWSKI, A. 1904, Die Provincia Arabia auf Grund Zweier in die Jahren 1897 und 1898 unternommen Reisen und Berichte früherer Reisender, Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner. DE DAPPER, M., DE VLIEGER, B. M. 1997, ‘Geo-Archaeological Approach of the Belgian Excavation in Lehun (Jordan)’, Studies of the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6, 57-65. GLUECK, N. 1933, Exploration in Eastern Palestine, I (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 14), Philadelphia: The American Schools of Oriental Research. GLUECK, N. 1965, Deities and Dolphins. The Story of the Nabataeans, London/New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. GLUECK, N. 1970, The Other Side of the Jordan, Cambridge MA: The American Schools of Oriental Research. HOMES-FREDERICQ, D. 1987, The excavations at Lehun, Preliminary Report of the Eight Belgian Season of Excavation in Lehun – Autumn 1987 [Manuscript at the Department of Antiquities in Amman], Brussels: s.ed. HOMES-FREDERICQ, D. 1997, Lehun et la voie royale. Les fouilles belges en Jordanie. / Lehun en de Koningsweg. De Belgische opgravingen in Jordanië, Bruxelles/Brussel: Belgian Committee for Excavations in Jordan. NASTER, N., HOMES-FREDERICQ, D. 1979, ‘Recherches archéologiques à Lehun’, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 23, 51-56. HOMES-FREDERICQ, D., HENNESSY, J. B. 1997, Archaeology of Jordan I. Bibliography, Leuven: Peeters Publishers. SAVIGNAC, R. 1936, ‘Chronique: Sur les pistes de Transjordanie Méridionale’, Revue Biblique 46, 241.
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING OF THE EARLY BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AT AL-LAHUN WITH REFLECTIONS ON CONTEMPORARY URBAN SETTLEMENTS IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT Ingrid Moriah SWINNEN* This paper is dedicated with affection and respect for my former PhD supervisor, a great colleague and friend over several years, to Eric Gubel.
Introduction The Early Bronze Age in the Southern Levant is characterized by fundamental societal and economic changes, and environmental innovation, which were the result of the emergence of the city or the rise of urbanism. Al-Lahun1 (UTME: 7712; UTMN: 34849; PGE: 230.900; PGN: 096.900) is one of the larger Early Bronze II-III urban settlements in this region. Its most prominent feature is the huge fortification wall constructed on the three most accessible sides of the town. The location of al-Lahun may be regarded as part of the Early Bronze settlement system in Central Jordan, and more particular in the Wadi Mujib area (Pls. 1, 2). The importance of the Early Bronze Age in this region has been demonstrated at numerous sites throughout the entire Southern Levant. Over the years several medium-sized and large urban communities, mostly heavily fortified settlements, have been excavated. Among these are Tel Dan, Rosh Hanniqra, Hazor2, ‘Beth Yerah, Tel Qashish, Megiddo, Ai (et-Tell), Tell el-Far’ah (North), Tell Ta’anek, Tel Beth She’an, Tel Arad, Tell el-Hesi, Tel Halif, Jericho, Tel Erani (EB IB), Tel Yarmouth, Khirbet Mahruq, Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, Pella, Jawa (EB IA), Tell Abu al-Kharaz, Tell el-Handaquq N., Khirbet el-Batrawy, Tell es-Sukhne (North), Tell el-Hammam, Khirbet el-Qarn, Khirbet Iskander, Khirbet al-Lahun, Bab * Brussels, Assyriological Center Georges Dossin. 1 Belgian archaeological research at Khirbet al-Lahun under the direction of Denyse HomèsFredericq began in 1978 and ended in 2000. The results of 17 seasons of excavations demonstrated that al-Lahun was occupied during at least four millennia from the Early Bronze Age to the Islamic/ Mamluk period. Specifically flourishing were the settlements of the Early Bronze II-III and the entire Iron Age. 2 The exposed remains of the oldest settlement (3rd millennium BCE) at Hazor were limited in scope, as they are covered with the remains of later settlements (2nd - 1st millennium BCE). Questions as to the size of the settlement, whether or not it was fortified and if it encompassed the entire area of the Upper City, remain unresolved (BEN-TOR 2016, 29-32).
272
I.M. SWINNEN
edh-Dhra’, Numeira and many others, mostly smaller and sometimes unwalled urban settlements3. The EB I settlements were generally small and unfortified villages with a rather short lifespan4. Al-Lahun was first founded as a presumably unprotected village in the EB IB. Occupational remains were detected in the lowest level of Sector C15 beneath the fortified city which was erected in the course of the EB II and further expanded during the EB III6. Because of the limited excavation of the EB IB remains of al-Lahun, it cannot be confirmed with confidence that the village knew a gradual development into a fortified urban settlement in the succeeding period. That could, however, be attested at Tel Arad, Jericho, ῾Ai (et-Tell) and Tell el-Husn (Pella). Al-Lahun may have known a short occupational gap following a decay or abandonment sometime at the end of the EB I. This supposition has important implications for the history of al-Lahun and the region during the period in question. In other words, the reason for the desertion of the EB I settlers and at the same time the origin of the EB II-III culture remain unresolved issues. The lay out of the town and its fortification Many EB cities in the region were established on spurs or hilltops7 which automatically alludes to defense. Al-Lahun was located on an approximately 750 m high promontory formed by the steep cliffs of the Wadi Mujib (Pl. 3)8. The carefully selected geographical location of al-Lahun and many of these settlements was most likely primarily based on security considerations9. The EB II-III settlement of al-Lahun was a preplanned city within easy reach of the basic resources required for sedentary settlement. From this perspective, we notice that al-Lahun is located in the immediate vicinity of two natural water sources, the Wadi Lahun and the Wadi Mujib. Also the presence of arable land in times of ‘heavy’ rainfalls, pasture, local raw materials (e.g. stone and wood)10 and the accessibility of hunting and fishing areas will undoubtedly have played a role in the choice of location. However, due to an overall poorer and seasonal 3
E.g. Qiryat Ata (EB II), Beth Ha’emeq, ‘En Besor, Tell el-Umeiri, etc. EB I settlements are rarely enclosed by a defence wall. One of the earliest city-walls, dated to the end of the EB IB - beginning EB II, was constructed at Tel Erani. The width of the wall at Erani reached about 8 m (SHALEV 2018). Also Jawa was already a fortified site in the Late ChalcolithicumEB IA. 5 Sector B3 revealed the remains of an EB IB necropolis. 6 Based on the results of the ceramic study, we may assume that the fortified city was built in the second half of the EB II and remained in use in the first half of the EB III (SWINNEN 2014). 7 E.g. at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, Khirbet el-Batrawy, Beth Shean and Tell el-Far’ah North. 8 The majority of the cities in the EB II-III were located on hilltops or promontories and surrounded totally or partially with fortification walls (DOUGLAS 2011, 3). 9 See also BROSHI and GOPHNA 1984. 10 CHISOLM 1968, 103. 4
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
273
agricultural potential in the Wadi Mujib region, we may assume that al-Lahun strongly depended on sheep and goat herding11. The general plan of several EB cities in the Southern Levant presents a division between an upper and a lower city, which was for instance the case at Tell Hammam, Tell Handaquq (S), Lejjun, Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, Khirbet al-Batrawy, and Ai (et-Tell). A similar site division was not substantiated at al-Lahun. However, as opposed to the southern side of the city, the northern area is rather sparsely built. Most dwellings, (semi-) industrial and possibly public compounds were erected in the south of the site. Like many other EB cities, al-Lahun was only partially excavated. Still, the results allow us to reconstruct a large part of the settlement, more in particular its defense system with the fortification wall and two joining towers in the northwestern and northeastern corners, in addition to the intra-mural water supply ‘system’ and residential quarters with dwelling compounds, workshops, courtyards and streets. The defensive towers were rectangular in shape. According to Kempinski12 rectangular towers were more widespread in the second half of the EB II, than for instance semi-circular towers known from the EB IB and early EB II sites (e.g. at Arad, Ai), and square towers which occurred at EB III settlements13. City-walls with rectangular towers were also identified at Tel Erani, Megiddo and Tell el-Hesi, and are furthermore known from Mersin (Stratum XIV, Late Chalcolithic) and Habuba Kabira on the Upper Euphrates in Syria14. The main entrance or gate to the city must have been located in the northern rampart (L. 140 m), which was in fact the less difficult place to access (C1.5254)15. From this point of view it seemed obvious to protect this side of the city better by constructing two huge defensive towers, one on each corner. Unlike some contemporary settlements16, al-Lahun did not reveal evidence for additional towers incorporated into or abutting the fortification wall. The excavation of the tower in the northwestern corner, which was the best preserved, revealed a solid stone foundation with a superstructure of unworked limestone boulders. The upperpart of the superstructure may have consisted of mudbrick. After all, mudbrick remains were found in the immediate vicinity of the towers, as well as at several spots near the city wall. The latter might also suggest that this 11 The presence of animal bones in practically every building implicates husbandry and meat consumption. 12 KEMPINSKI 1992, 68-69. 13 The establishment and development of the fortified settlement of al-Lahun in the EB II could also be confirmed by the typological study of the ceramic material. 14 KEMPINSKI 1992, 69. 15 As no evidence for the construction of a gatehouse was uncovered, we suggest that the main gate at al-Lahun was likely a direct-entry gate with a simple lay-out, as it also known from contemporary EB II fortified settlements in the Southern Levant, among which are Arad, Ai, Khirbet alBatrawy and Khirbet Kerak. 16 For instance the EB settlements at Arad and Bet Yerah.
274
I.M. SWINNEN
mudbrick could have been part of the building material for dwellings, either for the superstructure of the walls or with regard to the construction of the roofs. At Tel Erani for instance, where one of the earliest defensive systems was constructed, the wall (ca. 4.50 m wide) was entirely built with bricks on top of a stone foundation. At Arad the Early Bronze II city-wall consisted of a stone foundation and possibly a brick superstructure17 and from the evidence at Khirbet al-Batrawy it is clear that the first EB II city-wall was made of a solid stone basement upon which a mudbrick superstructure stood18. The fortification wall at al-Lahun was not an encompassing wall and could only be traced on the northern, eastern and western side. No actual remains of the wall were detected near the ridge in the south, the side facing the Wadi Mujib canyon. The same situation could be discerned at Khirbet ez-Zeraqon, near the Wadi esh-Shallaleh19, and at Beth Yerah near the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. Because the wall at al-Lahun was only detected on three borders of the settlement, the southern border was technically left ‘unprotected’. It seems quite obvious that the southern part of the town was ‘naturally’ protected by the steep cliffs20. The absence of a part of the precinct wall is not an unusual phenomenon. At Khirbet al-Batrawy for instance, a site with a more or less triangular shape, we see that two out of three sides (S and W) are protected by steep cliffs which rapidly descend down to the bottom of the valley21. Another possible, however hypothetical explanation for the ‘missing’ wall section, at al-Lahun may pertain to climatological features, more in particular, the strong rainfalls in wintertime. These rainfalls result in a high surface run-off which causes excessively high erosion22. From this perspective the outermost southern edge of the plateau may have eroded away through the ages, causing this part of the wall to break off and consequently disappear in the Wadi Mujib valley. The best preserved section of the fortification system runs along the northern and western side of the settlement. The rampart was a massive structure made of solid stone blocks of local limestone on the outer faces. Its core was filled with medium sized fieldstones mixed with mud and rubble. At some places its width reached between 5 and 5.50 m. During the last excavation season it was assumed that glacis might have abutted the citywall, but that was not substantiated23. The defensive systems at Arad24, Ai’25, HERZOG 1997, 46; KEMPINSKI I 1992, 69. NIGRO 2013, 195. 19 DOUGLAS 2007. 20 HOMÈS-FREDERICQ 1999. 21 NIGRO 2006, 16. 22 MACDONALD 2000, 26. 23 Glacis or other kinds of outworks were often added to EB III fortification systems (GREENBERG 2017, 42). 24 AMIRAN 1978. 25 CALLAWAY 1980. 17 18
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
275
Tell Ta’anek, Khirbet el-Makhruq, Yarmouth26, Khirbet al-Batrawy27, Khirbet ez-Zeraqon28 and Tell el-Husn (Pella) are in fact better adapted to the effects of possible earthquakes, which are not rare in this region. Excavations exposed juxtaposed blocks at regular intervals, ameliorating the solidness of the fortification wall, a construction method that was not attested at al-Lahun. A major concern in a semi-arid region is associated with sufficient and secure water supply for the residents of the community29. The existence of two natural water basins have definitely been one of the motifs for the location of the settlement30. Considering that the precipitation in this region is low, but can have great force, the surface run-off enables lower water reservoirs to get filled. Also, the water in the reservoirs can easily be channeled to intramural cisterns that were detected in several areas of the city. Once outside the settlement, people could get water from the nearby wadis. This water was undoubtedly used for agricultural purposes and possibly also for animal husbandry. Large water reservoirs inside cities dated to this period are to this day only known from Arad and al-Lahun. Most cities, e.g. Jericho, Tell el-Far’ah, Ai, Tel Yarmouth, Bab edh-Dhra’, Khirbet al-Batrawy, etc. were established in the proximity of water streams, which also applies to al-Lahun. When observing the intramural lay out of the settlement, the following things can be distinguished: – The area in the south-west is dominated by two large, natural water reservoirs; – The eastern, southern and western side of the town comprised a number of architectural units, whether or not of domestic origin; – Nearly all excavated houses were rectangular in shape, of modest size and relatively standardized dimensions, i.e. between 4 m and 4.50 m long and 2 m to 2.50 m wide. A few structures appeared to be square in plan; DE MIROSCHEDJI 1988 and 1990. NIGRO 2013; NIGRO (ed.) 2006. 28 DOUGLAS 2007. 29 The availability of an intramural drinking water source for the settlers and their animals was quite significant. Besides, the two nearby water channels were equally important for daily water use since the societies had a relatively low level of agricultural technology. Subsequently they did not have elaborate water conservation expertise, for instance rock-cut wells, before as in later periods (ROSEN 1989, 253). 30 The two large natural depressions (water reservoirs) have a total capacity of ca. 12000 cubic meter water. Their base is of water resistant limestone. During the winter season this region knows little but powerful rainfall which results in considerable surface run-off. This necessitates the water to channel into the reservoir. The capacity of the northern basin is estimated between 1,000 and 3,100 cubic meter, while the larger southern basin could contain between 7,000 and 9,600 cubic meter. This means that the total capacity of the two reservoirs could reach 80,000 to 120,000 hectolitre water. According to the configuration of the altitudes, the overflow line of the basins (the top) could lie at approximately 715 or 716 meter. However, the estimated amount of available water is not the actual amount. We should notice that a certain volume of water evaporates, determined by the size of the surface of the reservoirs. 26 27
276
I.M. SWINNEN
– Houses were constructed in rows, along streets, around plazas or open courtyards, (e.g. in the south-west of the town) and often near or abutting the fortification wall. Buildings were rather scarce in the northern area where the main city-gate of the settlement was located. When looking at the overall location of the houses, it occurs that they were more or less arranged into at least three ‘neighborhoods’ or ‘clusters’. The first cluster can be traced back in the area comprising squares C1.42, C1.32 and C1.23. This neighborhood consists of a row of units constructed adjacent to the western city wall (L. ca. 270 m). The second ‘residential quarter’ is located in the south-western area of the settlement (squares C1.13-14, C1.03-04) and is characterized by rows of houses which seem to have been built around a large ‘plaza’ or open courtyard. A third neighborhood was detected in the east, stretching out from squares C1.15 to C1.25, C1.35 and C1.45. These units, which appeared to be poorly preserved at the time of excavation, were built between the eastern fortification wall and the two water reservoirs in the south-western area. Dwelling units organized in neighborhoods were furthermore observed in Strata II-III at Arad31 in the Early Bronze II. Most houses consisted of only one oblong room. However, we do not exclude the existence of two-room compounds, or dwellings with an adjacent workshop. The width of the walls was overall alike, measuring between 50 and 75 cm. Remnants could reach a height of 40 to 90 cm. All walls were constructed with local rough-cut stones of various dimensions and presented an outer and inner wall with a filling of pebbles and mud. It is unclear whether the stone walls initially had a mud-brick or a stone superstructure. Many dwelling structures did not possess an entrance on floor level. Yet, some houses were accessible through a doorway with threshold. These thresholds were made of two or more slab stones and were obviously supposed to keep the water out in times of heavy rainfall. Doorpost sockets were not detected. Floors inside the houses mainly consisted of beaten earth. Pavements of flattened stones were observed in the streets and open courtyards that may have functioned as animal pens. As far as we can conclude at this point, adjoining rooms were never intentionally communicating, i.e. through a ground level doorway. From the evidence we must conclude that structures (i.e. rooms or houses) could merely be accessed through public areas or streets. As was confirmed by the material remains and installations, most houses appeared to be private dwellings32. Others had a semi-industrial function relating ILAN 2001, 319, figs. 18.2, 18.3. Material remains include household pottery vessels, large storage jars, lamps, tokens, spindle whorls, weights, needle shuttles, beads, clay figurines, shells, flints, etc. Domestic or semi-industrial installations comprised stone “benches”, hearths, ovens, millstones, mortars, querns, rubbing stones, 31 32
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
277
to grain processing33, olive oil – or textile production and pottery workshops. In the southernmost part of the town, near the ridge, a larger broad-room construction (internal L. 7.00 m, W 2.00 m) was excavated (C1.03.70-80) (Pl. 4). Remarkable is that the walls (W. 50 to 70 cm) were more carefully constructed than those of the private compounds. The entrance (W ca. 0.75 m) to the house could be located in the center of the northern long wall. On the interior the house yielded numerous fine-ware pottery fragments, scattered on the floor. A circular stone (ca. 40 cm in diameter) was found near the southern wall. An additional installation, probably part of a stone table or bench, was placed on the floor, and adjacent to the eastern wall. Due to its distinctive appearance we may assume that this building had a public function34. Various kinds of installations can be enumerated in- as well as outside the houses. Of particular interest is the large circular, stone-constructed platform (Pls. 5, 6), located in a public area or street (C1.15.82-83). It measures 1.75 m in diameter and is at least 20 cm high. Comparable platforms have been found at contemporary sites like for instance at Arad35 and Khirbet al-Batrawy36. The function of such installations is somewhat enigmatic, but it was suggested, among others by Amiran37, that they may have been related either to cultic or ritual purposes38. Estimated population density The area of the city of al-Lahun measures ca. 15 acres or about 60.7 dunams (60703 m2) and has a roughly rectangular shape. Considering that the population estimate is based on a density coefficient of 25 people per dunam for urban periods (EB II-III), the total number of residents at al-Lahun would have reached about 1,500 people. Still, when we take into account the area taken by the two water basins and the sparsely built northern section, the population density would be more likely between 1,000 and 1,250 people. undefined circular installations, a tournette, etc. Houses also yielded abundant animal bones, olive pits and charcoal remains. 33 Large millstones were detected in three structures which are located in the western part of the town and close to one another. Each of these installations is characterized by a large circular stone with a hole in the centre and measures ca. 1.5 m in diameter. It obviously regards the lower part of millstones. The rooms in which the millstones were found, also contained numerous pottery jars and bowls. 34 SWINNEN 2014. 35 AMIRAN 1978, 17. 36 NIGRO (ed.) 2008, 31, fig. 2.33. 37 AMIRAN 1978. 38 Additional explanations pertain to public functions in the line of silo bases, threshing floors, etc.
278
I.M. SWINNEN
Table 1: Surface Area and Estimated Population at Early Bronze II-III Urban Sites in the Southern Levant. * IL = Israel, J = Jordan, WB = West Bank. ** Numbers based on a density coefficient of 25 people/dunam (after FISCHER 2008; NIGRO 2006; CHESSON et al. 1995; BROSCHI and GOPHNA 1984). Site* ‘Ai (et-Tell) (WB) Arad (IL)
Area in dunams
Estimated population**
+/- 110
2,750
89.9
2,250
+/- 38
900 - 1,000
Beth Yerah (IL)
200
5,000
Beth-Shean (IL)
40
1,000
Bab edh-Dhra’ (J)
Jericho (WB)
40
1,000
60.7
max. 1,500
Khirbet el-Batrawy (J)
40
1,000
Khirbet ez-Zeraqon (J)
70
1,750
+/- 60
1,500
Khirbet al-Lahun (J)
Megiddo (IL) Numeira (J)
5
125
Tel Dan (IL)
200
5,000
Tel Halif (IL)
16
400
Tel Qashish (IL)
12
300
Tell Abu al-Kharaz (J)
12
300
+/- 32.5
812
Tell el-Far’ah North (WB)
50
1,250
Tell el-Hesi (IL)
100
2,500
+/- 150
3,750
Tell as-Sukhne North (J)
Yarmuth (IL)
The end of the EB II-III fortified settlement and reoccupation in a later period
No evidence of violent destruction near the end of the EB III was discerned in the excavated areas. Therefore we propose that, similar to many other contemporary settlements in the Southern Levantine region, al-Lahun was abandoned. The cause for this abandonment remains more or less hypothetical. However, as a result of more recent research on climate- and environmental change in this region, it was suggested that site abandonment or collapse of the settlement system in the EB III was quite probably related to a change in climatological conditions which had numerous implications on agricultural39, economic and societal level. 39 According to ROSEN (1997), the collapse of Early Bronze Age society in the Southern Levant may be seen as a result of a failure to adapt to changing climatic conditions which were as much a social problem as a technological one which led to lowered stream base levels. The hydraulic regime
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
279
The climatic change at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE led to a decrease in precipitation resulting in prolonged shortages of water supply, surface water or ground water, and finally leading to drought. However not all contemporary urban settlements in the Southern Levant collapsed due to natural or climatological causes. Some settlements, like Arad (end EB II) and Numeira (end EB III) for instance, were violently destroyed. Besides, extensive EB III urban occupation was amongst others attested at the northern settlements of Hazor, Tel Bet Yerah (Khirbet Kerak) and Tel Dan40. Al-Lahun was reoccupied in the EB IV transition period, a time commonly characterized by a decline of urban life. A few isolated pottery fragments typologically belonging to the EB IV were found in various parts of Sector C1. Little is known about the origin of the sherds. They may come from other settlements in the region, but they may as well have belonged to the domestic premises partially built on top of the remains of the earlier fortification wall. Presumably these houses were part of a small temporary settlement, an open village, perhaps a rural, seasonal settlement. Conclusion The selection of the geographical location of al-Lahun, the layout of the city wall and the functional division of the private dwelling quarters with streets and open courts may be considered as strong indicators of a preplanned city system. In the Early Bronze II-III al-Lahun was an agrarian, but socially organized community which was characterized by plant and animal husbandry. However, the presence of numerous animal bones does not only implicate husbandry and meat consumption, but may as well be associated with ritual activities. Workspaces related to textile and pottery production, grain processing and the production of olive oil, are obvious signs of industrial or semi-industrial activities. As opposed to numerous other settlements, such as the cities of ‘Ai and Megiddo41, Tel Yarmuth - Chantiers B, C42, Numeira43 and Khirbet ez-Zeraqon44, al-Lahun was not intensively covered with buildings, i.e. the majority of the domestic compounds were constructed along the Southern and Western wall and to a lesser extent along the Eastern wall. Furthermore we notice that many houses are located in the immediate surroundings of the two intramural water reservoirs (cf. infra). From an architectural point of view it is noteworthy that the fortification changed from an aggrading system to one of stream incision. People could not rely on floodwater farming and yields became lower and less predictable. This all led to the collapse of the agricultural sector. 40 GREENBERG 1996, 155. 41 HERZOG 1997, 77. 42 DE MIROSCHEDJI 1988, pls 8-9. 43 COOGAN 1984, fig. 1. 44 DOUGLAS 2007 and 2011.
280
I.M. SWINNEN
wall and defense towers were massive stone-built constructions. The houses, or their foundations, were made of unworked field stones, usually placed in two rows with a mud and rubble filling. Mudbrick remains detected at the site may have belonged to the superstructure of the fortification wall and/or the houses, but may as well have been part of the roofs or vaulted ceilings. The latter would certainly explain the restricted dimensions of the rooms. Like every enclosed urban settlement the community of al-Lahun was characterized by some common physical features, such as fortification and townplanning and by certain controlled and centralized socio-economic components like trade activities (e.g. bitumen), crafts, animal husbandry and probably also mechanized farming such as the use of ploughs that were drawn by working animals. References ABU AZIZEH, W. 2013, ‘The First Cities in Early Bronze Age (3600-2000 BC)’, in M. ABABSA (ed.), Atlas of Jordan. History, Territories and Society, Beyrouth: Institut français du Proche-Orient, 117-118. AMIRAN, R. 1978, Early Arad I: The Chalcolithic Settlement and Early Bronze City I. First to Fifth Seasons of Excavations, 1962-1966, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The University of Jerusalem. AMIRAN, R. 1986, ‘The Fall of the Early Bronze II City of Arad’, Israel Exploration Journal 36, 74-76. AMIRAN, R., ILAN, O. 1996, Early Arad II. The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze IB Settlements and the Early Bronze II City: Architecture and Town Planning. Sixth to Eighteenth Seasons of Excavations, 1971-1978, 1980-1984, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. BATTERBEE, R. W., GASSE, F., STICKLEY, C. E. (eds.) 2004, Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa, Dordrecht: Springer. BEN-TOR, A. 2016, Hazor. Canaanite Metropolis, Israelite City, Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeological Society. BIRAN, A., ILAN, D., GREENBERG, R. 1996, Dan I: A Chronicle of the Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, the Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology/Hebrew Union College Press. BROSHI, M., GOPHNA, R. 1984, ‘The Settlements and Population of Palestine during the Early Bronze II-III’, Bulletin of the American Schools for Oriental Research 253, 41-53. CALLAWAY, J. A. 1980, The Early Bronze Age Citadel and Lower City at Ai (Et-Tell). A Report of the Joint Archaeological Expedition to Ai (Et-Tell): No.2, Cambridge, MA: Sheffield Academic Press. CHESSON, M. S., FLENDER, M., GENZ, H., HOURANI, F., KUIJT, I., PALUMBO, G. 1995, ‘Tell es-Sukhne North: An Early Bronze Age II Site in Jordan’, Paléorient 21/1, 113-123. CHISOLM, M. 1968, Rural Settlement and Land Use, Chicago: Transaction Publishers. COOGAN, M. D. 1984, ‘Numeira 1981’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 255, 75-81.
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
281
DE MIROSCHEDJI, P. 1988, Yarmouth 1. Rapport sur les trois premières campagnes de Fouilles à Tel Yarmouth (Israel) (1980-1982), Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations. DE MIROSCHEDJI, P. 1990, ‘The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Yarmut – An Interim Statement’, Eretz-Israel 20, 48-61. DE MIROSCHEDJI, P. (ed.) 1989, L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (20-24 octobre 1986) (BAR International Series 527), Oxford: BAR Publishing. DOUGLAS, K. 2007, Befestigung der Unterstadt von Khirbet ez-Zeraqon im Rahmen der frühbronzezeitlichen Fortifikationen in Palästina: Deutsch-jordanische Ausgrabungen in Khirbet ez-Zeraqon 1984-1994. Endberichte III/1 (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 27/5), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. DOUGLAS, K. 2011, ‘Beyond the City Walls: Life Activities Outside the City Gates in the Early Bronze Age in Jordan: Evidence from Khirbet ez-Zeraqon’, in M. S. CHESSON (ed.), Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the Southern Levant. Papers in Honor of Walter E. Rast and R. Thomas Schaub, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 3-22. FISCHER, P. M. 2008, Tell Abu-al-Kharaz in the Jordan Valley. Volume I: The Early Bronze Age, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. GREENBERG, R. 1996, ‘The Early Bronze Age Levels’, in A. BIRAN, D. ILAN, R. GREENBERG (eds), Dan I. A Chronicle of Excavations, the Pottery Neolithic, The Early Bronze Age and the Middle Bronze Age Tombs, Jerusalem: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology/Hebrew Union College Press, 85-160. GREENBERG, R. 2017, ‘No Collapse: Transmutations of Early Bronze Age Urbanism in the Southern Levant’, in F. HÖFLMAYER (ed.), The Late Third Millennium in the Ancient Near East. Chronology, C14, and Climate Change, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 33-60. GREENBERG, R., PAZ, Y. 2005, ‘The Early Bronze Age Fortifications at Tel Beth Yerah’, Levant 37, 81-103. HARLAN, J. R. 1985, ‘The Early Bronze Age Environment of the Southern Ghor and the Moab Plain’, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 2, 125-129. HERZOG, Z., Archaeology of the City. Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, D. 1999, Preliminary Report of the Belgian Excavations at Lehun (Jordan). Autumn 1998 [Manuscript at the Department of Antiquities in Amman], Brussels: s.ed. HOMÈS-FREDERICQ, D. 2000, Preliminary Report of the Belgian Excavations at Lehun (Jordan). Autumn 1999 [Manuscript at the Department of Antiquities in Amman], Brussels: s.ed. ILAN, O. 2001, ‘Household Archaeology at Arad and Ai in the Early Bronze Age II’, in S. R. WOLFF (ed.), Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 317-354. KEMPINSKI, A., REICH, R. 1992, The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The University of Jerusalem. MACDONALD, B. 2000, “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures, Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
282
I.M. SWINNEN
MAZAR, A. (ed.) 2012, Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989-1996, Volume IV. The 4th and the 3rd Millennia BCE, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The University of Jerusalem. NIGRO, L. 2013, ‘Khirbet al-Batrawy: An Early Bronze Age City at the Fringes of the Desert’, Syria 90, 189-209. NIGRO, L. (ed.) 2006, Khirbet al-Batrawy. An Early Bronze Age Fortified Town in North-Central Jordan. Preliminary Report of the First Season of Excavations (2005) (ROSAPAT 3), Rome: “La Sapienza” Expeditions to Palestine and Jordan. NIGRO, L. (ed.) 2008, Khirbet al-Batrawy II. The EB II city-gate, the EB II-III fortifications, the EB II-III temple. Preliminary report on the second (2006) and third (2007) seasons of excavations (ROSAPAT 6), Rome: “La Sapienza” Expeditions to Palestine and Jordan. NIGRO, L., D’ANDREA, M., GALLO, E. 2010, ‘The Early Bronze Age II City-Gate at Khirbet al-Batrawy, Jordan’, in P. MATTHIAE, F. PINNOCK, L. NIGRO, N. MARCHETTI (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. May 5th-10th 2009, “Sapienza” – Università di Roma, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 447-453. RAST, W. E., SCHAUB, R. T. 2003, Bâb edh-Dhrâ’: Excavations at the Town Site (19751981). Part I: Text, Part 2: Plates and Appendices, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. ROBERTS, N., STEVENSON, A. C., DAVIS, B., CHEDDADI, R., BREWSTER, S., ROSEN, A. 2004, ‘Holocene Climate Environment and Cultural Change in the Circum-Mediterranean Region’, in R. W. BATTERBEE, F. GASSE, C. E. STICKLEY (eds.), Past Climate Variability through Europe and Africa, Dordrecht: Springer, 343-362. ROSEN, A. M. 1989, ‘Environmental Change at the End of Early Bronze Age Palestine’, in P. DE MIROSCHEDJI (ed.), L’urbanisation de la Palestine à l’âge du bronze ancien. Bilan et perspectives des recherches actuelles. Actes du Colloque d’Emmaüs (2024 octobre 1986) (BAR International Series 527), Oxford: BAR Publishing, 247256. SHALEV, O. 2018, ‘The Fortification Wall of Tel Erani: A Labour Perspective’, Tel Aviv 45/2, 193-215. SWINNEN, I. M. 2014, The Early Bronze (c. 3200-2200 B.C.E.) Ceramic Material from al-Lahun in Central Jordan (Moab). An Archaeological, Typological and Technological Study, compared with Assemblages from Contemporaneous Sites in the Southern Levant (unpublished PhD. Diss., Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Brussels. ZUCKERMAN, S. 2013, ‘Hazor in the Early Bronze Age’, Near Eastern Archaeology 76/2, 68-73.
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
283
Pl. 1: View on the southern area of Sector C1 – Early Bronze Age and the cliffs of the Wadi Mujib (Photo by I.M. Swinnen).
284
I.M. SWINNEN
Pl. 2: Map of the northern section of the Southern Levant indicating the main Early Bronze settlements (by J. Englert, 1995 – Modified by I.M. Swinnen).
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
Pl. 3: Plan of Sector C1 (by J. De Bie, 1998 – Modified by I.M. Swinnen).
285
286
I.M. SWINNEN
Pl. 4: Rectangular building in C1. 13-14/03-04 (Photo with the courtesy of the Comité belge des Fouilles en Jordanie).
FORTIFICATION AND TOWN PLANNING AT AL-LAHUN
287
Pl. 5 and 6: Circular stone platform in C1.15.82-83 (Photo and drawing with the courtesy of the Comité belge des Fouilles en Jordanie).
“BREATHING FROM A LOTUS FLOWER” IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SIDON Claude DOUMET-SERHAL*
Introduction A limestone cylinder seal S/8904/8640 (2.5 × 1.4 cm) (Figs. 1-2) was found on top of an offering pit on College Site, Sidon (Lebanon), during the 2018 season of excavation. The pit was at the centre of a mortuary assemblage consisting of four burials: burial 25 encompassing the grave of an adult and burials 168 to 170, containing the jar burials of three children aged between 1 and 2 months. Two tannour ovens, 8636 and 8631, were also part of this assemblage. Tannour 8636 was placed east of burial 168 and tannour 8631 was located west of a rectangular platform where food preparation most probably took place during the funerary feast (Fig. 3). Whilst burial 25 was discovered in 20021, the remaining three jar burials where only recently found in 2018. Burial 25 contained the grave of an adult dug into the ground. The skeleton was lying on its right side in a flexed position with the head facing north. The skull was severely damaged and most of the foot bones were missing. A complete but broken ceramic plate was placed over the left arm. A mud brick-like yellowish structure was placed around the skeleton with the bricks measuring on average 30 cm × 13 cm. Burial 168 comprised a primary jar burial of a perinate, aged under 1 month. The burial had been truncated at the north end by an Iron Age pit 8576. The extant remains of the jar appeared to be aligned along a north-south axis, with its base to the south and the truncated neck towards the north. The body of the infant was lain either supine or slightly on its right side in a semi-flexed position within the jar. The positioning of the body suggests that the head may originally have been facing westward, but this cannot be confirmed due to the truncation of the northern end of the deposit, which affected the best part of the cranium remains. Jar burial 169 included an Iron Age circular stone structure (8552) overlying its south-eastern side. The vessel appeared to be oriented along a north-south axis, with the neck towards the north. The jar has subsequently fragmented and * UMR 8167 Orient et Méditerrannée, CNRS, Paris. 1 DOUMET-SERHAL 2002, 190.
290
C. DOUMET-SERHAL
Fig. 1: Impression of cylinder seal S/8904/8640 from College Site (© Sidon excavations).
Fig. 2: Drawing of the seal impression of cylinder seal S/8904/8640 (by Rami Yassine, Beirut).
collapsed, especially at the southern end. Surrounding it were three stones and pottery sherds. The extant remains of the individual (prenate/perinate) indicated that the body was laid along the same north-south axis as its burial container, with the head to the north and lower body towards the south. As for jar burial 170, it was not possible to discern the orientation of either the burial jar or the burial deposit as a whole, as only 10-15 cm of the jar was preserved; it had been heavily truncated, most likely in Antiquity. The size and
“BREATHING FROM A LOTUS FLOWER” IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SIDON
291
Fig. 3: Mortuary assemblage in square 65 with burials and tannours (© Sidon excavations).
maturity of the extant remains indicate a probable perinate, aged no more than 1.5 months. The cylinder seal The seal is engraved with standing individuals arranged in a frieze2, none of whom come face to face with a lone male figure seated on a backless stool-like seat facing right. The stool has a stuffed hatched quilting like the garments of the gods3 in the Anatolian style. This seated male figure holds a lotus flower in his left hand consisting of a straight pole-like stem similar to a tree4 while OPIFICIUS 1964, 218, 220, on the influence of Egyptian wall painting on seals. ÖZGUÇ 1965, 51 and for comparisons see p. 53. 4 TEISSIER 1996, 108, “these plants are characteristically held by the Pharaoh and the Egyptian goddess and to a lesser extent by miscellaneous Egyptianizing figures”. 2 3
292
C. DOUMET-SERHAL
his right arm is folded. Directly behind him, a standing female wearing a long obliquely striated dress is depicted frontally, while her face and feet are in profile facing right. Her left hand is placed on the seated figure’s shoulder while she holds by the stem in her right hand just under the bud, what is most probably a flower5, namely a closed lotus. Two male figures each wearing a cap and sleeveless crisscross design shirts and skirts striated obliquely, are armed and advancing to the right. The first has an axe over his shoulder and two spears in his left hand while the second, with a dagger on the waist, is holding a lotus flower with a sinuous stem in his left hand while his right arm is folded. A bird, most probably a duck6 or a goose7, is depicted in the field between the seated male and the female figure behind him. A pseudo-Egyptian sign8 is also present in the field. The style of the engraving is characterized by fine linear hatching in the Syro-Cappadocian style. The rendering of the human figures with long neck, large nose merging with the eye socket and a pronounced chin most probably indicate, in the case of the standing male figures, a beard9. The standing female on this seal is inspired by Egyptian iconography. In Egypt, from the 11th to the mid-12th dynasty, the wife is often portrayed with her hand placed gently on her husband’s shoulder, whether the couple is standing or seated10. While the loving gesture does not disappear altogether in the late 12th and 13th dynasties, it does become increasingly rare. Instead, many of the later depictions show the male owner and his wife both seated11. The occurrence of an armed god holding a spear in one hand and an axe in the other12 on this Sidon seal is also depicted on seal impressions from Kültepe. 5 In Egypt, on a stele belonging to the overseer of the fortress Intef (11th dynasty), the wife of a seated figure breathing from a lotus is holding a closed bud similar to the one in Sidon (ARNOLD and JÁNOSI 2015, 58, fig. 10); Similar lotus buds are also found but held upright, see OTTO 2000, pl. 20, 256 and TUNÇA 1979, pl. III, 23. On a cylinder seal from Tell Fekhariyah dating to the 13th century BC, a bird-headed god is holding a flower (PORADA 2014, 223-224). 6 DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 2003, pl. I, the duck hiding in the bushes represents the demon that must be hunted in order to be able to reach eternity. 7 VANDIER 1964, 254, fig. 13 (funerary banquet of Ramose) is depicted beneath the chair. The depiction of an animal under the chair of a deceased is a feature of funerary banquets. 8 I thank Vanessa Boschloos for this reference: TEISSIER 1996, nr. 219. 9 UEHLINGER 1996, 79, Taf. V. 10 In Egypt, this attitude is found between the deceased and his wife. One example is queen Tiyi standing behind Amenophis III with her hand on his shoulder (DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 2003, 47). Numerous examples are found in the New Kingdom with the couple depicted seated: BOULANGER 1965, 17, 26, tomb of Payry; see also LANGE, HIRMER, OTTO, DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT 1976, fig. XXII (tomb of Nakhit, priest of Amon), fig. XXIII (tomb of Sennefer), figs. 173-175 (tomb of Ramose). Another figure also depicted in this attitude in the New Kingdom, is the goddess Isis standing behind the god Osiris depicted in a mummified form on a vignette of the book of the Dead. She has one hand on the shoulder of the god and she holds an ankh with her other hand hanging beside her (DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 2003, 41). 11 YAMAMOTO 2015, 33-36, see fig. 38, stelae of the steward Intef, 12th Dynasty, reign of Senwosret I. 12 ÖZGUÇ 1965, 52, pl. V, 14.
“BREATHING FROM A LOTUS FLOWER” IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SIDON
293
However, on Syrian seals13, winged and armed goddesses carry the double spear. The dagger on the waist of the second figure is carried by figures on seals from Alalakh level VII (ca. 1792-1750 BC), either by the figure in a round-head-dress14 or by the Weather god15. In Egypt, Evil had to be vanquished in order for the deceased to be sure of regaining his immortal soul and this was expressed in the hunt16, which on the Sidonian seal is illustrated by the armed figures. The lotus with a straight pole-like stem held, on this Sidon seal, by the seated figure, is characteristically held either by the Pharaoh or the Egyptian goddess and to a lesser extent by miscellaneous Egyptianising figures17. A number of uncrowned figures in pointed straight and folded kilts, some of whom hold plants, are best paralleled by secular figures found in Egyptian funerary art and on 13th Dynasty - Second Intermediate Period scarabs from Palestine18. The standing figure holding a wavy stemmed lotus is comparable to one on a relief from a tomb at Sakkara dating to the Old Kingdom19. On this, as part of his funeral service, the eldest son of the family offers an articulated golden lotus flower to his father during the worship at dawn. When the stem was moved, the corolla opened, showing the statuette of the solar child at the heart of the flower. The themes of ‘breathing from a lotus flower’, which is twice depicted on the Sidon seal, and ‘the receiving of life’20 are gestures often reproduced on the walls of the funeral chapels from the Egyptian Old Kingdom21 onwards22. As the blue lotus opens and closes daily, thus flowering from sunrise to midday, it 13 OTTO 2000, pl. 27, 347, group 4 and pl. 28, 357, group 4d; TEISSIER 1984, 80-81, the winged and armed goddess and the nude goddess, the dual nature of Ishtar as goddesses of love and war, known from Mesopotamian literature. 14 COLLON 1975, 12-13, nr. 11 and pl. XXXIII. 15 COLLON 1975, 27-28, nrs. 34-35 (level VII) and 114 nr. 208 (level IV). 16 DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 1962, 17. 17 TEISSIER 1996, 166. 18 TEISSIER 1996, 114; BEN-TOR 2007, 148 “The scarab from Tell el-Ajjul pl. 63:6, depicting a male figure holding a large flower belonging to the Canaanite scarabs of the early Palestinian series may have been inspired by the Late Middle Kingdom scarabs depicting the king in a striking posture holding a large lotus flower”; 179 “The branch and the flower in the hands of standing figures continue throughout the late Palestinian series”, see for example KEEL 2010a, from Tel Bira, 329 nr. 3 (1650-1500 BC) and from the same time period, human or mythical headed figures from Tell el-Far’a-South, KEEL 2010b, 47 nr. 41, 207 nr. 419, 215 nrs 436 and 438, 217 nr. 440, 281 nr. 587, 283 nr. 591. 19 DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 2003, 38-39. 20 VAN LOON 1986, 245. 21 DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 2003, 37-38. 22 KEEL 1972, 176, 268 (grave of Thot-nofer) and 177, 270 (grave of Nebamon), both dating to the reign of Amenophis II (ca. 1448-1422 BC). DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 1962, 13: “There was an increasing trend for the scenes to be painted not so much just to please the eye … as to help the deceased in his efforts to attain eternal life … This would explain the close similarity of inspiration in the themes painted on the wall of tombs-“mastabas” of the Old Kingdom, ‘hypogea’ carved out of the rock face in Middle Egypt… or the burial places… in the New Kingdom”.
294
C. DOUMET-SERHAL
was a constant reminder of regeneration23. On a seal made of steatite, dating to ca. 1650-1550 BC and published by O. Keel in the group of cylinder and stamp seals from the southern Levant24, a striding male figure is holding a lotus blossom. On another scarab dating to the 15th Dynasty (ca. 1650-1550 BC) a seated woman is holding a lotus flower. According to Ch. Uehlinger25, this motif of ‘Riechen am Lotus’ expresses the desire of the owner of the seal to be able to share in the power of primary vitality and joy of life. The lotus was generally associated in the Late Bronze Age Levant with the long-enduring banquet theme with its sharing of food. The ruler, holding the lotus, was depicted conveying the ideology of the ruling class26 but, more specifically27, he was a living reminder of the deceased and his position in life. In the Levant, the most famous representation of a figure holding a flower to his nose is found on the lid of the sarcophagus of Ahiram28. On it, two figures are facing each other: the one on the left holds a fresh upright flower to his nose, while the figure on the right holds a drooping lotus flower in his left hand. It was understood that the ‘receiving of life’ is the smelling of the lotus and the ‘bestowing of life’ is the proffering of the lotus29. This theory was challenged by E. Rehm30 who does not see in the upright or drooping position of the lotus any relation with life and death. A lotus flower is also held by the ruler on the Tell el-Far’a and Megiddo ivories31. Concluding remarks The sources of influence on this Sidonian seal came from Egypt on the one hand and Anatolia on the other with the Egyptian influence playing a dominant role. The seal was arranged in a horizontal frieze similar to an Egyptian mural decoration32. Despite pictorial concepts changing and amalgamating into Syrian iconography33, the lotus flower, taken from Egyptian art, maintained its significance in this Sidonian funerary context, conveying the notion of the deceased’s planned rebirth and eternal life. This cylinder seal, found between four burials, clearly played a role in inhumation and mortuary practices, and was used to 23 VAN LOON 1986, 245, particularly relevant is the wooden head of Tutankhamun on the lotus found in the entrance of his tomb. It seems to mean that the dead king is rejuvenated like the rising sun. 24 KEEL 2006, fig. 125. 25 UEHLINGER 1996, 79. 26 MORENZ 2014, 310; ZIFFER 2005, 152, 155. 27 REHM 2004, 46, 78. 28 CHÉHAB 1970, 115. 29 VAN LOON 1986, 245, 250. 30 REHM 2004, 45-46. 31 CHARBIT 2011, 52-53; ZIFFER 2005, 152. 32 DESROCHES NOBLECOURT 1962, 20. 33 GIVEON 1978, 31.
“BREATHING FROM A LOTUS FLOWER” IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SIDON
295
communicate one ultimate goal, namely eternal existence. The generic appearance of all the figures depicted on this seal may have been intended as a sign of universality and timelessness. In the Levant, compared to cylinder seals, scarabs were more widespread. This particular seal may not only have been used as such but also as a status symbol34 by the deceased who owned it. The Sidon cylinder seal, dated to about 1650-1600 BC, illustrates the fact that the use of the lotus on the Ahiram sarcophagus was only a continuation of a tradition already well-known locally, which shows a remarkable longevity for this motif. Once again35, images from Sidon show the degree of transmission and assimilation and the capacity of Sidonian artists to reinterpret, thus creating their uniquely distinctive style36. References ARNOLD, D., JÁNOSI, P. 2015, ‘The Move to the North, establishing a New Capital’, in A. OPPENHEIM, D. ARNOLD, D. ARNOLD, K. YAMAMOTO (eds.), Ancient Egypt Transformed. The Middle Kingdom, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 5466. BEN-TOR, D. 2007, Scarabs, Chronology and Interconnections Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 27), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. BOULANGER, R. 1965, Egyptian Painting and the Ancient East, London: Funk & Wagnalls. CHÉHAB, M. 1970, ‘Observations au sujet du sarcophage d’Ahiram’, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph XLVI/6, 107-117. CHARBIT, N. K. 2011, ‘An Egyptian Mortuary Cult in Late Bronze Age II Canaan’, Tel Aviv 38/1, 52-66. COLLON, D. 1975, The Seal Impressions from Tell Atchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27), Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon/Bercker and Neukirchener Verlag. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT, C. 1962, Egyptian Wall Paintings from Tombs and Temples, Milan: Collins and UNESCO. DESROCHES NOBLECOURT, C. 2003, Lorsque la nature parlait aux Égyptiens, Paris: Philippe Rey. DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2002, ‘Fourth Season of Excavation, Preliminary Report’, BAAL 6, 179-210. DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2011-2012, ‘A Decorated Box from Sidon’, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 34-35, 93-103. DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2013, ‘Tracing Sidon’s Mediterranean Networks in the Second Millennium B.C.: Receiving, Transmitting, and assimilating. Twelve Years of British Museum Excavations’, in J. ARUZ, S. B. GRAFF, Y. RAKIC (eds.), Cultures in Contact, from Mesopotamia to the Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 132-141.
34 35 36
TEISSIER 1997, 237-238. DOUMET-SERHAL 2018-2019, 39; DOUMET-SERHAL 2011-2012, 99. DOUMET-SERHAL 2013, 140-141.
296
C. DOUMET-SERHAL
DOUMET-SERHAL, C. 2018-2019, ‘A New Cylinder seal S/5882/6144 in Sidon’, Archaeology and History in the Lebanon 48-49, 36-41. GIVEON, R. 1978, The Impact of Egypt on Canaan, Iconographical and Related Studies (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 20), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O. 1972, Die Welt der altorientalischen Bildsymbolik une das Alte Testament, Am Beispiel der Psalmen, Neukirchen/Fribourg: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O. 2006, ‘Cylinder and Stamp Seals in the southern Levant’, in P. TAYLOR (ed.), The Iconography of Cylinder seals (Warburg Institute Colloquia 9), Dorset: The Warburg Institute, 62-81. KEEL, O. 2010a, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Band II (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 29), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O. 2010b, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel, Band III, (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 31), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. LANGE, K., HIRMER, M., OTTO, E., DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, C. 1976, L’Égypte, Paris: Flammarion. MORENZ, L. D. 2014, ‘Vergessen? zur ägyptischen (Vor-) Geschichte der Lotophagen’, in S. J. WIMMER, G. GAFUS (eds.), “Vom Leben umfangen”, Ägypten, das Alte Testament und das Gespräch der Religionen Gedenkschrift für Manfred Görg (Ägypten und altes Testament 80), Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 308-316. OPIFICIUS, R. 1964, ‘Syrisch-ägyptischer einfluß auf die Kunst des Zweistromlandes’, in K. BITTEL, E. HEINRICH, B. HROUDA, W. NAGEL (eds.), Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Studien und Aufsätze Anton Moortgat zum fünf und sechzigsten Geburstag Gewidmet, Berlin: Mann, 216-220. OTTO, A. 2000, Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-Syrischen Glyptik (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8), Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. ÖZGUÇ, N. 1965, The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Seal Impressions from Kültepe, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. PORADA, E. 2014, ‘On the Complexity of Style and Iconography in Some Groups of Cylinder Seals from Cyprus’, in E. BLEIBTREU, H. U. STEYMANS (eds.), Edith Porada zum 100. Geburstag. A Centenary Volume (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 268), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 219-232. REHM, E. 2004, Dynastensarkophage mit Szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern, Teil 1.1, Der Ahiram-Sarkophag, Forschungen zur Phönizisch-Punischen und Zyprischen Plastik, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern. TEISSIER, B. 1984, Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Marcopoli Collection, Berkley/Los Angeles: University of California Press. TEISSIER, B. 1996, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 11), Fribourg/ Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. TEISSIER, B. 1997, ‘Seals and Communication in Middle Bronze Age Palestine’, in A. CAUBET (ed.), De Chypre à la Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche-Orient ancien, Actes du colloque international organisé au musée du Louvre par le service culturel le 18 mars 1995, Paris: Musée du Louvre, 231-245. TUNÇA, O. 1979, ‘Catalogue des sceaux-cylindres du musée régional d’Adana’, Syro Mesopotamian Studies 3/1, 2-18. UEHLINGER, C. 1996, ‘Die Sammlung Ägyptischer Siegelamulette (Skarabäensammlung Fouad S. Matouk)’, in O. KEEL, C. UEHLINGER (eds.), Altorientalische Miniaturkunst,
“BREATHING FROM A LOTUS FLOWER” IN MIDDLE BRONZE AGE SIDON
297
die ältesten visuelen Massenkommunikationsmittel. Ein Blick in die Sammlungen des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz, Freiburg: Universität Verlag Freiburg, 58-86. VANDIER, J. 1964, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne, tome IV : Bas-reliefs et peintures, scène de la vie quotidienne, Paris: A. et J. Picard. VAN LOON, M. 1986, ‘The Drooping Lotus Flower’, in M. KELLY-BUCCELLATI, P. MATTHIAE, M. VAN LOON (eds.), Insight through Images. Studies in Honor of E. Porada (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21), Malibu: Undena, 245-252. YAMAMOTO, K. 2015, ‘The Art of the Stela an Appeal to the Living’, in A. OPPENHEIM, D. ARNOLD, D. ARNOLD, K. YAMAMOTO, Ancient Egypt Transformed. The Middle Kingdom, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 33-36. ZIFFER, I. 2005, ‘From Acemhöyük to Megiddo the Banquet Scene in the Art of the Levant in the Second Millennium BCE’, Tel Aviv 32/2, 133-167.
TWO EXCEPTIONAL MOTIFS ON MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAMP-SEAL AMULETS Daphna BEN-TOR* and Othmar KEEL**
Eric Gubel’s early publications in the 1980s include the challenging attempt to establish a corpus of motifs appearing on Phoenician stamp-seal amulets. Our modest contribution1 in honour of his work examines two rare motifs appearing on earlier stamp-seal amulets, in an attempt to establish their date and their most likely place of production. The inspiration for this paper came from a scarab recently found in excavations in a Late Bronze II cemetery south of the city of Bnei Brak in the central coastal plain in Israel, just east of Tel Aviv (Pl. 1: a-c)2. The base of the Bnei Brak scarab (Pl. 1: a) displays an unusual scene consisting of a kneeling male figure carrying on his shoulders a yoke from which two vessels are suspended. Above the scene is a winged sun disk with two schematically-displayed uraei. Comparable scenes were found only on a rectangular plaque in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford (Pl. 1: d)3, and a scarab in the Egyptian Museum, Berlin (Pl. 1: g)4, both displaying the figure in a striding rather than kneeling posture. The Ashmolean plaque depicts the figure between two branches, with an additional short branch between the figure’s legs, and the Berlin scarab shows the figure above a nb sign5. The Bnei Brak scarab was found in a tomb (locus 2192) dated by the pottery to the Late Bronze II (14th13th century BC), while the original provenance of the Oxford and Berlin objects is unknown. The three stamp-seal amulets displaying the scene are made of glazed steatite, the glaze worn off as is usually the case with scarabs and seal amulets found outside the dry climatic conditions of the Nile valley, including those found in the eastern Delta.
* Israel Museum, Jerusalem. ** Fribourg, Suisse. 1 Our sincere gratitude to Vanessa Boschloos, James Morris Weinstein, and Baruch Brandl for reading the paper and for their valuable comments, and to Shlomit Bechar for setting up the plates. 2 We are most grateful to Ron Beeri, Dor Golan, Ayelet Dayan and Gil Haklay the excavators of the site, and to the Israel Antiquities Authority for their permission to include the scarab in this paper before its publication in the excavation report. 3 We are most grateful to the Ashmolean picture library for providing us with the photographs of the plaque. 4 We are most grateful to Klaus Finneiser for generously providing us with the requested photographs of the scarab. 5 GARDINER 1957, sign list V30.
300
D. BEN-TOR AND O. KEEL
The stylistic features of the three items under discussion argue for dating them to the Middle Bronze Age/Second Intermediate Period. This is suggested by the back, head, and side types of the two scarabs6, the groove running around the sides of the square plaque7, the branches appearing next to the figure on the Oxford plaque8, and the hollowed-out engraving of the figures on all three examples9. The Bnei Brak scarab is therefore an heirloom in the LB II context in which it was found10. In contrast to the rather informative stylistic features of these stamp-seal amulets11, the rare occurrence of the scene they display, and its ambiguous cultural connotation, make it difficult to establish whether these items were produced in Egypt or in the southern Levant. On the one hand, the portrayal of the kneeling figure on the Bnei Brak scarab finds close parallels only on Canaanite scarabs of the late Palestinian series12, thus suggesting the production of the scarab in the southern Levant. This is supported by the style of the winged sun disk which also finds parallels in the late Palestinian series13. On the other hand, scenes depicting a man carrying a yoke from which two vessels are suspended are not attested in the art of Western Asia in the 2nd millennium BC, while they commonly appear on Egyptian tomb walls of the Middle and New Kingdom showing food bearers carrying a variety of food products in baskets or vessels suspended from a yoke (Pl. 2: a-b)14. The inspiration for the scene is therefore clearly associated with the Egyptian funerary cult. This however does not rule out the possibility of a Canaanite production for the stamp-seal amulets under discussion considering the strong Egyptian influence on the iconography of Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs15. Moreover, the scene portrayed on the Bnei Brak scarab displays a peculiarity by showing the figure kneeling, which does not make sense in the context of the Egyptian funerary food bearing scenes. Also, the branches flanking the figure on the Ashmolean plaque, although occasionally found on Egyptian stamp-seal amulets of the 6 For the features of the Bnei Brak scarab see BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 107 nrs. 1, 3, 9. For the Berlin scarab see BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 43 nrs. 9-10, 14; for the popularity of side d6 on Egyptian and Canaanite scarabs of this period see BEN-TOR 2007, 106, pl. 43 nrs. 2, 8-10, 14-17, pl. 44 nrs. 2, 8-9, 11, 13-18, pl. 107 nrs. 4, 8. 7 KEEL 1995, §205. 8 KEEL 1995, §433, 561, 574; SCHROER 1989, 104-109. 9 KEEL 1995, §328-330. 10 For the common occurrence of scarabs in later archaeological contexts see KEEL 1995, §692; BEN-TOR 1994, 7-22. 11 See also STAUBLI 2001, 97-115. 12 BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 104 nrs. 19, 23-25, 39. 13 BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 79 nr. 38 = pl. 80 nr. 29, pl. 95 nr. 28 = pl. 104 nr. 14, Appendix pl. 1 nr. 12. Similar forms appear also on Second Intermediate Period Egyptian scarabs: BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 33 nr. 31, pl. 34 nr. 36. 14 See also DELANGE 2015, cat. 195. 15 BEN-TOR 2009, 83-100; BEN-TOR 2007, 122-150, 157-181; KEEL 1995, §423-471, 566-567; KEEL 1994, 213-220.
TWO EXCEPTIONAL MOTIFS ON MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAMP-SEAL AMULETS
301
Second Intermediate Period16, are a distinctive Canaanite feature, especially when flanking a figure17. Additional peculiarities supporting a likely Canaanite production appear in the confusing composition of the figures’ arms and the strings hanging the vessels from the yoke on all three examples. Unlike the Egyptian scenes portraying food bearers, where the arms are clearly separate from the strings, the Bnei Brak scarab and the Ashmolean plaque do not display the figures’ arms, but show the vessels hanging from the yoke by loops. These loops were in all probability inspired by the Egyptian scenes of food bearers where the vessels hang by strings at both ends (Pl. 2). The Berlin scarab seemingly displays the figure’s arms and a single string hanging the vessel, creating an illusion of a loop. Further indication for the most likely production of these items in the southern Levant is that human and mythical figures, in kneeling and striding postures, constitute one of the most common and distinctive features of Canaanite scarabs of the late Palestinian series. These scarabs frequently display kneeling and striding figures in identical scenes, e.g. between uraei18, flanking a tree or a large flower19, and holding a uraeus or a flower20. Human and mythical figures appearing on Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs display clear inspiration from Egyptian artistic motifs. This is apparent in the case of falcon-headed figures, and in Egyptian-style details such as kilts21, hair styles22, the red crown23, or a uraeus at the brow24, in portrayals of human figures. Moreover, it was convincingly argued that representations of human figures on Canaanite scarabs, in particular those depicted next to a column of pseudo hieroglyphs or smelling a flower, were initially inspired by late Middle Kingdom private-name scarabs displaying the image of the owner25. It was however demonstrated that the scenes in which these figures are integrated are frequently inspired by the Levantine cultural sphere26, even when including Egyptian or Egyptian-style motifs27. Moreover, the large corpus of Middle Bronze Age Canaanite scarabs offers ample evidence indicating that the Canaanite artisans who simulated Egyptian signs and symbols were in most cases ignorant of their original meaning, and they incorporated these symbols into their own cultural sphere28. This could also apply to the scene under discussion, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 32 nrs. 3-4, pl. 43 nrs. 2, 7, 16-17, pl. 44 nrs. 9, 14. KEEL 1995, §433, 561, 574; SCHROER 1989, 104-109. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 97 nrs. 20-32, pl. 98 nrs. 24, 26-28, 34. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 104 nrs. 7-11. BEN-TOR 2007, pls. 102-104 passim. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 63 nrs. 2-8, pl. 102 nrs. 5, 7-9. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 63 nrs. 12, 14, pl. 102 nrs. 5-8. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 63 nr. 7, pl. 102 nr. 14. BEN-TOR 2007, pl. 63 nr. 6, pl. 102 nr. 25. BEN-TOR 2009, 86-87; BEN-TOR 1997, 181-183; KEEL 1995, §566; KEEL 1994, 213-220. KEEL 1995, §605-609. BEN-TOR 2009, 87. BEN-TOR 2009, passim.
302
D. BEN-TOR AND O. KEEL
especially in the case of the kneeling figure on the Bnei Brak scarab. There is unfortunately no evidence to determine the cultural implications of this scene in the southern Levant, yet it is reasonable to interpret it in the context of a local temple cult, as was suggested in the case of bearers of twigs or blossoms29. The owner of the seal-amulet thus plausibly presents himself as a humble servant of a local deity to attain his blessing. The most likely Levantine production suggested above for the three items under discussion could possibly be questioned considering the motif appearing on the other side of the Ashmolean plaque; a striding male figure brandishing a weapon (mace, or mace-axe?) in his raised right hand, and holding a shield in his left hand (Pl. 1: e). A uraeus is depicted behind the figure and a small branch is shown between his legs. This smiting pose, with one hand waving a weapon while the other hand holds a shield, is characteristic of Egyptian New Kingdom stelae representations of the Canaanite god Resheph30. This is also true for the shape of the rectangular shield with a rounded curved top, the curve turned towards the figure31. Cornelius points out the shield as a distinctive marker of Resheph representations in Egypt, distinguishing his portrayals from those of the Pharaoh and the god Ba‘al32. The question is therefore whether the figure on the Ashmolean plaque can be identified as Resheph although it is apparently earlier than the New Kingdom, and the design on the other side argues for its most likely production in the southern Levant. Identifying the figure as Resheph is tempting33, but it is challenged by the evidence indicating that this iconography in portrayals of Resheph is not attested earlier than the New Kingdom34, as it follows the god’s veneration in Egypt which began during the reign of Amenhotep II35. Portrayals of a smiting god corresponding to depictions of Resheph on Egyptian stelae are attested also in glyptic art, which is generally dated to the New Kingdom/Late Bronze Age36. A Middle Bronze Age date was suggested for a few scarabs and for the Ashmolean plaque37. The features of some of these scarabs, when available in the literature, either argue for a New Kingdom date or they are not distinctive as dating criteria. Nevertheless, in addition to the Ashmolean plaque, there are two scarabs depicting a male figure in a smiting pose holding a ‘Resheph’-type shield, which display distinctive Middle Bronze Age features: a scarab from Beth Shean (Pl. 3: a-c)38, 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
KEEL 1996, 11-14. CORNELIUS 1994, 25-57. CORNELIUS 1994, 55. CORNELIUS 1994, 88, 101. KEEL 1995, § 573. MÜNNICH 2013, 80-96; LIPIŃSKI 2009, 163-164, 170-217; GIVEON 1980, 144-145. MÜNNICH 2013, 101-102; LIPIŃSKI 2009, 168; TAZAWA 2009, 38-39. LIPIŃSKI 2009, 150-160; TAZAWA 2009, 53-55; CORNELIUS 1994, 91-99. KEEL 1995, §573. KEEL 2010, 146-147 nr. Beth Shean 108.
TWO EXCEPTIONAL MOTIFS ON MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAMP-SEAL AMULETS
303
and scarab SK 1988.6 from the collection of Othmar Keel (Pl. 3: d-f). Another scarab in the collection of Othmar Keel SK 2000.9 displays a standing figure holding a shield of similar type in his right hand but his left hand hangs down along the body (Pl. 3: g-i). The Beth Shean scarab displays a branch behind the figure, and a uraeus on either side. Scarab SK 1988.6 displays a vulture behind the figure and a small branch between his legs, and scarab SK 2000.9 does not display additional motifs. The three scarabs portray the figure with an Egyptian style wig/hair rather than a crown. An additional example depicting a figure holding a similar-type shield is a plaque recently offered for sale at Hixenbaugh New York39, displaying two figures wearing a high conical crown, one holding a shield, and the other, depicted behind the first figure, holding a branch. A falcon above a nb sign is depicted on the right, facing the figure with the shield, whose right hand hangs down alongside the body like the figure on scarab SK 2000.9. The stylistic characteristics of the designs appearing on the three scarabs and plaque discussed above closely resemble those of the Ashmolean plaque, and strongly argue for a Middle Bronze Age date and for a most likely place of production in the southern Levant40. Since Resheph is not known to occur in this form in the art of western Asia, and considering the Middle Bronze Age stylistic characteristics of the designs occurring on the Ashmolean plaque and corresponding items, the identification of the figure on these stamp-seal amulets as Resheph is doubtful. It is further challenged by the unusual headdress of the figure on the Ashmolean plaque, suggesting a sun disk, and the absence of a crown on the figures portrayed on the three scarabs, while the standard Egyptian representations of Resheph, including those appearing on New Kingdom scarabs, always portray him wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt41. The high conical crown on the two figures depicted on the Hixenbaugh plaque differs from the Egyptian white crown, and occurs in association with another figure on Canaanite stamp-seal amulets42. Unfortunately, one of the most distinctive attributes of Resheph in Egyptian relief representations, the gazelle head at his brow43, does not appear in portrayals of the figure on stamp-seal amulets probably due to mediocre workmanship or space limitation. Since the Egyptian iconography of Resheph portrayals is not attested in Levantine representations tentatively associated with this god44, one could argue that the figure on the Middle Bronze Age plaques and scarabs discussed above may represent Resheph if produced in Egypt in the Second Intermediate Period. 39
http://www.hixenbaugh.net/gallery/detail.cfm?itemnum=6425&showpic=a For different scenes on Middle Bronze Age seal amulets displaying a man holding a shield see BRANDL 1993, 130-131, nr. 2. 41 CORNELIUS 1994, 52, and pl. 28 nrs. RM 7-RM13. 42 KEEL 1995, 209, fig. 411. 43 CORNELIUS 1994, 53. 44 CORNELIUS 1994, 130-133, pls. 31-32 nrs. RB1-RB3. 40
304
D. BEN-TOR AND O. KEEL
If this is accepted these are the earliest representation of the god in his Egyptian form. This speculation is however strongly contested by the evidence indicating that the veneration of Resheph in Egypt is not attested before the reign of Amenhotep II. Scarabs displaying figures of Canaanite gods were produced in Egypt, but only during the New Kingdom when Canaanite gods were venerated in the Nile valley, and scarabs portraying the figures of Astarte, Ba‘al-Seth, and Resheph45, like the stelae dedicated to them, reflect this veneration. Although the identification of the figures on the two plaques and three scarabs displaying a figure holding a shield is unclear, the smiting posture of the figure on the Ashmolean plaque and attributes like his headdress (sun disk?) and the weapons in his hands, strongly argue for identifying him as a god. It is therefore tempting to suggest that the offering bearing scene on the other side of the plaque displays a cultic scene of presenting offerings to the god46. Such an association was also suggested in the case of a Middle Bronze Age plaque depicting three figures seemingly performing a ritual dance on one side, and a figure most likely representing a god, wearing a conical high crown, on the other side47. Whether the Ashmolean plaque and parallels discussed above were produced in the southern Levant or in the Eastern delta, the former more likely, the portrayals of the smiting god holding a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other hand may have been one of the sources of inspiration for the later Egyptian portrayals of the god Resheph. References BEN-TOR, D. 1994, ‘The Historical Implications of Middle Kingdom Scarabs Found in Palestine Bearing Private Names and Titles of Officials’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 294, 7-22. BEN-TOR, D. 1997, ‘The Relations between Egypt and Palestine in the Middle Kingdom as Reflected by Contemporary Canaanite Scarabs’, Israel Exploration Journal 47, 162-189. BEN-TOR, D. 2007, Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 27), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. BEN-TOR, D. 2009, ‘Pseudo Hieroglyphs on Middle Bronze Age Canaanite Scarabs’, in P. ANDRÁSSY, J. BUDKA, F. KAMMERZELL (eds.), Non-Textual Marking Systems, Writing and Pseudo Script from Prehistory to Modern Times (Lingua Aegyptia – Studia monographica 8), Göttingen: Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie, 83-100. BRANDL, B. 1993, ‘Scarabs, a Scaraboid and a Scarab Impression from Agea G (19681970)’, in M. DOTHAN, Y. PORATH (eds.), Ashdod V, Excavation of Area G, The Fourth-Sixth Seasons of Excavations 1968-1970, ꜥAtiqot XXIII, 129-142. 45 KEEL 2009, 90-92; Tazawa 2009, 20-26, 54-55; CORNELIUS 2008, 4.11-4.28; CORNELIUS 1994, pls. 47-51. 46 KEEL 1995, §565. 47 KEEL 1995, §571, fig. 411.
TWO EXCEPTIONAL MOTIFS ON MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAMP-SEAL AMULETS
305
CORNELIUS, I. 1994, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al: Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I Periods (c. 1500–1000 BCE) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 140), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. CORNELIUS, I. 2008, The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the SyroPalestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500–1000 BCE (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 204), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DELANGE, E. 2015, ‘Stela Chapel of the Reporter of the Vizier Senwosret’, in A. OPPENHEIM, D. ARNOLD, D. ARNOLD, K. YAMAMOTO (eds.), Ancient Egypt Transformed: The Middle Kingdom, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, cat 195. GARDINER, A. 1957, Egyptian Grammar. Third edition, revised, Oxford: Griffith Institute. GIVEON, R. 1980, ‘Review Article. Resheph in Egypt’, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 66, 144-150. KEEL, O. 1994, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel IV (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 135), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O. 1995, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 10), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O. 1996, ‘Davids „Tanz“ vor der Lade’, Bibel und Kirche 51, 11-14. KEEL, O. 2009, ‘Seth-Ba‘al und Seth-Ba‘al-Jahwe – Interkulturelle Ligaturn’, in G. THEISSEN, H. U. STEYMANS, S. OSTERMANN, M. SCHMIDT, A. MORESINO-ZIPPER (eds.), Jerusalem und die Länder: Ikonographie – Topographie – Theologie. Festschrift für Max Küchler (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus, Studien zum Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 70), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 87-107. KEEL, O. 2010, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Katalog Band II (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 29), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. KEEL, O., 2020, 700 Skarabäen und Verwandtes aus Palästina/Israel. Die Sammlung Keel (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 39), Leuven: Peeters. LIPIŃSKI, E. 2009, Resheph: A Syro-Canaanite Deity (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 181), Leuven: Peeters. MÜNNICH, M. M. 2013, The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 11), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. NEWBERRY, P. E. 1893, Beni Hasan I (Archaeological Survey of Egypt I), London: Egypt Exploration Fund. NEWBERRY, P. E. 1894, Beni Hasan II (Archaeological Survey of Egypt II), London: Egypt Exploration Fund. SCHROER, S. 1989, ‘Die Göttin auf den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel’, in O. KEEL, H. KEEL-LEU, S. SCHROER, Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel II (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 88), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 89-207. STAUBLI, T. 2001, ‘Stabile Politik – Florierende Wirschaft und Umgekehrt: Ein Rechteckige, beidsitig gravierte Platte der Hyksoszeit’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen PalästinaVereins 117, 97-115. TAZAWA, K. 2009, Syro-Palestinian Deities in New Kingdom Egypt: The Hermeneutics of Their Existence (BAR International Series 1965), Oxford: Archaeopress.
306
D. BEN-TOR AND O. KEEL
Pl. 1: a-c: scarab from Bnei Brak (A-8044 B.21555; 19 × 13 × 5 mm; photo by Clara Amit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority); d-f: plaque from the collection of the Ashmolean Museum (AN 1889.915; 26.1 × 22.7 × 10.4 mm; © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford); g-i: scarab from the collection of the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Berlin (ÄM 33103, reg. nr. 707/73; 22 × 15.8 × 10,3 mm; © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – PK, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, photo by Sandra Steiß).
TWO EXCEPTIONAL MOTIFS ON MIDDLE BRONZE AGE STAMP-SEAL AMULETS
Pl. 2: Drawings of Egyptian Middle Kingdom tomb paintings depicting food bearers carrying products suspended from a yoke (a: NEWBERRY 1893, pl. XVIII; b: NEWBERRY 1894, pl. XIV).
307
308
D. BEN-TOR AND O. KEEL
Pl. 3: Scarabs depicting a male figure holding a shield. a-c: scarab from Beth Shean (IAA I.3803; 19.3 × 15 × 9.5 mm; KEEL 2010, 146-147 nr. 108); d-f: scarab from the collection of O. Keel (SK 1988.6; 23.5 × 16.2 × 9.4 mm; KEEL 2020, nr. 326); g-i: scarab from the collection of O. Keel (SK 2000.9; 22.4 × 15.2 × 10.1 mm; KEEL 2020, nr. 327).
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT Bérénice LAGARCE-OTHMAN*
The scholarly world has to be grateful to Eric Gubel for the task he has fruitfully undertaken for so many years, of bringing to light, step by step, a complex visual language that the Phoenicians built up by borrowing elements from previous, mainly Egyptian, systems and rearranging them in order to express notions and values of their own. The credit should go to Eric for the difficult but rewarding effort he has pursued of giving a coherent signification to many components of that language that, to many other scholars, looked like a random and meaningless gathering of motifs. In the next few pages, I want to acknowledge his fundamental contribution by discussing a point on which I do not agree with him, certainly an unusual way to contribute to a Festschrift, but a friendly token to Eric’s open-mindedness. In a paper published in 2012 on the “pharaoh triumphant” motif in Phoenician art1, Eric’s general thesis is that the smiting figure adorning metal bowls, seals and ivory pieces of furniture or box lids represents the ruler and, concomitantly, the god as well, performing the punishment promised to allies and vassals in case they should break allegiances and treaties. The image acted as a reminder of the elite’s values and as a warning, somehow embodying such curses as “may the god N crush your bow, etc.” that appeared at the end of agreements, threatening whoever should break the contract. Eric, therefore, interprets the bow often pictured in the clasped fist of the slaying man, which also holds the enemy’s hair, as the latter’s weapon: the idea is that the ruler and/or divinity is about to crush the head as well as the bow of the lawbreaker, to enforce the oath pledged by parties in an agreement. This study held my attention for its novel approach of the composition and for the food for thought it provides, but also, in particular, for its interpretation of that bow. It so happens that, in my young years, the subject-matter I had picked for my master 1 dissertation in Egyptology was the smiting pharaoh, and I had spent two years digging into this motif and its meaning in 3rd and 2nd millennium Egypt. Therefore, I would like to draw upon the reflection stirred by Eric Gubel about the Phoenician material with some observations derived from my Egyptological * Université Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). 1 GUBEL 2016, 175-176; GUBEL 2012.
310
B. LAGARCE-OTHMAN
Fig. 1: Sandals of Tutankhamun in the Cairo Museum (after VANNINI 2018, 27).
background and from some material older than the Phoenician – observations that, eventually, lead up to a slightly divergent understanding of the “pharaoh triumphant” image. Starting from a reflection about the original meaning of a component of the scene showing an Egyptianizing king smiting one or several victims, found on Phoenician bowls and ivories, I thence will proceed to the more global interpretation of its function that I would suggest.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT
311
In the traditional scene of the slaying of foes2, as early as Predynastic and throughout Pharaonic times, the bow is not the enemy’s bow: if it were, and since the metaphor of the Nine Bows had been in use in the Egyptian language since early times3, the bow should have appeared long ago in the king’s fist together with the victims’ hair in smiting scenes. Whereas from the 1st dynasty through the end of the Middle Kingdom, what the king grasps in that hand is his own sceptre: we see no bow in this place before the New Kingdom4. Indeed, the type of bow that is used most regularly, at least in early occurrences of the design, to represent the foreign enemy, has a curly bracket shape, as in the stereotype of the Nine Bows (cf. e.g. on a statue base of Djoser from Saqqara, JE 49889 A,B in the Imhotep Museum in Saqqara, or on the sandals of Tutankhamun, JE 62685, in the Cairo Museum: our Fig. 1), while the bow that Egyptian kings or leaders are shown using in warfare is of a straight, triangular profile. We should therefore be aware that the bow represented in smiting scenes is the king’s own weapon, with which he has been chasing his foes mounted on his chariot, before proceeding to the final ritual execution – thereby turning to the relevant weapon for that precise action: the one that a deity hands him over, a khepesh or an axe-mace. The bow being such a symbol of the king’s bravery in combat, it would not seem appropriate to picture it as about to be crushed. As a support for this idea comes, first of all, the oldest known attestation of bow and arrows clasped in the fist of a king slaying foes: it goes back to Amenhotep II’s reign (Fig. 2: Karnak temple, south side of the 8th pylon), the very king who, apparently, initiated the royal cliché of the pharaoh shooting arrows on enemies in battle from his horse chariot. These two actions, shooting arrows in battle and riding a horse chariot in battle, henceforth became attributes, graphic symbols, of royal courage and power. Some New Kingdom images offer the best testimony for the bow as a symbol of the king’s victorious activity in combat: the scene on the side of the ceremonial chariot of Thutmosis IV (our Fig. 3: the fully equipped king, with an axe, a bow and a quiver, mounts his war chariot carrying a second quiver on its flank, while he charges at a chaotic mass of Asiatics pierced by his arrows), the wall relief of Sety I on the hypostyle hall at Karnak (our Fig. 4, where one can notice one of the arrows of the 2 On this motif, see LAGARCE 2001; DEVAUCHELLE 1994; SCHULMAN 1994; SCHULMAN 1988; HALL 1986. 3 As stated by ROTH 2015, 161, the practice of engraving an image of the Nine Bows shown under the king’s feet on statue bases is attested as early as the 3rd dynasty, and the use of bows to represent enemies is even earlier, as it is already known under king Scorpion, from dynasty 0 (Nagada III). 4 On royal sceptres and staves depicted in scenes of the Pharaonic period, see FISCHER 1978; HASSAN 1976, chapter VIII. On the mks in particular, a type of staff often depicted in the hand of the smiting pharaoh, see WILKINSON 1999, 159; BARTA 1982.
312
B. LAGARCE-OTHMAN
Fig. 2: Amenhotep II at the Karnak temple, south side of the 8th pylon (after LEPSIUS 1849-1859, pl. LXI).
king stuck into the body of the captured Libyan whom the pharaoh now pulls towards him using his bow). We can add to the previous arguments that the big size of the bow grasped in the king’s fist contrasts with all the small items held by the small-sized prisoners’ figures, be they feathers, bows or other weapons (knives, lances), thus making it quite clear that the only great bow in the scene belongs to the king.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT
313
Fig. 3: Thutmosis IV charges at Asiatics, left side of the ceremonial chariot of Thutmosis IV (after CARTER and NEWBERRY 1904, pl. XI).
Fig. 4: Wall relief of Sety I on the hypostyle hall at Karnak (after EPIGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE 1986, pl. XXVII).
314
B. LAGARCE-OTHMAN
But the best illustration of the bow conceived as the instrument of the pharaoh’s victory is, again, offered by a monument of Amenhotep II: one of the sculpted blocks retrieved inside the 4th pylon in Karnak (Fig. 5) shows the king, in the upper register, smiting a prisoner while grasping a long bow in his hand, then bringing rows of captives to the god Amun-Ra. In the lower register, he is shown coming back from battle, first binding the arms of two prisoners whom he pushes ahead of him, then riding his war chariot with small prisoners, some bound behind him, some others stuffed at his sides on the chariot, or piled up on the horse in front of him; in his left hand, Amenhotep II holds his bow, while a quiver is visible on the flank of the chariot. Such juxtaposition of scenes is no doubt to be understood as the representation of successive moments, and the bow is clearly meant to be the king’s weapon. Likewise, as often in Egyptian two-dimensional art, the composition showing the slaying of foes by a victor holding down a seemingly useless weapon is meant as a kind of condensation for a sequence of moments (a two-in-one formula, so to speak): the moment of the fight against enemies, of shooting and defeating them, plus the moment of bringing them in chains in front of the god in his temple and of offering them as a sacrifice by means of a different weapon. There relies, in my opinion, the significance of the presence of the bow in the scene. In this regard, one should note that the king carved on the Nimrud ivory represented in Gubel’s paper5 carries on his back an empty quiver, which hints at the fact that the three arrows in his grasp come hence. The idea of relating compositions enclosing the smiting figure in Phoenician art to such Mesopotamian and West-Semitic typical formulae as “may Ishtar break his/their bow” or “may Astarte break your bow” is indeed quite cunning, and is convincingly put forward by Eric Gubel6. Yet, if we turn to the previous Near Eastern material at our disposal in order to track up a possible iconographical tradition, we find that Inanna/Ishtar is virtually never pictured dealing with bow or arrows. As far as we can judge from Akkadian and Old Babylonian glyptics, for instance, where she is very frequently depicted, the warrior goddess appears holding a mace, a scimitar, with weapons emerging from her shoulders7 – never is she shown in direct connection with a bow or arrows. The situation is the same on Syro-Palestinian cylinder seals of the Middle Bronze Age, although the iconography of the armed goddess is slightly different8. Only in Egyptian tradition, dating back to the 18th dynasty, can we find the image of GUBEL 2012, fig. 3. GUBEL 2016, 175-176; GUBEL 2012, 32-34. 7 Cf. e.g. COLLON 1987, 167. 8 One possible exception on seal nr. 81 in TEISSIER 1996: goddess (?) standing opposite a ruler and holding an axe and a bow. 5 6
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT
315
Fig. 5: Amenhotep II smiting a prisoner, 4th pylon in Karnak (after ZAYED 1985, pl. II).
Astarte regularly holding a bow and arrows. Later on, the bow and arrows hardly feature among Astarte’s emblems on Phoenician metal cups9, insofar as the female figure to whom the slayer often offers his human booty can be identified 9 One possible but doubtful occurrence on a bronze bowl from Delphi showing the siege of a fortress (MARKOE 1985, 320 [G4]), where a figure in a long garment holding a bow and wielding a mace could be interpreted as Astarte.
316
B. LAGARCE-OTHMAN
as such, and whereas she does wield other weapons, such as scimitar and spear. Astarte is, as well, very seldom found making a smiting gesture on Near Eastern glyptics: among the few exceptions might be the character behind the royal figure on a cylinder seal from Minet el-Beida10. By contrast, this attitude applied to a goddess of the Astarte type is a little more frequent when it comes to metal statuettes11. Let us add that this whole corpus of metal bowls from the 1st millennium BCE, whether from Eastern or Western Mediterranean provenance, of early or late facture, is consistent in its presentation of bows: whenever this weapon is depicted in one of the figurative registers on the cup, it stands as an instrument of victory (in the hands of a hunter, of a combatant shooting from a chariot, of soldiers marching to war); the contexts where it appears do not show it as a piece of booty or being wrought from defeated enemies. A further argument can be put forward that, in my opinion, contradicts the idea of the pharaoh triumphant’s image being intended as a deterrent for the minds of the recipients of cups or other objects adorned with it. Gubel’s paper of 1980 about Astarte12 rightly evoked the metamorphosis in the Late Bronze Levant of the motif of the smiting pharaoh into a storm god, Baal or similar, fertilizing the soil. The image of the ruler doing the smiting gesture could not but bring to the eyes and mind of the Oriental onlooker the stereotyped attitude of a thunder god, striking his lightning to fertilize the soil and bring forth vegetation (an iconography very common throughout the 2nd millennium in Byblos, Ugarit, on Syrian cylinder seals…)13. Hence, to my mind, the doubly propitiatory nature of the image in the bowls: first, the symbolic empowerment of its owner, who could imagine himself, by means of analogy, as triumphing over evil and enemies when drinking from the cup while looking at the motif, and second, the conscience of looking at the same time at an avatar of a storm god, with all the promises of abundance and prosperity this kind of representation conveyed. To conclude, my opinion is that the elite must have owned these bowls, not as forms of a constant warning or a reminder of some kind of threat for traitors to their values, but rather as tools of ‘empowerment’, i.e. as reinforcements of their well-being and power. The owner of such a bowl was indeed free to embody Cf. KEEL 1990, 53-54 and Abb. 27. See SEEDEN 1980, pl. 96 nr. 1681-1682 and pls. 102-103 for the specimens of smiting females, to which one must add a bronze figurine of a nude female standing on two lions from the Hauran, Louvre Museum, AO 3276. 12 GUBEL 1980, esp. 14-15. 13 On this iconographical type, see in particular CORNELIUS 1994; SEEDEN 1980; NEGBI 1976. 10
11
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT
317
his chief deity, or even himself14, in the main character of the medallion, accompanied by assistant deities, and, whenever he sipped out of the cup the liquid15 symbolically impregnated with this image of sacred force and victory over one’s foes, to feel his life-force and protection increased by such a meaningful swallowing16. Let me underline, in support of this thesis, that all the other patterns adorning the concentric registers surrounding the central medallion of vessels are of a propitiatory nature, often concerned with regeneration (the Horus child emerging out of a bush of papyri, or nursed by a goddess …) or the bringing of prosperity and plenty (the hunting of wild game …). As to the efficiency of a liquid shed over a magic image, one can think, as a parallel, of the probable practice of pouring water over the so-called “Horus on the crocodiles” stelae to benefit from the virtues this water was supposed to carry with it17. Ultimately, I think such an interpretation would more satisfactorily account for the dedication of most figurative bronze or silver Phoenician bowls in sanctuaries, as ex-votos, or in tombs, as funerary deposits – as indicated by the archaeological context of excavated finds18 – than attributing to the motif under consideration the meaning of a call to order or of a moral threat. One must consider that the bowls, when ordered and designed, were certainly meant to last until the owner’s death and, therefore, intended to be fit to stand among the funerary paraphernalia that would accompany him/her into the next world. Such a function supposes that the motifs chosen probably had to bear some protective, empowering value for the deceased as well. The image of the smiting pharaoh, above all, that was so present on these metal objects as well as on carved ivories and on scarabs, seems indeed to meet so many requirements. 14 It is on purpose that only the masculine is used in this sentence, because, to my knowledge, none of the objects of the categories dealt with here that are known to have belonged to a woman is adorned with the pharaoh triumphant motif. 15 Even if the actual drinking from such ceremonial vessels must not have been very frequent. They were quite probably meant for display rather than for effective use. But this contributes, in my view, to dismissing their function as bearers of such a visual warning as Eric Gubel believes: it would not seem fit for their owners to have such a message hung on the walls of their own houses for every visitor to see (scil. before the cup ended up offered in a temple or deposited in a burial). 16 Cf. the idea previously expressed in ONNIS 2009, 145. 17 On this type of monuments, see GASSE 2004; STERNBERG-EL HOTABI 1999. Let us also recall, even if this second example may seem a little far-fetched, the well-known Aramaic bowls (often called ‘incantation bowls’) inscribed on the inside with magic formulae, that attest to the communicative virtue attributed to containers of liquids in the Near East in Late Antiquity. This corpus of vessels may even provide a useful parallel for interpreting the meaning of their Phoenician metal ancestors: the spell which forms the main part of the text typically threatens a demon or evil spirit that he be struck by the lance of an angel (cf. e.g. SHAKED, FORD and BHAYRO 2013, 9). 18 Cf. MARKOE 1985, 75-86. Marian Feldman believes that metal bowls of the first millennium, decorated or not, found around the Mediterranean served, among other uses, as drinking vessels for funerary banquets celebrated inside tombs (e.g. FELDMAN 2015).
318
B. LAGARCE-OTHMAN
References BARTA, W. 1982, ‘Mekes’, in W. HELCK, W. WESTENDORF (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie IV, col. 20-22. CARTER, H., NEWBERRY, P. E. 1904, The Tomb of Thoutmôsis IV, Westminster: A. Constable and Co. COLLON, D. 1987, First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, London: British Museum Publications. CORNELIUS, I. 1994, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Ba‘al. Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (c. 1500-1000 BCEE) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 140), Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DEVAUCHELLE, D. 1994, ‘Un archétype de relief cultuel en Égypte ancienne’, BSFE 131, 38-60. EPIGRAPHIC SURVEY OF THE ORIENTAL INSTITUTE 1986, Reliefs and Inscriptions at Karnak IV: The Battle Reliefs of King Sety I, by the Epigraphic Survey (Oriental Institute Publications 107), Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Oriental institute. FELDMAN, M. 2015, ‘Speaking Bowls: Early Iron Age Decorated Metal Bowls and the Inscription of Memory and Identity’, in A.-M. MAÏLA-AFEICHE (ed.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its Impact on the Eastern Mediterranean Realm (BAAL Hors-Série X), Beyrouth: Ministère de la Culture – Direction Générale des Antiquités, 297-314. FISCHER, H. G. 1978, ‘Notes on Sticks and Staves in Ancient Egypt’, Metropolitan Museum Journal 13, 5-32. GASSE, A. 2004, Les stèles d’Horus sur les crocodiles, catalogue of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities of the Musée du Louvre, Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux. GUBEL, E. 1980, ‘An Essay on the Axe-Bearing Astarte and Her Role in a Phoenician ‘Triad’’, Rivista di Studi Fenici VIII, 1-17. GUBEL, E. 2012, ‘Decoding Phoenician Art (I): Pharaoh Triumphant’, Rivista di Studi Fenici XL, 21-38. GUBEL, E. 2016, ‘Crossing Continents: Phoenician Art and How to Read It’, in J. ARUZ, M. SEYMOUR (eds.), Assyria to Iberia. Art and Culture in the Iron Age, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 168-179. HALL, E. S. 1986, The Pharaoh Smites his Enemies (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 44), München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag. HASSAN, A. 1976, Stöcke und Stäbe im Pharaonischen Ägypten bis zum Ende des Neuen Reiches (Münchner Ägyptologische Studien 33), München/Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag. KEEL, O. 1990, ‘Der Bogen als Herrschaftssymbol. Einige uneröffentliche Skarabäen aus Ägypten und Israel zum Thema ‘Jagd und Krieg’’, in O. KEEL, M. SHUVAL, CHR. UEHLINGER (eds.), Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel III (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 100), Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 27-65, 263-279. LAGARCE, B. 2001, Le motif de l’abattage royal : iconographie et inscriptions (unpublished MA diss. Sorbonne), Paris. LEPSIUS, C. R. 1849-1859, Denkmäler aus Ægypten und Æthiopien III, Berlin: Nicolai. MARKOE, G. 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. NEGBI, O. 1976, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient SyroPalestinian Figurines, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
SOME THOUGHTS ON THE “PHARAOH TRIUMPHANT” AND THE LEVANT
319
ONNIS, F. 2009, ‘The Nimrud Bowls: New Data from an Analysis of the Objects’, Iraq 71, 139-150. ROTH A. M., 2015, ‘Representing the Other: Non-Egyptians in Pharaonic Iconography’, in M. K. HARTWIG (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art, Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 155-174. SCHULMAN, A. R. 1988, Ceremonial Execution and Public Rewards: Some Historical Scenes on New Kingdom Private Stelae (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 75), Fribourg/ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. SCHULMAN, A. R. 1994, ‘Take for yourself the sword’, in B. M. BRYAN, D. LORTON (eds.), Essays in Egyptology in Honor of Hans Goedicke, San Antonio, Tx.: Van Siclen Books, 265-295. SEEDEN, H. 1980, The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant (PBF I,1), München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. SHAKED, S., FORD, J. N., BHAYRO, S. 2013, Aramaic Bowl Spells. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls I, Leiden/Boston: Brill. STERNBERG-EL HOTABI, H. 1999, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der Horusstelen (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 62), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. TEISSIER, B. 1996, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 11), Fribourg/ Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. VANNINI, S. 2018, Toutankhamon. Le voyage dans l’au-delà, Köln: Taschen. WILKINSON, T. A. H. 1999, Early Dynastic Egypt, London/New York: Routledge. ZAYED, A.-H. 1985, ‘Une représentation inédite des campagnes d’Aménophis II’, in P. POSENER-KRIEGER (ed.), Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar I, Cairo: IFAO, 5-17, pl. I-II.
NEGOTIATING SPACE: THE ROLE OF LARNACA-LAXIA TOU RIOU IN A COMPLEX LATE BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE Jan COENAERTS, Melissa SAMAES and Karin NYS*
Context Among the ever-returning research interests in the long career of Eric Gubel are undoubtedly the Iron Age archaeology of the Levant, often in relation to the material culture of Cyprus, and the 19th century entanglement of politics and archaeology in Cyprus1. Therefore, it seems appropriate to dedicate to Eric Gubel a paper that takes a fresh look at the role of Larnaca-Laxia tou Riou (hereafter Laxia tou Riou), a site in southeastern Cyprus that was investigated at the end of the 19th century. Laxia tou Riou is located in Larnaca’s spreading western suburbs and approximately 2 km north-west of the Larnaca Salt Lake, which was a navigable lagoon during the Late Bronze Age2. It lies strategically on the northern bank of an old river-branch leading from the Tremithos river to the Salt Lake. Laxia tou Riou is one of many Cypriot sites that were explored at the end of the 19th century by members of the British School in Athens with support from the Cyprus Exploration Fund. The sparkle for its discovery and mentioning in the literature comes from the fiery interest in recovering as much material of the Mycenaean Age3. In 1894, Myres unearthed at Laxia tou Riou five tombs ranging in date from Middle Cypriot II to Late Cypriot IIB (ca. 1900-1340/1314 BCE) (Table 1). They were part of a larger cemetery, which was pillaged soon after its discovery. The remaining tomb assemblages were divided between the Ashmolean and Cyprus Museum according to the Ottoman Law. Myres published the material remains in the Journal of Hellenic Studies – a solid publication according to the standards of the time4. However, the precise location of the tombs is not mentioned, nor the intra-tomb distribution of artefacts and skeletal remnants. In this way, the extent and character of the site in relation to the environment and contemporary sites nearby remained elusive.
* Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Maritime Cultures Research Institute. 1 GUBEL and MASSAR 2012. 2 DEVILLERS et al. 2015; GIFFORD 1978, 48-51. 3 STEEL 2001. 4 MYRES 1897, 148-150.
322
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
Table 1: Overview of tomb contents at Laxia tou Riou. Only assignable pottery wares are mentioned. The number of artefacts is indicative and based on the data in MYRES 1897 and ÅSTRÖM 1972. Tomb
Chronology
Well-defined pottery classes
Artefacts Pottery
Other
1
MC III – LC IA Black Slip, Monochrome, Red Polished IV, White Painted Hand-made III-IV, White Painted Hand-made IV
25
24
2
MC II-III (LC IA?)
Red Polished IV, White Painted Hand-made V Fine Line Style
6
7
3
MC II-III
Red Polished III
9
1
4
LC IIA-B
Base-Ring I-II, White Painted Hand-made V, White Slip I-II, Late Helladic IIIA-B
49
Plundered?
5
MC III
White Painted Hand-made III-IV, Red Polished
To archaeologists working on Cyprus, and especially to those investigating the Bronze Age, Laxia tou Riou is generally perceived as one of the many cemetery sites in the region of present-day Larnaca, where Late Helladic vessels were discovered at the end of the 19th century. Based on the presence of the Late Helladic pottery, researchers in the last decades of the 20th century referred to Laxia tou Riou as a Late Cypriot II satellite site from the harbour town, Hala Sultan Tekke5. This view created a somewhat static perception, thereby ignoring the formative stages of Laxia tou Riou during the Middle Cypriot period and the early part of the Late Cypriot period. Despite the lack of contextual information and the dispersed afterlife of the finds, it is possible to sketch the development of Laxia tou Riou. In order to do so, we will consider its interesting topographical position on the interface between the lagoon and the Tremithos drainage in combination with well-defined pottery classes. Our contribution will shed light on the role of Laxia tou Riou within the changing occupation patterns around the Larnaca Salt Lake during the Middle and Late Bronze Age in relation to a fast-changing landscape and increasing evidence for social stratification. Furthermore, this article wishes to examine if a plundered and excavated site like Laxia tou Riou may still be a valuable source of information that can contribute to the examination of 21st century research threads. In order to discover the local spatial entanglements of Laxia tou Riou, we will guide the reader through all the life stages of the site in relation to a shifting site patterning around the Larnaca Salt Lake, from its inception in the Middle Cypriot II period (hereafter MC II) to its demise at the end of the Late Cypriot IIB period (hereafter LC IIB). 5
CADOGAN 2005, 313-314; KNAPP 1997; KESWANI 1996; STANLEY-PRICE 1979; CATLING 1962.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
323
Fig. 1: The physical environment in southeast Cyprus (map by Jan Coenaerts).
The physical environment (Fig. 1) Nowadays, the area around Laxia tou Riou is physically dominated by the Larnaca Salt Lake, an important ecological wetland consisting of four lakes, but during the Late Bronze Age it was a coastal lagoon6. Its inlet from the sea presumably silted up by the end of the Late Bronze Age, thereby ending the life of Hala Sultan Tekke as a harbour7. The Tremithos drainage, located at the western side of the current Salt Lake, was another important environmental factor for Laxia tou Riou. The river originates at two different sources in the copper-rich volcanic Troodos foothills. The eastern arm wells up near the mining areas of Kornos and Pyrga, while the western arm starts east of Sha and south of the Mathiatis mining areas. The western arm meanders heavily in the direction of Agia Anna, cutting deep in the low chalky and limestone hills, passing west of Kalo Khorio8. Just past this 6 7 8
GIFFORD 1978, 168. DEVILLERS et al. 2015. GHILARDI et al. 2015, 184-187.
324
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
village, an older river branch diverts into the direction of the Salt Lake. This side branch can be identified as an old arm of the Tremithos, based on the alluvial deposits along its sides, and on its gradient and alterations in altitude towards the Larnaca Salt Lake. Due to the deeper cutting of the main Tremithos channel already before the start of the Bronze Age, the side branch received less water and was finally cut off from the main Tremithos drainage before the Late Bronze Age9. Nonetheless, it remained visible in the landscape and is nowadays still in use as the most important drainage channel of the Salt Lake. Possibly, the dry river arm was used – in summer – as a track for the transport of raw materials and other goods (e.g., agricultural produce) coming down from the mountains along the Tremithos. Presumably, the old-river branch drained into the lagoon north of the Kamares aqueduct. Since this marshy area is the lowest part of the immediate surrounding – which still overflows regularly today – it is not unlikely that the area was part of the lagoon during the Bronze Age10, thereby connecting Laxia tou Riou to the lagoon. The eastern arm flows from the Kornos and Pyrga villages north of Stavrovouni towards Klavdia, where it joins the western arm. From here, the river runs in the direction of Tersefanou and Arpera Chiftlik and curves in southwestern direction to Kiti village and then southeast towards the Mediterranean basin, where it ends in a fan. The larger part of the current river follows the same course as during the Late Bronze Age, although the river mouth may have changed throughout the centuries. The area around the current mouth has long been indicated as a marshy area11, but is nowadays rather dry due to the building of the Arpera Dam at the start of the 1970s. The impact that the Tremithos river and the lagoon had on the Bronze Age occupation patterns cannot be underestimated, as reflected by the shifting roles that Laxia tou Riou fulfilled within this landscape. Middle Cypriot II (ca. 1900-1800/1750 BCE) (Fig. 2) Before zooming in on the spatial entanglements of Laxia tou Riou, a caveat concerning the quality of the available data must be made. The tombs of Laxia tou Riou were never fully published and the tomb assemblages dispersed soon after their discovery. This implies that the tomb contents had to be reconstructed from the study of assignable objects in the museums and from archival material. Despite these shortcomings, it is possible to recreate the position of the site within a local site network. Before plunging into Laxia tou Riou’s spatial entanglements, it is important to stress that most sites around the lagoon and the GIFFORD 1978, 149-151. GIFFORD 1978, 160. 11 GIFFORD 1978, 141, 167-168. 9
10
NEGOTIATING SPACE
325
Tremithos drainage are cemeteries. In general, Early Cypriot (EC) and Middle Cypriot (MC) cemeteries are located immediately outside the settlement, while Late Cypriot cemeteries are located within the settlement structure12. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss all the site histories and for the sake of convenience we will consider all the sites as settlements13. Based on the material from Tombs 2 and 3 (Table 1), Laxia tou Riou seems to develop during MC II. Myres’ excavation documents mention ‘red ware’ and ‘painted ware’, which led Åström14 to date both tombs roughly to MC II-III. Only one Red Polished III jug, which is a characteristic Cypriot ware occurring particularly during MC I-II, can safely be assigned to Tomb 3. It seems furthermore reasonable to advocate a MC II-III date if we take into account that Tombs 2 and 3 were located next to each other and display a similar material record. In this way, it is likely that Laxia tou Riou emerged somewhere during MC II. A particular spatial connection may have existed between Laxia tou Riou and Larnaca-Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik (hereafter Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik), an EC to MC cemetery site about 600 m southwest15. Their close proximity and position along the same old-river branch of the Tremithos suggests a distinctive spatial entanglement (Fig. 2). Since EC and MC cemeteries tend to be located outside the settlement16, we might infer that Laxia tou Riou and Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik served the same, not yet discovered, settlement during MC II. Alternatively, there was a site shift from the earlier occupation at Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik to Laxia tou Riou, which is a recurring phenomenon in the Cypriot Bronze Age17. Low-density occupation is present on the east and west side of the lagoon, two to three km from Laxia tou Riou. The cemetery of Kiton-Ayios Prodromos, 2 km east of Laxia tou Riou, appears to continue into MC II, although its main use can be assigned to the Early Bronze Age. The last burials are dated to the end of MC II18. It is not until LC IIB that new occupation evidence arises at Kition-Kathari19. Three km south-west, on the highest point in the vicinity of the lagoon at 20 m above sea-level, the MC I-II cemetery evidence at Dromolaxia-Melissari indicates the earliest sign of human activity at the western site of the lagoon20. Occupation evidence in the Tremithos drainage comes from Arpera-Ayios Andronikos and -Mosphilos (Fig. 2). The abundant cemeteries at both sites 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
KESWANI 2004, 86. For the site history see COENAERTS 2016. ÅSTRÖM 1972, 188. COENAERTS 2016, 214; GJERSTAD 1926, 13. KESWANI 2004, 86. COENAERTS 2016; WEBB and FRANKEL 2004. HERSCHER 1988. KARAGEORGHIS and DEMAS 1985, 264. COENAERTS 2016, 209.
326
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
Fig. 2: Occupation in the Tremithos drainage and around the lagoon during MC II (map by Jan Coenaerts).
display a clear MC II sequence21. Three km upstream in the chalky hillside of the Tremithos river, there is minor evidence of human activity at Agia Anna22. The location of Laxia tou Riou and other sites in the Tremithos drainage, both on the bank of the river and on the borders of the lagoon, suggest the presence of a local trade and communication network. The dominant site during this period was probably located at Arpera, in view of the abundant mortuary evidence and topographical position, i.e. a low plateau dominating the coastal plain up to lagoon. This image clearly corresponds to the island-wide site location during the MC I-II period at a time when sites were mainly situated in river valleys three to four km from the coast, close to river and agricultural land and at crossroads of land/river routes23, or in the contact zone between the upland sedimentary soils and the copper-rich Troodos foothills, e.g., at Marki-Alonia. The absence of fortifications, the location of the sites in easily accessible terrain, the scarcity 21 22 23
MERRILLEES 1974; MARKIDES 1916. MYRES 1897, 147. GEORGIOU et al. 2011.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
327
of weaponry (in the total metal artefact assemblages), and the lack of evidence for violent destructions corroborate the idea of a fairly stable and open society24. Cemeteries along the south coast do not show elaborate funerary display, suggesting a fairly egalitarian society. In contrast, sites along the north coast show evidence for an increasing trade and copper working/production in combination with a more elaborate mortuary representation, thereby suggesting the rise of social stratification25. During MC, there was an intensification in agricultural practices, technological developments, exploitation of less suitable soils, and increased clearance of forests in combination with the rise in population, which implied a higher human impact on the landscape26. This settlement shift was not only the result of changing environmental circumstances but was also in correlation with the increasing international connections and a growing social stratification27. This probably resulted in the emergence of different settlement networks towards the end of MC II. The limited number of artefacts and low evidence for mortuary display in Tombs 2 and 3 at Laxia tou Riou correspond to the societal image of southern Cyprus during MC I-II, suggesting an independent classless community. Its location a few km inland at the interface of the lagoonal environment and the river drainage, is in agreement with the island-wide occupation pattern. Laxia tou Riou’s topographical position near fertile agricultural land and easy access to water explains its emergence, since there is an island-wide population increase linked to agricultural improvements. Its birth is also connected to the advent of an incipient local trade and communication network along the old Tremithos river branch connecting the lagoon with the river. This corresponds with the self-supporting agricultural villages roughly clustered into regional networks during the first part of the Middle Cypriot period. There is no evidence for an incorporation in a foreign trade network at Laxia tou Riou, nor at other sites of the same local Tremithos network. Middle Cypriot III – Late Cypriot IA/B (ca. 1800/1750-1450 BCE) (Fig. 3) The material evidence at Laxia tou Riou clearly increases during MC III, since pottery pertaining to this period occurs in three out of the five tombs (Tombs 1-2 and 5, see Table 1). Moreover, it is not excluded that also Tomb 3 continued into MC III. Indicators for LC I are present in Tomb 1 and perhaps Tomb 2. Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik does not show any MC III evidence and is probably abandoned towards the start of MC III. 24 25 26 27
WEBB 2014, 359. KNAPP 2013. MANNING 2019; KNAPP 2015, 28. DRIESSEN and FRANKEL 2012, 64-67.
328
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
Fig. 3: Occupation in the Tremithos drainage and around the lagoon during MC III-LC I (map by Jan Coenaerts).
Interesting to note is the relative high number of metal objects in Tomb 1. At least seventeen artefacts are made from a copper alloy (copper with tin or arsenicum). Four daggers, two axe-heads and one spearhead may indicate weapons used for mortuary ritual28. Other copper-based and silver-lead artefacts, such as rings and beads point to items of personal adornment. Myres mentioned a piece of bronze, inconclusively interpreted as a “concave disc of shallow bowl of thin sheet bronze ornamented by four small circles”29. Silver(-lead) objects tend to occur especially in the tombs of larger sites during this period, e.g., at Hala Sultan Tekke and Arpera Chiftlik-Ayios Andronikos30. The copper weapons and the presence of two stone mace-heads (in diorite and limestone) in Tomb 1 may indicate a ceremonial use in the mortuary display31. Alternatively, viewing that during this period Hala Sultan Tekke rises near the coast and Kato Vlakhos 28 29 30 31
KESWANI 2004, 83. MYRES 1897, 147. COENAERTS 2016. KESWANI 2004, 53.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
329
Chiftlik is deserted, the occurrence of weapons could indicate tensions in this micro-region. Returning to the MC III-LC I site pattern in the immediate surrounding of Laxia tou Riou, it is clear that Hala Sultan Tekke emerges on the western shore of the lagoon as a harbour with international contacts32. As sites are founded closer to the sea during MC III-LC I33, people from Kato Vlakhos Chiftlik may have abandoned their site in order to participate in the founding of the harbour town at Hala Sultan Tekke. From MC III onwards, occupation evidence at Hala Sultan Tekke is no longer limited to Melissari, but data increase from tombs and minor settlement indications (wells, pits, building material) at the localities Trypes34 and Vyzakia35. This indicates a demographic growth, but also points to a restructuring of the site patterning, which corroborates the island-wide observation of the abandonment or destruction of old sites, concurrently with the foundation of new sites primarily along the south and east coasts. It seems that smaller sites near the copper-bearing zones in marginal agricultural areas moved to the developing centres in the more fertile coastal zones. According to Keswani36, these changes were the result of competing social groups with sometimes violent rivalry resulting in a period of transition. From a regional perspective, it seems that during MC III a cluster of hinterland sites emerged around the Tremithos river, consisting of Arpera, Klavdia, Laxia tou Riou and perhaps Agia Anna, to which Hala Sultan Tekke functioned as a coastal gateway37. This hinterland system in the Tremithos drainage controlled the mining of copper in the Troodos foothills near the source of the river. Traders coming down from the mining sites had the option to come down via the Tremithos in the direction of Arpera and go to a not yet identified harbour site near the mouth of the river38. Alternatively, commodities coming down and going up could have been transhipped using the old Tremithos branch north of the lagoon and immediately south of Laxia tou Riou, connecting the mines with the harbour. The emergence of a second site along this part of the river at Kalo Khorio during LC I may corroborate this trade and communication route39. Mortuary evidence indicates that Kalo Khorio came already into use towards the end of MC III40. As a result, it seems that Laxia tou Riou was part of a site system along the Tremithos river, connecting the mining area to the coast. In addition, 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
ÅSTRÖM et al. 1976. KNAPP 1997, 4. ADMIRAAL 1982; ASTRÖM 1977. ASTRÖM and HERSCHER 1989. KESWANI 1989, 136. SAMAES and COENAERTS 2011. LEONARD 2004, 118. GEORGIOU 2006, 162, 323-324; KARAGEORGIS 1982. GEORGIOU 2006, 162, 323-324.
330
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
it is conceivable that Laxia tou Riou – in view of its location on the interface between the Tremithos and the lagoon – acted as a transhipment point, where goods could be transferred from boats on pack animals. In this respect, it is remarkable that not one non-Cypriot object was retrieved from the Laxia tou Riou tombs pertaining to MC III – LC I. This is in contrast with the evidence form other sites within this Tremithos site system: Hala Sultan Tekke, Arpera (Ayios Andronoikos and Mosphilos) and Klavdia show an early involvement in international trade networks materialised in the presence of jugs of the earliest variants of imported Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware, Syrian Red Burnished ware and so-called Canaanite jars41. The intra-island communication of Laxia tou Riou is reflected in the painted patterns of locally produced White Painted Hand-made ware. Gagné42 analysed the patterns of two vessels from Tomb 1, namely a jug with a tubular spout decorated with hatched triangles (CM A757)43 and a tankard (CM C76)44 decorated with hatched diamonds. Although the motifs point to Lapithos as the source of origin, the chaotic execution of these motifs may point to a different production centre in the Mesaoria45. Similar White Painted Hand-made ware was also found at Klavdia. Laxia tou Riou’s expanding mortuary evidence reveals its incorporation in a local site network as well as in an interregional trade system, herewith illustrating the further development of the site. This view reflects the social trends observed on the island, where a more complex and stratified society emerges during MC III-LC I, gradually replacing the village communities from the previous periods46. This is in particular extrapolated from the observed mortuary changes and increasing participation in local exchange. Since the archaeological record of Laxia tou Riou does not attest of an increasing participation in foreign exchange networks, at the time that neighbouring sites, Hala Sultan Tekke, Arpera and Klavdia, are the first-users of overseas products, we might infer that Laxia tou Riou had a lower status in the local site hierarchy and that it was probably involved in agricultural production in addition to its function as a transhipment point. Late Cypriot IIA-C (ca. 1450-1200 BCE) (Fig. 4) Laxia tou Riou does not show clear occupation evidence for the latter part of LC I. Yet, since Tomb 4 has a life span of LC IIA-B, it seems plausible to suggest that the site continued its existence. Tomb 4 yielded 49 pottery items, among 41 42 43 44 45 46
COENAERTS 2016, 285-286. GAGNÉ 2012, 205-206. ÅSTRÖM 1972, 55. ÅSTRÖM 1972, 72. GAGNÉ 2012, 206. KNAPP 2015.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
331
Fig. 4: Occupation in the Tremithos drainage and around the lagoon during LC II (map by Jan Coenaerts).
which five are imported Late Helladic IIIA-B vessels (Table 1). The remainder of the tomb assemblages show the dominance of characteristic Cypriot LC handmade pottery wares, such as Base-Ring II and White Slip II (45%). It is remarkable that any other type of artefacts is absent, which probably reflects the looting of the tomb in antiquity. The Late Helladic pottery, for which Laxia tou Riou was renowned during the 20th century (cf. supra), can tell us something about the site’s regional position. The three piriform jars, a stirrup jar and an alabastron, attributed to LH IIIA:247, primarily point to storage and trade. Parallels are found in all the sites along the Tremithos river, implying that Late Helladic storage vessels and their contents were appreciated all over the region48. The absence of Late Helladic tableware at Laxia tou Riou and other hinterland sites such as Kalo Khorio, may either be an indication of the lack of well-documented stratified settlement contexts, or refer to a different usage of Late Helladic pottery linked to social stratification patterns emerging at the coastal centres and 47 48
COENAERTS 2016, 163. SAMAES and COENAERTS 2011, 401-402.
332
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
the high-ranking hinterland sites. The fact that Late Helladic Pictorial IIIA-B pottery, in particular decorated kraters, are abundantly present at Hala Sultan Tekke, Arpera and Klavdia49, but are completely lacking at Laxia tou Riou, seems to support the latter hypothesis. The presence of pictorial kraters at hinterland sites like Arpera and Klavdia indicate that the elite of these sites were akin to the urban aristocracy in the coastal centres. In her study on Bronze Age mortuary patterns, Keswani already concluded that Laxia tou Riou and Kalo Khorio occupied a lower position within the local settlement organization, because their tombs contained less valuable objects and hardly any pictorial decorated vessels50. Viewing the entire site system in the Tremithos valley, it is clear that Hala Sultan Tekke rises to prominence during LC II. Particularly towards the second part of LC II, Hala Sultan Tekke starts dominating the site system around the lagoon and in the Tremithos valley51. It is noteworthy that concurrently with the relapse of hinterland sites, Hala Sultan Tekke experiences an urban make-over, including the use of ashlar masonry and a new planned site structure laid on a grid, which was constructed over, and unrelated to52, older habitations and cemeteries. In this way, a new deliberate site identity was created, replacing the different group identities from the distinctive older site parts. This is in agreement with the ideas of Keswani53 and Fisher54, who argue that the new site identity corresponds to the dominant power group. As a result, by LC IIB, Hala Sultan Tekke dominates the hinterland sites of Laxia tou Riou, Arpera, Klavdia and Agia Anna. Until this period, Laxia tou Riou probably continues to function as a transhipment point. With the emergence of Kition towards the end of LC IIB, a second site system develops at the eastern side of the lagoon. It includes three LC I-II sites in the neighbourhood of Aradippou (Kolymbos, Kophinarga and Shemishin), which can be regarded as hinterland sites of Kition. Remarkably, the territories of the ‘Hala Sultan Tekke network’ and the ‘Kition network’ seem to intersect near the lagoon, and more specifically near Laxia tou Riou. The simultaneous emergence of Kition and the abandonment of Laxia tou Riou at the end of LC IIB suggests a site movement. The population of Laxia tou Riou may have left their settlement to participate in the development of Kition. Since, the lagoon was slowly silting up, it seems reasonable to suggest that the interface of the Tremithos river-arm and the lagoon near Laxia tou Riou was difficult to reach. This implies that Laxia tou Riou could no longer function as a transhipment point. 49 50 51 52 53 54
VERMEULE and KARAGEORGHIS 1982. KESWANI 2004, 131. COENAERTS 2016, 307-310. E.g. HÅKANSSON 1989. KESWANI 1996, 236-239. FISHER 2014, 202-203.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
333
Conclusion The role of Laxia tou Riou becomes tangible in the study of the changing occupation pattern along the connection between the old lagoon and the Tremithos drainage. Our approach supported a dynamic development over time above the no longer valid interpretation of a static LC IIB cemetery site. In this way, our study confirms that even a damaged and explored site as Laxia tou Riou can still contribute to a conceptualisation of a 21st century narrative. Laxia tou Riou emerges during MC II in a region with a low-density occupation. Towards the end of MC II, it becomes part of a slowly developing local trade and communication network along the river. During the succeeding MC III and LC I periods, the sites in the Tremithos drainage are one of the first in Cyprus that develop into booming trade and communication networks, including an involvement in international trade. This results into Laxia tou Riou’s transformation into a transhipment point, although it also seems involved in agricultural produce. However, Laxia tou Riou’s material entanglements, in particular the absence of rich mortuary evidence, suggest predominantly local contacts, thereby pointing to a lower position within the region’s site hierarchy. Towards the end of LC IIB (ca. 1340/1315 BCE), the site’s role as a transhipment point slowly declines due to the siltation of the lagoon, the centralisation at the coastal centres of Hala Sultan Tekke and Kition, and a gradual downfall of the site network along the Tremithos. References ADMIRAAL, S. L. 1982, ‘Late Bronze Age Tombs from Dromolaxia’, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 1982, 39-59. ÅSTRÖM, P. 1972, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition IV:1B. The Middle Cypriot Bronze Age, Lund: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. ÅSTRÖM, P. 1977, ‘Dromolaxia, Locality Trypes’, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 1977, 110-112. ÅSTRÖM, P. 1986, ‘Hala Sultan Tekke. An International Harbour Town of the Late Cypriote Bronze Age’, Opuscula Atheniensis 16, 7-17. ÅSTROM, P., HERSCHER, E. 1989, ‘Trenches 7 and 9-21’, in P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), Hala Sultan Tekke 9. Trenches 1972-1987 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45:9), Göteborg: Paul Åstroms, 48-60. ÅSTRÖM, P., BAILEY, D. M., KARAGEORGHIS, V. (eds.), 1976, Hala Sultan Tekke 1. Excavations 1897-1971 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45:1), Jonsered: Paul Åstroms. CADOGAN, G. 2005, ‘The Aegean and Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age. It takes two to Tango’, in R. LAFFINEUR, E., GRECO (eds.), Emporia. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens 14-18 April 2004 (Aegeum 25), Liège: Université de Liège, 313-321. CATLING, H. W. 1962, ‘Patterns of Settlement in Bronze Age Cyprus’, Opuscula Atheniensis 4, 129-149. COENAERTS, J. 2016, Sites, Hinterland and Rivers. Exploring Site Organisation and Interaction in south-east Cyprus during the Late Bronze Age (unpublished PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Brussels.
334
J. COENAERTS, M. SAMAES AND K. NYS
DEVILLERS, B., BROWN, M., MORHANGE, C. 2015, ‘Paleo-environmental Evolution of the Larnaca Salt Lakes (Cyprus) and the Relationship to Second Millennium BC Settlement’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 1, 73-80. DRIESSEN, J., FRANKEL, D. 2012, ‘Minds and Mines: Settlement Networks and the Diachronic Use of Space on Crete and Cyprus’, in G. CADOGAN, M. IACOVOU, K. KOPAKA, J., WHITLEY (eds.), Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus. Papers arising from the Conference in Nicosia in November-December 2006 (BSA Studies 20), London: British School at Athens, 61-84. FISHER, K. D. 2014, ‘Making the First Cities on Cyprus: Urbanism and Social Change in the Late Bronze Age’, in A. T. CREEKMORE, K. D. FISHER (eds.), Making Ancient Cities: Space and Place in Early Urban Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 181-214. GAGNÉ, L. 2012, Middle Cypriot White Painted Ware: A study of Pottery Production and Distribution in Middle Bronze Age Cyprus (unpublished PhD diss., University of Toronto), Toronto. GEORGIOU, G. 2006, Η τοπογραφια τις ανθρωπινης εγκαταστασης στην Κυπρο κατα την Πρωιμη και Μεση Χαλακοκρατια (unpublished PhD diss., University of Cyprus), Nicosia. GEORGIOU, G., FRANKEL, D., WEBB, J. M. 2011, Psematismos-Trelloukkas. An Early Bronze Age Cemetery in Cyprus, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. GHILARDI, M., CORDIER, S., CAROZZA, J.-M., PSOMIADIS, D., GUILAINE, J., ZOMENI, Z., DEMORY, F., DELANGHE-SABATIER, D., VELLA, M.-A., BONY, G., MORHANGE, C. 2015, ‘The Holocene Fluvial History of the Tremithos River (South Central Cyprus) and its Linkage to Archaeological Records’, Environmental Archaeology 20:2, 184201. GIFFORD, J. A. 1978, Palaeogeography of Archaeological Sites of the Larnaka Lowland, Southeastern Cyprus (unpublished PhD diss., University of Minnesota), Minneapolis. GJERSTAD, E. 1926, Studies on Prehistoric Cyprus, Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet Ansskrift. GUBEL, E., MASSAR, N. 2012, ‘The Birth of Cypriote Archaeology: Cyprus and Belgium’, in D. PILIDES, N. PAPADIMITRIOU (eds.), Ancient Cyprus. Cultures in Dialogue, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 24-25. HÅKANSSON, N. 1989, ‘Early Remains in Area 8’, in P. ÅSTRÖM (ed.), Hala Sultan Tekke 9. Trenches 1972-1987 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 45:9), Göteborg: Paul Åstroms, 14-33. HERSCHER, E. 1988, ‘Kition in the Middle Bronze Age: The Tombs at Larnaca-Ayios Prodromos’, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 1988, 141-166. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1982, ‘Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1981’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 106/2, 685-744. KARAGEORGHIS, V., DEMAS, M. 1985, Excavations at Kition 5. The Pre-Phoenician Levels. Areas I and II, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities. KESWANI, P. S. 1989, ‘Dimensions of Social Hierarchy in Late Bronze Age Cyprus: An Analysis of the Mortuary Data from Enkomi’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 2:1, 49-86. KESWANI, P. S. 1996, ‘Hierarchies, Heterarchies and Urbanization Processes: The View from Bronze Age Cyprus’, Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9:2, 211-249. KESWANI, P. S. 2004, Mortuary Ritual and Society in Bronze Age Cyprus (Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeology 9), London/Oakville: Equinox Publishing.
NEGOTIATING SPACE
335
KNAPP, A. B. 1997, The Archaeology of Late Bronze Age Cypriot Society: The Study of Settlement, Survey and Landscape, Glasgow: University of Glasgow. KNAPP, A. B. 2013, The Archaeology of Cyprus: From Earliest Prehistory Through the Bronze Age (Cambridge World Archaeology), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KNAPP, A. B. 2015, ‘Revolution Within Evolution: The Emergence of a ‘Secondary State’ on Protohistoric Bronze Age Cyprus’, Levant 45:1, 19-44. LEONARD, A. 2004, ‘The Larnaca Hinterland Project’, in J. BALENSI, J.-Y. MONTCHAMBERT, S. MÜLLER-CELKA (eds.), La céramique mycénienne de l’Égée au Levant. Hommage à Vrowny Hankey (Travaux du Maison de l’Orient 41), Lyon: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 87-96. MANNING, S. W. 2019, ‘Environment and Sociopolitical Complexity on Prehistoric Cyprus: Observations, Trajectories and Sketch’, in C. KEARNS, S. W. MANNING (eds.), New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology, New York: Cornell University Press, 99-130. MARKIDES, M. 1916, Annual Report of the Committee of Antiquities for the Year 1915, Nicosia: Cyprus Museum. MERRILLEES, R. S. 1974, ‘A Middle Cypriote III Tomb Group from Arpera-Mosfilos’, in R. S. MERRILLEES (ed.), Trade and Transcendance in the Bronze Age Levant (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 39), Göteborg: Paul Åstroms, 43-79. MYRES, J. L. 1897, ‘Excavations in Cyprus, 1894’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 17, 134173. SAMAES, M., COENAERTS, J. 2011, ‘Exchange Between Southeastern Cyprus and the Surrounding Regions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age’, in K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 202), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 401416. STANLEY-PRICE, N. P. 1979, Early Prehistoric Settlement in Cyprus. A Review and Gazetteer of Sites, c. 6500-3500 BC (British Archaeological Reports – International Series 65), Oxford: BAR. STEEL, L. 2001, ‘The British Museum and the Invention of the Cypriot Late Bronze Age’, in V. TATTON-BROWN (ed.), Cyprus in the 19th Century AD: Fact, Fancy of Fiction. Papers of the 22nd British Museum Classical Colloquium December 1998, Oxford: Oxbow, 160-167. VERMEULE, E., KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1982, Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting, Cambridge (Mass.)/London: Harvard University Press. WEBB, J. M. 2014, ‘Cyprus during the Early Bronze Age’, in M. L. STEINER, A. KILLEBREW (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000-332 BCE, Oxford: Oxford University Press. WEBB, J. M. & FRANKEL, D., 2004, ‘Intensive Site Survey. Implications for Estimating Settlement Size, Population and Duration in Prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus’, in M. IACOVOU (ed.), Archaeological Field Survey in Cyprus. Past History, Future Potentials (British School at Athens Studies 11), London: British School at Athens, 125137.
THE AUB MUSEUM KAMARES WARE SPOUTED JAR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LEVANT Leila BADRE*
The famous Kamares bridge-spouted jar of Byblos, from the Museum of the American University of Beirut (AUB), was first exhibited in Brussels in 1986. Eric Gubel was the scientific coordinator of the exhibition in Brussels on Les Phéniciens et le Monde Méditerranéen, sponsored by the Générale de Banque, where the jar made the debut of its journey1. This was during the Lebanese Civil War, when the AUB Museum was the only archaeological museum open in Lebanon. After its Brussels appearance, the Kamares Ware jar travelled directly from Brussels to Venice for the famous exhibition I Fenici at the Palazzo Grassi, in 19882. With the war coming to a close, the Beirut National Museum emerged from its tomb-like closure to be partly rehabilitated in 1997. A year later, Lebanon and its people made a spectacular reappearance in the form of a glorious exhibition celebrating the multi-layered civilizations that had evolved in Lebanon through history. The exhibition entitled Liban, l’Autre Rive, organized in collaboration with the Institut du Monde Arabe3, was an organizational tour de force on the part of the Lebanese after years of conflict. The AUB Kamares Ware jar was show-cased at the exhibition along with the major Minoan objects imported to Byblos during that period. Later the jar made its way to three more exhibitions Im Labyrinth des Minos – Kreta – die Erste Europäische Hochkultur at the Badischen Landesmuseum in Karlsruhe in 20014. Two years later it was shown at the Museum of Cyladic Art of Athens for the exhibition Sea Routes from Sidon to Huelva – Interrelations Between the Mediterranean Peoples 16th - 6th c. BC5. Then, last but not least, the AUB Museum jar from Byblos crossed the oceans to arrive at Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York for its exhibition Beyond Babylon in 20086.
* Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut. 1 GUBEL 1986, 174, nr. 153. 2 MOSCATI 1988, 610, nr. 159. 3 MATOÏAN (ed.) 1998, 96-97. 4 ALBERSMEIER et al. 2000. 5 STAMPOLIDIS 2003. 6 ARUZ et al. 2008, 60, nr. 32.
338
L. BADRE
Fig. 1: The Kamares bridge-spouted jar of Byblos (© Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut).
The AUB Museum Kamares bridge-spouted jar belongs to a group of local pottery fortuitously discovered by laborers while digging the foundations of a house in Byblos in 1955. They broke through a rock-cut cave where they discovered a tomb with a collection of pots, which they removed before continuing to demolish the tomb cave. As a result, neither a description of bones nor of the pottery display in the burial were recorded, nor the measurements for a plan or a section of the tomb. The material retrieved from the tomb was sold to an antiquities dealer in Byblos. The AUB Museum acquired a group of 13 vessels from the dealer and retrieved the remaining pieces from private individuals who had bought them. D.C. Baramki indicated that all the pottery was locally made except for one spouted jar, which was obviously imported from Kamares in Crete. He then proceeded to classify the mixed pottery material chronologically; according to Baramki, 13 vessels belonged to the Early Bronze Age of which eight were pattern burnished and five were plain. The remaining six vessels belonged to the Middle Bronze Age. Hence, the tomb seems to have been used in the Early Bronze Age between 3100-2800 BC, then was abandoned for approximately 950 years to be reused again in a second phase between 1850 and 1750 BC7. The Byblos vase of the AUB museum is of the bridge-spouted jar type (height 14.4 cm, diameter 15.5 cm): a globular body with a wide lipless mouth, two horizontal loop handles, and a spout on the shoulder (Fig. 1). It is black “wheelmade of finely levigated red ware, black slipped in white with stylized floral designs and a row of red circles”8. Unlike most vessels of this type, which have a continuous convex profile and a wide base, the Byblos one tapers to a narrow raised base, which according to J.A. MacGillivray may indicate that it was made 7 8
BARAMKI 1966, 25. BARAMKI 1973, 30.
THE AUB MUSEUM KAMARES WARE SPOUTED JAR
339
at the end of the Proto-palatial era9. Its shape and distinctive Wavy Line Style decoration may indicate it was made at Knossos10. R. Merrillees summarized “The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant” according to their geographical distribution11. The earliest Minoan vase so far discovered in the Levant was on the North coast of Cyprus. It is a bridge-spouted jar from a tomb in Lapithos12. It has a smoothed mat buff exterior surface with outside and inside rim decoration. It has been attributed variously to the period between EM III and MM IA13. A later Kamares Ware vessel from Cyprus is represented by a cup found in a tomb at Karmi14. G. Cadogan assigns it to “MM IB (-IIA)”15. It was also placed in “MM IB/MM IIA”16. Merillees believes with S. Manning17 that it most likely belongs to the transition period between MM IB-MM IIA. Proceeding from Cyprus to the Syrian coast, the Middle Minoan vases make their appearances at Ras-Shamra/Ugarit. According to G. Cadogan, A. Caubet and V. Matoian18, it is far from clear how many Middle Minoan vases were recovered by C. Schaeffer at Ugarit. In general, the Kamares finds there are mostly shards of the “cup” type, only two cups are complete. One was part of the funerary material found in a tomb in the large necropolis to the east of the Baal temple, and which has been attributed to MM IIA19; this date, however, remains uncertain20. The other cup shard came from an ossuary under the floor of a chamber tomb; it was assigned by MacGillivray to MM IIB21. Just one spout of a bridge-spouted jar, found in the Southern Acropolis, may have been a local imitation. It was attributed by Schaeffer to MM IIA22. Further south in Byblos Merrillees wrote: “It is difficult to know how many Minoan vases have turned up at Byblos. One MM IIA bridge-spouted jar was found in Dunand’s excavations and was assigned by Cadogan to MM IIA, and by MacGillivray to late MM IIB-MM IIIA”23.
MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 80 type 6, 106. MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 106. 11 MERRILLEES 2003, 127-142. 12 CATLING and KARAGEORGHIS 1960, 110-112. 13 BUCHHOLZ and KARAGEORGHIS 1973, 150 nr. 1572; MERRILLEES 1979, 21-22; CADOGAN 1983, 513; WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 115. 14 BUCHHOLZ 1999, 390 n. 1462. 15 CADOGAN 1983, 514. 16 WARREN and HANKEY 1989, 115. 17 MANNING 1995, 109 n. 70. 18 CADOGAN 1983, 514 nr. 108; CAUBET and MATOIAN 1995, 103. 19 SCHAEFFER 1939, 54, fig. 42. 20 SALTZ 1977, 55. 21 MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 106. 22 SCHAEFFER 1978, 219, fig. 8.2. 23 MERRILLEES 2003, 131. The jar in question is published in DUNAND 1939, pl. CLXXVII nr. 2986, 193, fig. 178. 9
10
340
L. BADRE
The second MM IIA bridge-spouted jar from Byblos is the one that belongs to the AUB Museum, and is the subject of our present paper. It has been frequently assigned to MM IIB24. Illustrated and exhibited in several occasions (cf. supra), it has always been associated with the tomb group of which five other vessels have formed its horizon. These vessels consist of three piriform jugs, a deep bowl and a large jar, which were dated by Baramki to the Middle Bronze Age II period25. However in his publication of the Byblos tomb, Baramki wrote: “There is no information concerning the disposition of the vessels in the tomb, the presence of bones or any useful information for the archaeologist”26. Having stated so, we are not even definitely sure that this group was certainly found together except by faith in the oral report of the dealer. Further south on the Lebanese Coast, the British Museum excavations at Sidon recovered a well-preserved inverted cup from a pottery assemblage and animal bones27 lying on a plaster floor adjacent to a burial. The group, which is not directly associated with the burial, appears to be an offering. The cup was placed in an inverted position over the layer of bones, which according to MacGillivray was a common Aegean practice in foundation deposits and offerings; possibly to show that the cup had been emptied there28. This assemblage could be funerary but was not obviously associated with a particular burial. The cup has a carinated/angular profile with a vertical loop handle. Its surface is coated with a dark brown slip in the well-known characteristic Kamares Ware style, which has been worn away in many places. Its polychrome decoration with the reserved double-axe central motif (Fig. 2) makes it belong within the MM II period29. As the Sidon context is firmly dated to MB IIA, the Minoan cup provides an important chronological link between MM IIA – MM IIB and MB IIA, and attests to contacts with the 13th dynasty in Egypt30. This makes the Sidonian cup, according to MacGillivray31, earlier by perhaps a generation than the Minoan imports at Ashkelon32, Hazor (cf. infra)33, Byblos34 and Ugarit35. Two shards of a large open vase from Hazor in inland Palestine have been identified as Middle Minoan and attributed to MM IIB or MM IIIA36. Much 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
MACGILLIVRAY 1998, 106. BARAMKI 1973, 30. BARAMKI 1973, 27. VILA 2003, 25. MACGILLIVRAY 2003, 21. MACGILLIVRAY 2003, fig. 7. SERHAL 2003, 23. MACGILLIVRAY 2003, 23. STAGER 2002, 357. YADIN et al. 1960, 91 pl. 115 nr. 15. BARAMKI 1973, 24-30. SCHAEFFER 1949, 256 fig. 109A, pl. 38 bottom. DOTHAN, ZUCKERMAN, GOREN 2000, 1-2.
THE AUB MUSEUM KAMARES WARE SPOUTED JAR
341
Fig. 2: Cup from Sidon (MACGILLIVRAY 2003, fig. 7).
debate raised doubts about their Cretan origin: one is Minoanising rather than Minoan, the other is of local Canaanite derivation. More securely dated is a rim shard of a carinated cup from Ashkelon, on the Palestinian coast. The interior of the cup has white lines painted over a base coat of dark brown. Its exterior has a white wavy line pattern, which gives this style its name in the Minoan world: “wavy-line cups”. This is Classical Kamares Ware. It has been attributed to MM IIB37. Merrillees attempts to draw chronological conclusions for the MM II pottery finds in the Levant in spite the “imprecision and uncertainties in the stratification and contexts of much of material surveyed”38. According to him, Cyprus presents a secure synchronism between MC I and MM I in Crete. It is followed by Egypt, which enables MM IIA to be correlated with Middle Bronze Age in Cyprus, Syria or Palestine. Other general conclusions may be drawn of the Kamares ware vessels from the rare data assembled from the Levant: two frequent types are five bridgespouted jars and 16 carinated cups were exported. The first types were probably shipped for their contents while the second types were traded for their own sake39. R.B. Koehl is of a different opinion and suggests that both types “would have been imported to the Levant for use as tableware, not as containers”40. We believe that this hypothesis is more likely as it is difficult to imagine the hermetic closing of such a vessel with a wide lipless mouth and a spout in order to survive the difficulties encountered in shipping. 37 38 39 40
STAGER 2002, 357. MERRILLEES 2003, 138. BETANCOURT 1998, 5. KOEHL 2008, 59.
342
L. BADRE
Koehl41 also mentions texts from the palace of Mari that attest to a wide range of high quality products including inlaid bronze weapons and silver and gold vessels sent from Crete. Pottery, however, was not included among them, especially Kamares pottery was not of prestigious quality; it indicates middle-class rather than higher royal connections. Koehl further indicated that Crete lacked metals; hence its trade with the Levant targeted different markets aimed basically at procuring copper and tin. Moving further south to Egypt, several Minoan shards, among which a Kamares spout of the bridge-spouted jar type from Lahun now in the British Museum, have been dated by L. Fitton to MM II ca. 1850-1800 BC42. More recent finds are Minoan cup shards from Tell el-Dab’a in the Nile valley43. These were assigned by G. Walberg, as per her division of the Kamares Ware, to Palatial Classical Kamares (MM IIA-IIB-IIIA) and by M. Bietak to MM IIB ca. 1780 BC44. Egypt had a wider range of types than those of Syria and Palestine probably due to its different customer demand. In conclusion, a general question related to the imported Minoan pottery remains open. Most of this imported pottery, especially the Kamares Ware vessels, was found in burial contexts. This funerary practice may corroborate the hypothesis that this type of vessel was exported for its own sake rather than for its content. To bury alongside the deceased a special object he had esteemed during his lifetime, indicates a special personal value rather than a commercial one. References ALBERSMEIER, S., ECKERLE, K., ERBELDING, S., SIEBENMORGEN, H. (eds.) 2000, Im Labyrinth des Minos: Kreta – die erste europäische Hochkultur (Archäologische Veröffentlichungen des Badischen Landesmuseums 2), München: Biering & Brinkmann. ARUZ, J., BENZEL, K., EVANS, J. M. (eds.) 2008, Beyond Babylon: Art, trade, and diplomacy in the second millennium B.C., New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. BARAMKI, D. 1966, The Archaeological Museum of the American University of Beirut, Beirut: American University of Beirut. BARAMKI, D. 1973, ‘A Tomb of the Early and Middle Bronze Age at Byblos’, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth XXIV, 27-30. BETANCOURT, P. 1998, ‘Middle Minoan Objects in the Middle East’, in E. H. 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, Liège: Université de Liège, 5-11.
41 42 43 44
KOEHL 2008, 59. FITTON, HUGHES, QUIRKE 1999; ALBERSMEIER et al. 2000, 322 nr. 316. WALBERG 1991, 117. BIETAK 2000, 211, fig. 178.
THE AUB MUSEUM KAMARES WARE SPOUTED JAR
343
BIETAK, M. 2000, ‘Tell el-Dab’a /Avaris und die minoische Welt’, in S. ALBERSMEIER, K. ECKERLE, S. ERBELDING, H. SIEBENMORGEN (eds.), Im Labyrinth des Minos: Kreta – die erste europäische Hochkultur, München: Biering & Brinkmann, 211-218. BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1999, Ugarit, Zypern und Ägäis, Münster: Ugarit Verlag. BUCHHOLZ, H.-G., KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1973, Prehistoric Greece and Cyprus, London: Phaidon. CADOGAN, G. 1983, ‘Early Minoan and Middle Minoan Chronology’, American Journal of Archaeology 87, 507-518. CATLING, H. W., KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1960, ‘Minoika in Cyprus’, Annual of the British School at Athens 55, 110-112. CAUBET, A., MATOIAN, V. 1995, ‘Ougarit et l’Égée’, in M. YON, M. SZNYCER, P. BORDREUIL (eds.), Le Pays d’Ougarit. Autour de 1200 av. J.-C. Histoire et archéologie. Actes du colloque international, Paris, 28 juin-1er juillet 1993, Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 102-112. DOTHAN, T., ZUCKERMAN, S., GOREN, Y. 2000, ‘Kamares Ware and Hazor’, Israel Exploration Journal 50, 1-15. DUNAND, M. 1939, Fouilles de Byblos. Tome 1er. 1926-1932, Paris: Geuthner. FITTON, L., HUGHES M., QUIRKE, S. 1999, ‘Northerners at Lahun: Neutron Activation Analysis of Minoan and Related Pottery in the British Museum’, in S. QUIRKE (ed.), Lahun Studies, Reigate: SIA, 112-240. GUBEL, E. (ed.) 1986, Les Phéniciens et le monde méditerranéen, Luxembourg: Banque générale du Luxembourg. KOEHL, R. B. 2008, ‘Minoan Kamares Ware in the Levant’, in J. ARUZ, K. BENZEL, J. M. EVANS (eds.), Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the second millennium B.C., New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 59. MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. 1998, Knossos. Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period, London: British School at Athens. MACGILLIVRAY, J. A. 2003, ‘A Middle Minoan Cup from Sidon’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 18, 20-24. MANNING, S. W. 1995, The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Early Bronze Age. Archaeology, Radiocarbon and History, Sheffield: Academic Press. MATOÏAN, V. (éd.) 1998, Liban, l’autre rive. Exposition présentée à l’Institut du monde arabe du 27 octobre 1998 au 2 mai 1999, Paris: Flammarion. MERRILLEES, R. S. 1979, ‘Cyprus, the Cyclades and Crete in the Early to Middle Bronze Ages’, in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium “The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000-500 B.C.”, Nicosia 16th April-22nd April 1978, Nicosia: Department of Antiquities, 8-55. MERRILLEES, R. S. 2003, ‘The First Appearances of Kamares Ware in the Levant’, Egypt and the Levant 13, 127-142. MOSCATI, S. (ed.) 1988, The Phoenicians, Venezia: Bompiani. SALTZ, D. L. 1977, ‘The Chronology of the Middle Cypriote Period’, Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 1977, 51-69. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. 1939, Ugaritica I. Études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra (Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra III), Paris: Geuthner. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. 1949, Ugaritica II. Nouvelles études relatives aux découvertes de Ras Shamra (Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra V), Paris: Geuthner. SCHAEFFER, C. F. A. 1978, Ugaritica VII (Mission archéologique de Ras Shamra XVIII), Paris: Geuthner. SERHAL, C. 2003, ‘Excavations in Ancient Sidon’, CBRL. Newsletter of the Council for British Research in the Levant 2003, 23-24.
344
L. BADRE
STAGER, L. E. 2002, ‘The MBIIA Ceramic Sequence at Tell Ashkelon and its Implications for the ‘Port Power’ Model of Trade’, in M. BIETAK (ed.), The Middle Bronze Age in the Levant. Proceedings of an International Conference on MB IIA Ceramic Material in Vienna 24th-26th of January 2001 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie XXVI), Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 353-362. STAMPOLIDIS, N. C. (ed.) 2003, Sea routes ... from Sidon to Huelva: Interconnections in the Mediterranean 16th - 6th c. BC, Athens: Museum of Cycladic Art. VILA, E. 2003, ‘Animal bone deposits under Sidon’s Minoan Cup’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 18, 25. WALBERG, G. 1991, ‘The Finds at Tell el-Dab’a and Middle Minoan Chronology’, Egypt and the Levant 2, 115-118. WARREN, P., HANKEY, V. 1989, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol: Classical Press Bristol. YADIN, Y., AHARONI, Y., AMIRAN, R., DOTHAN, T., DUNAYEVSKY, I., PERROT, J. 1960, Hazor II, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?” THE FRANKFORT–ALBRIGHT DISPUTE, MORE THAN SIXTY YEARS LATER Benjamin SASS*
When Eric was two years old, William Foxwell Albright published the first two of three articles on the question cited in the title. As a tribute to Eric’s scholarship and friendship I propose now to revisit the issue and dwell not only on a critique of Albright’s trust in the historicity of the Solomon narratives of the Hebrew Bible, but also on his (Albright’s) profound insights on Luwian polities and Luwian–Aramaic interaction in the early first millennium, insights that often proved superior to and longer-lasting than Frankfort’s1. – Frankfort maintained that “[o]nce it is realized that the whole of north Syrian art of the first millennium B.C. represents a fresh start, made more or less simultaneously … in a number of places, the attempts to fill the gap between 1200 and 850 B.C. with transitional works can be abandoned”2. – Albright 1956a is “a study of ‘North-east Mediterranean Dark Ages and the Early Iron Age Art of Syria’, which examines the general subject of the chronology of Syro-Hittite art in the pre-Assyrian period, and deals rather briefly with Gozan and the Kapara problem”3. – Albright 1956b discusses “the latter subject at more length, sketching the problem in its relation to the culture of the period, surveying the data furnished by the inscriptions, and placing the art of the Kapara phase in its context”4. – Finally, Albright’s 1958 paper, entitled “Was the age of Solomon without monumental art?” begins as follows: “The title of this paper may seem strange to the biblical scholar who is accustomed to taking the narratives in I Kings and II Chronicles seriously, or to the Palestinian archaeologist who is familiar with the evidence from Megiddo VA–IVB for impressive architectural and artistic remains from the second half of the tenth century. However, there is now what amounts to a systematic campaign to discredit the entire Solomonic building tradition by the simple expedient of denying the existence of art or architecture in Greater Syria between ca. 1200 and 850 B.C.”5. * Tel Aviv. 1 The relevant publications are FRANKFORT 1954, Chapters 10 and 11, and ALBRIGHT 1956a, 1956b and 1958. 2 FRANKFORT 1954, 166. 3 ALBRIGHT 1956b, 75. 4 ALBRIGHT 1956b, 75. 5 ALBRIGHT 1958, 1*.
346
B. SASS
1. A dark age ca. 1200-850? Frankfort asserted that no monumental art existed in the Levant nor in the partly overlapping Syro-Hittite realm, between ca. 1200 and 850 BCE6. In line with his belief in a Dark Age 350 years long, Frankfort7 got the undated Ahiram sarcophagus out of the way by assigning its reliefs to the Late Bronze Age, before 1200, and the Tell Halaf reliefs of the historically undated Kapara – to after 850 BCE. 2. The Age of Solomon ca. 960-920 BCE – A Golden Age? For Albright the age of Solomon constituted the highpoint of Israel’s civilization8, of which monumental art had been an obvious component. In his three papers Albright objected to Frankfort’s claim and, whereas he did not deny the existence of a Dark Age, contested its uniformity and sought to cut down its duration, in particular with regard to the ‘Solomonic’ 10th century. 2.1. Albright’s conviction of the historicity of a United Monarchy and Solomonic golden age, and his enlisting of Ahiram and Kapara’s monumental art to that end As just noted, Frankfort’s view contradicted inter alia the Old Testament’s account of the glory of Solomon and Hiram, an account which in Albright’s view had precedence over any line of extra-biblical evidence – textual and archaeological. Albright also regarded the round figure of 40 years allotted in the Bible to both David and Solomon as historical9, and he placed Solomon ca. 960920 BCE. To Albright, because monumental art was lacking in strata attributed in his time to Solomon and the 10th century, it was of great importance at least that comparanda be pointed out elsewhere in the Levant. As no other monuments erected by West Semitic rulers were datable to the 10th century by either archaeological context or textual links to the absolute chronology of Assyria, he exercised all his learning and persuasive powers to convince his readership that certain monuments with an uncertain time-range could be shown to fit the role. 6
Frankfort also denied the Luwian continuity at Malatya and Carchemish after the fall of the Hittite empire (compare n. 66 below). 7 FRANKFORT 1954, 159. 8 “Though we may go perhaps a little too far in calling the age of Solomon “the Golden Age of Hebrew literature” it may be affirmed with confidence that during his reign Hebrew prose took the literary form which remained classical in the subsequent history of Judah” (ALBRIGHT 1940, 224-225). 9 2 Samuel 5 4; 1 Kings 11 42.
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
347
Fig. 1: Byblos, Ahiram sarcophagus (MONTET 1928-1929, pl. 130).
He insisted10 on placing the undated Ahiram, king of Byblos, and his sarcophagus with reliefs and a long Phoenician inscription (Figs. 1, 2), in the early 10th century11. Not only was Byblos but a short distance from Tyre; its king bore a variant name of Hiram’s – David and Solomon’s ally according to the biblical narratives. The suggestive potential of these two correspondences for enhancing the impression of Hiram and Solomon’s historicity in the minds of certain readers was perhaps not lost on Albright. Three considerations led Albright to date Ahiram’s sarcophagus as high as 1000 BCE. One was his assumption, still valid today, that Phoenicia suffered less than other Levantine regions from the upheavals at the end of the Bronze Age; indeed it may have avoided the ‘Dark Age’, at least to a degree12. Another was his conviction of the historicity of the biblical United Monarchy narratives and of their dating ca. 1000-920 BCE. In this Albright was not alone; that view 10 11
ALBRIGHT 1947, 153-154. Often forthrightly ‘1000 B.C.’, e.g. DONNER and RÖLLIG 1962 (KAI II), 9, and CROSS 1967,
15*. 12 GILBOA passim, most recently 2015 and 2017, on Dor in Iron I; SASS 2010, 171 (“Regarding the Phoenician coast we have at our disposal the Iron I archaeological picture on the one hand, above all at Dor, and the story of Wenamun on the other …. For Dor this evidence may point to a symbiosis of Phoenicians and Sea Peoples; for Tyre and the other Phoenician cities further north the Iron I data are much slimmer, or missing altogether, so that we can only ask whether their situation was similar to that at Dor, or whether one of the two groups outweighed the other.”); SASS 2005, 66-67 (“[I]f the picture at Dor is as described above, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of the Iron I cities further north fared no worse. And if a region in the southern Levant is sought where the Bronze and Iron Age urban cultures were bridged in a manner similar to that of Carchemish and Melid in the north, Phoenicia would be the obvious candidate. … The emergence of the Aramaean kingdoms in northern Syria is fundamentally different: As noted, they had no uninterrupted Late Bronze Age political and urban roots.”); ALBRIGHT 1956a, 145.
348
B. SASS
Fig. 2: Byblos, Ahiram sarcophagus inscription (LEHMANN 2005, 70-71).
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
349
Fig. 3: Tell Halaf, restored portico of the ‘temple-palace’ (© Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, Köln; LANGENEGGER, MÜLLER, NAUMANN 1950, pl. 11).
was shared at the time, and on until the 1990s, by practically all biblical archaeologists. A third consideration for a 1000 BCE dating of Ahiram, stemming in part from a misunderstanding of that king’s palaeography, is addressed in “The letterforms” in Section 2.2.2. As noted, Albright sought 10th-century monuments also farther afield, and argued for placing Kapara of Gozan, like Ahiram undated historically (no direct Assyrian synchronism), and his monumental art (Figs. 3, 4) in the late 10th century13. 13
ALBRIGHT 1956a, 162.
350
B. SASS
Fig. 4: Tell Halaf, funerary statue (© Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung, Köln = CHOLIDIS and MARTIN 2002, fig. 13) of a man with long sidelocks [for sidelocks cf. ROBIN 2012].
2.2. Albright’s convictions versus the extra-biblical evidence 2.2.1. The idea of a United Monarchy and its alleged duration ca. 1000-920 BCE – viewed from an extra-biblical vantage point Evidently, Albright could not bring himself to admit that the extra-biblical record – epigraphic and archaeological – might document a ‘Dark Age’ that casts doubt on the historicity of the Solomon narratives. But despite – or perhaps because of – his forceful argumentation (Section 2.1), can a certain uneasiness not be detected in Albright’s reasoning? Is this what induced him to state repeatedly that prior to Solomon in the mid-10th century Israel possessed no advanced architecture or art14? Indeed, the Bible regards Solomon as the great builder15, 14 “The monumental and artistic lacuna of which he [Frankfort] speaks … lasted from cir. 1220 to cir. 950 in Israel, where Solomon’s building activities, using Phoenician craftsmen, brought it to a sudden end early in his reign (cir. 961-922 B.C.)” (ALBRIGHT 1956a, 145-146). “I should not for a minute deny that there were dark ages in the general area covered by Frankfort’s thesis. In Israel there undoubtedly was a long period without architecture or art of advanced type between the conquest ca. 1220 B.C. and the accession of Solomon between 970 and 960” (ALBRIGHT 1958, 2*). 15 ALBRIGHT (1956a, 147) was piqued that “Frankfort also passes in complete silence over the evidence from Megiddo IVB–VA and Ta῾yinât for the historicity of the biblical account of
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
351
maintaining that David had been otherwise occupied. Hence the first monumental Iron Age stratum at Megiddo (VA–IVB) was since the 1930s attributed to Solomon, with the preceding, more modest Stratum VB considered Davidic16. Both strata together were dated to 1000-900 BCE in round numbers17, Although he refrained from mentioning it, Albright certainly saw that, contrary to the 1000 BCE foundation he perceived for the United Monarchy, there were in northern Syria no documented West Semitic kingdoms in most of the 10th century; the Assyrian sources with their links to absolute chronology inform us that West Semitic states emerged in northern Syria only late in that century18. In fact, Albright19 dated the Aramaean Kapara accordingly – to the late 10th century. The only earlier states in that region, mentioned in the Assyrian texts, are not West Semitic but Luwian – the kingdoms of Carchemish and Malatya20. Phoenician work in constructing the Temple of Solomon about 950 B.C. – in fact, he never mentions the Temple at all, though he uses written sources in other cases.” Clearly Albright did not understand how Frankfort could be unwilling to admit the biblical United Monarchy narratives as eyewitness accounts of the 10th century. In effect the highly unusual notion of an intact preservation within the oft edited and revised biblical text of such detailed 10th-century accounts had for Albright and most of his contemporaries the status of an axiom in no need of rationalization: “If Frankfort had seriously considered the chronology of the Megiddo excavations, he would have recognized that the level now known as Megiddo VA–IVB … has been correctly dated to the reign of Solomon” (ALBRIGHT 1958, 5*). On the Omride dating of that Megiddo stratum see note 17 below, on the late-9th-century attribution of the Tayinat temple that had long been presented as a parallel to Solomon’s see HARRISON 2014, 406. 16 “I should not wish to deny any advanced architecture to David, but there is absolutely no evidence for it, either literary or archaeological” (ALBRIGHT 1958, n. 10). 17 Rather than as Solomonic, the earliest monumental architecture in Iron II Israel (Iron IIA-late) is since the 1990s regarded as Omride by those who consider that dynasty to be the earliest historical one (e.g. NA’AMAN 1997a, 126-127; FINKELSTEIN 1996; WIGHTMAN 1990). In biblical studies the understanding that the historical writings attributed to Solomon are in fact later has already begun with VAN SETERS (1983, 355 and passim). 18 Compare Finkelstein and Sass in FINKELSTEIN, SASS and SINGER-AVITZ 2008, 12 where, however, “a beginning ca. 900 B.C.E. for Iron IIA” should be corrected to “a beginning ca. 900 B.C.E. for Iron IIA-late”, as indeed L. Singer-Avitz had maintained from the start (loc. cit.). 19 ALBRIGHT 1956b, 85. 20 Attempts to attribute Luwian-writing Aramaean states in Transeuphratia and their monuments to the 11th century or early 10th may be unverifiable, and they appear besides ill-suited to the historical setting of the time (SASS 2017a, n. 13; SASS 2016, n. 37). Hence the making of Taita of Falasatin into two namesakes, and the placing of the purported first one of them in the 11th century (e.g. D’ALFONSO and PAYNE 2016, 119, 123) rests on palaeographical arguments that do not consider the option of archaism in monumental inscriptions, and on 14C samples from the Aleppo temple, wood samples rather than annuals, seemingly with no stratigraphical link to Taita’s inscriptions (KOHLMEYER 2013, 204; KOHLMEYER 2012, 57; KOHLMEYER 2008, n. 12). Could some among Taita’s monumental Luwian inscriptions turn out upon reexamination (once Luwianists care to perform it) to have been written in a partly artificial, archaizing script in the second half of the 10th century (first in SASS 2010, 169-171), in the same manner as subsequent West Semitic monuments such as Byblos and Fakhariya with their archaizing and ‘eccentric’ letters (see “The letterforms” in Section 2.2.2)? In that case (if my reasoning is accepted), such inferred Luwian inscriptions will, by their most-advanced sign-forms, provide a palaeographical terminus post quem only. ‘Averaging’ their most-developed and least-developed forms or, worse still, dating these texts by their least-developed forms, runs the risk of leading to false highs. For an analogous phenomenon in West Semitic compare again Section 2.2.2.
352
B. SASS
But this contradiction to his thesis did not motivate Albright to stop and reflect on the potential non-historicity of a beginning ca. 1000 BCE of the ‘United Monarchy’, a timing unparalleled in the entire West Semitic world, or on the weakness of the Bible’s 40 + 40 regnal years for David and Solomon (more on this chronology below). On top of that, Albright21 did not call attention to the common linkage of monuments and developed states, namely the distinction between the Hittite/Luwian polities of Carchemish and Malatya that had ‘always’ been there, erecting monuments in the 10th century, and the neighbouring Aramaeans in northern Syria, who had none of the above until, according to the Assyrian sources, they began founding their own territorial states towards 900 BCE. At that time the Aramaeans will have taken their cue on statehood and monuments from their non-Semitic neighbours, possibly Carchemish in particular, as well as from Assyria itself22. Returning to the earliest Hebrew kings, the biblical text on Saul’s two-year reign is plainly corrupted23, and I should think a restoration of either 12 or 22 years likelier than the other proposals made24. Considering the manner hieratic numerals were written in an inferred vorlage, the sign for 10 or 2025 may have been indistinct or missing, leaving just the two strokes for 226. As to the next kings in the biblical text – most of the Solomon narratives and much (but not all) of the David narratives may well be retrojections from post10th-century realities27. Moreover, the length of David and Solomon’s reigns is effectively unknown; evidently the biblical author had at his disposal no reliable documentation. Whereas Thiele and many others28 believed in the accuracy of the round 40 years the Bible attributed to each29, calculating them to correspond roughly to 1000-960 and 960-920 BCE respectively, these figures are doubtlessly schematic and probably overstated. 21
ALBRIGHT 1956a, 146. SASS 2010, 172; SASS 2005, 56. 23 יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל-וּשׁ ֵתּי ָשׁנִ ים ָמ ַלְך ַעל ְ שׁנָ ה ָשׁאוּל ְבּ ָמ ְלכוֹ-ן ָ ( ֶבּ1 Samuel 13 1). 24 For a summary of these proposals see STOEBE 1973, 241-243 (reference from Thomas Römer). 25 WIMMER 2008, 216-217, 219-220. 26 In the 19th and early 20th century, before the use of hieratic numerals in Hebrew documents of the First Temple period became known, certain specialists proposed to restore Saul’s years as 12 or 22, conjecturing incorrectly that the numbers in the most ancient biblical manuscripts were written not in words as in the MT, but with letters of the Hebrew alphabet – יבand כבin our case (e.g. CASPARI 1926, 243; KEIL 1875, 101). 27 E.g. NA’AMAN 2018; RÖMER 2008 and KUNZ-LÜBCKE 2005 (latter two references from Thomas Römer); NA’AMAN 1997b (on p. 80 Na’aman concluded “[W]e must keep in mind that even the earliest sources available to us were written long after the age of Solomon and, thus, were far removed from the reality of his time.”); NA’AMAN 1996 (on p. 34-35 Na’aman concluded “There is nothing impossible about the account of David’s conquests – the only problem is whether or not it really happened.”). 28 E.g. COGAN 1992, 1010. 29 Cf. supra n. 9. 22
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
353
The ‘traditional’ perception of a foundation ca. 1000 BCE of a Hebrew territorial state, or states, in a backwater of the central Cisjordanian highlands, foreshadowing as it were developments that will occur among the more northerly West Semites a century or so later, is thus hard to uphold30. In light of the above, it may be more reasonable to assume that the first Hebrew kings named in the Bible reigned later than towards 1000 BCE, but how much later is anyone’s guess – beginning in the 940s? 930s? 920s? With the mention of these particular decades I am postulating that the foundation of the Hebrew monarchy, or monarchies, constituted a far-south manifestation of the broader phenomenon just mentioned – in northern and central Syria – of the foundations of the earliest West Semitic territorial states; presumably in Damascus as well, but here there is no extra-biblical corroboration. All this may have a bearing on the absolute dating of archaeological phases, lowering from yet another standpoint the high chronology’s ‘Davidic’, or 1000 BCE transition from Iron I to Iron II by a number of decades. Are Albright’s datings for Ahiram and Kapara compatible with the above picture? It seems that they are not required by the evidence (see next section). 2.2.2. Does Ahiram’s sarcophagus bear out the missing monuments of Solomon? – The reliefs Even according to Albright, it is only in Phoenicia that monumental art existed in Solomon’s day among the West Semites, and even there, Ahiram’s sarcophagus reliefs are the sole manifestation of such art. And even from Albright’s perspective this is not the strongest of arguments: Albright was unable to produce even a single piece of art historical evidence for his dating ca. 1000 BCE of Ahiram’s reliefs. His apparent way out of this impasse was to imply31 that the reliefs are contemporary with the inscription32. The latter he dated ca. 1000 BCE, but never explained satisfactorily why33, nor why he placed Ahiram first among the royal Byblos authors34. 30
SASS 2017b, 99-100. E.g. ALBRIGHT 1956a, 159. 32 With which I agree (see “The letterforms” in the main text). 33 1000 BCE is too high in my opinion; see the palaeographical evidence for the 9th-8th centuries in “The letterforms”. Already Edith PORADA (1973, 364) hinted at this circular reasoning: “Many of the features of the sarcophagus classified in this essay as belonging to the early first millennium. on the basis of Assyrian monuments [of the 9th-7th centuries; B.S.], may have actually originated in Phoenicia. Such an assumption presupposes a flourishing art in that region about 1000 B.C., of which the sarcophagus of Ahiram would be the only survival that can be recognized on the basis of its inscription, dated about 1000 B.C. by most of the leading paleographers” [italics by B.S.]. First highlighted in SASS 2005, 22. 34 Similarly MILLARD 1991, 102. 31
354
B. SASS
Fig. 5: Megiddo banquet ivory (Israel Antiquities Authority 1938.780, image courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).
Fig. 6: Byblos, Ahiram sarcophagus, table scene, with 9th–8th-century Nimrud ivory parallel (HERRMANN 2006, 29; drawing by Dirk Wicke).
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
355
Indeed, such a dating of Ahiram’s reliefs was in the 1950s, and still is at present, highly unlikely considering the absence just mentioned of so early parallels, namely other table scenes created by West Semitic-speaking artists in the 10th century, except perhaps at its very end. I did my best35 to substantiate a sitz im leben in the 9th or 8th century of Ahiram’s reliefs, while excluding the 10th century on the one hand and the 13th on the other36. Constrained by his Solomonic conviction, Albright unsurprisingly paid no attention at all to the numerous comparisons of the 9th and 8th centuries (nor to the absence thereof in the 10th). I believe besides that Ellen Rehm37 and Irit Ziffer38, two colleagues whose work I much appreciate, erred for once in their 13th–12th-century dating of the sarcophagus imagery. They may have taken the second-millennium roots of Iron II art in Ahiram’s reliefs for veritable late Bronze Age features39. That these are not second-millennium features is demonstrated by two components, at least, of Ahiram’s table scene – the distinctive voluted footstool brackets and angled flywhisk (Fig. 6), that seem to me to be Iron II innovations40. – The letterforms Albright41 sought to pinpoint Ahiram to the beginning of the 10th century or ca. 1000 BCE, making him the first among the five royal Byblos authors, ostensibly by letter typology (he never justified this pinpointing properly, as already noted), and located the entire series ca. 1000-880 BCE. In part, this timeframe has arisen from a perception of the Byblos alphabet as a ‘living’ script. Practically all specialists dated Ahiram, and many still do, by juxtaposing the less developed among its forms – for instance the trident, legless kap, pre-cursive or Proto-Canaanite in origin, with more developed, cursive, legged kaps such as in the Kulamuwa orthostat (Figs. 7, 8). If Kulamuwa’s script is securely dated to the 9th century by Assyrian synchronisms, the reasoning goes, then a handful of less-developed Byblos forms surely places that alphabet-stage in the 10th century. For two reasons this is not the case42: 35
SASS 2005, 75-82. One can only guess whether Frankfort would have been willing to consider the 9th–8th centuries as an alternative to his 13th-century dating of Ahiram. 37 REHM 2005, 63-70; 2016, 12. 38 ZIFFER 2005, 155, 158. 39 Albright has recognized these roots; see Section 3 below. See also Porada’s conclusion (PORADA 1973, 361) on the distance between the Late Bronze Megiddo banquet ivory (Fig. 5) and Ahiram’s banquet, Iron II in her opinion: “[T]here are differences between the two representations which indicate that the relation is one of subject matter, not style.” 40 Rationalized in SASS 2005, 75, with n. 113-116. Needless to say, should Late Bronze antecedents of the voluted footstool brackets or angled flywhisks turn up in the future, I will rethink the dating. 41 ALBRIGHT 1947, 155. 42 The statues of Pharaohs Sheshonq I and Osorkon I, to which Byblos kings Abibaal and Elibaal added their own alphabetic texts, thus lend these Byblian kings a terminus post quem only (SASS 2019, n. 20; SASS 2017a, 132-133; SASS 2005, 70). 36
356
B. SASS
Fig. 7: Zincirli, Kulamuwa orthostat inscription, late 9th century. Berlin, Vorderasiatisches Museum S 6579 (excavation photograph S 015, © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Vorderasiatisches Museum, Fotoarchiv).
Fig. 8: Cursive-inspired letter shapes in the royal Byblos inscriptions and Kulamuwa comparisons, latter late 9th century (B. Sass after multiple sources in SASS 2005, 24-25; chart first presented in SASS 2017a, fig. 3).
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
357
a) With its non-negligible component of archaizing and ‘eccentric’ letterforms the monumental, slowly written Byblos alphabet is largely artificial; it shows little palaeographical development for about a century43. Evidently, it does not lend itself to absolute dating nor to (relative) sequencing by palaeography in the same manner as does a living script of documents fast written in ink44. The maximum chronological value that can be extracted from the letterforms of a monumental inscription is a terminus post quem as per its most advanced shapes. Shapes such as Ahiram’s ḥets with oblique bars had obviously evolved in cursive documents, fast written in ink, before their adoption in monuments. As remarked above45, ‘averaging’ the presumed age of the most-developed and least-developed forms of monumental inscriptions or, worse still, dating these texts by their least-developed forms, runs the risk of leading to false highs. In other words, palaeographical archaism does not follow a consistent pattern over time. Presumably each archaizing tradition modelled itself on older inscriptions that the scribes and sculptors had access to at a given moment. Information on these models and on the question of why specifically their letterforms were chosen to be followed is evidently lost. Consequently the past attempts to date Ahiram and the other royal Byblos authors by their letterforms and arrange them sequentially have led the study of the Byblos alphabet astray for decades. b) By their most developed letterforms all royal Byblos inscriptions belong after ca. 900 BCE: On the strength of stratified, non-monumental inscriptions, most of them from Tell eṣ-Ṣafi and Tel Rehov, we can date the emergence of the West Semitic cursive to that time – around the transition from Iron IIAearly to Iron IIA-late46. The Byblos letters, displaying about ten cursiveinfluenced forms (Fig. 847), thus cannot be earlier than ca. 900 BCE, though they may well be later (see n. 30). – Result Both Ahiram’s table scene and the ensemble of his letterforms fit a 9th-century timing, perhaps extending into the 8th century (rather than Albright’s 10th) and are most unlikely to be associated with the missing monuments of the biblical Solomon. 43 “With the earliest inscription (as yet unidentifiable), a standard of monumental script was set at Byblos, that was maintained with some modifications for the next reigns. This should come as no surprise in monumental inscriptions that are often meant to convey a solemn, time-honoured appearance” (SASS 2017a, 131-132). 44 SASS 2017a, 116; SASS 2005, 27, 46, 60. 45 Cf. supra n. 20. 46 In Iron IIA-early the epigraphs on pottery vessels in the West Semitic alphabet were still pre-cursive Proto-Canaanite in form (SASS and FINKELSTEIN 2016, 26-30). 47 Cf. SASS 2017a, 119-128.
358
B. SASS
2.2.3. Do Kapara’s monuments bear out the missing monuments of Solomon? Albright attempted to justify his late 10th-century dating of Kapara by arguing that the long-known lack of Assyrian influence in the Halaf monuments (Figs. 3, 4) designated them as pre-Assyrian48. Inexplicably, Albright claimed this despite the manifest Assyrian influence in the choice of Akkadian for all the inscriptions on Kapara’s monuments49. Put differently, the absence of Assyrian traits from the imagery is immaterial to the question of dating, a question that has to be addressed based on other criteria (below). It may now be relevant to expand upon the shaky timeframe of Kapara, in which Albright’s preference is but one of the options. The recent Tell Halaf excavators, Cholidis, Dubiel and Martin50, have emphasized the absence of Assyrian synchronisms for Kapara and the resulting conjectural nature of any suggestion concerning absolute dating. The said absence, and the scarcity of evidence in general, led in the course of time to several competing scenarios for the age of Kapara51. A selection follows: – – – –
Mid-10th century52. Late 10th century53. First half of 9th century54. Second half of 9th century55. These dating scenarios are now addressed in ascending order of plausibility.
A mid-10th-century timeframe of Kapara seems too early for such a rich monumental manifestation of Aramaean statehood56. The second half of the 9th century (thus also Frankfort) is almost certainly too late for Kapara: At that time a spell of Aramaean autonomy will already have produced Aramaic inscriptions57 or Assyro–Aramaic bilinguals, as indeed was the case at Fakhariya. A pre-Abisalamu reign at the end of the 10th century (thus also Albright) is not impossible for Kapara, nor is it obligatory as Albright, before allowing a later alternative58, wished to portray it. Probably because they would have clashed 48 ALBRIGHT 1956a, 150-153; 1956b, 77. Certain overlaps with Assyrian art may be observed all the same (CHOLIDIS, DUBIEL and MARTIN 2010, 360). 49 ALBRIGHT 1956a, 152-153; ALBRIGHT 1956b, 81-82. 50 CHOLIDIS, DUBIEL and MARTIN 2010, 360-361. 51 See also SASS 2005, 95, Table 6. 52 NOVÁK 2019, 102-103; FUCHS 2011, 354. 53 DORNAUER 2010, 52 and passim; KELLER 1997, 39. 54 SASS, loc. cit., and the excavators (CHOLIDIS, DUBIEL and MARTIN 2010, 361). 55 SCHAUDIG 2011, 360. 56 SASS 2005, 93. 57 SASS 2017a, 115. 58 Cf. infra n. 60.
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
359
with his faith in Solomon’s historicity, Albright did not consider in this context Assyria’s periodic weak spells in the 9th and 8th centuries and the pendulum movement that ensued between subjugation and autonomy, between provincial governors and local rulers59. At the same time, Albright’s assertions regarding Kapara and Solomon were rather subdued: he admitted on the one hand that Kapara could alternatively have belonged in the first quarter of the 9th century60, while on the other even his preference for the last quarter of the 10th was actually a little late to underpin a ‘traditional’ Solomonic agenda. The first half of the 9th century was the Halaf excavators’ preference (above)61. I have proposed a similar scenario62 – with a conjectural reign for Kapara either ± 875 or ± 860 BCE, in any case after Abisalamu in 894 BCE and prior to the liquidation of Bit Adini by Shalmaneser III in 855 BCE63. On the question of pre-900 vs. post-900 BCE I have partly changed my mind since 2005: there is not enough evidence to decide whether Kapara reigned before Abisalamu or after, and the conditions favouring monuments with Akkadian inscriptions in an early Aramaean kingdom close to Assyria could already have been in place in the late 10th century64. On the other hand, recruiting Kapara 59 E.g. KÜHNE 1995, 76, and compare also the lack of Assyrian inspiration at late 8th-century Karatepe. In other contexts Albright (e.g. ALBRIGHT 1956a, 156) did acknowledge periods of Assyrian decline. 60 “There does not seem to be good reason for dating any of the monumental art of this period at Gozan before the middle of the tenth century or after the first quarter of the ninth” (ALBRIGHT 1956b, 84-85). 61 Indirect support for this dating is perhaps the use by Kapara of a non-alphabetic script on his monuments. I conjectured (SASS 2019, 174; SASS 2017a, 111-114) that as a general trend among the early West Semitic states in the Iron Age Levant this phenomenon dates sometime between 900 and 830, i.e. before the first alphabetic monuments emerged in the region. Alongside Akkadian at Tell Halaf, the evidence for such a pattern may include Luwian inscriptions from Til Barsib and Falasatin, and the pseudo-hieroglyphic writing from Byblos. But while the time around 830 BCE for the replacement of the non-alphabetic monuments by alphabetic ones seems reasonably well documented (loc. cit.), the upper limit ca. 900 BCE for the usage of non-alphabetic scripts on West Semitic monuments could on further reflection appear too low: After all, numerous West Semitic states have emerged either during the first decades of the 9th century or the last decades of the 10th; the evidence is often not precise enough to tell. In some cases at least, the maximum range of monumental non-alphabetic inscriptions erected by West Semitic rulers may thus be estimated ca. 930-830 BCE instead. 62 SASS 2005, 93-95. 63 Even after the conquest of Bit Adini in 855 (and certainly before) there was occasional room for expressions of autonomy at Gozan, as we have learned from the 1979 discovery of the late 9th-century Fakhariya statue with its Assyrianizing style and Assyro–Aramaic bilingual. Albright had no justification for insisting (ALBRIGHT 1956b, 78-79) that “[t]here is … no room in the last three quarters of the ninth century for an energetic builder like Kapara, supposed to have constructed magnificent buildings full of sculpture and to have strongly fortified Gozan” and that “[w]hen we turn to the inscriptions found at Gozan and collect all available references to the state in question in the Assyrian records, the impossibility of locating Kapara after the end of the 10th century becomes even more evident.” 64 I understand the Proto-Canaanite inspiration on the Fakhariya alphabet as a harking back to the arrival of the alphabet in Gozan during the second half of the 10th century, where it presumably served for documents, not yet monuments (FINKELSTEIN and SASS 2013, 196-197).
360
B. SASS
as a prop for a ‘traditional’ Solomon ca. 960-920 BCE and his missing monumental art does not appear to be a serious option – whatever the dating of the Halaf monuments: not only is Tell Halaf located in the Jazira, at the threshold of Assyria, probably too far off from Jerusalem anyway to constitute a valid match, calculating the time and length of Solomon’s reign according to the biblical data (there is no other) is practically impossible (Section 2.2.1). 3. Where Albright surpassed Frankfort Although in the 1950s the acquaintance with the Luwians was rather limited, Albright65 recognized the continuity of Luwian statehood and monumentality in Carchemish and Malatya after the end of the Hittite Empire, which Frankfurt did not, correcting Frankfort and presenting a historical–chronological picture impressive in its relative accuracy66. This monumental art eventually served the West Semitic polities – when they were founded ± 900 BCE – as a source of inspiration for their own monuments67. Albright also offered judicious observations on the processes that led to Aramaean statehood68. In addition, Albright recognized the second-millennium roots of Levantine art of the early first millennium: “It is quite true that the iconography of the Ahiram Sarcophagus stems from Late Bronze sources, but this is just as true of Egypt itself, where the twelfth-tenth centuries are generally lumped together in art by Egyptologists under the term ‘Late Ramesside’”69. 65
ALBRIGHT 1958, 5*; ALBRIGHT 1956a, 153-158. “The sculptures of the Lion Gate at Malatya north of Carchemish he [Frankfort] insists on dating in the thirteenth century instead of in the eleventh or tenth with such authorities as Ekrem Akurgal and Kurt Bittel” (ALBRIGHT 1958, 2*). “It is also very doubtful whether there was any real gap among the Hittites of northern Syria, …” (ALBRIGHT 1958, 2*; similarly ALBRIGHT 1956a, 146). “Analysis of the references to Carchemish and … Malatya … in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I, about 1100 B.C., makes it certain that both cities were the seats of dynasties which continued the great Hittite tradition” (ALBRIGHT 1958, 5*). More recent excavations at Arslantepe seem to show a more nuanced situation. The excavators maintain that during much of the 11th and 10th centuries the ancient site of Malatya has been at least partly abandoned and inhabited by squatters (FRANGIPANE and LIVERANI 2013, 359-360, 370). As Liverani put it (ibid., 359), “If the kings of Melid still existed, they would have been living somewhere else”. In other words, a distinction regarding continuity is to be made between Melid the city and Melid the land. Indeed Luwian inscriptions from the land of Malatya are numerous enough to span much of the time between the fall of the Hittite empire and the succession of Assyrian and Urartian mentions beginning with Assurnasirpal (HAWKINS 2000, 288). 67 Understandably, Albright did not acknowledge this last point (see Section 2.2.1), that may have cast doubt on the historicity of the Solomon narratives. 68 E.g. “The ancestors of Kapara were originally, it would seem, chiefs of the nomadic Aramaean tribe of Baḥyân…, who settled at Gozan in the eleventh or more probably in the early tenth century…” (ALBRIGHT 1956b, 85). But, as is to be expected, Albright did not address the biblical enigma inherent in his own view – of why the process of re-urbanization, that began among the Aramaeans in northern Syria towards 900 BCE, happened in the central Cisjordanian highlands nearly a century earlier (Section 2.2.1). 69 ALBRIGHT 1956a, 159. 66
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
361
4. Conclusions Even though Albright could cite nothing in support of the historicity of the United Monarchy narratives apart from the communis opinio of his day (Section 2.2.1 with n. 15), he used to integrate these narratives into the historical picture of the ancient Levant as if they had been authentic 10th-century accounts70. But at the time, and for decades thereafter, a majority of authors – the undersigned once included71 – have accepted the historicity of the United Monarchy narratives without question; it is only in the 1990s72, that the approach among archaeologists began to change. The problematic chronology of David and Solomon is addressed in Section 2.2.1. We move on to the dateless Ahiram and Kapara. Just as Frankfort placed the former in the 13th century and the latter in the later 9th in order that they bolster his view of a 350-year-long Dark Age (ca. 1200-850 BCE), but without presenting concrete evidence (Section 1), so has Albright placed both Kapara and Ahiram in the 10th century in order that they provide an archaeological backdrop for Solomon’s biblical splendour, but without any concrete evidence. The main points on dating Ahiram and Kapara are now recapitulated. Ahiram. Parallels for the banquet scene among the works of art of the West Semitic speaking peoples belong to the 9th century and on, not the 10th (see “The reliefs” in Section 2.2.2)73. The same holds true for the timeframe of Ahiram’s inscription: Albright’s ultra-high palaeographical dating – ca. 1000 BCE – derived inter alia from a common misunderstanding of the nature of letter typology in monumental inscriptions. When one takes the artificial character of the Byblos alphabet into consideration, with the different roles played by its three constituent letter-styles – cursive-inspired, archaizing or Proto-Canaaniteinspired, and ‘eccentric’ – Ahiram’s script turns out to be at home in the 9th century, likely continuing into the 8th, again not to the 10th (see “The letterforms” in Section 2.2.2). 70 E.g. ALBRIGHT 1956a, 161: “Similarly, the Nimrud ivories may have been made in the land of Hamath, whose most flourishing period seems to have fallen between the time of the alliance with David, cir. 975 B.C., and that of Irkhulina…, contemporary of Shalmaneser III. Or they may have come from Aram (Damascus), which was a flourishing independent state from the death of Solomon (cir. 922 B.C.) to the same period in the middle of the ninth century. We must not forget that Syria undoubtedly shared in the great wealth brought to this region by the maritime ventures of the Phoenicians and the expanding caravan trade of Solomon.” 71 SASS 1988, 167 and recanted in SASS 2005, n. 186. 72 Cf. supra n. 17. 73 I have no objection in principle to monumental art in Phoenicia in the 10th century (Section 2.2.1 with n. 12); it is only that nothing of the kind is known for now (Section 2.1). But a potential exists for contemporary monuments there in light of the minor arts of neighbouring Philistia in Iron I, namely the Ekron ivories (BEN-SHLOMO and DOTHAN 2006), assuming that not all of them are Late Bronze heirlooms. On the other hand, as noted in the main text, even if such monuments are found in Philistia – or Phoenicia – one day, they can hardly be expected to provide a link to the biblical Solomon.
362
B. SASS
Kapara. The option that the Halaf works of monumental art belong to the late 10th century as Albright proposed cannot be ruled out. But, considering their cuneiform inscriptions and absence of Aramaic ones, they may fit the first half of the 9th century as well (Section 2.2.3). This is all what Albright was able to point out on the purported contribution of Ahiram and Kapara to indirectly substantiating the existence of Solomon’s missing monuments – not much even from a 1950s perspective: the reliefs and inscription on Ahiram’s sarcophagus are unrelated to any quest for the historical Solomon and, irrespective of how it is dated, Kapara’s monumental art likewise contributes nothing to the issue – it is not only too late but also too far away. Besides, who can claim to know when exactly Solomon acceded to the throne, or for how many years he reigned (Section 2.2.1)? But there is for me also a bright side to Albright’s endeavor to underpin the historicity of the Solomon narratives. Not only did he speak for the majority of his day, and not only do I realize my advantage of hindsight; on Ahiram and Kapara I find myself today closer to Albright than to Frankfort: – Regarding Ahiram, whereas Albright’s 1000 BCE dating of the sarcophagus reliefs and inscription is unsupported, and a timeframe in the 9th-8th centuries reasonably well documented, I am still more in agreement with him (Iron Age) than with Frankfort (Late Bronze Age). – Also regarding Kapara, my position is closer to Albright’s (pre-855 BCE) than it is to Frankfort’s (post-855 BCE). All told, our differences on the historicity of Solomon are certainly there but we are not diametrically opposed on the age of Ahiram and Kapara. And Section 3 above sings yet more of Albright’s praises. References ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1940, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore. ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1947, ‘The Phoenician inscriptions of the tenth century B.C. from Byblus’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 67, 153-160. ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1956a, ‘Northeast-Mediterranean Dark Ages and the early Iron Age art in Syria’, in S. WEINBERG (ed.), The Aegean and the ancient Near East. Studies presented to Hetty Goldman on the occasion of her seventy-fifth birthday, Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 144-164. ALBRIGHT, W. F. 1956b, ‘The date of the Kapara period at Gozan (Tell Halaf)’, Anatolian Studies 6, 75-85. ALBRIGHT W. F. 1958, ‘Was the age of Solomon without monumental art?’, Eretz Israel 5, 1*-9*. BEN-SHLOMO, D., DOTHAN, T. 2006, ‘Ivories from Philistia: filling the Iron Age I gap’, Israel Exploration Journal 56, 1-38. CASPARI, W. 1926, Die Samuelbücher mit Sacherklärungen versehen (Kommentar zum Alten Testament VII), Leipzig: A. Deichert.
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
363
CHOLIDIS, N., DUBIEL, U., MARTIN, L. 2010, ‘Section XV.4. Zur Datierung der Tell Halaf-Bildwerke’, in N. CHOLIDIS, L. MARTIN (eds.), Tell Halaf V. Tell Halaf, im Krieg zerstörte Denkmäler und ihre Restaurierung, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 354-363. CHOLIDIS, N., MARTIN, L. 2002, Der Tell Halaf und sein Ausgräber Max von Oppenheim, Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. COGAN, M. 1992, ‘Chronology. Hebrew Bible’, Anchor Bible Dictionary 1, 1002-1011. CROSS, F. M. 1967, ‘The origin and early evolution of the alphabet’, Eretz Israel 8, 8*-24*. D’ALFONSO, L., PAYNE, A. 2016, ‘The paleography of Anatolian hieroglyphic stone inscriptions’, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68, 107-127. DORNAUER, A. A. 2010, ‘Chapter IV. Die Geschichte von Gūzāna im Lichte der schriftlichen Zeugnisse’, in N. CHOLIDIS, L. MARTIN (eds.), Tell Halaf V. Tell Halaf, im Krieg zerstörte Denkmäler und ihre Restaurierung, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 47-67. FINKELSTEIN, I. 1996, ‘The archaeology of the United Monarchy: an alternative view’, Levant 28, 177-187. FINKELSTEIN, I., SASS, B. 2013, ‘The West Semitic alphabetic inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron IIA: Archeological context, distribution and chronology’, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2/2, 149-220. FINKELSTEIN, I., SASS, B., SINGER-AVITZ, L. 2008, ‘Writing in Iron IIA Philistia in the light of the Tel Zayit abecedary’, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 124, 1-12. FRANGIPANE, M., LIVERANI, M. 2013, ‘Neo-Hittite Melid: Continuity or discontinuity?’, in K. 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: Peeters, 349-371. FRANKFORT, H. 1954, The art and architecture of the ancient Orient, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. FUCHS, A. 2011, ‘Zur Geschichte von Guzana’, in N. CHOLIDIS, L. MARTIN (eds.), Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf. Begleitbuch zur Sonderausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums „Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf“, vom 28.1.–14.8.2011 im Pergamonmuseum, Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 354-358. GILBOA, A., WAIMAN-BARAK, P., SHARON, I. 2015, ‘Dor, the Carmel coast and early Iron Age Mediterranean exchanges’, in A. BABBI, F. BUBENHEIMER-ERHART, B. MARÍNAGUILERA, S. MÜHL (eds.), The Mediterranean mirror. Cultural contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C. International post-doc and young researcher conference, Heidelberg, 6th–8th October 2012, Mainz: Schnell & Steiner, 85-109. GILBOA, A., SHARON, I. 2017, ‘Fluctuations in Levantine maritime foci across the Late Bronze/Iron Age transition: Charting the role of the Sharon–Carmel (Tjeker) coast in the rise of Iron Age Phoenician polities’, in P. M. FISCHER, T. BÜRGE (eds.), “Sea Peoples” up-to-date. New research on transformations in the eastern Mediterranean in the 13th–11th centuries BCE. Proceedings of the ESF-workshop held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 3–4 November 2014 (Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 81), Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences, 285-298. HARRISON, T. P. 2014, ‘Recent discoveries at Tayinat (ancient Kunulua/Calno) and their Biblical implications’, in Ch. M. MAIER (ed.), Congress volume Munich 2013 (Vetus Testamentum Supplements 163), Leiden/Boston: Brill, 396-425.
364
B. SASS
HAWKINS, J. D. 2000, Corpus of hieroglyphic Luwian inscriptions, vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. HAWKINS, J. D. 2013, ‘The Luwian inscriptions from the temple of the storm god of Aleppo’, in K. 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: Peeters, 493-500. HERRMANN, G. 2006, ‘The age of ivory: The Nimrud project’, British Academy Review 9, 27-31. KAI = DONNER, H., RÖLLIG, W. 1962 (19643), Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. KEIL, C. F. 18752, Die Bücher Samuels (Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament 2), Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke. KELLER, D. 1997, ‘Die aramäische und neuassyrische Besiedlung des Tell Ḥalâf (10.– 7. Jh. v. Chr.)’, Kölner Jahrbuch 30, 34-44. KOHLMEYER, K. 2008, ‘Zur Datierung der Skulpturen von ‘Ain Dārā’, in D. BONATZ, R. M. CZICHON, F. J. KREPPNER (eds.), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 119-130. KOHLMEYER, K. 2009, ‘The temple of the storm god in Aleppo during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72/4, 190-202. KOHLMEYER, K. 2011, ‘Building activities and architectural decoration in the 11th century BC. The temples of Taita, king of Padasatini/Palistin in Aleppo and ‘Ain Dārā’, in K. STROBEL (ed.), Empires after the empire: Anatolia, Syria and Assyria after Suppiluliuma II (ca. 1200–800/700 B.C.), Florence: Eothen, 255-280. KOHLMEYER, K. 2012, ‘Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo. Baugeschichte und Bautyp, räumliche Bezüge, Inventar und bildliche Ausstattung’, in J. KAMLAH, H. MICHELAU (eds.), 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) (Abhandlungen des deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 55-78, pls. 13-19. KOHLMEYER, K. 2013, ‘Der Tempel des Wettergottes von Aleppo’, in K. KANIUTH, A. LOHNERT, J. L. MILLER, A. OTTO, M. ROAF, W. SALLABERGER (eds.), Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München (Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 179-218. KÜHNE, H. 1995, ‘The Assyrians on the Middle Euphrates and the Ḫābūr’, in M. LIVERANI (ed.), Neo-Assyrian geography (Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5), Rome: Università di Roma, Dipartimento di scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche dell’Antichità, 69-85. KUNZ-LÜBCKE, A. 2005, ‘Die Komposition der Salomogeschichten’, in R. LUX (ed.), Ideales Königtum. Studien zu David und Salomo (Arbeiten zur Bibel und Ihrer Geschichte 16), Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 107-125. LANGENEGGER, F., MÜLLER, K., NAUMANN, R. 1950, Tell Halaf II. Die Bauwerke, Berlin. LEHMANN, R. G. 2005, Die Inschriften des Aḥīrōm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos) (Forschungen zur phönizisch-punischen und zyprischen Plastik II,1; Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern 1/2), Mainz: Von Zabern.
“WAS THE AGE OF SOLOMON WITHOUT MONUMENTAL ART?”
365
MILLARD, A. 1991, ‘The uses of the early alphabets’, in C. BAURAIN, C. BONNET, V. KRINGS (eds.), Phoinikeia grammata. Lire et écrire en Méditerranée. Actes du colloque de Liège, 15–18 novembre 1989 (Collection d’études classiques 6), Liège/ Namur: Société des études classiques, 101-114. MONTET, P. 1928-1929, Byblos et l’Égypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil, 1921-1922-1923-1924 (2 vols.), Paris: Paul Geuthner. NA’AMAN, N. 1996, ‘Sources and composition in the history of David’, in V. FRITZ, P. R. DAVIES (eds.), The origins of the ancient Israelite states (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 228), Sheffield: Scheffield Academic Press, 170-186. NA’AMAN, N. 1997a, ‘Historical and literary notes on the excavation of Tel Jezreel’, Tel Aviv 24/1, 122-128. NA’AMAN, N. 1997b, ‘Sources and composition in the history of Solomon’, in L. K. HANDY (ed.), The age of Solomon. Scholarship at the turn of the millennium (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 11), Leiden: Brill, 57-80. NA’AMAN, N. 2018, ‘Game of thrones: Solomon’s ‘succession narrative’ and Esarhaddon’s accession to the throne’, Tel Aviv 45, 89-113. NOVÁK, M. 2019, ‘Histoire des principautés néo-hittites (louvito-araméennes)’, in V. BLANCHARD (ed.), Royaumes oubliés. De l’empire hittite aux araméens, Paris: Musée du Louvre/Éditions Lienart, 92-101. PORADA, E. 1973, ‘Notes on the sarcophagus of Ahiram’, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 5, 355-372. REHM, E. 2005, Der Ahiram-Sarkophag (Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zypern 1/1), Mainz: Von Zabern. REHM, E. 2016, ‘Teil 1. Speisetischszenen im Alten Orient’, in E. REHM, Ch. EDER, Speisetischszenen im Alten Orient und im Alten Ägypten (Bankett und Grab, Band 1; Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients: Archäologische Studien zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients 17), Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 1-200. ROBIN, Ch. J. 2012, ‘Depuis quand certains juifs portent-ils de longues mèches de cheveux de part et d’autre du visage ?’, in J. BAUMGARTEN, J. COSTA, J.-P. GUILLAUME, J. KOGEL (eds.), En mémoire de Sophie Kessler-Mesguich, Paris: Presses Sorbonne, 54-76. RÖMER, Th. 2008, ‘Salomon d’après les Deutéronomistes: un roi ambigu’, in C. LICHTERT, D. NOCQUET (eds.), Le roi Salomon: un heritage en question. Hommage à Jacques Vermeylen (Le livre et le Rouleau), Brussels: Lessius, 98-130. SASS, B. 1988, The genesis of the alphabet and its development in the second millennium B.C. (Ägypten und Altes Testament 13), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. SASS, B. 2005, The Alphabet at the turn of the millennium. The West Semitic alphabet ca. 1150–850 BCE; the antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian alphabets (Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv: University Press. SASS, B. 2010, ‘Four notes on Taita king of Palistin, with an excursus on King Solomon’s empire’, Tel Aviv 37, 169-174. SASS, B. 2016, ‘Aram and Israel during the 10th-9th centuries BCE, or Iron IIA. The alphabet’, in O. SERGI, M. OEMING, I. J. DE HULSTER (eds.), In search of Aram and Israel. Politics, culture and identity (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 20), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 199-227. SASS, B. 2017a, ‘The emergence of monumental West Semitic alphabetic writing, with an emphasis on Byblos’, Semitica 59, 109-141.
366
B. SASS
SASS, B. 2017b, ‘The Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon in its setting’, in S. SCHROER, S. MÜNGER (eds.), Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Shephelah. Papers presented at a conference of the SGOA/SSPOA at the University of Bern, September 6, 2014 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 282), Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 87-111. SASS, B. 2019, ‘The pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions from Byblos, their elusive dating, and their affinities with the early Phoenician inscriptions’, in PH. ABRAHAMI, L. BATTINI (eds.), ina dmarri u qan ṭuppi. Par la bêche et le stylet ! Cultures et sociétés syromésopotamiennes. Mélanges offerts à Olivier Rouault, Oxford: Archaeopress, 157180. SASS, B., FINKELSTEIN, I. 2016, ‘The swan-song of Proto-Canaanite in the ninth century BCE in light of an alphabetic inscription from Megiddo’, Semitica et Classica 9, 19-42. SCHAUDIG, H. 2011, ‘Die Zerstörung des West-Palastes von Guzana’, in N. CHOLIDIS, L. MARTIN (eds.), Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf. Begleitbuch zur Sonderausstellung des Vorderasiatischen Museums „Die geretteten Götter aus dem Palast vom Tell Halaf“, vom 28.1.–14.8.2011 im Pergamonmuseum, Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 359-362. STOEBE, H. J. 1973, Das erste Buch Samuelis (Kommentare zum Alten Testament 8/1), Berlin/Gütersloh: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. VAN SETERS, J. 1983, In search of history, New Haven/London: Yale University Press. WIGHTMAN, G. J. 1990, ‘The myth of Solomon’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277-278, 5-22. WIMMER, S. 2008, Palästinisches Hieratisch. Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift (Ägypten und Altes Testament 75), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ZIFFER, I. 2005, ‘From Acemhöyük to Megiddo. The banquet scene in the art of the Levant in the second millennium BCE’, Tel Aviv 32, 133-167.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS. DEBATING THE EXISTENCE OF A TRUE ‘PHOENICIAN REGION’ Tatiana PEDRAZZI*
Sketching out a clear-cut geographical and mental map of ancient Phoenicia which precisely defines that region’s borders and the limits of its civilization – not merely in physical and geographical terms, but also in the broader cultural sense – is a difficult task1. As we shall see – and extensively discuss – the very terms Phoenicia and Phoenician, as conventionally used in the area of enquiry known as Phoenician studies, are increasingly coming under critical scrutiny within the human sciences, with their precise origin, meaning and appropriateness being called into question2. Nonetheless, recent decades have seen no small number of scholars focus on what are alleged or presumed to be the typical features of the Phoenician region. Reference has even been made, inappropriately, to the existence of a Phoenician nation. And, last but not least, much emphasis has been placed on the distinctive physical characteristics of the portion of the Syro-Palestinian coastal region that lies enclosed – one might almost say ‘squashed’ – between the Lebanon mountains to the east, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west. The physical landscape and the geographical and chronological limits of Phoenicia If we are content to adopt a relatively simplistic viewpoint, the supposed key features of the Phoenician homeland are easily enumerated: first, the relatively tiny area of inhabited land, squeezed in – as we have just noted – between the sea and the mountains; then, the scarcity of arable soil; and finally, the generous supply of timber (the famous cedars of Lebanon). In sum, a land that would seem to have been literally constrained by geography to give birth to a civilization of sailors and merchants. * Instituto di Scienze del Patrimonio Culturale (ISPC), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Milano. 1 I am very pleased to dedicate to Eric a few remarks on the high-debated issue of the ‘location’ of ancient Phoenicia. This new contribute starts from an analysis that I already addressed a few years ago (PEDRAZZI 2014). 2 This growing recognition of the unclear status of the labels Phoenicia and Phoenician has even prompted some authors to consistently place them in inverted commas (VAN DONGEN 2010, 471), a treatment that has not been adopted in this paper, but which stimulates reflection on the need to suspend conventional assumptions about their meaning. Importantly in this regard, it should be always remembered, as it is well-known, that the so-called Phoenicians actually went by the name of their city of origin, referring to themselves as Sidonians, Tyrians, etc. (BONDÌ 2015, 60).
368
T. PEDRAZZI
Thus, territorially speaking, ancient Phoenicia, to adopt a traditional definition of the term, fits quite well with the modern state of Lebanon, although some ancient Phoenician sites such as Arwad lie in modern Syria, while others are located further down the coastline, to the south of Ras Naqqoura, the promontory that looms on the horizon as one gazes southwards from Tyre. Scholars have variously included or excluded different settlements from their ‘approved list’ of authentically Phoenician cities. Hence, the region of Phoenicia, according to the most restricted interpretation, stretches from the northern harbor of Tell Sukas to the southern coastal city of Akko, in modern Israel, while broader interpretations would have it extend from Ugarit in the North to Jaffa in the South, or almost the entire length of the Levantine coastline. Along the Lebanese stretch of coast, the maritime plain is very narrow, ranging from a minimum width of about 2 km in some areas, to a maximum of about 20 km in others; however, the coastal plain beyond the borders of modern Lebanon, i.e. the Akkar plain in the north, can be as wide as 50 km3. The region is crossed from east to west by a number of rivers (Nahr el-Kebir, Nahr Ibrahim, i.e., the Byblos river, Nahr el-Kelb near Beirut, Nahr el-Awali north of Sidon, and Nahr el-Litani near Tyre), which divide it into several distinct and virtually self-sufficient areas. With regard to the northern boundary, it is critical to point out that the aforementioned city of Ugarit, in Syria, is a Late Bronze town that was destroyed around 1200 BCE, thus ceasing to exist just when the Phoenician civilization began to be perceived as such and to take on its own distinctive (albeit not always perfectly defined) outline. Therefore, we cannot consider Ugarit to be a truly Phoenician city. However, the civilization of Ugarit, in many ways and from a variety of perspectives (social, economic, linguistic, religious, artistic, craftwork, and so on), has at times been classified as ‘pre-Phoenician’4, a label that current understandings compel us to reject, because it assumes that a given civilization may be interpreted as anticipating one succeeding it. It might therefore be more appropriate to say that the Ugaritic civilization stands in a sort of ‘liminal’ relationship with the Phoenician world, not only from a geographical perspective, but also in chronological and cultural terms. Thus, to the north, Ugarit represents a sort of ‘liminal’ boundary. Far south, on the other hand, beyond Akko and the Carmel promontory, other towns, such as Dor and Jaffa, are ascribed by ancient Persian written sources to the territory dominated by Sidon, a leading Phoenician city. For the historical topography of the Akkar plain, see GUBEL 2009, 2010 and 2018. In a well-known work co-authored with André Parrot and Sabatino Moscati in 1975, Chéhab devoted an entire chapter, entitled The Pre-Phoenicians, to the urban coastal civilizations of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, putting forward Ugaritic artifacts (stelae, metal bowls, and ivory plaques or statuettes) as an expression of a supposed ‘Phoenician personality’ (PARROT, CHÉHAB and MOSCATI 1975). 3 4
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
369
So how can we pin down the true borders, if indeed they exist, of ancient Phoenicia? It will be argued here that searching for borders goes hand in hand with investigating the identity of a people, given that the identity-making phenomenon contains in itself the act of demarcating physical and cultural boundaries5. Therefore, this brief analysis is structured around the following key issues: the distinctive nature of borders in the Levant; the specificities of the boundaries of ancient Phoenicia; Phoenician identity as constructed by others and/or by the Phoenicians themselves6. Borders in the Levant: a conceptual framework From an anthropological perspective, the concept of border bears clear referential value for the debate on social, cultural and ethnic groups7. A boundary lays down a distinction that is simultaneously both real and metaphorical, as some scholars have observed8. Boundaries are continuously being constructed within inter- and intra-social frameworks: mechanisms of identification and affiliation appear to play an equally important role in this process. In anthropology, the link between the social construction of borders and the settlement (or creation) of ethnic groups has been a theme of study since the late 1960s9. In more recent work on ethnicity in the ancient Levant, the ethnic group has been viewed as perpetuating “its sense of separate identity […]” by developing rules for maintaining ‘ethnic boundaries’ as well as for participating in inter-ethnic social encounters10. Thus, ethnicity and identity are dependent on the establishment of borders11. It follows that the border itself should be viewed as the true object of analysis, in place of the cultural contents (language, customs, art, religion) that it delimits and includes. Given that these cultural ‘contents’ were used to build the border and consequently to define the culture of a group12, the border should constitute our primary focus of study: indeed perceived boundaries are among the most reliable data available to us concerning the construction of identity by human groups. Thus, rather than constructing ethnic types or describing the presumed objective features of a given ethnos, we need to thoroughly analyse the full identity formation process of a people, and the mechanisms of self-representation 5 For the debate concerning the Phoenician identity: QUINN 2017; GARBATI and PEDRAZZI 2016; GARBATI and PEDRAZZI 2015; QUINN and VELLA 2015. 6 I have already presented a preliminary analysis of these aspects elsewhere (PEDRAZZI 2014). 7 FABIETTI 2005, 111. 8 CELLA 2006. 9 BARTH 1969. 10 DEVER 1995, 201. 11 PEDRAZZI 2014, 147-150. 12 FABIETTI 1998, 99.
370
T. PEDRAZZI
implicated in it13, and this may largely be accomplished via an in-depth study of the creation and transformation of boundaries. The distinctive nature of borders in the Levant during the Late Bronze Age has been explored by Mario Liverani, who analysed ancient textual documents with a view to accessing the ‘insider’ perspective, that is to say, the perspective of the ancient social actors themselves. This line of enquiry led Liverani14 to point up a marked partitioning of internal and external spaces: in the ancient Levantine texts, positive values were attributed to the internal world, and strikingly negative values to external areas. Space was thus a ‘symbolic representation of reality’, representing a sort of ‘value system’. Liverani also observed that, at the beginning of the Iron Age, the previous physical separation between internal and external landscapes, was replaced by a new dichotomy between our people and foreign people15. The transition from a territorial to a “national model of state” was a typical Early Iron Age phenomenon, and characterized both the Israelitic and Aramaic areas located in the Southern and Northern Levant, respectively; however, importantly for our analysis here, no such phenomenon took place along the Phoenician coast. Phoenicia conservatively retained the territorial model, not only due to political factors, but also for religious reasons: for example, as is well-known, each Phoenician city had its leading deity (among others, Melqart of Tyre, or Baal of Byblos), who was viewed as lord of the territory, while the inhabitants were seen as his subjects16. This continuity in how borders were understood in the Phoenician cities of the Iron Age with respect to the earlier Canaanite city-states allows us to take the abundant textual data from the Late Bronze Age as a primary – albeit indirect – documental source shedding light on the probable status of borders during the subsequent Phoenician era. This is especially valuable given the scarcity of written sources from the Early Iron Age itself. The textual sources of the Late Bronze Age, drawn in the main from the royal archives, reveal ongoing struggles to shift and modify borders across the territories of the various city-states in the coastal Levant. These texts present us with a clear ideology of domination. A domination, what is more, that was to be exerted over as vast an amount of land as possible, or was at least to be portrayed as such in the royal records kept by the city rulers. This ideology was mainly inspired by economic factors, such as the drive to exploit the resources of a vast surrounding area in order to benefit one’s own particular city-state. For example, cuneiform texts document the transfer of the kingdom of Siyannu, on the Syrian coast, formerly dependent on Ugarit, under the rule of Carchemish17. When 13 14 15 16 17
FABIETTI 1998, 96. LIVERANI 1994. LIVERANI 1994, 29. XELLA 2010, 127. LIVERANI 1994, 71.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
371
independent cities, with their own territory, entered under the jurisdiction of other cities in the region, this could imply a greater or lesser degree of submission. Two cities might become an administrative unit, with one center gaining supremacy over the other; the two populations, in this case, would take on a joint collective identity, while maintaining their own distinctive characteristics, thus developing a plural identity embracing dimensions of both identification and otherness. In sum, the socio-political and cultural continuity between the Bronze Age Syro-Palestinian and the Iron Age Phoenician cities, justifies us in assuming that the Late Bronze Age texts can also advance our understanding of the Phoenician framework of identity. In this regard, we can identify at least two key insights. First, a closer reading of the texts clearly suggests that the mobile borders we have just been discussing (in political terms, the practice of transferring territory from one city-state to another), in the period spanning the Late Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age, reflected fluidity in the Phoenicians’ sense of belonging. Thus, this mobility encompassed ideological dimensions (such as notions of submission, fraternity, and membership) that were related to tradition, in the sense of things ‘as they were before’ (as borne out in the texts of the late 2nd millennium at any rate). Tradition, we may conclude, played a key role in the construction of identities. Second, in the case of the Phoenician cities, we cannot assume a progression from territorial boundaries to national borders (of tribal origin); indeed, we may reasonably argue that in Early Iron Age Phoenicia, borders retained the same territorial nature that they had displayed in the Late Bronze Canaanite period. Phoenician borders and self-perceived identity As earlier suggested, identifying the boundaries of Phoenicia corresponds to defining Phoenician identity or ‘identities’, an ambitious and exacting target18. At the very dawn of Phoenician studies, Sabatino Moscati discussed Phoenician identity and the delimitation of Phoenicia, pointing out that, in the course of the profound changes that affected the Levantine coast around 1200 BCE, boundaries in the Phoenician region were defined for the most part by the action of outside populations, rather than by any self-determination strategy deployed by the inhabitants of cities such as Byblos, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre19. It is as though the Phoenician civilization and its borders came to be ‘negatively’ defined: in the geographical and cultural landscape of the Levantine coast from the end of the second millennium onwards, the Phoenicians differentiated themselves and marked 18 19
QUINN and VELLA 2015. MOSCATI 1963, 489.
372
T. PEDRAZZI
out their place vis-à-vis the surrounding peoples solely by virtue of their distinctive strong continuity in the tradition of the previous period. Within an overall framework of peoples undergoing transformation in the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age, the Phoenicians stood out as the heirs of the Canaanite cultural legacy. It is therefore extremely difficult to detect any clear-cut historical break, while the much debated landmark date of 1200 BCE, conventionally taken to designate the beginning of Phoenician civilization in a strictly defined sense, is clearly far more symbolic than real. The corollary of this, as implied above, is that the actual creation of boundaries (cultural rather than physical), among the Phoenicians and the other groups present in the Levant, owed much more to the proactivity of the other peoples than to a process of self-affirmation on the part of the Phoenicians themselves20. In sum, there is a paradox inherent in this peculiarly Phoenician model of identity creation: namely, that the cultural contours of Phoenicia were more characterized by elements of continuity (or non-differentiation) than by rupture and transformation. In keeping with what we have outlined so far, the debate on Phoenician identity traditionally centered around the continuity/discontinuity dichotomy, without challenging the idea of an objective and real Phoenician identity in itself, but rather assuming it as a matter of fact. Early scholarship thus focused on cultural markers of continuity with the Bronze Age on the one hand, and elements of novelty on the other. Among the typically innovative features of the newly begun Iron Age, researchers identified the emergence of a phonetic alphabet (with precedents in the Late Bronze Age, e.g. the Ugaritic alphabet), as well as the development of the so-called ‘minor arts’21, that is to say, the production of small items suitable for long distance trade22. From the 1990s onwards, critiques of the notion of Phoenician culture per se began to emerge, with a few scholars even proposing that this concept should be replaced with the broader construct of ‘Levantine culture’23. A proposition that has been rejected by the majority of scholars, however, because viewed as inadequately reflecting the alleged ‘ethnic reality’ underlying the ‘Phoenician’ label. In addition, Sabatino Moscati and others24 have upheld the primary function of GARBATI and PEDRAZZI 2015. MOSCATI 1985, 184. 22 The concept of ‘minor arts’ in itself is under discussion, but of interest to us here is the fact that this notion was pinpointed by scholars as a possible indicator of Phoenician identity. Recently, R.S. Martin stated in the introduction of her book: “I am not concerned here with the problem of fine arts (les beaux arts) versus minor arts or crafts, as it seems to me that we can use the term ‘art’ in the sense of expressive object” (MARTIN 2017, 5). Moreover, in the important book that Eric Gubel published more than thirty years ago, we could already see how the true Phoenician ‘art’ is expressed in a typically ‘craft’ production, the furniture (GUBEL 1987). 23 PASTOR BORGOÑON 1992, 134: “levantinische Kultur”. 24 MOSCATI 1993, 10. 20 21
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
373
language in pinpointing ethnic groups. One outcome of critical approaches to the theme of Phoenician identity has been the conclusion on the part of some scholars that the Phoenicians were largely a discovery, if not an actual invention, of the Greeks25. In the 1990s, Phoenician studies – among other areas of enquiry – were influenced by broader advances in anthropological research that led scholars to question previous assumptions informed by a substantialist view of cultural identity, that is to say, the idea that group identity is made up of real and objective ‘contents’, such as a common language and institutions, or shared values and beliefs. Thus, especially prior to the 1990s, the dominant view was that ethnic groups were characterized by identifying factors such as “a biological component conceived of as blood, genes, and flesh; a similar language shared by a group of people; and similar general economic orientation, history and world-view”26. This substantialist notion of identity essentially supposes that external representations of a given people coincide with its self- (or internal) representation. Whenever this equivalence of external and internal representations is not called into question, a substantialist vision of group identity is implicitly being relied on. In contrast, contemporary anthropological approaches, as articulated by the Italian anthropologist Ugo Fabietti27, advocate representing ethnic and cultural borders as “strategically produced through social and symbolic practices” rather than as objectively and definitively given. Compared to ethnologists and anthropologists, ancient historians are generally less inclined to adopt an internal perspective on the cultures they study, often viewing them from an outside angle that does not necessarily coincide with how the members of these ancient civilizations viewed themselves28. In relation to this general situation, the case of Phoenician studies is even more critical, given – as noted earlier – that the very existence of the Phoenicians as a discrete group, as well as their collective title, have depended since ancient times on a definition provided by ‘others’. It follows that in order to speak of a Phoenician ethnos and culture within the Levantine framework, we should be able to postulate a correspondence or overlap between external designations of the Phoenicians and their self-perceived identity. After all, the people of Phoenicia did not refer to themselves as ‘Phoenicians’, but (if they used a collective name) are more likely to have called themselves Canaanites, if we are to believe the much later testimony of St. Augustine who wrote that in his day the Carthaginians still referred to themselves Chanani 29. This intriguing claim by the well-known Father of the Church is relatively weak 25 26 27 28 29
BAURAIN and BONNET 1992, 11. LEVY and HOLL 2002, 85. FABIETTI 2005, 181. XELLA 2008, 69-70. Aug. Epist. ad Rom. inch. exp. 13.
374
T. PEDRAZZI
evidence however, especially if used to postulate similar borders for what we know as ‘Canaan’ and what we mean by ‘Phoenicia’. Rather Augustine’s words bear out the existence of a well-established and enduring bond between the North African Carthaginian culture and its age-old eastern roots30. To put this another way, rather than enlightening us about the original boundaries of the Phoenician homeland, St. Augustine’s observation is of value because it suggests the persistence of links between the Mediterranean colonies and the Levantine coast over the longue durée (in the terms of the French historian, Fernand Braudel). In any case, given that from the very birth of Phoenician studies as an area of enquiry, emphasis has been placed on the key role of the name used by a people to define its identity31, the question of what the Phoenicians were called and called themselves is of critical importance. In the first place, the Greek word Phoinikes, which dates back to the works of Homer, does not correspond to any self-designation used by the people referred to by others as the Phoenicians. So, who were the Phoinikes for the Greeks and why were they attributed this particular name32? Sabatino Moscati discussed the connection between the term Phoinikes and the Greek word phoinix (meaning ‘purple’), claiming that the ethnonym was unlikely to have derived from the color and indeed arguing for the opposite process, that is to say, suggesting that the ethnonym may have given rise to the choice of phoinix to refer to the color, on account of the tradition of purple dye production along the Levantine coast. The link between the ethnonym Phoinikes and the color name phoinix, moreover, has been interpreted as modelled on the earlier relationship between the ethnonym Canaanites and the term kinahnu, attested in Akkadian texts from Nuzi and also designating the color purple33. In Moscati’s34 opinion, the word Canaanites had likely already appeared before the Phoenician (in the strictly defined sense) age itself, and was probably the Phoenicians’ own name for themselves; a name, furthermore, that reflected their characteristic status as producers of purple. For other scholars, in contrast, “it looks like a violent assumption that people could call themselves after a manufactured product”35. Speculation about a link between the earlier Canaanite and later Phoenician, prompts us to enquire where the borders of the land of Canaan, referred to in the Bible, were actually located. It would appear that the term was used to signify XELLA 1995, 247-248. MOSCATI 1963, 487. 32 The debate concerning the ethnonym Phoenician has been recently revisited by Andrea Ercolani, in an examination and critical discussion of the possible origins and uses of the term phoinikes: ERCOLANI 2015. 33 MOSCATI 1963, 487-488. 34 MOSCATI 1993, 18. 35 TSIRKIN 2001, 272. 30 31
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
375
the whole Levantine coastal area. Paolo Xella36, for example, observed that Canaan’s status as a broader area encompassing the sub-regions of the Levant is borne out by the biblical reference to it in the Book of Genesis37: specifically, the Bible reminds us that Canaan generated Sidon, who was not an only child. According to Moscati38, however, this broader use of the terms Canaan and Canaanites to refer to the entire region, should be viewed as a secondary and relatively late-occurring phenomenon that was closely bound up with the Old Testament usage. It must further be stressed that these terms, according to what we can deduce from the sources, do not appear to correspond to an ethnic, or less still, to a national identity. In any case, we cannot assume that the Phoenicians called themselves Canaanites. Indeed the available data leads us to postulate that the so-called Phoenician people did not actually identify with a single unitary label of any kind, but rather possessed a plurality of self-designations: in practice, the inhabitants of the coastal towns that we refer to as Phoenician, simply identified themselves by their city of origin (thus calling themselves Sidonians, Tyrians, and so on). The relationship between the ethnonym Phoenicians (Phoinikes) and the more specific designation Sidonians, also featured in the Homeric texts, likewise demands thorough investigation. It is probable that these two terms held different meanings. The respective uses of Phoinikes and Sidonioi in the works of Homer have led some scholars, including Xella39, to surmise that the former may have been a more general, and the second a more specific, label. One account posits the term Sidonians as a designation that came to be extended to the entire population of Phoenicia but originated with one of its major cities, in all likelihood the urban center that stood out as more influential than the others during the early stages of Phoenician history40. In contrast, other researchers41 have suggested that in Homer Phoinikes may have been used to designate the inhabitants of northern Phoenicia, and Sidonioi the people of southern Phoenicia. We may safely assume that whatever the origin and specific meaning of the names Phoenicians/Phoinikes and Phoenicia, the border traced around the people referred to using this label was a line drawn from the outside only, drawn we might say by ‘others’. Thus, the Greek name Phoinikes is most properly defined as an exonym, that is to say, a name for an ethnic group invented by another group of people. We cannot claim certainty about the possible existence or use of an endonym, or collective self-designation. 36 37 38 39 40 41
XELLA 1995, 248. Genesis 10:15-19. MOSCATI 1963, 488. XELLA 1995, 245. BONDÌ 2009, X. E.g. TSIRKIN 2001, 278-279.
376
T. PEDRAZZI
Aside from the complex issue of possible self-designations, scholars face the even more crucial task of establishing the other possible markers of Phoenician identity. Among the identity factors generally held to be objective, and as such almost indisputable, one of the most frequently evoked is the fact of sharing the same language, in both its spoken and written varieties. In practice, when studying the ancient world, scholars primarily, if not solely, analyze the written language adopted by a given people due to the lack of data on spoken varieties. In any case, the correlation between so-called ‘linguistic identity’ and ethnic (or, to be more precise, cultural) identity should not be viewed as a neat one-to-one relationship. As observed by Whincop, a “written language is not a definitive indicator of ethnicity”42. And indeed, we know that in the Iron Age Levant more than one language could be used within a single context, or across closely related contexts, showing that the boundaries constructed by language are not always as straightforward or easily traceable as first appearances might lead us to believe. At this point, we would do well to recognize the difficulty of pinpointing clear contours for ‘Phoenician identity’; all the more so if we understand this term to represent an objectively given reality. This difficulty, incidentally, applies not only to the Phoenicians, but also to other peoples of the Early Iron Age Levant, such as the Arameans. It is hard to prove that these peoples perceived themselves as well-defined ethnic groups, once we go beyond the dimension of individual cities (for the Phoenicians) or individual tribes (for the Arameans). For example, in relation to the Arameans, the inhabitants of the Northern Levant, we agree with Hélène Sader’s observation that “nothing in the written record, mainly in the inscriptions left by the Arameans themselves, indicates that they had the feeling of belonging to one nation or to a distinct cultural entity”43. In sum, the Phoenician identity reflects both main senses of the Latin word fingere (i.e., to give shape and/or to fabricate, in the sense of inventing something fictional). Thus, it is a forged identity, shaped by the construction of physical and cultural boundaries, but also a contrived or ‘fictitious’ identity, initially invented by ancient Greek authors and subsequently perpetuated by modern historians44. The material culture as a tool for defining boundaries When investigating historical periods from which textual sources are scarce, it is natural for scholars to draw on analysis of the archaeological documentation and in particular, of the so-called ‘material culture’, that is to say, the entire corpus of material evidence related to a given culture. Some scholars have been 42 43 44
WHINCOP 2003, 12. SADER 2000, 70. On this topic, see PEDRAZZI 2014, 137-157 and GARBATI 2014.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
377
critical of this use of material evidence, because analysis of the material culture, or, more generally, of the archaeological record, can lead to a blurring of ethnic distinctions, or even to a questioning of alleged ethnic or cultural identities. However, the material culture should be viewed as a valuable source of documentation, because it allows us to explore the boundaries created by the socalled silent actors45. Clearly, such borders tended not to have any kind of official status (and so are not usually recorded in the ancient texts found in the archives), but they are rooted in concrete reality. Ceramics are among the types of archaeological evidence most frequently used to identify ethnic groups. This is because pottery containers and vases, both large and small, are everyday objects attested in all historical contexts, whose production was generated via a bottom-up process. To put this in another way, pottery was the output of traditional craftsmanship and reflected a spreading and passing on of skills that took place both vertically (at the diachronic level) and horizontally (i.e., in space). In general, in order to use pottery items as identity, but also social and cultural, markers, we should assess (in addition to the better-known and conventionally analyzed chrono-typological aspects) a range of functional aspects that encompasses artifacts’ ideo-functional characteristics, emotive performance and socio-functional features46. The traditional scholarly approach to ceramics was based on the presumed correlation between pots and peoples, but this view has ultimately proved to be over-simplistic and limiting. In practice, the alleged ethnic connotation of ceramics has often been overstated; such a connotation is only of value if it reflects the perceptions of the producers or users of the artifacts themselves. The distribution of pottery types suggests the existence of physical boundaries, the so-called ‘ceramic borders’. A border of this kind constitutes a dividing line between a given entity and another. However, we must define the specific nature of the entities enclosed by such ceramic borders: are they social, cultural, political, or may they even be ethnic? For example, A. E. Killebrew argued that “a detailed typological and technological analysis of 13th-12th century BCE pottery in Canaan, the most ubiquitous archaeological artifact, serves as a case study in the demarcation of social boundaries”47, implying that we are dealing with boundaries to be viewed from a social, rather than an ethnic, perspective. In the opinion of other scholars, however, the “pottery provinces mirrored, in fact, the development of society and its economic and political boundaries”48: in other words, ceramic boundaries can mark economic and political differences in a society undergoing transition. At any rate, tracing ceramic borders 45 For the interpretation of the votive material from the rural sanctuary of Kharayeb, in southern Phoenicia, see OGGIANO 2015, with a discussion on the processes of acculturation and deculturation. 46 SKIBO 2013. 47 KILLEBREW 2005, 2. 48 MAZZONI 1999, 148.
378
T. PEDRAZZI
allows us to evaluate whether patterns of ceramic production and use correspond to or deviate from the ideological boundaries identified via other documentary sources, while bearing in mind that “pottery has been considered misleading when dealing with ethnicity (pots and peoples), not providing clues for correct identification”49. Ultimately, ceramic borders may be used as paradigms, but they should not be understood as objective features, given that they are plotted by modern researchers to characterize the distribution of morphological types and decorative styles, and that, in the process, partly subjective criteria will inevitably be used to select and emphasize certain factors over others. In sum, we cannot assume that our perceptions of ceramic borders correspond to those of the makers of the artifacts. Ultimately, we need to recognize the existence of a plurality of possible boundaries, which can vary not only as a function of historical factors, but also as a function of the specific features selected by scholars to define them. Today, among scholars familiar with the Levantine material culture, there is a widespread tendency to approach the study of pottery assemblages from a regional perspective, as the significance of regional or even local differences becomes increasingly clearer. For example, Lione Du Pied has emphasized “the importance of looking more closely at the local or regional level for continuities and changes, as well as for the possible meaning of differences and similarities in these pottery repertoires”50. With regard to the ceramic borders of Phoenicia, one of the most significant studies in this line of enquiry has been conducted in Tyre by M.E. Aubet and F. Nuñez. Specifically, F. Nuñez studied the pottery sequence of Tyre and the Lebanese coastal sites, addressing the issue of continuity versus discontinuity in the pottery assemblage, with the aim of defining the dividing line between the Canaanite culture of the Late Bronze Age and the properly Phoenician culture of the Iron Age. Significantly, Nuñez, in analyzing the evolution over time of the local ceramic assemblages, refers to a sort of “continuous transition”51. Continuity is also emphasized in studies of the material culture (especially ceramics) at the southern coastal Levantine sites: in relation to Tel Dor, Ayelet Gilboa suggested that “the entire sequence should be understood as one cultural continuum, with the Sikila and Phoenicians essentially synonymous”52. Evidently, the material culture points up continuity more than difference.
49 50 51 52
MAZZONI 1999, 139. DU PIED 2008, 161. NUÑEZ 2008, 5. GILBOA 2008, 211.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
379
Locating Phoenicia: current and future prospects for enquiry into ancient Phoenician identity In light of the facts outlined and issues raised so far, how may we ultimately conceptualize the physical and cultural borders of ancient Phoenicia? As argued from the outset, the first crucial step in any study of boundaries is to analyse the ongoing processes through which they have been created, transformed and negotiated. The identity of the Phoenicians themselves was created via the construction of borders. Thus, locating and contextualizing Phoenicia means asking ourselves whether the Phoenicians actually existed, and if so, who they were and how they constructed their own identity or came to be attributed an externally-constructed identity. We have claimed that Phoenician identity may be aptly described using the double meaning of the Latin verb fingere: to use a similar play of words in English, we might say that it was ‘fabricated’ in the sense of formed, created, or shaped, but also ‘fabricated’ in the sense of invented as a ‘fictitious’ entity through the work of both ancient and modern historians. However, we should not view the ‘fabrication’ of Phoenician identity as a deception or a mistake, but as a historical means of (or tool for) creating an interpretative category enabling us to make sense of certain historical dynamics. Here, we may usefully draw on the concept of ‘ideal type’ developed by the German historian Max Weber. The ‘ideal type’ is not a representation of reality, but a heuristic tool providing representations of reality with an unambiguous mode of expression. Clearly, where the reconstruction of history is concerned, the ideal type is obtained by laying emphasis on one or more particular perspectives to the exclusion of others: according to Weber, the ideal type also allows us to reconstruct a single coherent conceptual framework53. We might therefore consider viewing the Phoenician identity as an ‘ideal type’, in Weber’s sense of the term. It is, in essence, a sort of utopia, but a useful utopia, which enables historical explanation, interpretation of the past and reconstruction of the ancient context. Thus, the challenge that currently faces us is to approach Phoenician identity and the boundaries of Phoenician culture by investigating the basis on which this ideal type (in the Weberian sense) was (and continues to be) created, and asking what degree of validity may be attributed to the particular ‘historical conceptualization’ (to quote Paul Veyne) represented by the notion of a Phoenician identity. Our enquiry might lead us to embrace van Dongen’s more radical proposal that “the concept of historical Phoenicia seems to be inappropriate”, and that, in any case, a true Phoenician ethnic identity never actually 53
WEBER 1997, 108.
380
T. PEDRAZZI
existed54. On the other hand, we might also entertain the more nuanced view of S.F. Bondì, who recently noted that “perhaps it is correct to claim that ‘Phoenicity’ is, in some ways, a modern invention – not in the sense […] that elements of strong internal cohesion were missing in what we call the Phoenician world, but rather that this apparent unity of identity was not seen in the same way by the Phoenicians”55. Although the idea of ‘Phoenicia’ was clearly invented by the ancient Greeks in the first instance, and later taken up by modern scholars, it should be recognized that this particular ‘invention’ has made a key contribution to past and current historical research. Thus, the recent proposal that Phoenician cities should be treated separately in historical studies56 has merit, but is not a completely satisfactory alternative. Historically, a generalization such as ‘Phoenicia’ may have had real meaning, provided that we view it as a Weberian ‘ideal type’. Furthermore, as implied by S.F. Bondì, in the ancient Mediterranean world, the Phoenicians probably did not appear, at least when observed from outside, to be such a heterogeneous group. This is what earned them a common name, i.e. the Greek ethonym Phoinikes. In modern scholarship, the Phoenicians are perceived to have been one of the ancient Levantine peoples (albeit a composite one, delimited by somewhat ‘fuzzy’ boundaries) that undoubtedly played a significant role in linking, almost inextricably, the Eastern to the Western Mediterranean worlds, through the weaving of a sort of common thread joining the Levantine shores with the Iberian and African coasts, via Sicily, Malta, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands, all sites of Phoenician overseas colonization. Phoenician identity, clearly, is not exclusive to the homeland, but is also found across the broad network of ‘colonial’ settlements spread throughout the entire Mediterranean, even stretching beyond the Pillars of Hercules to the Atlantic coast. In conclusion, we may view Phoenician identity more as a ‘historical label’ than as real fact, conceptualizing it as an ‘ideal type’ (in Weberian terms), or as a very useful heuristic device. Thus, we may legitimately go on talking about ‘Phoenicia’ and ‘Phoenicians’ (with or without inverted commas), and following the common thread, the fil rouge, woven by this ancient people across, and even beyond, the breadth of the Mare Nostrum.
54 55 56
VAN DONGEN 2010, 479. BONDÌ 2015. VAN DONGEN 2010, 481.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
381
References BARTH, F. (ed.) 1969, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture Difference. Results of a Symposium held at the University of Bergen, 23rd to 26th February 1967, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. BAURAIN, C., BONNET, C. 1992, Les Phéniciens: Marins de trois continents, Paris: Armand Colin. BONDÌ, S. F. 2015, ‘Phoenicity, Punicities’, in J. C. QUINN, N. VELLA (eds.), The Punic Mediterranean. Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 58-68. BONDÌ, S. F., BOTTO, M., GARBATI, G., OGGIANO, I. 2009, Fenici e Cartaginesi: Una civiltà mediterranea, Roma: Libreria della Stato, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca della Stato. CELLA, G. P. 2006, Tracciare confini: Realtà e metafore della distinzione, Bologna: Il Mulino. DEVER, W. G. 1995, ‘Ceramics, Ethnicity, and the Question of Israel’s Origins,’ Biblical Archaeologist 58, 200-213. DU PIED, L. 2008, ‘The Early Iron Age in the Northern Levant: Continuity and Change in the Pottery Assemblages from Ras el-Bassit and Ras Ibn Hani’, in T. HARRISON (ed.), Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change, Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies, 161-185. ERCOLANI, A. 2015, ‘Phoinikes: storia di un etnonimo’, in G. GARBATI, T. PEDRAZZI (eds.), Transformation and Crisis in the Mediterranean: ‘Identity’ and Interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 12th-8th centuries BCE, Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Rome, CNR, May 8-9 2013 (Supplemento alla Rivista di Studi Fenici), Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra, 171-182. FABIETTI, U. 1998, L’identità etnica: Storia e critica di un concetto equivoco, Roma: Carocci editore. FABIETTI, U. 2005, ‘La costruzione dei confini in antropologia: Pratiche e rappresentazioni’, in S. SALVATICI (ed.), Confini. Costruzioni, attraversamenti, rappresentazioni, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore, 177-186. GARBATI, G. 2014, ‘Fingere l’identità fenicia: Melqart ‘di/sopra ṣr’’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 40, 159-174. GARBATI, G., PEDRAZZI, T. (eds.) 2015, Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean: “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 12th-8th Centuries BCE, Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Rome, CNR, May 8-9 2013 (Supplemento alla Rivista di Studi Fenici), Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra. GARBATI, G., PEDRAZZI, T. (eds.) 2016, Transformations and Crisis in the Mediterranean. “Identity” and Interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 8th5th centuries BCE (Supplemento alla Rivista di Studi Fenici), Pisa/Roma: Fabrizio Serra. GILBOA, A. 2008, ‘Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, with an Emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: a Tel Dor Perspective’, in T. HARRISON (ed.), Cyprus, the Sea Peoples and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional Perspectives of Continuity and Change, Toronto: Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies, 209-244. GUBEL, E. 1987, Phoenician Furniture. A Typology based on Iron Age Representations with Reference to the Iconographical Context (Studia Phoenicia VII), Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
382
T. PEDRAZZI
GUBEL, E. 2009, ‘Ibirta et le ‘Nahr el-Bared’. Notes de topographie historique du Akkar I’, Syria 86, 221-232. GUBEL, E. 2010, ‘“By the rivers of Amurru”. Notes de topographie historique du Akkar, II’, in G. BARTOLONI, P. MATTHIAE, L. NIGRO, L. ROMANO (eds.), Tiro, Cartagine, Lixus: Nuove Acquisizioni, Atti del Convegno Internazionale in onore di Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo. Roma 24-25 novembre 2008 (Quaderni di Vicino Oriente IV), Roma: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichità, 117-130. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Desperately Seeking Kašpuna… Notes on the Historical Topography of the Akkar Plain-3’, Akkadica 139/2, 109-126. KILLEBREW, A. 2005, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E, Leiden/ Atlanta, Brill. LEVY, T. E., HOLL, A. F. C. 2002, ‘Migrations, Ethnogenesis, and Settlement Dynamics: Israelites in Iron Age Canaan and Shuwa-Arabs in the Chad Basin’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 83-118. LIVERANI, M. 1994, Guerra e diplomazia nell’antico oriente, 1600-1100 a.C., Roma/ Bari, Editori Laterza. MARTIN, S. R. 2017, The Art of Contact: Comparative approach to Greek and Phoenician Art, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. MAZZONI, S. 1999, ‘Pots, People and Cultural Borders in Syria’, in L. MILANO, S. DE MARTINO, F. M. FALES, G. B. LANFRANCHI (eds.), Landscapes, Territories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near East. Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre Assiriologique Internationale, Venezia, 7-11 July 1997, Padova: Sargon s.r.l., 139152. MOSCATI, S. 1963, ‘La questione fenicia’, Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei VIII/18, 483-506. MOSCATI, S. 1985, ‘Continuità e discontinuità nell’area fenicia’, Rendiconti Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei VIII/40, 183-186. MOSCATI, S. 1993, Nuovi studi sull’identità fenicia, Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. NUÑEZ, F. 2008, ‘Western Challenge to East Mediterranean Chronological Frameworks’, in D. BRANDHERM, M. TRACHSEL (eds.), A New Dawn for the Dark Age? Shifting Paradigms in Mediterranean Iron Age Chronology, Oxford: BAR Publishing, 3-27. OGGIANO, I. 2015, ‘The Question of ‘Plasticity’ of Ethnic and Cultural Identity: the Case Study of Kharayeb’, in C. DOUMET-SERHAL, A.-M. MAÏLA-AFEICHE (eds.), Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast. Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2012 (BAAL Hors-Série X), Beyrouth: Direction Générale des Antiquités, 507-528. PARROT, A., CHÉHAB, M., MOSCATI, S. 1975, Les Phéniciens. L’expansion phénicienne, Paris: Gallimard. PASTOR BORGOÑON, H. 1992, ‘Die Phönizier: Eine begriffsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie 15-17 (1988-1990), 37-142. PEDRAZZI, T. 2012, ‘Fingere l’identità fenicia: confini e cultura materiale in Oriente’, Rivista di Studi Fenici XL, 137-157. QUINN, C. J. 2017, In Search of the Phoenicians, Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press. QUINN, C. J., VELLA, N. (eds.) 2015, The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IN SEARCH OF THE PHOENICIAN BORDERS
383
SADER, H. 2000, ‘The Aramean Kingdoms of Syria. Origin and Formation Processe’, in G. BUNNENS (ed.), Essays on Syria in the Iron Age, Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 61-76. SKIBO, J. M. 2013, Understanding Pottery Function: Manuals in Archaeological Methods, Theory and Technique, New York: Springer. TSIRKIN, Y. B. 2001, ‘Canaan. Phoenicia. Sidon’, Aula Orientalis 19, 271-279. VAN DONGEN, E. 2010, ‘“Phoenicia”: Naming and defining a region in Syria-Palestine’, in R. ROLLINGER, B. GUFLER, M. LANG, I. MADREITER (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt: Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 471-488. WEBER, M. 2009 [1958], Il metodo delle scienze storico-sociali, Torino: Einaudi. WHINCOP, M. R. 2003, Pots, People and Politics: A Reconsiderations of the Iron Age Northern Levant, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. XELLA, P. 1995, ‘Ugarit et les Phéniciens. Identité culturelle et rapports historiques’, in M. DIETRICH, O. LORETZ (eds.), Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung, Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 239-266. XELLA, P. 2008, ‘I Fenici e gli ‘Altri’: Dinamiche di identità culturale’, in M. CONGIU, S. MODEO, C. MICCHICHÉ (eds.), Greci e Punici in Sicilia tra V e IV secolo a.C., Caltanissetta-Roma: Sciascia, 69-79. XELLA, P. 2010, ‘Sabatino Moscati e gli studi fenici: prima e dopo’, Rivista di Studi Fenici XXXV (2007), 123-127.
FUNERARY LANDSCAPE IN THE REGION OF TYRE DURING THE IRON AGE María Eugenia AUBET* and Francisco J. NÚÑEZ**
The relationship between human beings and the deceased members of their community reflects their organization as a society. Until recently, information relative to Phoenician cemeteries in the region of Tyre was scarce and difficult to interpret, because all available data originated either from old excavations1 or unfinished works carried out under difficult political circumstances2. The discovery and systematic excavation since 1997 of the Phoenician cemetery of Al-Bass, on the opposite shores of the ancient island of Tyre, has provided fundamental information for the understanding of old funerary evidence in the region of Tyre, of which only scarce remains are left available to us. The relevance of Al-Bass stands on the more than two hundred cremation burials identified so far, which have made possible a deep analysis of the funerary ritual and its stages practiced by the Tyrian society from the 10th down to the middle decades of the 6th century BCE3. These data deemed essential in order to understand some materials, mostly ceramic vases, kept in the National Museum of Beirut. These objects are the evidence of the existence of important Iron Age cemeteries in the hinterland of Tyre, in which the practice of inhumation was common (Fig. 1). The most relevant assemblage comes from Khirbet Slim, located in the hilly country flanking Tyre to the east. In this location, a cave tomb was emptied in the decade of 19204, of which the chronology goes as far back in time as the initial stages of the Iron Age, namely, the middle decades of the 11th century BCE. This date is, moreover, matched by some wares from looted tombs in the neighboring Jouwaya (‘Joya’ in Chapman’s publication5). The character of the remaining vases found in both sites suggest a use of those cemeteries until the Late Iron Age and, in particular, the second half of the 8th century BCE, which corresponds to Al-Bass Period IV6.
* Emerita Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona. ** University of Warsaw. 1 CHAPMAN 1972. 2 DOUMET 1982. 3 AUBET 2014; NÚÑEZ 2014; AUBET (ed.) 2004. 4 CHAPMAN 1972, 55-58. 5 CHAPMAN 1972, 57. 6 NÚÑEZ 2014.
386
M.E. AUBET AND F.J. NÚÑEZ
Fig. 1: Map of the region of Tyre.
The ceramic evidence recovered in these two sites and, in particular, the wares dating to the Early Iron Age are comparable to the repertoire produced by contemporary tombs found, for example, in Khalde7. Furthermore, all these vases seem to follow in essence the same parameters observed in local tombs since, at least, the Middle Bronze Age8. Notwithstanding this fact, the Early Iron Age remains to a certain extent obscure in the region of Tyre. For instance, Al-Bass has not produced any tombs dating to that period; the only exception is represented by the recognition in the campaigns of 2008 and 2009 of some complete human bones, which were preserved below certain Middle and Late Iron Age cinerary urns. In point of fact, it is possible that those bone remains could belong to Early Iron Age tombs originally located in that spot; however, the characteristics of the terrain hindered their excavation. No doubt, this period is of particular interest in order to understand the formation of the Phoenician Metropolitan 7 8
MURA 2014; SAIDAH 1966. NÚÑEZ 2017, 184-185.
FUNERARY LANDSCAPE IN THE REGION OF TYRE DURING THE IRON AGE
387
culture and, specially, of the city of Tyre. In point of fact, it is a historical and cultural stage which requires revision in depth9. Materials from other cemeteries published by Chapman in 1972, for example Qana, are elusive to us. The exception is a cinerary tomb recovered in Qasmieh (Fig. 2), in the mouth of the Litani river and north of Tyre10, an assemblage dating back to the last stages of Al-Bass Period II, namely, the third quarter of the 9th century BCE. At the same time, other tombs found in Qabr Hiram, in the hills near Qana and from the Persian Period, remain outside the scope of this analysis. Our knowledge of the Middle and Late Iron Age (from the end of the 10th to the middle decades of the 6th century BCE) has increased thanks to the information recovered at Al-Bass. However, it is also worth mentioning in this context some tombs excavated in Tell er-Rachidiyeh, located 5 km south of Tyre and close to the springs of Rass el-‘Ain, which supply water to Tyre since, at least, the Late Bronze Age. The tell itself, measuring around 400 × 200 meters, stands on the sea-shore and dominates the southern part of the fertile plateau of Tyre, a strategic location that leads to its identification with the ancient city of Ushu of the cuneiform texts and the Paleotyros of Strabo (XVI, 2). Nowadays, the military supervision of the area due to the presence there of a camp of Palestinian refugees, prevents any archaeological work. Scarce information has arrived to us regarding the tombs excavated in the area by Macridy Bey in 1904 and Emir Maurice Chéhab in 1942-1943. These tombs are originally described as “les caveaux de Tell Rachidieh or grands caveaux sous roche dans lequels les morts étaient deposés”11. More complete is the data provided by the excavations fostered by the General Directorate of Antiquities in 1974 and supervised by Ibrahim Kawkabani and Hafez Chéhab. These interventions brought to light five tombs carved in the bedrock, although only two of them – tombs IV and V – have been properly published12. Even if the reports of the 1904 intervention mention the presence of inhumations13, the funerary ritual observed in those new tombs was the cremation using ceramic vases as urns, one hundred of which were recovered. Several local and Cypriot urns, as well as several jugs, have been published from tombs I-II, all dated by Doumet at the end of the 8th century BCE14. Relevant are also some scarabs, jewelry 9 The discovery of tombs containing folded swords in the whereabouts of Tyre (WARMENBOL 1983) might be connected to Early Iron Age or even earlier customs. In Europe, the tradition of purposely disabling a sword by folding it at the time of passing of its owner, goes back in time to the Bronze Age; however, it is by no means related to the presence of iron swords in Phoenician Late Iron Age tombs such as the Tomb IV at Tell er-Rachidiyeh (DOUMET and KAWKABANI 1995, 385; DOUMET 1982, pl. XX). 10 CHAPMAN 1972, 57, 148. 11 DOUMET 2005, 79; DOUMET 2003, 42; DOUMET 1982, 90. 12 DOUMET 1982. 13 DOUMET and KAWKABANI 1995, 381, n. 9. 14 DOUMET 2005, 79-86.
388
M.E. AUBET AND F.J. NÚÑEZ
Fig. 2: Tomb from Qasmieh.
in gold, amulets and collar beads made of agate, carnelian and alabaster from tombs II-1 and II-215. As mentioned, the tombs at er-Rachidiyeh consist of small rectangular chambers cut in the rock (Fig. 3). In this respect, Tomb IV measures 2.72 × 1.88 meters, displays a central space reserved for the burials and its doorway was blocked by a basalt block16. Besides, Tomb V, looted and transformed into a pottery kiln in ancient times, barely produced any remains of the original burials, which date from the 5th century BCE17. 15 16 17
DOUMET 1995, 389-391. DOUMET 1982, 92; Fig. 3. DOUMET 1982, 100, 135.
FUNERARY LANDSCAPE IN THE REGION OF TYRE DURING THE IRON AGE
389
Fig. 3: Tombs I-IV from Tell er-Rachidiyeh (courtesy of C. Doumet-Serhal).
Tomb IV at er-Rachidiyeh is the only instance that has been fully published, hence its relevance. This circumstance allows its revision and an estimation of its contents based on the evidence recovered at Al-Bass. Here, more than 90 % of the burials consist of double-urn tombs, in which one vase contained the cremated bones, often accompanied by a scarab, while the other hosted the ashes of the same individual. Besides, the funerary gifts consist basically of a standardized
390
M.E. AUBET AND F.J. NÚÑEZ
pottery set formed by a decanter, one of the so-called neck-ridge jugs, a cup and the plates used as lids for the urns18. Few instances have produced other ceramic forms, for example a pilgrim-flask; however, those items always complemented the basic set and never substituted any of its original members. Turning to er-Rachidiyeh collective Tomb IV, eleven amphorae “de type phénicien” and eleven amphorae “de type chipriote” amount to twenty-two urns, which suggests the original presence of 10 to 11 double-urn burials in that collective tomb19. However, the presence of seven “cruches à embouchure trilobée” or decanters might reduce the actual number of burials, a fact that is supported by the presence of other seven scarabs. Therefore, it is possible the presence of 7 to 10 double-urn burials in that tomb associated to a rich assemblage of funerary gifts that also included an iron sword, arrow points, jewelry and weights20. The tomb, which covers from an advanced stage of Al-Bass Period II down to the end of Period IV (around 850 to 700 BCE), had been the last abode of about three or four generations of a collective, most probably members of the same family. Something similar happens with Tomb II.2 (originally dated ca. 750-700 BCE), whose six scarabs might address to a collective grave of similar characteristics21. Therefore, both er-Rachidiyeh and Al-Bass necropolis are characterized by two main features: a) The presence of clusters of tombs in the form of small, probably familiar, pantheons, which in er-Rachidiyeh are located in chambers carved in the rock. At Al-Bass this feature is represented by groupings of double and single urns burials (Fig. 4), which cover several generations – three or four – and were marked on the surface sometimes by an inscribed stone stele, on which is mentioned the name of one of the members of the family, most probably a common ancestor22. 18
NÚÑEZ 2017; AUBET 2014, 48-50. Up to 300 cinerary urns from Tell er-Rachidiyeh are kept in the National Museum of Beirut and in some private collections. All of them originate from looting activities developed during the Lebanese civil war (DOUMET 2003, 44; DOUMET 2005, 79). Besides, in the course of a visit to Tyre in 1994, one of the authors could observe the presence of hundreds of looted cinerary urns in display for sale at Al-Bass, in the road that leads to Saidah. It is reasonable to assume that those vases were looted not in er-Rachidiyeh, but in Al-Bass itself, where uncontrolled excavations during the years of the Civil War have been documented; in some instances, even, it was possible to recover part of those pottery vases and stelae from the black market (SEEDEN 1991; SADER 1991). This number of urns confirms the huge extension covered by Al-Bass necropolis, estimated in about 2 square kilometers. A relevant part of this material has been lost or ended up in the illegal antiques market and in private collections such as that in display at the palace of Beit ed-Dinne. 20 DOUMET 1995, 383-387; DOUMET 1982, 95-99. 21 Cf. DOUMET 1995, 389-391. 22 The typical Phoenician funerary formula expresses and reinforces the kinship of the family group over three generations by citing the founder of their lineage, an example of which would be the text painted in the alabaster urn of the tomb 3A of Almuñécar cemetery, in the coast of Granada and dated in the first half of the 7th century BCE (ZAMORA 2013). In this sense, it would be of interest to examine the contents of the necropolis of certain small Phoenician enclaves connected to the overland trading diaspora. This could be the case of the thirty cremation burials recovered at 19
FUNERARY LANDSCAPE IN THE REGION OF TYRE DURING THE IRON AGE
391
Fig. 4: Al-Bass: sequence of the formation of a family cluster of burials (season 1997).
b) The cremation of the body, whose remains are kept in individual burials usually formed by two cinerary urns accompanied by a ceramic set related to the consumption of wine23. This funerary habit seems to be common in Tyre and its area of cultural influence as seen in other cemeteries such as the south and east necropolis of Akhziv, in north Palestine, where the tombs were also marked by inscribed stelae very similar to those found in Al-Bass24, or also in other areas of Phoenicia like the tomb 121b of Khalde25, built with ashlar blocks, or the funerary cave found in Tambourit, near Sidon26, both contemporary to Al-Bass Period III (end of 9th – first quarter of 8th century BCE)27. Tell er-Reqeish, located south of Ghaza (CULICAN 1973) and originally dated in between the 9th and 8th centuries BCE, although some tombs could be placed more confidently in the 7th century BCE. Those burials were described as typically ‘metropolitan Phoenician’ (CULICAN 1973), even though some of the ceramic forms recovered in them are typical of the Philistine repertoire. Another example could be represented by the twenty-seven cremations excavated by Flinders Petrie in the north cemetery of Tell Fara’h (Beth-Peleth), also near Ghaza (Cemetery 200), which appeared clustered in a clearly delimited space (PETRIE 1930, 11-13, burials 215-219 and 250-272). 23 NÚÑEZ 2017; AUBET 2014, 48-50. 24 DAYAGI-MENDELS 2002, 106, tomb ZR XLVI, fig. 4.31; PRAUSNITZ 1966, fig. 2-4. 25 AUBET 2015. 26 SAIDAH 1977. 27 NÚÑEZ 2014.
Fig. 5: Excavation area from Al-Bass (seasons 2008-2009).
392 M.E. AUBET AND F.J. NÚÑEZ
FUNERARY LANDSCAPE IN THE REGION OF TYRE DURING THE IRON AGE
393
In this sense, the necropolis of Akhziv displays the same organization of the funerary space seen in er-Rachidiyeh, although to a bigger scale. In the Palestinian site the tomb groupings become authentic funerary areas located around the settlement: the northern necropolis28 is characterized by its numerous AlBass type incinerations and a monumental chamber tomb, which contained only inhumations and was in use as a familiar pantheon for several generations that covered the Periods II to V at Al-Bass (9th to 6th centuries BCE); the southern cemetery has produced shaft and multiple chamber tombs as well as pit graves containing inhumations29; finally, the eastern necropolis has produced multiple burials in shaft tombs30. In general terms, the reuse of tombs over several generations in Akhziv reveals the relevance and persistence of kinship groups from the end of the 10th down to the 6th century BCE. As a conclusion, the necropolis of Tyre – Al-Bass rises in this funerary landscape. In contrast to other cemeteries, in Al-Bass all funerary types observed in the region are integrated (Fig. 5): burial clusters of the type seen at er-Rachidiyeh or Akhziv share the same space with individual double-urn and less frequent single-urn tombs similar to that found at Qasmieh. The family pantheon or kinship group is thus diluted in Al-Bass within the own limits of the funerary enclosure, which becomes a unitary cemetery to which only the adult population of the city of Tyre held the right to be buried. Besides, the apparent egalitarian character of its contents provided the same citizen status to all the persons buried there. AlBass is, therefore, inclusive and integrative, two aspects that highlight its urban character among the rest of cemeteries of the region. References AUBET, M. E. (ed.) 2004, The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass I. Archaeological Seasons 1997-1999 (BAAL Hors-Série I), Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités. AUBET, M. E. 2010, ‘The Phoenician cemetery of Tyre’, Near Eastern Archaeology 72, 2-3, 144-155. AUBET, M. E. 2014, ‘The excavations 2002-2005’, in M. E. AUBET, F. J . NÚÑEZ, L. TRELLISO (eds.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass II. Archaeological Seasons 20022005 (BAAL Hors-Série IX), Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités, 7-54. AUBET, M. E. 2015, ‘Ancestor’s cult, death and social space’, in Cult and Ritual on the Levantine Coast and its impact on the Eastern Mediterranean, Proceedings of the International Symposium, Beirut 2012 (BAAL Hors-Série X), Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités, 5-14. CHAPMAN, S. V. 1972, ‘A Catalogue of Iron Age pottery from the cemeteries of Khirbet Silm, Joya, Qrayé and Qasmieh of South Lebanon’, Berytus 21, 55-194. CULICAN, W. 1973, ‘The graves at Tell Er-Reqeish’, The Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology II/2, 66-105. 28 29 30
MAZAR 2013; MAZAR 2004. MAZAR 2003; DAYAGI-MENDELS 2002. DAYAGI-MENDELS 2002; PRAUSNITZ 1982.
394
M.E. AUBET AND F.J. NÚÑEZ
DAYAGI-MENDELS, M. 2002, The Akhziv Cemeteries. The Ben-Dor excavations 1941-1944 (Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 15), Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. DOUMET, C. 1982, ‘Les tombes IV et V de Rachidieh’, Annales d’Histoire et d’Archéologie 1, 89-148. DOUMET, C. 2003, ‘Jars from the first millennium BCE at Tell Rachidieh (South of Tyre): Phoenician cinerary urns and grave goods’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 17, 42-51. DOUMET, C. 2005, ‘Tell Rachidieh: le Black on Red local’, Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Marsala-Palermo 2000, Palermo: Università Degli Studi di Palermo, 79-86. DOUMET, C., KAWKABANI, I. 1995, ‘Les tombes de Rachidieh: Remarques sur les contacts internationaux et le commerce phénicien au VIIIe siècle av. J.-C.’, in Actes du IIIe Congrès International des Études Phéniciens et Puniques, vol. I, Tunis 1116 novembre 1991, Tunis: Institut National du Patrimoine, 377-395. MAZAR, E. 2003, The Phoenicians in Akhziv. The Southern Cemetery (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 7), Barcelona: Carrera Edicio. MAZAR, E. 2004, The Phoenician Family Tomb 1 at the Northern Cemetery of Akhziv. The tophet site (Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea 10), Barcelona: Carrera Edicio. MAZAR, E. 2013, The Northern Cemetery of Akhziv (10th-6th centuries BCE) (Cuadernos de Arqueologóa Mediterránea 19-20), Barcelona: Carrera Edicio. MURA, B. 2014, ‘Archaeological record and funerary practices in Iron Age Phoenicia: A comparative overview of the cemeteries of Al Bass, Achziv and Khaldé’, Supplemento alla Rivista di Studi Fenici XLII, 99-107. NUÑEZ, F. J. 2014, ‘The ceramic repertoire of the Iron Age’, in M. E. AUBET, F. J. NÚÑEZ, L. TRELLISÓ (eds.), The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass II. Archaeological Seasons 2002-2005 (BAAL Hors-Série IX), Beirut: Direction Générale des Antiquités, 261-371. NÚÑEZ, F. J. 2017, ‘The Tyrian cemetery of al-Bass and the role of ceramics in the Phoenician funerary ritual’, Levant 49/2, 174-191. PETRIE, W. M. F. 1930, Beth Pelet I, London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt. PRAUSNITZ, M. W. 1966, ‘A Phoenician Krater from Akhziv’, Oriens Antiquus V, 177-188. PRAUSNITZ, M. W. 1982, ‘Die Nekropolen von Akhziv und die Entwicklung der Keramik vom 10. bis zum 7. Jahrh. v. Chr. in Akhziv, Samaria und Ashdod’, in H. G. NIEMEYER (ed.), Phönizier im Westen. Die Beiträge des Internationalen Symposiums über ‘Die phönizische Expansion im westlichen Mittelmeerraum (Madrider Beiträge 8), Mainz: Von Zabern, 31-44. SADER, H. 1991, ‘Phoenician stelae from Tyre’, Berytus XXXIX, 101-126. SAIDAH, R. 1966, ‘Fouilles de Khaldé. Rapport préliminaire sur la première et deuxième campagnes (1961-1962)’, Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth 19, 51-90. SAIDAH, R. 1977, ‘Une tombe de l’âge du Fer à Tambourit (région de Sidon)’, Berytus XXV, 135-146. SEEDEN, H. 1991, ‘A tophet in Tyre’, Berytus XXXIX, 39-87. WARMENBOL, E. 1983, ‘“Ils ont plié armes et bagages…”. Quelques réflexions au sujet des épées ployées trouvées en Syrie et au Liban’, in E. GUBEL, É. LIPÍNSKI, B. SERVAISSOYEZ (eds.), Redt Tyrus. Fenicische geschiedenis – Sauvons Tyr. Histoire phénicienne (Studia Phoenicia I-II), Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 79-89. ZAMORA, J. A. 2013, ‘The Phoenician inscription on an alabaster urn from the “Laurita necropolis” in Almuñécar (Granada, Spain)’, in O. LORETZ, S. RIBICHINI, W. G. E. WATSON, J. A. ZAMORA (eds.), Ritual, Religion and Reason. Studies in the Ancient World in Honour P. Xella, Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 347-369.
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS Annie CAUBET*, Elisabeth FONTAN*, Hélène LE MEAUX* et Marguerite YON**
Une curiosité quasi universelle a conduit Eric Gubel à pousser ses investigations dans des domaines insolites ou mal reconnus. Il obtenait en chemin, par son enthousiasme communicatif, la collaboration de nombre de ses collègues, dont le petit groupe d’amies et admiratrices que nous sommes : pour rendre hommage à Eric, il a fallu regrouper nos forces et notre perspicacité ! Le résultat est un petit dossier d’objets bizarres ou douteux, rencontrés en classant les réserves du département des Antiquités Orientales au musée du Louvre, objets dont l’identité pose encore des problèmes1. Léon Heuzey (1831-1922) s’attelant au catalogue des figurines antiques du musée du Louvre (Fig. 1), déclarait : « une des difficultés de notre tâche a été de rechercher l’origine d’un assez grand nombre de figures, dont l’entrée n’était pas régulièrement constatée sur les documents entre nos mains. La présente publication aura pour effet, nous l’espérons, de faire venir jusqu’à nous les renseignements qui ont pu nous manquer : nous les recevrons avec une grande reconnaissance »2. En plus de 130 ans, nous avons fait quelques progrès, mais nous pouvons encore reprendre à notre compte cette belle formule, avec l’humilité qui convient. 1er cas – Des Américains chez les Phéniciens Nous commencerons notre enquête avec deux pendentifs en or (Fig. 2) provenant du Liban, représentant de petits personnages vus de face, publiés par Ernest Renan3 dans sa Mission de Phénicie. L’un est brisé à la taille, et il en reste la tête et le torse ; l’autre conservé sur toute sa hauteur est privé de sa jambe droite. On les doit à l’un des principaux collaborateurs de Renan au Liban, Alphonse Durighello (1822-1896), vice-consul de France à Saïda et grand connaisseur de l’antique Sidon4, qui les a fait parvenir bien après le départ de Renan, sans doute * Musée du Louvre, Paris. ** Maison de l’Orient, Université de Lyon. 1 Notre gratitude à Dominique Benazeth et Florence Calament pour l’étude de la figurine « copte » (AM 3729, infra, [8]). Nous tirons beaucoup de nos informations de la documentation du département des Antiquités orientales et du département des Antiquités égyptiennes. 2 HEUZEY 1883, 3. 3 RENAN 1864, 659. 4 KLAT 2002 ; FONTAN 2002.
396
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
Fig. 1 : Léon Heuzey, page de titre du catalogue de 1883.
en 1863. Ils peuvent avoir fait partie des objets arrivés au Louvre en septembre 1863, et ils ne figuraient pas avec le reste des collections de Phénicie dans l’exposition du Pavillon de l’Industrie, ouverte de mai à juillet 1862 : « Deux nouvelles salles ont été ouvertes au Musée Napoléon III. Ces salles, situées au rez-de-chaussée de la galerie du Nord, comprennent tout ce que M. Ernest Renan a pu découvrir et acquérir dans sa mission de Phénicie : seize sarcophages en marbre blanc, presque tous intacts, placés deux à deux dans huit petites chambres tendues d’une toile sombre ; une multitude de bijoux d’or et de pierres fines, des bronzes, de la verrerie, de la poterie, des inscriptions, des débris de monuments en marbre, en pierre, en lave, en granit. Ces objets occupent la première des
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
397
Fig. 2 : Orfèvrerie précolombienne au département des Antiquités orientales. D’après RENAN 1869, 659 (GUBEL 2018, 160, fig. 7). a) Inv. AO 20007, H. 4, 8 cm; b) Inv. AO 20018, H. 4 cm.
deux pièces et sont déjà catalogués et numérotés. Dans la seconde, le sol a été utilisé pour y disposer la mosaïque trouvée dans le palais de Djebel »5. Renan attribuait ces pendentifs à l’art phénicien en rapprochant le traitement des yeux de celui de masques de Chypre et d’une figurine de Patèque du Louvre : ils furent publiés comme tels en 1887 dans la grande Histoire générale de l’art de Perrot et Chipiez6. Mais en 1949 André Parrot, dans le cadre d’une vaste opération de remise en ordre du département des Antiquités Orientales après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, s’aperçut de l’erreur, et il les déposa au Musée de l’Homme, après leur avoir donné un numéro d’inventaire et une description7. Parrot pensait que ces objets étaient « un résidu de collections consulaires ». Ils pourraient également avoir été rapportés au Levant par des émigrants libanais partis très tôt en Amérique du Sud. Quoi qu’il en soit, les deux pendentifs, transférés au musée du Trocadéro puis au musée de la porte Dorée, ont disparu au cours d’un vol en 1979. Ce n’étaient pas les premiers objets pré-colombiens entrés au Louvre. Depuis 1850-1851, un « musée américain »8 avait été aménagé par le conservateur des Antiques Adrien de Longpérier (1816-1882), qui en rédigea une « Notice » instructive, à la fois catalogue et guide du visiteur9. Savant encyclopédique, numismate éclairé, mais aussi libre penseur, franc-maçon, – et spirituel amateur de « calembours et de quatrains pleins de malices et de drôlerie », se souvient Philippe de Chennevières10 –, Longpérier était tout le contraire du grave Ernest Renan11. Revue universelle des art, t. 15, 1862, 287 ; voir LE MEAUX, à paraître. PERROT et CHIPIEZ 1887, 814, figs. 566-567. 7 Buste AO 20 007, Colombie, civilisation Chibeka : H. 4,8 ; l. 3,2 cm ; poids 20,95 g. Figure en pied AO 20018, Colombie ou Panama : H. 4 ; l. 2,2 cm ; poids 14,1g. 8 CAUBET 2015 ; FAUVET-BERTHELOT et al. 2007. 9 LONGPÉRIER 1850, 2e éd., 1852. 10 CHENNEVIÈRES 1883-1889, 111-116. 11 CAUBET 2009 ; FONTAN 1994. 5 6
398
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
Fig. 3 : Céramiques sud-américaines. a) Vase en forme de « pomme de pin » (inv. AO 22829). Dépôt du musée Guimet 1948. H. 19,1 cm ; b) Vase provenant de Bolivie (dept La Paz), Manco Kapak, vers 1450-1532 (musée du Quai Branly, inv. 71.1878.8.14, don Théodore Ber). H. 38 cm.
Un cas de confusion semblable entre civilisations de l’Amérique et de la Phénicie est illustré par un vase de terre cuite en forme de « pomme de pin » (Fig. 3a). Il est couvert d’un épais engobe poli rouge et blanc qui, certes, n’est pas sans analogie avec la céramique punique, avec laquelle il est rangé depuis son transfert au Louvre avec les collections non asiatiques du musée Guimet en 1948. Nos recherches dans les archives de Guimet n’ont pas livré d’indication de provenance. Mais le décor imprimé en creux – qui évoque du reste plutôt un ananas qu’une pomme de pin –, la carène très marquée à la base de la panse et le fond pointu invitent à l’attribuer à la civilisation Inca. Le musée du Quai BranlyJacques Chirac possède un bon parallèle provenant de Bolivie (Fig. 3b). 2e cas – Les « Origines comparées » de Léon Heuzey L’analyse des figurines de terre cuite antiques a servi de socle à la méthode de Léon Heuzey pour aborder les civilisations qui venaient de réapparaître en Orient. Rappelons que cet immense savant, formé à l’École française d’Athènes où il séjourna de 1855 à 1859, est devenu responsable du nouveau département
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
399
Fig. 4 : « Origines comparées » : HEUZEY 1923, pl. IV (dessins Achille Jacquet).
des Antiquités Orientales créé en 1881 pour abriter les collections découvertes en Mésopotamie – ou en Chaldée, comme on disait alors12. Heuzey rédigea un petit livret in-12° des figurines de terre cuite13, suivi d’un album in-4° illustré par Achille Jacquet14. Devenus introuvables, ces deux ouvrages furent à sa mort réunis en un seul volume in-12°15, avec des mises à jour de son successeur Edmond Pottier – petits ajouts discrètement placés entre crochets ; les planches de Jacquet sont conservées à l’identique. La perspicacité de l’analyse n’a d’égale que la langue précise et élégante. Dans le chapitre intitulé « Provenances orientales incertaines », illustré par un choix de dessins dans une planche IV d’« Origines comparées » (Fig. 4), Léon Heuzey regroupait quelques figurines qui se trouvaient dans les collections orientales et pour lesquelles il suggérait prudemment quelques pistes. Nous reprenons le dossier de ces figures.
12 13 14 15
SCHWARTZ 2010 ; PEISSIK et ROY 1990-1991. HEUZEY 1882. HEUZEY 1883. HEUZEY 1923.
400
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
Fig. 5 : Figurine assyrienne modelée (inv. AO 29613). H. 9 cm.
Une figure assyrienne du IIIe millénaire La figurine no 1 de cette planche16 est une figurine modelée à base conique un peu évasée (Fig. 5), dont la provenance ne posait pas de problème : Heuzey savait, après Longpérier, qu’elle avait été trouvée à Khorsabad, lors des fouilles de Victor Place en 1852, dans les dépôts de fondation enfouis auprès des enceintes, qui contenaient des amulettes et des colliers de pierre fine. Heuzey avait bien senti que cette figurine différait des statuettes de style assyrien de Khorsabad, comparables à l’imagerie des reliefs monumentaux du palais de Sargon II17. On sait désormais que ces dépôts contenaient des objets beaucoup plus anciens : ainsi un caprin couché en faïence18 est datable de l’époque d’Akkad par la comparaison avec un parallèle d’Assur19. Sur le torse et le plastron de cette figurine décorés par application de pâte, Heuzey observe des traits et points gravés avec un instrument analogue à celui 16 17 18 19
HEUZEY 1923, cat. 7, pl. IV, 1 : inventaire AO 29213 : LONGPÉRIER 1849, no 292. HEUZEY 1923, pl. I. HEUZEY 1923, 9 no 16 ; LONGPÉRIER 1849, no 291. BOUQUILLON et al. 2007, no 22.
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
401
qui servait pour les caractères cunéiformes. L’iconographie originale, notamment pour la coiffure, nous semble caractéristique de l’esprit novateur de la période d’Akkad (fin du IIIe millénaire). L’identité (humaine ou divine ?) et le genre (masculin ou féminin ?) de cette figure demeurent ambigus. Depuis, l’œuvre a figuré dans les répertoires classiques sur la coroplastie mésopotamienne, mais sans commentaire iconographique20. Des Égyptiennes égarées en Orient : les figurines de la collection Rousset-Bey L. Heuzey analyse également « plusieurs figures très curieuses faisant partie de la collection Rousset-Bey, formée en Égypte par un fonctionnaire attaché au gouvernement égyptien »21. On sait peu de chose sur ce Jules Rousset (Flavignysur-Ozerain 1802-Gray 1881), dit Rousset-Bey, expert en comptabilité envoyé en Égypte vers 1845. Il assembla une collection d’antiquités qui fut vendue à Paris le 15 juillet 1868, et l’ensemble – soit 1208 numéros – acquis par le Louvre22. Rousset avait pour mission d’assister l’administration financière du gouvernement égyptien, ce qui lui valut le titre honorifique de Bey. Le vice-roi Méhemet Ali (Kavala 1769-Le Caire 1849), le « Napoléon de l’Orient »23, faisait appel à toute une pléiade de Français pour moderniser l’Égypte sur le modèle occidental. Rousset ne semble pas avoir laissé de détails sur ses activités. Son rôle, dans une autre spécialité, devait être comparable à celui d’un autre de ces experts français, récompensé lui aussi du titre de Bey, Antoine-Barthélémy Clot (Grenoble 1793-Marseille 1868), médecin, dit Clot-Bey ; arrivé à Alexandrie en 1825 pour mettre sur pied le service médical militaire, Clot a laissé un récit autobiographique24 et une importante collection d’antiquités ; elle est divisée aujourd’hui entre le Louvre et Marseille, sa ville natale, et diverses institutions européennes qui ont reçu des dons isolés25. Jules Rousset ne jouit pas d’une telle postérité. S’interrogeant sur le caractère de ces figurines, Heuzey poursuit : « Il serait particulièrement important pour l’étude des origines orientales de savoir de source certaine à quelle époque et à quelle race il faut rapporter trois maquettes plates, représentant des femmes nues, d’un aspect si sauvage qu’on les prendrait volontiers, à première vue, pour les idoles de quelque tribu américaine. Cependant si l’on y regarde de plus près, on voit qu’elles se rattachent à la série de ces déesses babyloniennes dont le type s’est propagé en Phénicie, à Chypre, dans les îles de l’archipel, en Sardaigne ». 20 21 22 23 24 25
BARRELET 1968, 369 no 716, pl. LXVII ; VAN BUREN 1930, no 482. HEUZEY 1923, cat. 246-248, pl. IV 2-4. DAWSON et al. 1995 s.v. GAULTIER-KUHAN 2005. TAGHER 1949. CAUBET 2006.
402
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
Fig. 6 : Figurine féminine au crâne plat (inv. AE 13 242). H. 16 cm.
Les figurines Rousset sont répertoriées dans le fichier de la série KL n rédigé par Longpérier, et rangé dans un « cartonnier vert » récemment identifié26. Deux de ces figurines (Fig. 4 : Heuzey 1923, pl. IV, 3 et 4) sont aujourd’hui conservées dans les réserves du département des Antiquités Égyptiennes comme « concubines de type Edfou ». L’une27 (Fig. 6) montre une figure féminine nue au corps élancé, au triangle sexuel incisé. Les seins et des colliers sont ajoutés en relief ; les bras faits de minces boudins de pâte sont séparés du torse, les mains posées le long des cuisses, les jambes divisées et longilignes. La tête animée par des yeux « en grain de café », et pourvue d’un nez proéminent rapporté en pâte, présente un crâne élargi et aplati qui retient encore des cheveux de ficelle.
26 27
CAUBET 2015. HEUZEY 1923, pl. IV, 3, inventaire AE 13242, H. 16 cm.
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
403
Fig. 7 : Figurine féminine portant deux enfants (inv. AE 13 243). H. 14,8 cm.
L’autre28 (Fig. 7), de technique et de style comparables, présente une tête moins élargie. Bien que ses bras soient, comme dans la pièce précédente, appliqués le long du corps, elle est « porteuse d’enfants » : deux formes enfantines modelées en boudins de pâte, lui ont été ajoutées, une sur la poitrine et une dans le dos, s’accrochant autour du cou de la mère et dans l’interstice de ses bras. Des lignes de points décorent la taille et le cou. La figurine no 2 de la planche IV (Fig. 4)29, une porteuse de vase (Fig. 8) toujours conservée au département des Antiquités Orientales, était considérée comme douteuse ; rangée en réserve avec les figurines de Chypre, elle a été écartée à juste titre du catalogue de coroplastie chypriote30. Un examen récent, à l’occasion 28 HEUZEY 1923, pl. IV, 4 (face et dos) inventaire AE 13243. H. 14,8 cm. Exposée au Japon en 2009 (ANDREU-LANOÉ et ANTOINE 2009, 24,1). 29 HEUZEY 1923, pl. IV, 2, inv. NIII 3180. H. 22 cm. La cassure du cou, intervenue depuis le dessin de Jacquet publié dans Heuzey, est ancienne (A. Caubet l’a toujours connue ainsi). 30 FOURRIER et al. 1998, 670.
404
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
a
b
c Fig. 8 : Porteuse de vase (inv. N 3180). H. 22 cm. Face et dos (a-b), et détail de la tête : profil gauche et touffes de cheveux pendant au-dessus de l’oreille (c).
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
405
du présent article, permet de réhabiliter cette œuvre en l’attribuant, comme celles qui précèdent, à une production égyptienne du Moyen Empire / 2e Période Intermédiaire. La mauvaise impression résulte de restaurations maladroites et d’un état médiocre de la surface, recouverte d’un enduit sale et luisant. Les pieds réunis à la pointe ont été prolongés par un appendice recourbé moderne. Le bras droit étendu le long du corps est probablement recollé. La cassure du cou permet de voir que la tête en ronde bosse est partiellement creuse, vraisemblablement modelée autour d’un bâtonnet. Le crâne pointu semble rasé, avec deux touffes de cheveux asymétriques rendues par deux cônes de pâte appliqués sur le côté (Fig. 8c). Les yeux, sous l’arête prononcée de l’arcade sourcilière, sont marqués par une longue fente horizontale ; les oreilles sont rapportées. Le corps modelé en plein est plus plat que la tête ; le contour est fusiforme, avec un généreux élargissement aux hanches; le fessier est indiqué par un ressaut horizontal. Des pigments rouge et noir subsistent dans les yeux, les oreilles et les narines. Malgré la différence de coiffure, la technique, la morphologie du corps et le traitement des yeux imposent la comparaison avec les figurines mises au jour au Gebel el-Zeit31. Dans ce site minier du désert oriental près de la Mer Rouge, de nombreuses figurines en bois et en terre cuite avaient été déposées dans un lieu de culte voué à Hathor « maîtresse de la galène », actif depuis la fin du Moyen Empire et durant la Deuxième Période Intermédiaire (ca 1800-1600 av. J.-C.). La coiffure asymétrique de la figurines Rousset pourrait être le signe d’un statut social et d’une origine ethnique spécifique, comme par exemple certaines nourrices asiatiques32. Les mines étaient exploitées par des populations d’origine asiatique, qui pourraient être responsables de ces figurines féminines nues, l’art de la coroplastie n’étant pas vraiment une tradition égyptienne. L’intuition de Heuzey qu’elles relevaient d’une tradition asiatique se révèle pénétrante. Une « idole horriblement barbare » « Une idole horriblement barbare » : c’est ainsi que Léon Heuzey décrit la figure féminine nue de technique moulée33 (Fig. 9), dont l’esthétique avait tout pour déplaire à ce délicat épris de beauté grecque. Pourtant, fidèle à sa méthode, il en analyse consciencieusement les caractéristiques : bras grêles collés au corps, crête autour de la tête percée de multiples trous, yeux entourés de points, collier de cercles pointés et surtout l’inscription qui apparaît sous le collier, moulée, en lettres d’apparence grecque, et dont il donne un croquis (Fig. 9d). Heuzey réfute une attribution ancienne d’E. Curtius qui y voyait un prototype phénicien, proposant de la ranger parmi les figurines babyloniennes de la basse époque parthe (IIe-IIIe s. ap. J.-C.). E. Pottier, dans sa mise à jour entre crochets du catalogue 31 32 33
CASTEL et ROGEN 2020. PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS 2013. Inv. AM 3729. H. 19 cm. HEUZEY 1923, 97, cat. 249 et pl. IV, 7, provenant de Hillah.
406
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
Fig. 9 : Figure féminine nue moulée (inv. AM 3729) et inscription sous le collier. H. 19 cm.
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
407
Heuzey, complète la bibliographie de la pièce en citant l’analyse de P. Perdrizet, qui rapprochait l’œuvre de figurines analogues trouvées en Égypte et proposait de voir plutôt un nom copte dans l’inscription34. Mais selon Florence Calament, que nous remercions, le texte ne peut pas être en copte. Sur ce point donc, nous n’avons pas progressé.
a
b Fig. 10 : Figurines de comparaison. a) Figurine d’orante, musée de Recklinghausen; b) Tête de figurine d’Antinoé (inv. E 12441). 34
PERDRIZET 1921, 5, pl. VII.
408
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
En revanche, l’attribution de la figurine à un atelier de l’Égypte copte que proposait Perdrizet semble désormais probable. On comparera avec une figurine aux bras levés du musée de Recklinghausen35 (Fig. 10a), dont la tête est encadrée d’une sorte de couronne percée de trous pour les boucles d’oreilles, qui porte un collier de cercles pointés, et dont le tour des yeux est rendu par un pointillé. Sur la face antérieure, les ornements du costume, des clavi terminés par un médaillon, sont comparable à ceux que l’on voit au dos de la pièce du Louvre. On évoquera aussi une tête (Fig. 10b) provenant des fouilles Gayet à Antinoé, qui présente des détails semblables36 : pointillé autour des yeux, collier de cercles pointés et les oreilles percées. Des Chypriotes du Bronze Récent On terminera le réexamen de cette planche IV (Fig. 4) par les deux figurines nos 5 et 637. Les informations dont disposait Heuzey sur les ateliers de Chypre, appuyées sur les travaux de Cesnola, de Guillaume-Rey ou de l’expédition de Vogüé, ne lui permettaient pas de les classer plus précisément que : « [appartenant aux] anciennes productions de l’intérieur » de l’île de Chypre ; mais elles sont aujourd’hui bien identifiées et analysées ; elles ont été récemment réétudiées dans le catalogue raisonné de la coroplastie chypriote du Louvre38. Ces figurines de la fabrique « Base-Ring », caractéristique du Bronze Récent II chypriote (vers 1300-1200), offrent de nombreuses variantes techniques et deux types morphologiques principaux39, représentés tout deux ici: la figurine à tête d’oiseau et grandes oreilles en anneau (Fig. 4, no 5)40 et la figure à tête plate (Fig. 4, no 6)41. On rencontre des variantes iconographiques introduites notamment par l’adjonction d’un enfant dans les bras, voire représentées assises. Cette production, largement représentée à Chypre et diffusée au Levant, semble localisée dans le sud de l’île42.
35
Catalogue exposition 1996, no 124b. DUNAND 1990, no 637, inv. E 12441. 37 HEUZEY 1923, pl. IV, 5 et 6. 38 FOURRIER et al. 1998, no 17 et 20. 39 Cf. KARAGEORGHIS 1993, 3-14 et pl. I-X. 40 Inv. MNB 1304. H. 12,2 cm : ancienne collection Barre, no 124 ; en dépôt au musée de Cannes. DECAUDIN 1993, 9-10 no 22, et pl. VII, 22 et 22b ; FOURRIER et al. 1998, no 17. 41 Inv. MNB 365. H. 19,8 cm. Athienou, acquis de Hamilton Lang, 1872. CAUBET 1971, pl. IV, 2 ; FOURRIER et al. 1998, no 20. 42 CAUBET et YON 2015. 36
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
409
Bibliographie ANDREU-LANOË, G., ANTOINE, E. 2009, L’Enfant dans les collections du musée du Louvre, Tokyo : Asahi Shimbun. BARRELET, M.-TH. 1968, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique. I. Potiers, termes de métier, procédés de fabrication et production (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 85), Paris : Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. BOUQUILLON, A., CAUBET, A., KACZMARCZYK, A., MATOÏAN, V. 2007, Faïences et matières vitreuses de l’Orient ancien. Étude physico-chimique et catalogue des œuvres du département des Antiquités orientales, Paris : musée du Louvre éditions/ Snoek. CASTEL, G., ROGEN, I. 2020, ‘Figures féminines de Gebel el-Zeit’, in S. DONNAT, R. HUNZIKER-RODEWALD, I. WEYGAND (éds.), Figurines féminines nues : ProcheOrient, Égypte, Nubie, Méditerranée orientale, Asie centrale (VIIIe millénaire av. J.-C. IVe siècle ap. J.-C.), Paris : Éditions De Boccard, 27-40. CATALOGUE D’EXPOSITION 1996, Ägypten: Schätze aus dem Wüstensand, Kunst und Kultur der Christen am Nil (Exposition Hamm et Berlin), Wiesbaden : Dr Ludwig Reichert. CAUBET, A. 2006 [paru 2012], ‘La collection Clot-Bey revisitée. Documents égyptiens d’époque perse’, Bulletin de la société nationale des antiquaires de France, séance du 18 janvier 2006, 28-44. CAUBET, A. 2009, ‘Longpérier’, in P. SÉNÉCHAL, C. BARBILLON (éds.), Dictionnaire critique des historiens de l’art actifs en France de la Révolution à la Première Guerre mondiale, Paris : INHA. (consulté 09.10.2019). CAUBET, A. 2015, ‘Adrien de Longpérier et le projet de musée américain du Louvre’, in V. POWELL, PH. SÉNÉCHAL (éds.), Artistes, collectionneurs et musées. Un hommage à Antoine Schnapper, Paris : PUPS, 407-417. CAUBET, A., YON, M. 2015, ‘Les multiples visages de la Grande Déesse à Kition. 1000 ans d’images (XIVe-IVe siècles avant J.-C.)’, in Hommage à Jacqueline Karageorghis (CCEC 45), Paris : De Boccard, 265-280. CHENNEVIÈRES, PH. DE 1883-1889, Souvenirs d’un directeur des Beaux-Arts, Paris : L’Artiste. DAWSON, W. R., UPHILL, E. P. 1995 (3rd ed. Rev. M. L. BIERBRIER), Who Was Who in Egyptology, Londres : The Egypt Exploration Society. DECAUDIN, A. J. 1993, Musée de Cannes, Chypre dans l’Antiquité. Catalogue (CEC numéro spécial 19-I), Paris : De Boccard. FAUVET-BERTHELOT, M.-F., LÓPEZ-LUJÀN, L., GUIMARAES, S. 2007, ‘Six personnages en quête d’objets. Histoire de la collection archéologique de la Real Expedición Anticuaria en Nouvelle-Espagne’, Gradhiva 6, 105-126. FONTAN, É. 1994, ‘Adrien de Longpérier et la création du Musée assyrien du Louvre’, in É. FONTAN, N. CHEVALIER (éds.), De Khorsabad à Paris : la découverte des Assyriens, Paris : Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 226-239. FONTAN, É. 2002a, ‘Deux familles du Liban qui ont enrichi le musée du Louvre : les Durighello et les Farah’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 16, 115-123. FONTAN, É. 2002b, ‘Ernest Renan et la Mission de Phénicie’, in E. GUBEL (éd.), Musée du Louvre. Art phénicien. La Sculpture de tradition phénicienne, Paris : Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Snoeck, 15-21.
410
A. CAUBET, E. FONTAN, H. LE MEAUX ET M. YON
FOURRIER, S., QUEYREL A. 1998, in A. CAUBET (éd.), L’art des modeleurs d’argile. Antiquités de Chypre. Coroplastique. Musée du Louvre. Département des Antiquités orientales, Paris : Réunion des musées nationaux. GAULTIER-KUHAN, C. 2005, Méhemet Ali et la France 1805-1849. Histoire singulière du Napoléon de l’Orient, Paris : Maisonneuve & Larose. GUBEL, E. 2018, ‘Imitations, faux et “faux faux” dans le domaine phénicien’, in H. GABER, N. GRIMAL, O. PERDU (éds.), Imitations, copies et faux dans les domaines pharaonique et de l’Orient ancien, Actes colloque Collège de France, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, Paris, 14-15 janvier 2016, Paris : AIBL-Soleb, 154-175. HAMIAUX, M., DESCAMPS, S., 1993 [19982], De numeris ad res graecas etruscas romanasque in museo Parisino pertinentibus (Document polycopié Département des Antiquités Grecque Étrusques et Romaines), Paris : Musée du Louvre. HEUZEY, L. 1882, Catalogue des figurines antiques, Paris : Musée du Louvre. HEUZEY, L. 1883, Les figurines antiques de terre cuite du musée du Louvre, gravées par Achille Jacquet, Paris : Ve A. Morel et Cie (in fo) [dit « Album » dans la préface de l’édition 1923]. HEUZEY, L. 1923, Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite. Figurines orientales. Figurines des îles asiatiques. Musée du Louvre, Paris : Musées Nationaux [reproduit les planches de l’album 1883]. KARAGEORGHIS, V. 1993, The Coroplastic Art of Ancient Cyprus. Vol. II : Late Cypriote II – Cypro-Geometric III, Nicosie: A.G. Leventis Foundation. KLAT, M. G. 2002, ‘The Durighello Family and the archaeology of Lebanon’, Archaeology and History in Lebanon 16, 98-108. LE MEAUX, H. à paraître, ‘Ce que le fonds phénicien du Louvre doit à Ernest Renan’, in J. BALCOU (éd.), Actes du colloque Renan 2018, Tréguier, Rennes : Presses universitaires de Rennes. LONGPÉRIER, A. DE 18492 [18481, 18543], Notice des monuments exposés dans la galerie d’antiquités assyriennes au Louvre – Notice des antiquités assyriennes, babyloniennes, perses, hébraïques, exposées dans les galeries du musée du Louvre, Paris : Vinchon. LONGPÉRIER, A. DE 1850 [19522, avec supp.], Notice des monuments exposés dans la salle des antiquités américaines (Mexique et Pérou) au Musée du Louvre, Paris : Vinchon [il existe deux tirages de l’édition de 1850 : un tirage in 12o sur papier bleu avec supplément paginé après l’index ; un tirage in 8o, sur beau papier, comprenant un supplément paginé avant l’index et un avant-propos daté du 25 mai 1850]. LONGPÉRIER, A. DE 1868, Notice des bronzes antiques exposés dans la galerie du musée impérial du Louvre, Paris. LONGPÉRIER, A. DE 1867-1874/1882, Musée Napoléon III. Choix de monuments antiques pour servir à l’histoire de l’art en Orient et en Occident. Texte explicatif par Adrien de Longpérier, en livraison de 1867 à 1874, Féchoz et Letouzey. Rassemblé en 1882, Paris : Guérin et Cie. LORAND, D. 2010, ‘Deux nouvelles stèles du Gebel el-Zeit attribuées aux pharaons Nbnénou Sémenkarê (13e dynastie) et Nbmaâtrê (16e dynastie)’, Chronique d’Égypte 85, 92-107. NIEUWERKERKE, É. O’HARA, COMTE VAN 1863, Rapport de M. Le Comte de Nieuwerkerke sur les travaux […] réalisés depuis 1849 dans les Musées Impériaux, Paris : Didier et Cie. PEISSIK, M., ROY, N. 1990-1991, Léon Heuzey ou la recherche des origines (1831-1922). Monographie de muséologie, École du Louvre, Paris.
QUELQUES IMPOSTEURS PHÉNICIENS
411
PERDRIZET, P. 1921, Les Terres cuites grecques d’Égypte de la Collection Fouquet, NancyParis/Strasbourg : Berger-Levrault. PERROT, G., CHIPIEZ, CH. 1887, Histoire de l’art dans l’antiquité, vol. IV : Judée, Sardaigne, Syrie, Cappadoce, Paris. PIERRAT-BONNEFOIS, G. 2013, ‘Musiciens de Thèbes’, in S. EMERIT (éd.), Le statut du musicien dans la Méditerranée ancienne. Égypte, Mésopotamie, Grèce, Rome (Bibliothèque d’Étude 159), Le Caire : Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 139-148. SCHWARTZ, E. 2010, ‘Heuzey, Léon’, Dictionnaire critique des historiens de l’art INHA (consulté 30.07.2010). TAGHER, J. 1949, Mémoires de A-B. Clot Bey, publiés et annotés par Jacques Tagher (Publications de la bibliothèque privée de S.M. Farouk Ier roi d’Égypte 1), Le Caire. VAN BUREN, D. 1930, Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria (Yale Oriental Series XVI), New Haven: Yale University Press.
QUELQUES RÉFLEXIONS SUR L’ÉVOLUTION DE L’ÉCRITURE PHÉNICIENNE À BYBLOS* Françoise BRIQUEL CHATONNET**
De par ses inscriptions, Byblos présente à la fois une richesse et une originalité qui met son corpus à part dans le monde phénicien d’Orient. Cette richesse se mesure d’abord par le nombre des inscriptions retrouvées, et tout particulièrement si on prend en compte les inscriptions monumentales d’affichage. Mais elle est visible aussi par l’étendue de l’arc chronologique considéré puisque les inscriptions phéniciennes monumentales les plus archaïques sont de Byblos et que la dernière inscription connue gravée dans la pierre y est du IIIe ou du IIe siècle av. J.-C.1 Songeons par exemple qu’à Tyr et dans sa région, les témoignages épigraphiques ne remontent pratiquement pas avant l’époque hellénistique2, de même qu’à Arwad3. Certes cela peut largement tenir à l’histoire de la recherche qui fait que Byblos a été fouillée extensivement ce que la ville moderne n’a jamais permis à Sidon ou à Tyr. Le fait est quand même que Byblos présente la particularité de permettre une étude sur la longue durée. Les études sur la langue phénicienne ont bien mis en valeur les caractéristiques linguistiques du phénicien giblite, qui se distingue du phénicien du Sud, celui de Tyr et de Sidon qui est aussi de la diaspora, aussi bien en Méditerranée qu’en Orient, notamment en Anatolie. Des traits grammaticaux aussi élémentaires que le suffixe de 3e personne masculin singulier marqué par un waw, ou que la forme du pronom relatif ou des démonstratifs témoignent de cette originalité du phénicien giblite4. Dans l’étude présentée ici, je voudrais m’attarder sur la forme de l’écriture et mettre en valeur sur ce plan-là aussi l’originalité des inscriptions giblites, particulièrement dans les inscriptions tardives.
* Cette étude a été présentée au IXo Congreso de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos en 2018 à Merida. Je suis heureuse de l’offrir à Eric Gubel auquel me lient plein de souvenirs et une longue complicité intellectuelle et amicale. ** CNRS, UMR 8167 Orient et Méditerranée, Paris. 1 Autel hellénistique publié par DUSSAUD 1925. 2 BRIQUEL CHATONNET 2011. Voir cependant aussi SADER 2005. 3 Inscription de Tartous et bilingue d’Arados (références ci-dessous). Voir cependant dans la plaine du ‘Akkar des épigraphes sur vases très anciennes trouvées à Tell Kazel, qui montrent que l’usage de l’écriture y était aussi développé dès le IXe siècle av. J.-C. (BRIQUEL CHATONNET et GUBEL 2019). 4 FRIEDRICH, RÖLLIG et AMADASI-GUZZO 1999.
414
F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET
Même si les premiers témoignages d’écriture alphabétique viennent d’Égypte ou du Levant Sud5, c’est à Byblos qu’apparaît l’écriture alphabétique monumentale. Celle-ci semble avoir été précédée de peu par une écriture attestée uniquement à Byblos, l’écriture pseudo-hiéroglyphique6, encore non déchiffrée mais qui montre la préoccupation particulière à Byblos de disposer d’une écriture propre, destinée probablement à noter la langue locale et donc à répondre à un souci d’affirmer l’identité culturelle du petit royaume. L’inscription la plus connue est bien sûr celle d’Aḥirom, qui présente des formes de lettres et des caractéristiques linguistiques particulièrement archaïques, mais que l’on peine à situer dans le temps, d’autant plus que la place où fut gravée l’inscription implique qu’elle n’est pas contemporaine des reliefs qui ornent le sarcophage. Viennent ensuite les inscriptions de Yeḥimilk et de ses descendants qui permettent de reconstituer la chronologie relative de la dynastie qu’il a fondée, et qui comprend Abibaal, Elibaal et Shipṭibaal. Le fait que celle d’Abibaal soit inscrite sur le socle d’une statue de Sheshonq (945-924) et celle d’Elibaal sur un buste d’Osorkon (924-889) fournit un terminus post-quem pour ces inscriptions dans la deuxième moitié du Xe siècle. Reste la possibilité que l’offrande de ces monuments égyptiens à la « Dame de Byblos », déesse protectrice de la cité, ait été faite après le décès de leurs titulaires pharaoniques : l’inscription d’Elibaal affirme que c’est ce dernier qui a « fait » la statue pour sa déesse. On manque donc de points d’ancrage sûrs, comme de comparaisons épigraphiques avant les inscriptions alphabétiques bien datées dans le dernier tiers du IXe siècle7. Ces dernières ne fournissent pas non plus des parallèles clairs : si les inscriptions araméennes de Ḥazael et de Zakkur ont un répertoire de signes qui paraît moins archaïque que celui des inscriptions de Byblos, l’inscription araméenne elle aussi trouvée à Tell Fekheriye, qui présente des signes au contraire de forme très archaïque, est également du dernier tiers du IXe siècle. La comparaison avec l’inscription phénicienne de Kilamuwa, trouvée à Zinjirli, et qui est également datée du 3e tiers du IXe siècle, dont la graphie n’a pas le même caractère archaïque et qui est parfois avancée comme preuve d’une nette antériorité des inscriptions de Byblos8, n’est pas complètement convaincante. Les inscriptions phéniciennes d’Anatolie présentent des formes de langues de Phénicie du Sud, qui montrent Sur la diffusion de l’écriture alphabétique depuis le Sud, FINKELSTEIN et SASS 2013. Sur cette écriture, voir tout dernièrement VITA et ZAMORA 2018 et SASS 2019, avec dans les deux cas un catalogue des inscriptions. L’hypothèse chronologique basse avancée par B. Sass, fondée sur la forme de certains signes qui se rapprochent de lettres des premières inscriptions alphabétiques et sur le support commun à certaines épigraphes de ces deux corpus (spatules et flèches en bronze notamment), est très suggestive. 7 Pour une datation de ces inscriptions archaïques de Byblos à la fin du IXe siècle, voir SASS 2005. Pour la datation traditionnelle au Xe siècle, voir par exemple LEMAIRE 2006 et 2015 et AMADASI GUZZO 2014. 8 LEMAIRE 2015. 5 6
QUELQUES RÉFLEXIONS SUR L’ÉVOLUTION DE L’ÉCRITURE PHÉNICIENNE
415
que l’expansion de l’écrit phénicien y est venu de la région de Tyr et Sidon. Une évolution indépendante à Byblos reste plausible, ce que souligne l’évolution de l’écriture giblite à époque tardive. Si l’écriture des inscriptions anciennes a déjà été très étudiée, c’est beaucoup moins le cas pour celle des inscriptions tardives9 et la petite étude que je présente ici est consacrée aux inscriptions de la fin de l’époque perse et de l’époque hellénistique, entre la fin du Ve et le IIe siècle av. J.-C. Elle porte sur trois lettres test qui présentent des formes caractéristiques : le H, le Ḥ et le S. La comparaison est établie avec l’écriture en usage à Arwad, attestée justement à partir du IVe siècle sur des monnaies. Le tableau présenté ci-dessous sert de base à mon étude. Il présente en parallèle des formes d’inscriptions giblites et arwadites, ainsi qu’un contrepoint avec deux inscriptions hellénistiques de la région de Tyr. Tableau 1 : Formes d’inscriptions giblites, arwadites et tyriennes.
– Pour Byblos, la première série est tirée de l’inscription d’époque perse dite Byblos 1310, qui date probablement de la fin du Ve siècle. Elle est plus ancienne que les autres mais la présence de certaines formes y est d’autant plus intéressante. – La seconde colonne correspond à l’inscription gravée sur le sarcophage de Batnoam, mère du roi Ozbaal11. Elle date du milieu du IVe siècle. – La troisième colonne reproduit des formes de lettres de l’inscription gravée sur un petit autel de Byblos. R. Dussaud, qui a fait l’editio princeps12, avait daté le monument et l’inscription du Ier siècle de notre ère, à l’époque romaine donc. Il s’appuyait précisément sur les formes de lettres très cursives que je reproduis En dehors bien sûr de la belle synthèse de PECKHAM 1968, 43-63. STARCKY 1969. Les reproductions sont tirées de la photo publiée dans l’article de J. Starcky. 11 KAI 11. Les illustrations du tableau proviennent d’un fac-similé fait sur l’inscription ellemême par Jimmy Daccache et moi-même et qui est maintenant reproduit au musée national de Beyrouth à côté du sarcophage. 12 DUSSAUD 1925. 9
10
416
F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET
ici. Mais cette datation a été remise en cause13. Ainsi, l’inscription avait été publiée en même temps qu’une inscription de Délos, que Dussaud attribuait aussi à l’époque romaine mais que M.-F. Baslez et moi-même avons pu attribuer au milieu du IIe siècle14. De même le type de monument trouve ses meilleurs parallèles dans toute une série de dédicaces et inscriptions hellénistiques votives trouvées à Sidon et dans la région de Tyr et les formes de lettres qui avaient orienté Dussaud sont présentes dans les inscriptions plus anciennes présentées aujourd’hui. On admet maintenant que l’autel de Byblos date de l’époque hellénistique, fin du IIIe ou première moitié du IIe siècle av. J.-C.15 Pour présenter des comparaisons en Phénicie du Nord, des exemples sont tirés des inscriptions d’Arwad. Certes, le corpus y est extrêmement limité, mais on a précisément à la fin de l’époque perse et à l’époque hellénistique quelques épigraphes qui autorisent ces comparaisons, même si les lettres ne sont pas toutes représentées dans chaque inscription. – L’épigraphie arwadite est notamment représentée sur les monnaies et c’est d’une monnaie datant du second quart du IVe siècle qu’est tirée la reproduction du S16. – La deuxième inscription est celle de Tartous, parfois qualifiée de « première aradienne », publiée pour la première fois également par R. Dussaud en 189717 et que je crois avoir pu dater du IIIe siècle18. – Enfin la troisième colonne correspond à l’inscription bilingue grécophénicienne d’Arwad, trouvée encore par R. Dussaud, et qui est datée de 25 av. J.-C.19 C’est la plus récente inscription datée du corpus phénicien et peutêtre la plus récente inscription dans l’absolu, si on excepte des monnaies du début de notre ère. Nous avons adjoint au tableau, pour illustrer la comparaison, deux inscriptions de la région de Tyr, où les lettres ont conservé une forme plus « classique » : – inscription de Ma’ashouq (ou Maṣoub) datée de 222 av. J.-C.20 – première inscription d’Oum el Amed, datée de 132 av. J.-C.21 Le tableau met en évidence une évolution particulière de ces lettres à Byblos. Dès le Ve siècle, le H giblite a acquis une forme très particulière avec deux traits 13
Voir le point d’interrogation après la date dans KAI 12. BASLEZ et BRIQUEL CHATONNET 1991. 15 Voir par exemple BRIQUEL CHATONNET 1991, 5-6. 16 ELAYI et ELAYI 2015, 206 : vers 370-346. La photo est celle de la monnaie C 124 publiée par ELAYI et ELAYI 2014, vol II, pl. LXXXV. 17 DUSSAUD 1897. 18 BRIQUEL CHATONNET 2015. 19 BRIQUEL CHATONNET 2012 et 2019. 20 KAI 19. DUNAND et DURU 1962, no 4, 185. GUBEL et al. 2002, 128-129, no 125. Photo de l’auteur prise au musée du Louvre. 21 CIS I.7. DUNAND et DURU 1962, 181-184. KAI 18. GUBEL et al. 2002, 137-138, no 144. Photo de l’auteur prise au musée du Louvre. 14
QUELQUES RÉFLEXIONS SUR L’ÉVOLUTION DE L’ÉCRITURE PHÉNICIENNE
417
verticaux réunis par un trait horizontal supérieur dépassant et un petit trait vers la gauche. On n’y reconnaît plus de façon évidente la forme originelle, alors que celle-ci est bien conservée dans la région de Tyr à l’époque hellénistique. Dans l’inscription de l’autel de Byblos, il est déstructuré, fait de deux éléments séparés. Inversement, à Arwad au IIIe siècle, la forme est certes marquée par la cursive : les trois barres horizontales sont marquées comme d’un seul mouvement de calame mais elles sont encore discernables. Le Ḥ a encore sa forme traditionnelle dans l’inscription dite Byblos 13. Mais dans celle de Batnoam, le trait central est déjà mis en position transversale. Dans l’inscription de l’autel de Byblos, la lettre est notée par trois traits verticaux plus ou moins parallèles, une forme typique de l’écriture cursive à l’encre. On notera qu’à Arwad, s’il n’a pas gardé sa forme ancienne, ce qui est le cas dans la région de Tyr, il conserve cependant la structure de deux traits verticaux parallèles, réunis par un élément transversal et cela jusqu’au Ier siècle av. J.-C. Le S est également significatif : dès la fin du Ve siècle, le zig-zag disparaît à Byblos au profit de trois traits parallèles, reliés ou non par un trait transversal à droite. Dans l’inscription de l’autel, ces traits parallèles sont tracés comme d’un trait de plume et ressemblent à un 3 incliné. La forme classique est inversement bien conservée sur la monnaie d’Arwad, comme dans l’inscription d’Oum el Amed, même si elle est difficile à discerner dans sa seule occurrence dans l’inscription de Ma’ashouq. Rien de révolutionnaire dans ce court exposé. Je voudrais cependant mettre en valeur deux points. L’écriture giblite présente donc bien une originalité dans le corpus phénicien et ce jusqu’à la fin de son histoire. De plus, l’originalité de l’écriture giblite est une originalité locale et pas une particularité de la Phénicie du Nord. Le fait que l’écriture de la région d’Arados, à l’époque hellénistique, soit conforme, nous avons pu le montrer sur des lettres test, à l’écriture de la Phénicie du Sud, est révélateur. L’écriture giblite ancienne est plutôt conservatrice et conserve des formes archaïques, même si leur ductus est déjà marqué par l’influence de l’écriture cursive22, et ce à une époque où les lettres de Phénicie du Sud sont plus « classiques ». À partir du Ve siècle, de l’époque perse, elle intègre clairement des formes typiquement cursives au répertoire des signes de l’épigraphie monumentale et donc présente une écriture plus éloignée des formes traditionnelles que celle des inscriptions des autres cités phéniciennes. L’écriture giblite est fondamentalement très marquée par l’influence de la graphie cursive, mais l’évolution des formes y beaucoup plus frappante et plus marquée qu’ailleurs dans le monde phénicien.
22
FINKELSTEIN et SASS 2013.
418
F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET
Bibliographie AMADASI GUZZO, M.-G. 2014, ‘« Alphabet insaisissable ». Quelques notes concernant la diffusion de l’écriture consonantique’, Mélanges offerts à André Lemaire, Transeuphratène 44, 67-86. BASLEZ, M.-F., BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 1990, ‘L’inscription gréco-phénicienne de l’Asklépieion de Délos’, Hommages à Maurice Sznycer t. I, Semitica 38, 27-37. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 1991, ‘Les derniers témoignages sur la langue phénicienne en Orient’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 19, 3-21. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 2011, ‘Tyr et les inscriptions phéniciennes d’époque hellénistique’, in J. ALIQUOT, P.-L. GATIER, L. NORDIGUIAN (éds.), Sources de l’histoire de Tyr. Textes de l’Antiquité et du Moyen-Âge, Beyrouth : IFPO/USJ, 19-32. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 2012, ‘Les inscriptions phénico-grecques et le bilinguisme des Phéniciens’, Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres, 619-638. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 2015, ‘Migraines d’épigraphiste : l’inscription phénicienne de Tartous’, Semitica et Classica 8, 131-134. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F. 2019, ‘À propos de l’inscription bilingue d’Arados’, in A. FERJAOUI, T. REDISSI (éds.), La vie, la mort et la religion dans l’univers phénicien et punique. Actes du VIIe congrès international des études phéniciennes et puniques (Hammamet 9-14 novembre 2009) t. I, Tunis : Institut national du Patrimoine, 65-72. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, F., GUBEL, E. 2019, ‘Nouvelles inscriptions de Tell Kazel’, in F. BRIQUEL CHATONNET, E. CAPET, E. GUBEL, C. ROCHE HAWLEY (éds.), Nuit de pleine lune sur Amurru. Mélanges offerts à Leila Badre, Paris : Geuthner, 131-142. DUNAND, M., DURU, R. 1962, Oumm el-‘Amed. Une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr, Paris : Librairie Maisonneuve. DUSSAUD, R. 1897, ‘Voyage en Syrie (octobre-novembre 1896). Notes archéologiques’, Revue archéologique 2, 332-338. DUSSAUD, R. 1925, ‘Inscription phénicienne de Byblos d’époque romaine’, Syria 6, 269273. ELAYI, J., ELAYI, A. G. 2014, Phoenician Coinages (Supplément à Transeuphratène 18), Pendé : Gabalda. ELAYI, J., ELAYI, A. G. 2015, Arwad, cité phénicienne du Nord (Supplément à Transeuphratène 19), Pendé : Gabalda. FINKELSTEIN, I., SASS, B. 2013, ‘The West Semitic Alphabetic Inscriptions, Late Bronze II to Iron II A: Archeological Context, Distribution and Chronology’, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 2, 149-220. FRIEDRICH, J., RÖLLIG, W. 1999, Phönizisch-punische Grammatik, 3. Auflage neu bearbeitet von M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, Roma : Pontificio Istituto Biblico. GUBEL, E. et al. 2002, Art Phénicien, t. I. La sculpture de tradition phénicienne, Musée du Louvre. Département des antiquités orientales, Paris/Gand : RMN/Snoek. LEMAIRE, A. 2006, ‘La datation des rois de Byblos Abibaal et Élibaal et les relations entre l’Égypte et le Levant au Xe siècle av. notre ère’, CRAI 2006, 1695-1716. LEMAIRE, A. 2015, ‘Levantine Literacy ca. 1000-750 BCE’, in B. B. SCHMIDT (éd.), Contextualizing Israel’s Sacred Writings: Ancient Literacy, Orality, and Literary Production (Ancient Israel and Its Literature 22), Atlanta : SBL, 11-46. PECKHAM, J. B. 1968, The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts (Harvard Semitic Series XX), Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.
QUELQUES RÉFLEXIONS SUR L’ÉVOLUTION DE L’ÉCRITURE PHÉNICIENNE
419
SADER, H. 2005, Iron Age Funerary Stelae from Lebanon (Cuadernos de Arqueologia mediterranea 11), Barcelona : Laboratorio de arqueologia, Universidad Pompeu Fabra de Barcelona. SASS, B. 2005, The Alphabet at the Turn of the Millenium. The West Semitic Alphabet ca. 1150-850 BCE, the Antiquity of the Arabian, Greek and Phrygian Alphabets (Tel Aviv-Occasional Publications 4), Tel Aviv : Tel Aviv University. SASS, B. 2019, ‘Pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions from Byblos, their elusive dating, and their affinities with the early Phoenician inscriptions’, in PH. ABRAHAMI, L. BATTINI (éds.), ina dmarri u qan ṭuppi. Par la bêche et le stylet ! Cultures et sociétés syromésopotamiennes. Mélanges offerts à Olivier Rouault, Oxford : Archaeopress, 157180. SAVIGNAC, R. 1916, ‘Une visite à l’île de Rouad’, Revue biblique 13, 565-592. STARCKY, J. 1969, ‘Une inscription phénicienne de Byblos’, Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph XLV, 259-273. VITA, J. P., ZAMORA, J. Á. 2018, ‘The Byblos Script’, in S. FERRARA, M. VALÉRIO (éds.), Paths into Script Formation in the Ancient Mediterranean (Studi Micenei ed egeoanatolici. Nuova Serie. Supplemento 1), Roma : Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 75-102.
A TYRIAN NOTE. OVERSTRUCK ALEXANDER TETRADRACHMS FROM TYRE: AN EXCEPTION THAT TWICE CONFIRMS THE RULE François
DE
CALLATAŸ*
To strike a new coin using an old one may look as a rather natural idea and, indeed, we can identify thousands of ancient Greek coins that have been clearly overstruck on other coins. Nevertheless, as we know millions of these Greek coins, the ratio of overstruck coins could be described as in the range of 1 for 1,000 and is, as such, an uncommon phenomenon. The recent creation by David MacDonald and myself of a large database called GOD (for Greek Overstrikes Database) allows to better understand how these Greek overstrikes are distributed through time and space1. To sum up, it turns out that: 1) Greek gold overstruck coins are nearly non-existent; 2) cases for bronze coins are limited to a few dozen of coinages that were massively overstruck, generally on some older issues by the same authority with – as it is generally guessed – a profitable repricing as with the countermarks; 3) silver coins behave differently: while we do possess a small number of coinages massively overstruck (massively here means at least 20% of the known specimens), what we observe on a more regular basis are coinages for which a small number of overstruck coins highly concentrated at a certain point of the sequence. As recently demonstrated, this is the result of the constraint imposed to the mint master to produce a fixed amount of coins with a fixed amount of metal, allowing a tiny weight tolerance for each coin above and below the theoretical mass. Most mint masters coped with these constraints, but those who did not succeed had to complete the right amount at their own expense. It was thus much easier and less expensive to restrike existing coins than to renew the long process to produce flans. Mint masters adopted this practice only under problematic circumstances, as demonstrated by the fact that they did not hesitate to reuse much heavier coins at their own financial detriment2.
* Royal Library of Belgium; Université Libre de Bruxelles; École Pratique des Hautes Études. 1 DE CALLATAŸ 2017a. 2 See DE CALLATAŸ 2018a for a general landscape and the full development of the argument. See also DE CALLATAŸ 2017b on late Mesambrian Alexanders, DE CALLATAŸ 2018b on Pamphylian and Cilician silver staters, and DE CALLATAŸ (forthcoming) on late Hellenistic tetradrachms in Thrace and Macedonia.
422
F. DE CALLATAŸ
It is with this general context in mind that I evoke for Eric-the-Tyrian the case of the Tyrian tetradrachms in the name and types of Alexander the Great, as a little token of our long lasting and great friendship3. Overstrikes on lifetime or early posthumous Alexander tetradrachms are, generally speaking, pretty rare, more in the range of 1 for 10,000 than 1 for 1,000, as we know a dozen of them (see catalogue below) for many dozens of thousands of surviving specimens (ca. 100,000?). To date, Hélène Nicolet-Pierre is the only one to have devoted a short paper to one of these coins (infra catalogue nr 7)4. This coin, which once belonged to the collection formed by Massoud Kawabiki, has been struck by a Phoenician mint, which was originally attributed to Akko by Edward T. Newell5 and has been reattributed to Tyre with convincing arguments by André Lemaire in 19766. The regnal year on the reverse is not entirely visible but the obverse-die is well known and – it is said – only associated with the number 39 on the reverse7. This overstrike could thus be assigned to the 39th year of reign of the king ’Ozmilk (Azemilkos), i.e. in 309/308 BC. Some years later, Georges Le Rider published another Alexander overstrike found in the large hoard of Meydancıkkale, again involving a Tyrian tetradrachm struck this time during the year 36, i.e. in 312/311 BC (infra catalogue nr. 5)8. About the same time, Georges Le Rider also published a third overstrike: a tetradrachm of Tarsos that appeared in the hoard of Akçakale (infra catalogue nr. 8)9. Thus, until recently, no more than three overstruck coins were considered in the entire corpus of early coinage of tetradrachms in the name of Alexander the Great: two for Tyre and one for Tarsos, all using other tetradrachms of Alexander, a fact well noticed but at the time misunderstood. Hélène Nicolet-Pierre sought an explanation for this “paradoxical overstrike”, all the more since she underscored that the overstruck Alexander is not only a coin of the same type, weight and alloy but, moreover, in very fresh condition issued some years before in Susa. According to her, this invites to think of a political or financial/political decision: the calling out of circulation of tetradrachms recognized as foreign (“not by their types but by their specific marks”) and their recirculation after overstriking with a benefit for the issuing powers10. 3
I like to remind that Eric is the godfather of our son Timour. NICOLET-PIERRE 1986. 5 NEWELL 1916. See also MERKER 1964. 6 LEMAIRE 1976. 7 Actually, obv. XLI is associated with two different numbers (see NEWELL 1916, 52: with years 9 [nr. 48] and 10 [nr. 50]). 8 DAVESNE and LE RIDER 1989, 100-101, nr. 2170. 9 LE RIDER 1988, 44, nr. 41. 10 NICOLET-PIERRE 1986, 22. 4
A TYRIAN NOTE
423
This scenario is untenable for different reasons. It postulates different values for the same coinage depending where they circulated – making Tyre an exception in the empire –, but fails to explain why we find these overstruck coins with a supposed local extra value circulating outside their initial area along with the other Alexanders (as in the Meydancıkkale and the Akçakale hoards)11. It does not question the feasibility of such an operation: how to force people to bring their coins, how to make a benefit with the same amount of silver, and how to reintroduce the overstruck coins afterwards. Moreover, there is no single trace of such a closed monetary economy in the area. Hoards are mixed, as elsewhere12. It also does not explain why we have other similar cases of overstrikes for the Greek world, applied on what appears as currency of equal value and for which dozens of hoards demonstrate that they circulated together with the same value as for the late Hellenistic tetradrachms of Thasos and Maroneia13. This hypothesis of overstriking as a means for the issuing power to make a profit is not supported and even contradicted by evidence. In addition, this is potentially harmful, beyond numismatics, for the way we may consider ancient economy, exaggerating profit-oriented mind and economic rationalism. Quite the opposite, these “paradoxical overstrikes” illustrate a much more basic practice: the mint master had to produce a fixed amount of coins with the received metal. If he cannot succeed, for various reasons going from his inability to calibrate his flan production to the theft of metal, then he had to find, at his own expense, additional metal to reach the right amount. Only when forced by the abnormal turn of the production did mint masters decide to resort to overstrikes. In other words, overstrikes brought no benefit to issuing powers and were detrimental for mint masters. The Greek Overstrike Database (GOD) presently includes 13 specimens of these early silver Alexanders: eight for Tyre, two for Tarsos, one for Sidon, one for Berytos and one for “Babylon”. As made clear by the catalogue below, this increase in the number of known examples is due to new specimens, which appeared on the market14 and they largely confirm what we already knew: overstrikes for silver Alexanders are extremely rare, and their distribution is limited to the area between Tarsos and Tyre15, with Tyre responsible for most cases. It also confirms that fresh tetradrachms of Alexanders were generally used to be overstruck by these Phoenician mints to produce other Alexanders. Apparently, DAVESNE and LE RIDER 1989 (Meydancıkkale) and LE RIDER 1988 (Akçakale). DUYRAT 2016, 75-87: hoards nrs. 91-115. 13 See DE CALLATAŸ (forthcoming). 14 I know, dear Eric … 15 The same area is also known for another specificity: to be the only one to have produced very small silver fractions for the Alexander coinage (SCHINDEL 1983). 11 12
424
F. DE CALLATAŸ
it was not done punctually, as in other cases like double sigloi of Tarsos, tetradrachms of Aesillas, Thasos, Mesembria, or late posthumous Alexanders of Mesembria and Odessos. Despite a few die-links in our catalogue (nrs. 5-6 [obverse XXXV] and 7-8 [obverse XLI]), these overstrikes seem dispersed between 319 and 306 BC (six obverses for eight coins). We may thus speculate – although these speculations are fated to remain highly conjectural – on why the pattern of overstrikes is here not closely connected to one specific moment of the sequence. Does it reflect a lower degree of negligence, with a mint master in Tyre repeatedly short of metal but only for small amounts? Or a less voluminous production not involving dozens of dies with the possibility to make more substantial errors at the end (as with the double sigloi of Pharnabazes for example)? In any case, it is important to keep in mind that, even for Tyre – even for the obverses mostly used for overstriking (two cases for obv. XXXV and XLI) –, overstrikes remain a relatively marginal phenomenon. We may conclude that these overstrikes twice confirm, a contrario, the rule. Firstly, the vast number of silver Alexanders has been struck from new flans (made with old silver coming from local sources) resorting only exceptionally to overstrikes. Secondly, these rare endogamic overstrikes (Alexander on Alexander) constitute in themselves additional proof that overstrikes were not – at least not in these cases of episodic pattern – connected with some monetary reform, as was previously thought. Catalogue 1. Tyrian overstrikes Obv. Head of unbearded Herakles to right, wearing lion skin headdress, paws tied beneath chin. Border of dots. Rev. ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΥ. Zeus seated left on throne, right leg drawn back, his feet resting on a low footrest, holding long pearled scepter in his left hand and, in his right, eagle standing right with closed wings. In left field, Phoenician letters ‘ayin and kaph (initials for “of the king ’Ozmilk”); below or left: Phoenician date. Border of dots. 1)
Tyre, year 31 (319/318 BC) PRICE 1991, NEWELL 1916, 48, nr. 33, obv. XXVII, see pl. VIII, nr. 6). Classical Numismatic Group, Sale 108 (coll. Miguel Márquez del Prado), 16 May 2018, lot 389 (17.13 g, 28 mm, 7h) = Aureo & Calicò, sale 293, 24 May 2017, lot 2029 (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on uncertain type (likely an earlier issue Alexander from Tyre)”.
A TYRIAN NOTE
425
2)
Tyre, year 31 (316/315 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3281; not in NEWELL 1916. Classical Numismatic Group, Mail Bid Sale 72, 14 June 2006, lot 399 (17.09 g, 1h) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on another Alexander III tetradrachm, with the eye and hair visible on the reverse”.
3)
Tyre, year 33 (314/313 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3292; NEWELL 1916, 50, nr 42, obv. XXXVII, see pl. IX, nr. 9. Savoca Numismatics, online auction 26, 14 October 2018, lot 34 (17.05 g, 27 mm) (© CoinArchives). Overstruck (unnoticed in the catalogue).
426
F. DE CALLATAŸ
4)
Tyre, year 37 (312/311 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3291; NEWELL 1916, 40, obv. XXXIV. Elsen, sale 93, 15 September 2007, lot 206 (17.12 g) = Elsen, sale 94, 15 December 2007, lot 532 (17.12 g) (© CoinArchives). Overstruck (on?).
5)
Tyre, year 36 (311/310 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3292, NEWELL 1916, obv. XXXV. Classical Numismatic Group, Mail Bid Sale 61, 25 September 2002 (Colin E. Pitchfork coll.), lot 456 (17.12 g) = Classical Numismatic Group, Electronic Auction 424, 11 July 2018, lot 97 (17.08 g, 27 mm, 3h) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on an earlier Alexander tetradrachm”.
6)
Tyre, year 36 (311/310 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3292, NEWELL 1916, obv. XXXV. Hoard of Meydancıkkale, C4162 (16.97 g; see DAVESNE and LE RIDER 1989, 100-101, nr. 2170). “La pièce a été surfrappée sur un autre alexandre : on reconnaît au R., en bas, le visage d’Héraclès (le bas du sceptre se trouve placé sur l’œil d’Héraclès) ; un cas analogue est cité par H. Nicolet-Pierre”.
A TYRIAN NOTE
427
7)
Tyre, year 39 (309/308 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3299, NEWELL 1916, obv. XLI, see pl. X, nrs. 1 and 4. Former coll. Masud Kawabiki (see NICOLET-PIERRE 1986). Overstruck on Alexander (“un deuxième profil apparaît au droit, audessus du front d’Héraklès; au revers, le bras droit de Zeus tenant l’aigle est absent; à son emplacement, on voit un monogramme et les deux jambes drapées d’un autre personnage assis. Il s’agit évidemment d’une monnaie surfrappée mal réussie; la deuxième frappe a laissé subsister des portions du premier type, suffisamment claires pour que nous puissions identifier la monnaie qui a servi de flan. C’est déjà un tétradrachme aux types d’Alexandre: outre les jambes et l’avant-bras droit du Zeus assis, on discerne au revers la partie inférieure de son siège, un ‘trône’ avec un haut dossier dont un montant apparaît juste à gauche du torse du nouveau Zeus; au-dessous les lettres ΛΑ. Au droit, on reconnaît bien le visage d’Héraklès, dont le nez et l’arcade sourcilière sont coupés en oblique par un pli de la deuxième léonté, ainsi que la mâchoire inférieure et le retour sous le menton d’une des pattes de la dépouille. Les marques de cet ancien tétradrachme, le style du trône et la représentation des jambes parallèles nous orientent vers les séries attribuées à l’atelier de Suse”).
8)
Tyre, year CY 9 (307/306 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3299, NEWELL 1916, 52, nr. 48, obv. XLI, see pl. X, nrs. 1 and 4.
428
F. DE CALLATAŸ
Classical Numismatic Group, Mail Bid Sale 79, 17 September 2008, lot 171 (16.91 g, 7h) = Ira & Larry Goldberg, sale 69, 29 May 2012, lot 3063 (16.91 g) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on uncertain type”.
2) Other overstrikes implying lifetime of early posthumous Alexanders Obv. As for Tyre. Rev. As for Tyre. Lettter Β in left field and ΑΙ under the throne. 9)
Tarsos Hoard of Akçakale, D2096 (17.16 g; see LE RIDER 1988, 44, nr. 41). Overstruck on another Alexander (LE RIDER 1988, 44: “Cette pièce a été surfrappée sur un autre alexandre; on reconnaît au droit, en bas, les vestiges de la crinière du lion et l’on distingue au revers, en bas, une partie du corps de Zeus. D’autres exemples de pareilles surfrappes sont connus”, quoting DAVESNE and LE RIDER 1989, nr. 2170 [nb: cat. 6] and NICOLETPIERRE 1986 [nb: cat. 7]).
10)
Tarsos (ca. 333-327 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 2998; NEWELL 1916, obv. IV; rev. 17.
A TYRIAN NOTE
429
Freeman & Sear, 28 January 2002 = Classical Numismatic Group, Electronic Auction 421 (Colin E. Pitchfork coll.), 30 May 2018, lot 48 (17.10 g, 27 mm, 9h) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on uncertain type (traces visible on obverse)”.
Obv. As for Tyre. Rev. As for Tyre. Letters Μ above Β in left field; letters ΣΙ under the throne. 11)
Sidon (309-305 BC) PRICE 1991, nr. 3522; NEWELL 1916, 21-22, nr. 65-70, obv. XXXIII, see pl. V, nrs. 2-8. Classical Numismatic Group, Electronic Auction 402, 26 July 2017, lot 52 (17.00 g, 26 mm, 1h) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on uncertain type”.
Obv. As for Tyre. Rev. As for Tyre. Lettter Β in left field and ΑΙ under the throne. 12)
Berytos (ca. 320/319-315 BC) PRICE 1991, nr 3415. Classical Numismatic Group, Electronic Auction 417, 28 March 2018, lot 299 (17.10 g, 29 mm, 3h) (© CoinArchives). “Overstruck on an uncertain type”.
430
F. DE CALLATAŸ
Obv. As for Tyre. Rev. As for Tyre. Wheel in left field. 13)
Babylon (imitation) (ca. 323-310 BC) PRICE 1991, nrs. 187-202. Bruun Rasmussen, sale 856, 12 May 2015, lot 5016 (16.14 g). Overstruck (image and info provided by David MacDonald).
References CALLATAŸ, F. 2017a, ‘Greek Overstrikes Database: a short presentation’, in M. CACCAMO CALTABIANO (ed.), XVth International Numismatic Congress Taormina 2015. Proceedings vol. I, Messina: Arbor Sapientiae Editore, 467-470. DE CALLATAŸ, F. 2017b, ‘Overstrikes of late Mesambrian Alexanders: the great unbalance of their distribution and what they tell us about the logic behind’, in D. BOTEVA (ed.), Ex nummis lux. Studies in Ancient Numismatics in Honour of Dimitar Draganov, Sofia: Bobokov Bros. Foundation, 145-161. DE CALLATAŸ, F. 2018a, ‘Overstrikes in the Greek world: an overview on the full landscape and an explanation for punctual occurrences with silver coinages’, Revue belge de Numismatique 164, 26-48. DE CALLATAŸ, F. 2018b, ‘Overstrikes on Pamphylian and Cilician silver sigloi (5th-4th c. BC)’, in O. TEKIN (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Congress of the Anatolian Monetary History and Numismatics in the Mediterranean World, 5-8 January 2017 Antalya, Antalya: AKMED, Koç University, 131-150. DE
A TYRIAN NOTE
431
CALLATAŸ, F. (forthcoming),‘On pattern and purpose of overstrikes of late Hellenistic tetradrachms in Thrace and Macedonia’, in U. PETER, B. WEISSER (eds.), Thrace. Local coinage and regional identity. Numismatic research in the digital age, Berlin. DAVESNE, A., LE RIDER, G. 1989, Le trésor de Meydancikhale (Cilicie Trachée, 1980) (2 vol.), Paris. DUYRAT, F. 2016, Wealth and Warfare: The Archaeology of Money in Ancient Syria (Numismatic Studies 34), New York. LEMAIRE, A. 1976, ‘Le monnayage de Tyr et celui dit d’Akko dans la deuxième moitié du IVe siècle av. J.-C.’, Revue Numismatique 6/18, 11-24. LE RIDER, G. 1988, ‘Un trésor de tétradrachmes d’Alexandre trouvé à Akçakale en 1958’, Revue Numismatique 6/30, 42-54. MERKER, I. L. 1964, ‘Notes on Abdalonymos and the dated Alexander coinage of Sidon and Ake’, American Numismatic Society. Museum Notes 11, 13-20. NEWELL, E. T. 1916, The dated Alexander coinage of Sidon and Ake (Yale Oriental Series. Researches II), New Haven: Yale University Press. NICOLET-PIERRE, H. 1986, ‘Un pseudo-alexandre phénicien surfrappé’, Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique 41/3, 21-23. PRICE, M. J. 1991, The Coinage in the Name of Alexander the Great and Philip Arrhidaeus (2 vol.), Zürich/London: Swiss Numismatic Society. SCHINDEL, P. K. 1983, ‘Contribution à la numismatique d’Alexandre le Grand : localisation des ateliers frappant des hémidrachmes et suggestion pour une meilleure définition des critières d’atelier’, Bulletin du Cercle d’études numismatiques 20/1, 1-5. DE
A JOURNEY FROM TUNISIA TO NORTHWEST EUROPE
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE (1894) Roald F. DOCTER*
In December 1998, a trefoil-mouth jug from Carthage appeared in the Christmas sale of an Amsterdam gallery specialized in antiquities (Figs. 1-2). Although the vessel belongs to a well-known and well-studied class of Early Punic pottery, a separate discussion in the present archaeological note seems justified in view of the information furnished by a small label fixed to the wall of the vessel (Fig. 3). The purpose of this publication is twofold: in the first place it is part of a series of articles on Phoenician and Punic objects in Dutch and Belgian public collections, that ultimately will be incorporated in a project that has been so actively promoted by the honorand: the Corpus des Antiquités Phéniciennes et Puniques (CAPP), which is a project of the Union Académique Internationale (UAI)1. In the second place it may contribute to a better understanding of the Douïmès necropolis in Carthage, the findings of which have been published in such a lacunose way. On the occasion of the retirement of Eric Gubel as senior keeper at the Royal Museums of Art and History in Brussels, the jug was donated to the Museum, entering the public domain again2. The Trefoil-mouth jug Brussels, KMKG – MRAH inv. nr. O.5219 Dimensions: height 22.0 cm; diameter 10.5 cm (belly) 5.3 cm (base). Condition: intact. * Ghent University. The late M. Bootsman (then Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam) provided the photographs of Figs. 1 and 3; G. Dierkens (Ghent) is thanked for digitising and enhancing these images. M. Zilverberg (Amsterdam) kindly furnished the information on the provenance of the piece. The drawing of Fig. 3 has been prepared by J. Angenon (Ghent). Lastly, I am grateful to the Curia Generaliza dei Missionari d’Africa (Padri Bianchi) in Rome for their kind help in accessing the archives of the Lavigerie Museum and Delattre (1999-2000). My thanks go to Padre Antonio, Padre Michel and particularly to the Secretaria Generale, Padre Henk Bonke, for his permission to publish the information furnished by these archives. 1 DOCTER et al. 2001-2002; DOCTER 1999; DOCTER 1998; DOCTER 1997b, 75, 77, 91, 104, 106, figs. 102-103, 140, cat. 71-72, 98; BRIESE and DOCTER 1995; DOCTER 1994; cf. RINDELAUB 1995. 2 In his important study on Phoenician furniture, Eric Gubel (GUBEL 1987, 125) analysed and contextualized some of the finds from the Douïmès necropolis. This necropolis yielded a miniature stone table and a footstool from the grave excavated on June 5, 1895 (DELATTRE 1897c, 82-83, figs. 4849) and three more miniature stone seats of different shapes found by Delattre on January 31, 1896 (DELATTRE 1897c, 122-123, fig. 81; DELATTRE 1896, 52-54); cf. CINTAS 1976, pl. LXXXIX, 16-19.
436
R.F. DOCTER
Fig. 1: Trefoil-mouth jug (photo: M. Bootsman).
Fig. 2: Section drawing of the trefoil-mouth jug (J. Angenon).
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
437
Fig. 3: Label on wall of trefoil-mouth jug (photo: M. Bootsman).
Clay: well-fired, reddish yellow (Munsell 5 YR 7/6); inclusions (as visible): rounded quartz (numerous, medium-sized 0.2-0.5 mm) and white calcium (some, medium-sized 0.2-0.5 mm). Surface: plain, red (Munsell 2.5 YR 5/6), partly with white scum. Mouth dipped obliquely in red slip (Munsell 10 R 4/6). Surface smoothened, burnished vertically in upper part and horizontally in lower part. Unpublished. Provenance: Musée Lavigerie, Carthage (till 1914); English (?) private collection; antiquities market Belgium; private collection Brabant (the Netherlands); Kunsthandel M. Zilverberg (Amsterdam, 1998); private collection Amsterdam (1998-2001); private collection Belgium (2001-2020)3. The trefoil-mouth jug or oinochoe is of a Plain Ware variety with only the top of the mouth dipped obliquely in red slip. Part of the body is covered with a white scum, typical of the local Carthaginian fabric. J.M. Schuring4 aptly described the difference between scum and slip: “Scum derives from soluble salts in the clay, whether naturally present (sulphates of calcium, magnesium, potassium and 3 The jug has been previously on view in the exhibition ‘Carthago’ at the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden (27 November 2014 - 10 May 2015), see DOCTER, BOUSSOFARA and TER KEURS 2014 and 2015. 4 SCHURING 1984, 153.
438
R.F. DOCTER
sodium) or deliberately added. These salts crystallize on the surface of the pot during drying, especially on those parts which dry most quickly. Some of these salts combine with gases during firing to form an insoluble coat of a drab yellowgrey colour on the surface, which is often very difficult to distinguish from a true slip.” The clay is typical of Carthage, characterized by numerous well-sorted rounded quartz inclusions and few lime particles, also known as KTS (‘Karthago Tonstruktur’)5. The economical use of red slip gives a clue as to the chronology of the vessel. When applied amply, red slip as surface treatment is rather typical of Carthaginian pottery of the late 9th(?)6, the 8th and the whole of the 7th century BCE. In the latter part of the 7th century, the space occupied by red slip on the vases gradually diminishes, disappearing in the first half of the 6th century BCE7. The fact that only the mouth of the jug is dipped in red slip, suggests a rather late stage within this development, that is to say late in the 7th or within the first half of the 6th century BCE. Also with regard to the shape a similar date can be put forward. Typologically, the vessel compares with several trefoil-mouth jugs that have been published from Carthage8. Their occurrence in Carthaginian settlement contexts has been discussed by M. Vegas in her typology of Punic pottery as Form 22 (‘Kleeblattkannen’), as well as by Ch. Briese as his ‘Kanne mit Kleeblattförmiger Mündung’9. The jug is still provided with a double-reeded handle, which in Carthage is a morphological trait of the 8th and 7th century BCE; in the 6th century a simple rounded or flattened handle becomes more common. In conclusion, one may also typologically propose a date of the late 7th or within the first half of the 6th century BCE. On the characterization of the Carthaginian fabrics, see most recently BECHTOLD 2012. Recent radiocarbon dates from Early Punic layers in the Carthaginian settlement have raised the earliest occupational history of the site to the late 9th and early 8th century BCE, DOCTER et al. 2008 and 2005; more recently NÚÑEZ 2014. 7 DOCTER 1997a, § VII.2.1; BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 300. 8 Juno hill: MAASS-LINDEMANN 1982, 190, pl. 28, K19,2 (plain ware), 193, pl. 29,K25,3 (red slip, dated by two Corinthian kotylai to the third quarter of the 7th century BCE and Transitionalfirst half of the Early Corinthian period, 630-610 BCE); CINTAS 1976, 277, 287, 298, figs. 30a, 39, 42, 44, pls. XCIII,1, XCIV,7; CINTAS 1950, 125, 468, pls. XV,193-194, fig. 14. Dermech: CINTAS 1970, pl. XXI,112 (tomb 431, dated by an Early Proto-Corinthian kotyle, 715-685 BCE, red slip jug), XXII,115, 117-118 (tombs 286, 284, 290, the latter dated by Corinthian pottery to the Late Corinthian I-II period, 570-525 BCE); CINTAS 1950, 515, fig. 34 (tomb 84, 6th century BCE). Dermech Ancona: CINTAS 1976, pl. LVIII,2 (tomb 280); Byrsa hill: DELATTRE 1891, 69 with figure, and also MAASS-LINDEMANN 1982, 187-188, pl. 27, K15,2 (Plain Ware, double-reeded handle and, remarkably, a pronounced ridge at the junction of body and shoulder/neck, dated by bucchero kylix ca. 600 BCE); LANCEL and THUILLIER 1979, 259, 261, figs. 132,3, 137-138 (= GRAS, ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR 1989, 93, fig. 20,5). The latter jug originates in grave A136, which is dated by a Corinthian kotyle to the Middle Proto-Corinthian to Early Corinthian period, so between ca. 685 and 595 BCE. For the associated Corinthian pottery, see NEEFT forthcoming. 9 VEGAS 1999, 157-158, fig. 54; BRIESE 2007, 310-312, fig. 137, esp. cat. 1761 found in a context of the first half of the 6th century BCE (Stratum IV-2c1), disturbed in Roman times. 5
6
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
439
The main interest of the object under discussion lies in its label (Fig. 3), which reads: “CARTHAGE · PUNIC Circa 700-500 BC Discovered 1894 Carthage Museum until 1914 60 found, one in each tomb”
It is to be noted that the person who wrote the label, only later added ‘700-’ to the date 500 BCE, using an insertion symbol (^) at the bottom of the line. He or she also changed the date of acquisition ‘1917’ in ‘1914’. The 7 might just have been a slip of the pen, perhaps while taking place in 1917, but was already corrected upon writing. The addition to the archaeological date of the piece, however, may have occurred at a later stage, perhaps even by a different hand. The kind of label is typical for the first half of the twentieth or late nineteenth century and also the writing in ink seems rather old-fashioned. It is therefore very likely that already the first, Anglophone private owner, who acquired the jug in Carthage in 1914, shortly thereafter (in 1917?) inventoried his or her collection. On the label all information available at the time of acquisition has been written in minute detail. Although the jug is essentially to be considered as an object of no particular archaeological interest, having been dissolved from its original archaeological context, it are exactly the details on the label that are the most intriguing part of the object. They offer an insight in an excavation, which took place in 1894 in one of the major Carthaginian necropoleis, and from which otherwise relatively little is known or published. In 1894, one person in particular was very active in Carthage: Père Alfred Louis Delattre, member of the order of White Fathers10. In that very year he was involved in the excavation of two areas of the Carthaginian necropoleis, at Douïmès, to the north of the Early Punic settlement and at Bordj-Djedid farther to the north-east, that is to say north of the Roman Antonine Baths. At the latter site, the French military constructed four platforms for a coastal artillery installation in the years 1893/1894. In the course of these operations, a group of tombs was found, some of which were excavated. Delattre published the results in a cursory way in the very same year11. Since the graves 10
Part of his archives is kept in the records of the Curia Generaliza of the White Fathers in Rome. On Delattre, see also GUTRON 2010, 263-264; GRAN-AYMERICH 2001, 211; GRAN-AYMERICH and GRAN-AYMERICH 1985. An almost complete analytical bibliography of his published work has been compiled by J. Freed (FREED 2001). On the excavations of Delattre in Carthage, see FREED 2008. 11 DELATTRE 1894a. See also BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 33, 42 (Fouille no 55).
440
R.F. DOCTER
are homogeneously of a relatively late date (4th till 2nd century BCE), it can be excluded that the late 7th or first half of the 6th century BCE jug originated in one of these graves. Its typological date better fits the date range of the graves excavated in the Douïmès necropolis, that is to say the 7th till the 5th century BCE. Delattre started his work at this site in 1893 and continued till 1896. In February 1907 he returned to the site for rescue excavations avant la lettre precipitated by the construction of the TGM railroad (Train La Goulette – La Marsa), which was to link up Tunis with the coastal area to the north and which gave way to the large scale urbanisation of Carthage12. The Douïmès excavations (Fig. 4) were spurred by some fortuitous finds by local villagers in 1892 on a terrain lying at the foot of the Juno hill (Colline de Junon)13. The terrain measured slightly less than a hectare (9,691 square metres). Work by Delattre began towards the end of the summer of 1893, and continued till May 30th of 189614. In the Douïmès necropolis some 1100 graves were discovered15. The burials consisted mainly of inhumations in fossa-graves, which were either dug into the soil/bedrock or, more often, lined with worked stone slabs. To the oldest phase of the necropolis belongs the famous grave tomb of ‘Yada‘milk’, found on the 2nd of October 1894 and so called after the name inscribed on a gold medallion16. It can be dated by the associated Corinthian kotyle to within the second half of the 7th century BCE (645-615)17. It is the 12 DELATTRE 1907; H. BENICHOU-SAFAR (1982, 34) discusses these excavations together with the 1892-1896 campaigns (Fouille no 1), from which they are however to be separated. The 1907 campaign is not indicated on her (loose) fig. 3. On the disastrous effects of the TGM project and on the necessity to turn Carthage into an archaeological park, see the very modern observations of F.W. KELSEY (1926, 19-26, fig. 11). 13 DELATTRE 1897a, 485 with n. 1; DELATTRE 1897b, 1. 14 DELATTRE 1897b, 2; DELATTRE 1897c, 394. 15 On these excavations, BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 20-21, 34, fig. 4 and further references on p. 34 (Fouille no 1); DELATTRE 1907-1908; DELATTRE 1897a; DELATTRE 1897b; DELATTRE 1897c; DELATTRE 1897d; DELATTRE 1896; HÉRON DE VILLEFOSSE 1896; DELATTRE 1895; DELATTRE 1893. Delattre counted more than 1000 graves or burials (“plus d’un millier de Carthaginois y ont reçu la sépulture”, DELATTRE 1897a, 485; “plus d’un millier de tombeaux”, DELATTRE 1897c, 394). BENICHOU-SAFAR (1982, 20, 34) mentions some 1100 graves; the two anonymous White Fathers of Cardinal Lavigerie, who wrote a catalogue of Carthage (ANONYMOUS 1936, 107), however, mention more than 1500 graves, but in this number the graves excavated in 1907 may already have been included. On a map of the necropolis, drawn by the architect and diocécien Malabranche, which is dated November 2nd, 1896, some of the graves are indicated, KUNZE 2002-2003, 73, fig. 2 (locating the ‘Yada’Milk’ tomb on the map); ENNABLI 1989; here Fig. 4. 16 ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR 1991, 140-144, figs. 4-6; GRAS, ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR 1989, 161-165, figs. 43-44, colour plate after p. 160; DELATTRE 1897b, 13-18, fig. 29; DELATTRE 1894b; 448, 453, fig. 1. On the tomb and its inventory: MAASS-LINDEMANN 1982, 132-133; 171, 178-179, fig. 8, K1, pl. 24 and, ultimately, KUNZE 2002-2003. On the inscription: CIS I, 6057. On the two transport amphorae from Pithekoussai in the tomb, see KUNZE 2002-2003, 84-85, figs. 8-10; DOCTER 1997a, table 73, nrs. 33-34 and § IX.3. 17 For information on the Corinthian pottery, C.W. Neeft (Amsterdam/Brussels) is to be thanked. In May 1995, he studied all Corinthian pottery from the Carthagian necropoleis in Carthage (Musée National de Carthage) and Tunis (Musée du Bardo): NEEFT forthcoming. The date proposed by Neeft is considerably later than that presumed by G. MAASS-LINDEMANN (1982, 136) (first quarter of the
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
441
Fig. 4: Map of the Douïmès necropolis, drawn by the architect and diocécien Malabranche, dated November 2, 1896 (KUNZE 2002-2003, 73, fig. 2, reworked from ENNABLI 1989, 24-25).
most important tomb within a small group of graves, which clearly belonged to a very well-to-do family or group of persons (Fig. 4). It is especially the small group of graves around the ‘Yada‘milk’ grave tomb, which calls attention to the fact that the area commonly called ‘Douïmès 7th century BCE) or GRAS, ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR (1989, 165; 1991) (beginning of the 7th century BCE). See also KUNZE 2002-2003, 90-91, figs. 17-19. The occurrence in the Douïmès necropolis of two Corinthian ring handle pyxides with lid of the same hand belonging to the second half of the Middle Corinthian period (BERGER 1900, 142, nr. 11, pl. 22; DELATTRE 1897b, 1-2, figs. 1-2; inv. nrs. Carthage MN 894.7.1, 894.7.2, 894.7.3) has even led to the nomenclature ‘Douïmès Painter’ [Neeft], cf. BOUCHER 1953, 23, nr. 65 (but apparently not pl. 9) and nr. 66, pl. 9; NEEFT forthcoming. Previously these vessels had been attributed to the Pushkin Painter (AMYX 1989, 154).
442
R.F. DOCTER
necropolis’ should not be considered as a homogeneous ancient reality18. In fact, the area as it was excavated in the late 19th century is rather fortuitously taken together. It is composed of various single grave groups, which only in time have grown together by the addition of new graves, filling the gaps between the groups19. The borders of the terrain are likewise unclear, spreading certainly westward towards the burial area commonly denoted as the Dermech necropolis. Two questions need to be addressed in the present context: how many graves were excavated within the year 1894, and, if possible, which graves? The few preliminary publications of Delattre and others give some clues. By November 1893, so within two to three months after the start of his excavations, Delattre had already discovered some 60 graves20. This means an average of 20 to 30 graves a month. On March 13 1894, the number of graves had risen to some 150, which means that after some three to three-and-a-half months work, the monthly yield still averaged less than 30 graves. One may conclude that Delattre and his team of workmen excavated one grave every working day (Monday till Saturday). Consequently, the number of graves found within 1894 may have been some 300. In June 1895, S. Gsell informs that Delattre had opened more than 400 graves in this area. Although this could refer to the numbers found in all excavations between September 1893 and June 1895, the totals given by Delattre himself for 1895 suggest otherwise21. The activity of Delattre depended on the financing he received from different donors, in 1895 and 1896 particularly from the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres22. Especially of these excavations, we are well informed on the exact number of graves23. After a break of two months, he restarted the excavations on February 12, 1895, which would last till October 3. In this period, he opened 429 graves, so about two graves every working day. In the next year, Delattre excavated from January 13 to May 31 with a break between March 23 and April 17, finding 121 graves, so slightly more than 1 grave each working day. If we would extrapolate the number of two graves per working day in 1895 to the year 1894, we would arrive at a total of some 600 graves. In view 18 This was first recognized by S. GSELL (1924, 433): “Les dénominations Douïmès, Dermèche, Sainte-Monique, Odéon, etc., sont commodes pour désigner les lieux où des fouilles ont été faites; elles ne représentent pas des cimetières distincts.” 19 See GRAS, ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR 1989, 169; GRAS, ROUILLARD and TEIXIDOR 1991, 147150; BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 94 (referring to P. Gauckler, who apparently was the first to observe these family or social groups); GSELL 1924, 433-435. 20 DELATTRE 1897b, 2 (“une soixantaine de tombeaux”). It is not to be excluded that the first private owner of the jug had read this article and took over the number from this publication. On November 6, 1893, Delattre writes to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres that he has found some 50 graves “dans une espace fort restraint, environ 4 ares” (DELATTRE 1893, 397). 21 DELATTRE 1897c; GSELL 1895, 311. The correspondence between Gsell and Delattre from this period in the White Fathers’ archives in Rome (see n. 10) may perhaps yield further information. Unfortunately, I have not seen this part of the archives. 22 DELATTRE 1897c, 9. 23 DELATTRE 1897c.
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
443
of the numbers given by Delattre for the first quarter of 1894 and those of 1896, however, one would prefer to take a daily yield of 1 grave per working day as a base for calculating the total number of graves excavated in 1894 (ca. 300). This seems also corroborated by the number of 1 grave per day that can be calculated for Delattre’s contemporary, P. Gauckler, who employed a similar excavation system, but worked on Sundays as well24. The question which graves exactly were excavated in the year 1894 is more difficult to answer, since Delattre’s publications give very little information. Only few of these graves are described in full. Detailed descriptions of assemblages are generally rare in Delattre’s writings, illustrated ones and dated ones are even rarer25. Within the Douïmès necropolis, H. Benichou-Safar attributes a homogeneous group of some twenty graves, which came to light near the Serapeum26 and the graves found on November 28th, 189327, December 1st, 189428 and March 23rd, 189529, to the period of the late 7th and first half of the 6th century BCE. The repertoire of grave goods in the Carthaginian necropoleis became standardized by the end of the 7th century BCE. Thus, in the grave, the jug would probably have been associated with at least five other ceramic vessels: two amphorae, a mushroom jug and a double-spouted lamp on a separate plate30. The standard repertoire of six vessels remained basically unchanged throughout the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, although deviations of this rule could be observed in some areas of the Carthaginian necropoleis31. In some cases, a few other Phoenician or Greek (mainly Corinthian) vessels had been added. In other cases, only part of the repertoire accompanied the dead in the grave. When this happened, the two pouring vessels, the trefoil-mouth and the mushroom jug were the ones most likely to persist. It should be noted that, contrary to the period prior to this standardization (the late 7th century), 6th and 5th century graves almost never contain drinking vessels. It is worth mentioning too that the ceramic trefoil-mouth jug in the Douïmès necropolis was sometimes found to be substituted by a richer version, in ivory or bronze32. TLATLI 1978, 206-207. See Benichou-Safar’s index of dated grave assemblages: BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 419. 26 BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 300-301 with note 66; DELATTRE 1897b, 3-4; DELATTRE 1895; DELATTRE 1894b; DELATTRE 1894c, 14-15. 27 BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 301 with note 67; DELATTRE 1897b, 7-8. 28 BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 301 with note 68; DELATTRE 1897b, 27-28. 29 BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 301 with note 69; DELATTRE 1897c, 292-295 [extrait, 44-47]. 30 On this standard repertoire, BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 298-301, fig. 134; MAASS-LINDEMANN 1982, 133; FONT DE TARRADELL 1969, 99 ; DELATTRE 1897c, 258 with n. 1 (“deux urnes, deux fioles, la lampe et sa patère”); DELATTRE 1896, 233; GSELL 1896, 449. 31 BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 298. 32 Ivory jug in the grave of February 14, 1896 (height 15 cm: DELATTRE 1897c, 128-129, fig. 83) and a bronze jug in one of the two graves discovered on April 21, 1896 (DELATTRE 1897c, 136-137, fig. 88). 24 25
444
R.F. DOCTER
The catalogues of the Musée Lavigerie (present-day Musée National de Carthage) on the Byrsa Hill depict one trefoil-mouth jug of 23 cm in height from the Douïmès necropolis, and also the ‘Yada’Milk’ tomb contained one of 25 cm33. Morphologically, they are very comparable with the jug presented here and quite possibly form part of the 60 trefoil-mouth jugs mentioned on the label (Fig. 2)34. So, in 1894 some 300 graves were excavated. The label of the jug mentions 60 jugs, one in each tomb. Since the inclusion of an oinochoe is standard, it probably means that only 60 trefoil-mouth jugs of this type had been found. It follows that probably some 60 graves of more or less the same date range, furnished with this type of oinochoe, were excavated in 1894 (or rather between 1893 and 1896, or even 1907)35. One last question should be addressed: how would the first private owner have come in the possession of a Carthaginian jug, which evidently once belonged to the Museum of Carthage (Musée Lavigerie)? The answer has been clearly formulated by A. Beschaouch, whose words I paraphrase here36: “Another form of dispersion of archaeological finds is often only reluctantly mentioned, since it happened deliberately and in connection with one of the most famous archaeologists of Carthage, Father Albert-Louis Delattre [sic]. Under his responsibility and under the pretext of increasing the budget of the excavations, objects which were considered of little interest (like lamps, ceramic vessels and coins) were for a long period sold at the Lavigerie Museum.” Even more critically, S.-E. Tlatli referred to this custom, which even persisted till well after the second World War37. The dispersion of the finds without prior inventory is one of the many tragedies of Carthaginian archaeology. The fact that these excavations were never published adequately is another38. Although Delattre himself states that the 33 BERGER 1900, 163-164, nr. 12, pl. XXV,12. The references in this volume mention “Delattre, La necropole de Saint-Louis p. 33” (which refers to the reprint of DELATTRE 1890), as well as DELATTRE 1897a, 691-692. Only the latter reference would come into question. Plain ware jug from tomb of ‘Yada’milk’ (see n. 16); KUNZE 2002-2003, 83, 89-90, figs. 7, 15-16; MAASS-LINDEMANN 1982, 178-179, pl. 24, K1,2; CINTAS 1976, 304, fig. 45a. 34 But see above, n. 19. 35 But see above, n. 19. 36 BESCHAOUCH 1993; 1994; cf. BRIESE and DOCTER 1995. 37 TLATLI 1978, 208-209, citing a note of 1903: “La R.P. Delattre, Directeur du Musée St-Louis, a poursuivi avec le concours de l’Institut et les ressources que lui procure la vente des doubles sans grand intérêt, l’exploration des caveaux etc.” 38 A comprehensive publication with a plan of the necropolis was announced several times, but never appeared. See e.g. DELATTRE 1897c, 395: “Dans un autre travail, je donnerai le plan de la nécropole de Douïmès et je reviendrai sur la forme des diverses tombes. Le mobilier funéraire fera aussi l’objet d’une étude particulière. Ce travail, que nous annonçons ici en terminant, sera aussi accompagné d’excellents dessins de M. le Marquis d’Anselme de Puisaye, notre collaborateur.” See also BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 20. Already in 1924 critique was ushered on the way the necropoleis had been excavated: “Il est regrettable que nous ne soyons pas renseignés aussi exactement sur les
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
445
contents of each grave were registered carefully, not many assemblages seem to have been kept together39. The trefoil-mouth jug belongs to a period in which Carthage witnessed important changes; on the basis of the material culture in the settlement we have defined this as the Early Punic II period (EP II: 675-530 BCE)40. Its publication may contribute a small chapter to the otherwise pitiful thin dossier of a largescale excavation in one of Carthage’s main burial grounds41. References AMYX, D. A. 1989, Corinthian Vase-Painting in the Archaic Period (California Studies in the History of Art 25), Berkely/Los Angeles: University of California Press. ANONYMOUS 19367, Carthage autrefois Carthage aujourd’hui. Description et guide, Alger: Imprimerie des missionnaires d’Afrique. BECHTOLD, B. 2012, ‘The Pottery Production of Carthage’, FACEM (version 06/06/2012), http://www.facem.at/projectpapers.php BESCHAOUCH, A. 1993, La Légende de Carthage, Paris: Gallimard. BESCHAOUCH, A. 1994, Karthago, Ravensburg: Ravensburger Buchverlag. BENICHOU-SAFAR, H. 1982, Les tombes puniques de Carthage. Topographie, structures, inscriptions et rites funéraires, Paris: Éditions CNRS. BERGER, P. 1894, ‘Note sur un pendant de collier en or avec inscription punique, lue par M. Philippe Berger’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres 1894, 453-458. BERGER, P. 1900, Musée Lavigerie de Saint Louis de Carthage. Collection des PèresBlancs formée par le R. P. Delattre, Correspondant de l’Institut I (Musées et Collections archéologiques de l’Algérie et de la Tunisie), Paris: Ernest Leroux. BOUCHER, E. 1953, ‘Céramique archaïque d’importation au Musée Lavigerie de Carthage’, Cahiers de Byrsa III, 11-85. BRIESE, CH. 2007, ‘Die phönizisch-punische Feinkeramik archaischer Zeit. 2. Geschlossene Formen’, in H. G. NIEMEYER, R. F. DOCTER, K. SCHMIDT, B. BECHTOLD (eds.), Karthago. Die Ergebnisse der Hamburger Grabung unter dem Decumanus Maximus (Hamburger Forschungen zur Archäologie 2), Mainz am Rhein: Philipp Von Zabern, 305-327. BRIESE, CH., DOCTER, R. F. 1995, ‘Archaische Keramik aus Karthago in Leiden’, OMRO. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 75, 39-53. sépultures ouvertes auparavant à Carthage. Il eût été bon d’employer la méthode suivi dans des fouilles de nécropoles italiennes.” (GSELL 1924, 426 n. 1). See also FONT DE TARRADEL 1969, 2: “Pero todo ello, materiales y proceso de excavación, han sido publicados fragmentariamente, dispersos en varias revistas de difícil acceso.” 39 DELATTRE 1897c, 19: “(…) dont le mobilier a été enregistré avec soin au fur et à mesure des découvertes.” G. Maaß-Lindemann, e.g., could only study few of such assemblages (MAASSLINDEMANN 1982, 178-181) and even of the more exotic and easily recognizable finds from the Douïmès necropolis, like the Corinthian vessels, the precise associations had mostly already been lost by the early 50-ies of the last century (NEEFT forthcoming; BOUCHER 1953). See especially TLATLI 1978, 207-209. 40 See e.g. BECHTOLD 2010, 5 with table. 41 See a.o. BENICHOU-SAFAR 1982, 301.
446
R.F. DOCTER
CINTAS, P. 1950, Céramique punique, Paris: C. Klincksieck. CINTAS, P. 1970, Manuel d’archéologie punique I. Histoire et archéologie comparées. Chronologie des temps archaïques de Carthage et des villes phéniciennes de l’Ouest, Paris: Picard. CINTAS, P. 1976, Manuel d’Archéologie punique II. La civilisation carthaginoise. Les réalisations matérielles, Paris: Picard. CIS = ACADÉMIE DES INSCRIPTIONS ET BELLES-LETTRES (ed.) 1881, Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars Prima, Paris: Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres. DELATTRE, A. L. 1890, ‘Les tombeaux puniques de Carthage’, Missions Catholiques. Bulletin hebdomadaire illustré de l’Œuvre de la Propaganda de la Foi 22 [Reprint Lyon, 1890, 1-104]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1891, ‘Les tombeaux puniques de Carthage. Nécropole de la colline de Saint-Louis’, Revue Archéologique 17, 52-69. DELATTRE, A. L. 1893, ‘Lettres du R.P. Delattre sur les découvertes faites à Carthage, dans une nécropole punique, communiquées par M. Héron de Villefosse’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1893, 394397. DELATTRE, A. L., 1894a, ‘Rapport sur une nécropole punique découverte par le service de l’artillerie à Bordj-Djedid, près Carthage’, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques 1894, 281-285. DELATTRE, A. L., 1894b, ‘Notes du R.P. Delattre sur la nécropole punique voisine du Serapeum, à Carthage’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1894, 430-442 [see also pp. 405-406, 420, 426-427, 445-453]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1894c, Carthage. Notes archéologiques 1892-1893, Paris [Extrait du Cosmos 43]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1895, ‘Lettre du R. P. Delattre à M. Héron de Villefosse sur les fouilles de Carthage’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 1895, 296-300 [see also pp. 281-284, 320-322]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1896, ‘[untitled]’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 1896, 52-54, 70-72, 124-125, 206, 327. DELATTRE, A. L., 1897a, ‘Carthage. Quelques tombeaux de la Nécropole punique de Douïmès (1892-1894)’, Missions Catholiques. Bulletin hebdomadaire illustré de l’Œuvre de la Propaganda de la Foi 1897, 485-489; 500-501; 514-516 [extrait Lyon, 1897, 1-31]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1897b, ‘Carthage. La nécropole punique de Douïmès. Fouilles de 18931894’, Extrait du Cosmos 1897, 1-31. DELATTRE, A. L. 1897c, ‘La nécropole punique de Douïmès (à Carthage). Fouilles de 1895 et 1896’, Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France 56, 255-395 [extrait Paris 1897, 1-147]. DELATTRE, A. L. 1897d, ‘Un mois de fouilles dans la nécropole punique de Douïmès à Carthage (Fév. 1895)’, Revue Tunisienne IV, 170-177. DELATTRE, A. L. 1907-1908, ‘Fouilles de Carthage. Douïmès et la colline dite de Junon’, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques et Scientifiques LXXIV, 433-453. DOCTER, R. F. 1994, ‘Oog in oog en van hand tot hand’, Mededelingenblad Vereniging van Vrienden Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam 61, 1-8. DOCTER, R. F. 1997a, Archaische Amphoren aus Karthago und Toscanos. Fundspektrum und Formentwicklung. Ein Beitrag zur phönizischen Wirtschaftsgeschichte (with contributions of M. B. ANNIS, L. JACOBS and G. H. J. M. BLESSING) (PhD diss., Universiteit Amsterdam), Amsterdam.
A CARTHAGINIAN JUG FROM THE DOUÏMÈS NECROPOLIS AT CARTHAGE
447
DOCTER, R. F. 1997b, ‘Amforen en andere antieke containers’, in R. VAN BEECK (ed.), De Oudheid Verpakt, Amsterdam: Allard Pierson, 73-99. DOCTER, R. F. 1998, ‘Antieke munitie’, Mededelingenblad Vereniging van Vrienden Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam 71, 16. DOCTER, R. F. 1999, ‘Tussen inkt en oogschaduw: een Noord-Syrisch vaasje van faience’, Mededelingenblad Vereniging van Vrienden Allard Pierson Museum Amsterdam 74, 2-3. DOCTER, R. F., BOUSSOFARA, R., TER KEURS, P. (eds.) 2014, Carthago. Opkomst en Ondergang, Zutphen: Walburg Press. DOCTER, R. F., BOUSSOFARA, R., TER KEURS, P. (eds.) 2015, Carthage. Fact and Myth, Leiden: Sidestone. DOCTER, R. F., SMITS, E., HAKBIJL, T., STUIJTS, I. L. M., VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2003, ‘Interdisciplinary Research on Urns from the Carthaginian Tophet and their Contents’, Palaeohistoria 43/44 (2001-2002), 417-433. DOCTER, R. F., NIEMEYER, H. G., NIJBOER, A. J., VAN DER PLICHT, J. 2005, ‘Radiocarbon dates of animal bones in the earliest levels of Carthage’, in G. BARTOLONI, F. DELPINO, R. DE MARINIS, P. GASTALDI (eds.), Oriente e Occidente: metodi e discipline a confronto. Rifflessioni sulla cronologia dell’età del ferro italiana (Mediterranea. Quaderni Annuali dell’Istituto di Studi sulle Civiltà Italiche e del Mediterraneo Antico del Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche I), Roma/Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 557-577. DOCTER, R. F., CHELBI, F., MARAOUI TELMINI, B., NIJBOER, A. J., VAN DER PLICHT, J., VAN NEER, W., MANSEL, K., GARSALLAH, S. 2008, ‘New Radiocarbon dates from Carthage: bridging the gap between History and Archaeology?’, in C. SAGONA (ed.), Beyond the homeland: markers in Phoenician chronology (Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 28), Leuven: Peeters, 380-422. ENNABLI, A. 1989, ‘Necropole punique de Douimes 1892-1896’, CEDAC Carthage 10, 23-25. FONT DE TARRADELL, M. 1969, ‘El sector de Dermech de la necrópolis de Cartago. Estudio estadístico’, SAGUNTUM 6, 85-100. FREED, J. 2001, ‘Bibliography of Publications by Alfred-Louis Delattre (1850-1932)’, CEDAC Carthage Bulletin 20, 3-60. FREED, J. 2008, ‘Le père Alfred-Louis Delattre (1850-1932) et les fouilles archéologiques de Carthage’, Histoire et missions chrétiennes 2008/4, 67-100. GSELL, S. 1895, ‘Chronique archéologique africaine’, MEFRA. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 15, 306-350. GSELL, S. 1896, ‘Chronique archéologique africaine’, MEFRA. Mélanges de l’école française de Rome 16, 441-490. GSELL, S. 19242, Histoire Ancienne de l’Afrique du Nord IV. La civilisation carthaginoise, Paris: Hachette. GRAN-AYMERICH, E. 2001, Dictionnaire biographique d’archéologie 1798-1945, Paris: Éditions CNRS. GRAN-AYMERICH, E., GRAN-AYMERICH, J. 1985, ‘Les grands archéologues. A.L. Delattre’, Archeologia 208, 74-80. GRAS, M., ROUILLARD, P., TEIXIDOR, J. 1989, L’Univers phénicien, Paris: Arthaud. GRAS, M., ROUILLARD, P., TEIXIDOR, J. 1991, ‘The Phoenicians and Death’, Berytus 39, 127-176. GUBEL, E. 1987, Phoenician Furniture. A Typology based on Iron Age Representations with Reference to the Iconographical Context (Studia Phoenicia VII), Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
448
R.F. DOCTER
GUTRON, C. 2010, L’archéologie en Tunisie (XIXe-XXe siècles). Jeux généalogiques sur l’Antiquité, Paris/Tunis: Karthala/IRMC. HÉRON DE VILLEFOSSE, A. 1896, ‘[untitled]’, Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France 1896, 233-235. KELSEY, F. W. 1926, Excavations at Carthage 1925. A preliminary Report, New York/ London: Macmillan Company. KUNZE, C. 2002-2003, ‘The Tomb of Yadamelek. A new approach to its architecture, burial rite and grave goods’, in TALANTA. Proceedings of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society XXXIV-XXXV, 71-112. LANCEL, S. 1995, Carthage. A History, Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell. LANCEL, S., THUILLIER, J.-P. 1979, ‘Rapport préliminaire sur la campagne de 1976 (niveaux puniques)’, in S. LANCEL (ed.), Byrsa I. Rapports préliminaires des fouilles (1974-1976). Mission Archéologique française à Carthage, Rome: École française de Rome, 187-270. MAASS-LINDEMANN, G. 1982, Toscanos. Die westphönikische Niederlassung an der Mündung des Río de Vélez. 3. Grabungskampagne 1971 und die importdatierte westphönikische Grabkeramik des 7./6. Jhs. v. Chr. (Madrider Forschungen 6,3). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. NEEFT, C. W. forthcoming, ‘Corinthian Pottery of the Carthage National Museum and the Tunis Bardo Museum’, Carthage Studies. NÚÑEZ, F. J. 2014, ‘The Lowest Levels at Bir Massouda and the Foundation of Carthage. A Levantine Perspective’, Carthage Studies 8, 7-46. RINDELAUB, A. 1995, ‘Thymiateria in Form einer Frauenprotome im Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden’, OMRO. Oudheidkundige Mededelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 75, 55-62. SCHURING, J. M. 1984, ‘Studies on Roman Amphorae I-II’, BABESCH. Bulletin Antieke Beschaving. Annual Papers on Classical Archaeology 59, 137-195. TLATLI, S.-E. 1978, La Carthage Punique. Étude urbaine. La ville. Ses fonctions. Son rayonnement, Paris: Maisonneuve. VEGAS, M. 1999, ‘Phöniko-punische Keramik aus Karthago’, in F. RAKOB (ed.), Die deutschen Ausgrabungen in Karthago (Karthago III), Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 93-219.
LE BRONZE DE CHALON, LE SCARABÉE DE MANDEURE ET LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE Martín ALMAGRO-GORBEA*
La « précolonisation » de la Méditerranée occidentale, antérieure aux navigations phéniciennes, est un sujet discuté, car les spécialistes ne se mettent pas d’accord sur ce que l’on entend par « précolonisation » et, par conséquent, sur sa signification et sa chronologie. Cependant, depuis les années 1980, les découvertes archéologiques ont révélé des contacts entre le Proche-Orient et la Méditerranée occidentale à la fin du 2e millénaire av. J.-C.1, documentés par des matériaux différents de ceux du circuit mycénien2. Ce fait est évident dans la Péninsule Ibérique, où, non sans controverse3, on accepte l’existence de contacts « précoloniaux »4 antérieurs au début de la colonisation phénicienne5. Il n’a cependant jamais été suggéré que ces voyages « précoloniaux » phéniciens atteignaient la Gaule, bien qu’il soit évident que les Phéniciens ont dû naviguer le long de ses côtes6 bien avant la fondation de Massalia par les Phocéens7. À ce propos, nous allons examiner deux intéressantes découvertes archéologiques, connues depuis des années, mais jamais mises en liaison avec la « précolonisation ». L’une est une figurine de bronze conservée au Musée Denon, à Chalonsur-Saône pour laquelle une origine orientale a déjà été proposée8. L’autre est un scarabée égyptien provenant du village gallo-romain de Mandeure (Doubs) en Franche-Comté, une découverte tout aussi problématique9.
* Madrid, Académico Anticuario de la Real Academia de la Historia. 1 ALMAGRO GORBEA 1977, 491-496 ; NIEMEYER 1981 ; SCHAUER 1983 ; ALMAGRO GORBEA 1998. 2 BISI 1968 ; VAGNETI 1982 ; VAGNETTI et LO SCHIAVO 1985 ; VAGNETI 2000 ; BLAKE 2008. 3 AUBET 1987, 180-182 ; AUBET 2009, 216-217 ; RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO 2013, 268-311. 4 MOSCATI 1983 ; BOTTO 1986 ; ALMAGRO GORBEA 2000 ; ALMAGRO GORBEA 2001 ; LÓPEZ CASTRO 2001 ; GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES et al. 2004 ; TORRES 2008 ; CELESTINO, RAFEL et ARMADA 2008 ; GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES et al. 2010 ; ÁLVAREZ 2011 ; RUIZ-GÁLVEZ PRIEGO 2013, 272-287 ; BOTTO 2016 ; MEDEROS et GÓMEZ TOSCANO 2018. 5 GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES et al. 2006 ; MEDEROS 2006 ; MEDEROS 2008 ; ÁLVAREZ 2011 ; BOTTO 2016. 6 BENOIT 1965, 17-20, 56-66 ; GRAS 1995. 7 BENOIT 1965, 89-93 ; HERMARY et TRÉZINY, 1999. 8 BOUCHER 1983, pl. 1. 9 Cf. infra.
450
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
Fig. 1 : Figure celto-italique du Musée Denon (a: photo Musée Denon ; b: photo J. Gran Aymerich ; c-d: BUCHER 1983, no 1).
La figurine en bronze du Musée Denon La petite figurine en bronze du Musée Denon10, inv. no 63-14-1 (Fig. 1) a été retrouvée dans un tas de sable acheté à la Société Anonyme des Dragages de Chalon. Elle a été découverte par M. André Verjux, qui, par l’intermédiaire de M. André-Charles Gros l’a remise au Musée Denon le 6 septembre 196311. Ces circonstances empêchent d’identifier l’endroit exact où cet objet a été trouvé et son contexte archéologique, mais il est évident qu’il provient du fond de la Saône, probablement entre Chalon-sur-Saône et Verdun ou peut-être à Saunières. Cette figurine est coulée en bronze à la cire perdue et mesure 12.4 cm de hauteur. Il s’agit, en principe, d’un personnage féminin dont la forme et la stylisation 10 Nous voulons remercier Mme. Brigitte Maurice Chabard, directrice du Musée Denon, de Chalon-sur-Saône, pour les photos de cette figurine. Nous remercions également J. Gran Aymerich pour sa photographie de la pièce. 11 BONNAMOUR 1977, 33, fig. 1 ; BOUCHER 1983, 42, no 233.
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
451
permettent de la rapprocher de certaines figurines en bronze orientales. Le visage, ovale, au menton arrondi, a des yeux et un nez en saillie ; la bouche est indiquée par un petit trou presque circulaire et les oreilles sont modelées en petites protubérances. Les cheveux sont indiqués par de petites perforations circulaires et la tête est recouverte d’un bonnet qui, de par son profil légèrement pointu, pourrait être interprété comme un lebbadé. La tête est soutenue par un haut cou circulaire. Le torse est tronconique, très allongé et mince (Fig. 1: c), avec les seins et le nombril indiqués par de petits cercles incisés. Le torse nu termine par une taille de guêpe, à partir de laquelle la silhouette s’élargit et adopte une forme triangulaire pour représenter une jupe évasée qui couvre cette moitié du corps jusque sous le genou. La jupe se termine par une ligne incisée parallèlement au bord en guise de décoration. Les bras filiformes, de section circulaire très mince, sont cassés et les avant-bras et les mains sont perdus. La figurine se tient sur deux jambes parallèles quelque peu déformées qui, comme les bras, sont de forme tubulaire. Leur extrémité est pliée à angle droit pour former des pieds, aplatis et simples, dépourvus d’orteils. Bien qu’il soit difficile de le voir en raison de l’oxydation de la surface, l’avant de la jupe portée par cette figurine présente un intéressant décor gravé. On peut y apercevoir les trois doubles traits convergents d’un triscèle aux bras courbes (Fig. 1: d), complétés aux extrémités par d’autres traits décoratifs similaires encore moins visibles. De manière générale, cette figurine est relativement bien conservée, même si les extrémités des bras sont manquantes, sa jambe gauche déformée et sa surface altérée par oxydation. La classification de cette figurine en bronze a toujours posé problèmes. Boucher, en la publiant, la considérait comme un « objet hors-série », car « Il ne peut pas être oriental (J. Bouzek), ni étrusque, ni grecque, ni hispanique, ni sarde, ni hallstattien (V. Kruta). Certains ont pensé à une création médiévale […] Nous pensons cependant qu’elle est d’une très haute antiquité ». En effet, cette figurine du Musée Denon n’est pas facile à classer. Elle présente des caractéristiques rappelant des figurines d’origine syro-palestinienne12, tout en ne ressemblant à aucun type ni à aucune pièce en particulier. Son profil plat tout à fait caractéristique13 et son torse triangulaire allongé, à la taille très marquée, rappelle, par exemple, les figurines du dépôt du mur nord du Temple aux Obélisques de Byblos14, bien que celles-ci portent un lebbadé plus allongé et pointu et sont dépourvues de pieds. De plus, ces parallèles syro-palestiniens peuvent avoir les yeux saillants15 et les pieds doublés en angle, ce qui n’est pas le cas de la figurine du Musée Denon qui ne possède pas ces pivots caractéristiques destinés à soutenir la pièce. De même que ses bras presque symétriques n’ont 12 13 14 15
NEGBI 1976 ; SEEDEN 1980, 132. SEEDEN 1980, pl. 15-17, no 56-60, pl. 20-22, no 78-81. SEEDEN 1980, pl. 72-79, no 1175-1349. SEEDEN 1980, pl. 19, no 67-75, pl. 85-87, no 1502-1518 ; etc.
452
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
pas de parallèles, sa tête disproportionnée est tout à fait particulière car elle équivaut à 1/9 de la figurine. Sans être habituel, on trouve aussi des parallèles pour sa jupe qui fait penser au chitón long s’étendant jusqu’à mi-jambe16 de certaines figurines du dépôt susmentionné du Temple aux Obélisques17, de figurines du dit temple de Byblos18, d’une figurine égyptisante de divinité masculine d’origine inconnue ou encore d’une figurine de Kamid el-Lōz19. La calotte basse au profil angulaire en forme de diadème s’éloigne de la couronne hedjet de la HauteÉgypte et se rapproche du lebbadé des figures syro-palestiniennes du groupe XII de Seeden, mais sans coïncider avec aucune d’elles20. Ces dernières figurines datent de la fin du 2e millénaire et des débuts du er 1 av. J.-C. Elles s’étendent à travers la Méditerranée orientale et les terres adjacentes21, mais leur évolution à l’Âge du fer est mal connue22, bien que ce soit de ceci que proviennent les figures de bronze phéniciennes de la Méditerranée occidental23. En résumé, sans exclure en principe que cette figure de bronze puisse provenir de la région syro-palestinienne et qu’elle soit arrivée à travers des contacts « précoloniaux », elle ne correspond à aucun des types identifiés dans la zone syro-palestinienne. Elle ne semble pas non plus provenir d’un atelier syropalestinien inconnu de l’Âge du fer, pas plus qu’elle ne s’apparente aux bronzes égéens24, sardes25 ou phéniciens de l’époque coloniale26. Une alternative est de relier cette figurine à la série de figurines archaïques de Minerve italique et bronzes similaires du Ve siècle av. J.-C.27, dont la production a duré jusqu’au IVe siècle av. J.-C.28 Ces bronzes italiques se caractérisent par leur faible épaisseur, l’utilisation d’un chiton s’étendant jusqu’à mi-jambe avec une bordure ou paryphé marqué par une ligne gravée parallèlement au bord, une taille de guêpe, un cou généralement long, des bras et des jambes tubulaires et des pieds en biais. Cette interprétation laisserait penser que son étrange chapeau pointu pourrait être le casque des Minervae italiques avec son haut cimier perdu, alors que les bras cassés, à l’instar des pièces italiques, auraient tenu une lance et un SEEDEN 1980, 34, pl. K, no 1682, 22, no 96; 26, no 103ª. SEEDEN 1980, pl. 72, no 1181-1182; pl. 78, no 1333. 18 SEEDEN 1980, pl. 83, no 1472. 19 SEEDEN 1980, pl. 101, no 1718 et 103, no 1728. 20 SEEDEN 1980, pl. 111-116. 21 SEEDEN 1980, pl. 108-116 et 119B. 22 SPYCKET 1981, 427-430 ; MOOREY et FLEMING 1984, 71, 73-76. 23 BERNARDINO et BOTTO 2010 ; JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA 2014 ; JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA 2015. 24 SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS 1995. 25 LILLIU 1966 ; BISI 1977 ; BISI 1987. 26 BISI 1980 ; BISI 1986 ; BERNARDINO et BOTTO 2010 ; GOMES 2012, 105, fig. 22 et 55 ; JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA 2014 ; JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA 2015. 27 COLONNA 1970, no 43, 37, pl. 13, no 45, 38, pl. 15, no 54, 41, pl. 16, no 58, 42, pl. 17-18, o n 139, 66, pl. 36 ; RICCHIARDI 1981, 169-170, no 117 ; COLONNA 1984, 1053 et 1073, no 53-63. 28 COLONNA 1970. 16
17
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
453
bouclier. Mais la figurine du Musée Denon ne présente pas la position de « Smiting Goddess » avec la jambe en avant caractéristique de ces figures de Minerve. Ses caractéristiques coïncident, plutôt, avec les groupes 3B et 3C des figurines appelées Walking Korai par E. Richardson29, produites en Étrurie interne et en Ombrie et dérivées de prototypes étrusques de style sévère. Le corps de ces figurines est plus volumineux, mais leur attitude est similaire et certaines portent un diadème et un chiton ou jupe décorée. Certains de ces bronzes d’Ombrie ont par ailleurs les seins et le nombril indiqués par des cercles estampés tout comme la figure du Musée Denon30. Cependant, le détail le plus singulier de cette figurine du Musée Denon est sans aucun doute le triscèle à bras incurvés gravée sur sa jupe (Fig. 1: d). Bien que certaines Minerves archaïques italiques aient également un chiton décoré31, le triscèle est un motif caractéristique de l’art celtique, qui a dû être placé à un endroit aussi visible en raison de sa signification solaire et protectrice32. Le triscèle apparaît déjà sur des orthostates gravés de Malte et de Newgrange33 et sur des vases de l’Helladique Récent III, mais il est devenue un élément caractéristique de l’art celtique de la civilisation de La Tène, bien que son utilisation soit déjà documentée à partir du VIe siècle av. J.-C. dans la civilisation Hallstattique34. La forme incurvée de ce triscèle associée à des motifs secondaires, éventuellement gravés avec un compas, permet de le relier aux décors de La Tène A datés du Ve siècle av. J.-C.35 et, par conséquent, de l’associer à d’autres bronzes italiques trouvés au nord des Alpes, tels ceux de Vienne dans le département d’Isère, d’Autun en Bourgogne, de Habère-Lullin en Haute-Savoie, d’Auvernier dans le canton de Neuchâtel, en Suisse, etc.36 En conclusion, sans exclure totalement une origine syro-palestinienne, il semble plutôt que cette figurine de bronze soit liée à des bronzes italiques de tradition archaïque, bien que le triscèle qui décore sa jupe est caractéristique de la période de La Tène, ce qui confirmerait sa chronologie du Ve siècle av. J.-C. Cette figurine si intéressante n’est donc pas le fruit de la « précolonisation » phénicienne. Elle présente néanmoins un grand intérêt car c’est un nouveau document sur les relations du monde celtique avec le monde italique37.
RICHARDSON 1983, 317-320, fig. 755-765, pl. 225-228. RICHARDSON 1983, fig. 763 et 765. 31 COLONNA 1970, no 43, pl. 13, no 45, pl. 15, no 54, pl. 16, no 139, pl. 36 ; RICHARDSON 1983, fig. 763-764. 32 GRENIER 1970, 288 ; JOUËT 2012, 983. 33 MURPHY et MOORE 2000, 168-169. 34 DUVAL 1977, 322, fig. 80, 230, 242, 256, 276, 434, 440, H-I ; KRUTA 2000, 846. 35 MEGAW et MEGAW 1994, fig. 51. 36 COLONNA 1970, 200-201 ; BOUCHER 1976, 22-23. 37 BOUCHER 1976, 34-35. 29 30
454
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
Fig. 2 : Scarabée de Mandeure, Doubs (LECLANT 1955-1960, figs. 16-17, pl. 12).
Le scarabée égyptien de Mandeure Un autre objet problématique susceptible de documenter d’éventuels contacts phéniciens « précoloniaux » est un scarabée égyptien trouvé dans le village galloromain de Mandeure38, situé sur les rives du Doubs, en Franche-Comté39 (Fig. 2). BOUCHEY 1862 ; BARRAL 2011. BERNARD et CUSENIER 1955, 349-350, fig. 112 ; LECLANT 1955-1960, 405 ; LECLANT 1958, 101, fig. 16-17, pl. 12 ; YOYOTTE 1988, 55-59. 38 39
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
455
Fabriqué en pâte de verre de couleur blanche légèrement verdâtre, ce scarabée est assez grand puisqu’il mesure 30 mm de long, 23 mm de large et 12 mm de haut. Il possède la perforation longitudinale habituelle et il est bien gravé, même s’il n’est pas de grande qualité ni bien conservé. Son avers, bien modelé, présente le clypeus, le prothorax et des élytres bien différenciés avec de grands triangles gravés remplis de lignes parallèles dans l’union de ceux-ci au prothorax. Son sceau révèle une inscription hiéroglyphique que E. Drioton (communication personnelle à J. Leclant) lit comme un cryptogramme d’Amon, Mrỉ-Ỉmn Rꜥ mrỉ nb sw, « bien-aimé d’Amon-Ra, est celui qui l’a aimé ». Ce scarabée est du type VI de Newberry40 et de Vercoutter41, mais Feghali Gorton ne le retient pas et ne le mentionne pas parmi les scarabées trouvés en France42. Cependant, de ce type de scarabée, daté d’une période comprise entre le XIe et le VIIIe siècles av. J.-C., on connait sept pièces similaires, toutes retrouvées dans les fouilles de Pierre Montet à Tanis43 et toutes portant une inscription « cryptographique », ce qui indique l’origine tanite du scarabée de Mandeure. Les caractéristiques du scarabée de Mandeure et sa haute chronologie ont fait suspecter qu’il s’agissait d’une fausse découverte locale. Il provient des niveaux gallo-romains du village de Mandeure, ce qui a fait mettre en doute son authenticité et a conduit J. Yoyotte à considérer que ce scarabée proviendrait des fouilles de Tanis et que son apparition à Mandeure serait due à une supercherie moderne44. Cependant, il n’y a pas d’autres indices dans ce sens et on ne peut expliquer qui aurait orchestré cette étrange falsification et pour quelles raisons. Il n’y a donc aucune vraie raison d’exclure l’hypothèse que ce scarabée soit arrivé dans l’antiquité, ce qui permet de penser qu’il s’agit d’un objet peut-être provenant du commerce phénicien en Méditerranée. Il faut aussi noter que ce scarabée est originaire de Tanis45. Cette importante ville était la capitale de l’Égypte à l’époque de la Troisième Période Intermédiaire (ca. 1069-656 av. J.-C.), au cours des XXIe et XXIIe dynasties, quand elle devint un grand centre commercial stratégique dans le delta oriental du Nil. Les navigateurs phéniciens visitaient fréquemment son port au début de l’expansion coloniale, à la fin du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. En effet, après la phase d’instabilité due aux Peuples de la Mer, au début de l’Âge du fer, commença l’expansion coloniale phénicienne en parallèle à l’épanouissement de Sidon à la fin du XIIe siècle et au XIe siècle av. J.-C., avant que Tyr devienne le plus grand centre colonial phénicien à partir du Xe siècle av. J.-C. 46 40 41 42 43 44 45
1996. 46
NEWBERRY 1906. VERCOUTTER 1945, 73. FEGHALI GORTON 1996, 154-155, map 1. MONTET 1947-1960. YOYOTTE 1988, 55-59. MONTET 1942 ; VON BECKERATH 1951 ; RÖMER 1986 ; STIERLIN et ZIEGLER 1987 ; BRISSAUD MARKOE 2003, 28-29.
456
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
Ce contexte historique se reflète dans le célèbre texte des Mésaventures d’Ounamon47. Lors de son voyage en Phénicie, Ounamon (1.3-1.8) part de Tanis48, le principal port d’Égypte. Dans cette ville s’étaient installés des armateurs phéniciens de Byblos et de Sidon, villes avec lesquelles des contacts étaient maintenus par l’intermédiaire de ligues commerciales49, telle la compagnie de navigation de Barakhel ou Birkhet-El50. Sa flotte avait sa base à Tanis (Ounamon 1,59), car cette ville avait des relations avec 20 navires de Byblos et 50 de Sidon, selon ce que raconte Ounamon dans son récit51. Le voyage d’Ounamon remonte à 1065 av. J.-C., sous le règne de Smendes Ier (ca. 1069-1043 av. J.-C.), fondateur de la XXIe dynastie, bien que d’autres auteurs situent ce voyage un siècle plus tard, à la fin de la XXIe dynastie et le début de la XXIIe52, car à partir de Sheshonq Ier (ca. 945-924 av. J.-C.) 53, au début de la XXIIe dynastie, les relations de l’Égypte se développèrent, quand précisément Tanis était la capitale54, juste au début de l’expansion coloniale des phéniciens dans la Méditerranée. De plus, le scarabée de Mandeure témoigne de l’accroissement du pouvoir du dieu Amon à cette époque des XXIe et XXIIe dynasties, lorsque le gouvernement de l’Égypte avait tendance à adopter des formes théocratiques, dans lesquelles le pouvoir n’était pas détenu par le pharaon, mais par Amon, dont on peut observer la prédominance dans la décoration des temples, dans le titre royal et dans les hymnes qui le louent en tant que souverain55. Cette politique théocratique, incarnée dans les invocations du dieu, transparaît dans les nombreux sceaux et scarabées des XXIe et XXIIe dynasties, peut-être produits dans le temple d’Amon de Tanis56. Ces scarabées, parmi lesquels nous devons inclure le spécimen trouvé à Mandeure, ont été largement diffusés dans toute la région phénicienne-palestinienne57. Ce fait soulève la possibilité que ce scarabée ait atteint la Méditerranée occidentale dans l’Antiquité par le biais de navigateurs phéniciens, qui, lors de leurs explorations, pourraient avoir remonté la route du Rhône et leurs marchandises atteindre la Saône, une des voies principales de l’Europe préhistorique58, ce qui expliquerait l’arrivé de ce scarabée à Mandeure.
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
LEFEVBRE 1949 ; GOEDICKE 1975 ; BUNNENS 1978 ; SCHIPPER 2005. SCHIPPER 2005, 168-169. LECLANT 1987, 77-84. EISLER 1924, 61-63. SAUVAGE 2012, 259. SCHIPPER 2005, 332. EGBERTS 1998 ; HELCK 1986 ; SASS 2002. MARKOE 2003, 36-37. RÖMER 1989, 81-82. KEEL 1995, 36 ; KEEL et UEHLINGER 2010, 484, § 254. SCHIPPER 2005, 305-308, fig. 2. COSTE 1810 ; BONNAMOUR 2000 ; DAUBIGNEY, BARRAL et KAENEL 2010.
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
457
Ces données ne peuvent en aucun cas être considérées comme concluantes. La figurine en bronze du Musée Denon étant écartée parce qu’elle n’est pas orientale, le scarabée de Mandeure laisse néanmoins ouverte la question d’une possible présence sur le Rhône des Phéniciens dans les temps « précoloniaux ». Mais, pour accepter cette thèse, nous devons attendre avec prudence que de nouveaux documents plus concluants apparaissent. Bibliographie ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M. 1977, El Bronce Final y el Periodo Orientalizante en Extremadura (Biblioteca Prehistórica Hispánica 14), Madrid : Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Español de Prehistoria. ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M. 1998, ‘“Precolonización” y Cambio Socio-Cultural en el Bronce Atlántico’, in S. OLIVEIRA JORGE (éd.), Existe uma Idade do Bronze Atlântico? (Trabalhos de Arqueologia 10), Lisboa : Instituto Português de Arqueologia, 81100. ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M. 2000, ‘La precolonización fenicia en la Península Ibérica’, in M. BARTHÉLÉMY, M. E. AUBET-SEMMLER (éds.), Actas del IV Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Cádiz- 2 al de octubre de 1995, Madrid : Universidad de Cádiz, 711-721. ALMAGRO-GORBEA, M. 2001, ‘Cyprus, Phoenicia and Iberia: from “Precolonization” to Colonization in the “Far West’, in L. BONFANTE, V. KARAGEORGHIS (éds.), Italy and Cyprus in Antiquity, 1500-450 BC: Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America at Columbia University, November 16-18, 2000, Nicosia : Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation, 239-270. ÁLVAREZ, M. 2011, Fenicios en Tartesos. Nuevas perspectivas (BAR International Series 2245), Oxford : Archaeopress. AUBET, M. E. 1987 (20093), Tiro y las colonias fenicias de Occidente, Barcelona: Crítica/ Bellatera. BARRAL, P. 2011, Mandeure. Une ville antique sur le Doubs (Archéologie en FrancheComté), Besançon : DRAC Franche-Comté - Service régional de l’archéologie. BENOIT, F. 1965, Recherches sur l’hellénisation du Midi de la Gaule (Publications des annales de la Faculté des Lettres, N.S. 43), Aix-en-Provence : Faculté des Lettres. BERNARD, R., CUSENIER, R. 1955, ‘Deux objets antiques découverts à Mandeure (Doubs)’, Revue Archéologique de l’Est et du Centre-Est 6, 349-350. BERNARDINI, P., BOTTO, M. 2010, ‘I bronzi ‘fenici’ della Penisola Italiana e della Sardegna’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 38/1, 17-117. BISI, A. M. 1968, ‘Fenici o Micenei in Sicilia nella seconda metà del II millennio a.C. (In margine al cosiddetto Melquart di Sciacca)’, in Atti e Memorie del Iº Congresso Internazionale di Micenologia. Roma 27 settembre – 3 ottobre 1967, Roma : Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1156-1168. BISI, A. M. 1977, ‘L’apport phénicien aux bronzes nouragiques de Sardaigne’, Latomus 36, 909-932. BISI, A. M. 1980, ‘La diffusion du ‘Smiting God’ syro-palestinien dans le milieu phénicien d’Occident’, Karthago 19, 5-14. BISI, A. M. 1986, ‘Le ‘Smiting God’ dans les milieux phéniciens d’Occident: un réexamen de la question’, in C. BONNET, E. LIPIŃSKI, P. MARCHETTI (éds.), Religio Phoenicia :
458
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
acta Colloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 mensis Decembris anni 1984 (Studia Phoenicia IV), Namur : Société des Études Classiques, 169-187. BISI, A. M. 1987, ‘Bronzi vicino-orientali in Sardegna: importazione ed influssi’, in Nuragic Sardinia and the Mycenaean World. Studies in Sardinian Archaeology III (BAR International Series 387), Oxford : Archaeopress, 225-246. BLAKE, E. 2008, ‘The Mycenaeans in Italy: A Minimalist Position’, Papers of the British School at Rome 76, 1-34. BONNAMOUR, L. 1977, ‘Chronique archéologique’, Mémoires de la Société d’Histoire et d’Archéologie de Chalon-sur-Saône 46, 15-70. BONNAMOUR, L. 2000, Archéologie de la Saône, 150 ans de recherches. Le fleuve gardien de la mémoire, Paris : Éditions Errance. BOTTO, M. 1986, ‘I commerci fenici e la Sardegna nella fase precoloniale’, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 9, 125-149. BOTTO, M. 2016, ‘The Phoenicians in the central-west Mediterranean and Atlantic between ‘precolonization’ and the ‘first colonization’’, in G. L. M. BURGERS, L. DONNELLAN, V. NIZZO (éds.), Context of Early Colonization:acts of the conference contextualizing early colonization : archeology, sources, chronology and interpretative models between Italy and the Mediterranean, 1 (Papers of the Netherlands Institute in Rome 64), Rome : Palombi Editori, 289-309. BOUCHER, S. 1976, Recherches sur les bronzes figurés de Gaule préromaine et romaine, Rome : École Française de Rome. BOUCHER, S. 1983, Les bronzes figurés antiques. Musée Denon, Chalon-sur-Saône, Chalon-sur-Saône/Lyon : L’Hermès. BOUCHEY, E.-A. 1862, Recherches historiques sur la ville, la principauté et la république de Mandeure (Epomandonadorum) : origines et histoire de l’ancien comté de Montbéliard, Besançon : Jacquin. BRISSAUD, P. 1996, ‘Tanis (Tell San El-Hagar)’, in J. G. WESTENHOLZ (éd.), Royal Cities of the Biblical World, Jerusalem : Bible Lands Museum, 113-149. BUNNENS, G. 1978, ‘La mission d’Ounamon en Phénicie. Point de vue d’un nonégyptologue’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 6, 1-16. CELESTINO, S., RAFEL, N., ARMADA, X.-L. 2008, Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII-VIII ane). La precolonización a debate, Madrid : Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología. COLONNA, G. 1970, Bronzi votivo umbro sabellici a figura umana. I, Periodo arcaico, Firenze : G.C. Sansoni. COLONNA, G. 1984, ‘Menerva’, Lexicon Iconographicon Mithologiae Classicae 2, Zürich/ München : Artemis Verlag, 1050-1074. COSTE, C. L. 1810, Mémoire historique sur l’ancienne navigation du Doubs et de la Saône, Besançon : s. ed. DAUBIGNEY, A., BARRAL, PH., RICHARD, A., KAENEL, G. 2010, L’isthme européen RhinSaône-Rhône dans la Protohistoire : approches nouvelles en hommage à JacquesPierre Millotte (Actes du colloque de Besançon, 2006), Besançon : Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté. DUVAL, P.-M. 1977, Les Celtes (L’Univers des formes), Paris : Gallimard. EGBERTS, A. 1998, ‘Hard Times. The Chronology of ‘The Report of Wenamun’ Revised’, Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 125/2, 93-108. EISLER, R. 1924, ‘Barakhel Sohn & Cie., Rhedereigesellschaft in Tanis’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 78, 61-63. FEGHALI GORTON, A. 1996, Egyptian and Egyptianizing Scarabs. A typology of steatite, faience and paste scarabs from Punic and other Mediterranean sites (Oxford
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
459
University Committee for Archaeology. Monograph 44), Oxford : Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. GOEDICKE, H. 1975, The Report of Wenamun, Baltimore : John Hopkins University Press. GOMES, F. B. 2012, Aspectos do sagrado na colonização fenícia, Lisboa : Centro da Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., LLOMPART, J., SERRANO, L. 2004, El emporio fenicio precolonial de Huelva (ca. 900-770 a.C.), Madrid : Biblioteca Nueva. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., SERRANO, L., LLOMPART, J. 2006, ‘Las evidencias más antiguas de la presencia fenicia en el sur de la Península’, Mainake 28, 105-128. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, F., SERRANO, L., LLOMPART, J. 2010, ‘El inicio de la Edad del Hierro en el suroeste de la Península Ibérica. Las navegaciones precoloniales y cuestiones en torno a las cerámicas locales de Huelva’, in P. MACÍAS, R. BOMBA (éds.), IV Encuentro de Arqueología del Suroeste Peninsular, Huelva : Universidad de Huelva, 648-698. GRENIER, A. 1970, Les Gaulois, Paris : Payot. GRAS, M. 1985, Trafics tyrrhéniens archaïques (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 258), Paris/Rome : École française de Rome. HELCK, W. 1986, ‘Wenamun’, in W. HELCK, E. OTTO (éds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6: Stele - Zypresse, Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 1215-1217. HERMARY, A., TRÉZINY, H. 1999, Marseille grecque : 600-49 av. J.-C. La cité phocéenne, Paris : Errance. JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA, J. 2014, ‘Bronze Male Deities: Elements for the identification of a Phoenician Group in Mediterranean’, in A. M. ARRUDA (éd.), Fenícios e Púnicos por terra e mar 2:Actas do VI Congresso Internacional de Estudos Fenícios e Púnicos, II, Lisboa : Centro de Arqueologia da Universidade de Lisboa, 762-771. JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA, J. 2015, ‘Figuritas fenicias del Mediterráneo. Caracterización y novedades’, in J. JIMÉNEZ ÁVILA (éd.), Phoenician Bronzes in Mediterranean (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana 45), Madrid : Real Academia de la Historia, 197230. JOUËT, Ph. 2012, Dictionnaire de la mythologie et de la religion celtiques, Fouesnant : Yoran Embanner. KEEL, O. 1995, Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/Israel. Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Einleitung (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis – Series Archaeologica 10), Freiburg : Academic Press. KEEL, O., UEHLINGER, C. 2010, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole. Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen, Freiburg : Academic Press. KRUTA, V. 2000, Les Celtes. Histoire et dictionnaire, Paris : Laffont. LECLANT, J. 1955-1960, ‘Découvertes de monuments égyptiens ou égyptisants hors de la vallée du Nil’, Orientalia 30, 391-406. LECLANT, J. 1958, ‘Fouilles et travaux en Égypte, 1955-1957’, Orientalia 27, 75-101. LECLANT, J. 1987, ‘Le rayonnement de l’Égypte au temps des rois tanites et libyens’, in J. YOYOTTE (éd.), Tanis. L’or des pharaons, Paris : Association Française d’Action Artistiques, 77-84. LEFEVBRE, G. 1949, Romans et contes de l’époque pharaonique, Paris : Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. LILLIU, G. 1966, Scultura della Sardegna Nuragica, Verona : Ilisso. LÓPEZ CASTRO, J. L. 2001, ‘Algunos debates en torno a la colonización fenicia en el extremo Occidente’, in J. L. LÓPEZ CASTRO (éd.), Colonos y comerciantes en el Occidente Mediterráneo, Almería : Universidad de Almería, 87-108.
460
M. ALMAGRO-GORBEA
MARKOE, G. 2003, Die Phönizier, Stuttgart : Theiss. MEDEROS, A. 2006, ‘Fenicios en Huelva, en el siglo X AC, durante el reinado de Hîrâm I de Tiro’, SPAL – Revista de prehistoria y arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 15, 167-188. MEDEROS, A. 2008, ‘Las espadas de tipo Huelva y los inicios de la presencia fenicia en Occidente durante el Bronce Final IIC-IIIA (1150-950 AC)’, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 34, 41-75. MEDEROS, A., GÓMEZ TOSCANO, F. 2018, ‘La reanudación de los intercambios entre el Mediterráneo Oriental y el Occidental después de la crisis del siglo XII AC: un fragmento de cerámica a torno pintada del Heládico/Minoico Final IIIC en Huelva (1150-1050 AC)’, Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 44, 115-131. MEGAW, R., MEGAW, V. 1994, Celtic Art. From its beginnings to the Book of Kells2, London : Thames and Hudson. MONTET, P. 1947-1960, La Nécropole royale de Tanis I-III, Paris : s.ed. MONTET, P. 1942, Tanis, douze années de fouilles dans une capitale oubliée du Delta égyptien, Paris : Payot. MOOREY, P. R. S., FLEMING, S. 1984, ‘Problems in the Study of the Anthropomorphic Metal Statuary from Syro-Palestine before 330 B.C.’, Levant 16, 67-90. MOSCATI, S. 1983, ‘Precolonizazzione greca e precolonizazziones fenicia’, Rivista di Studi Fenici 11/1, 1-7. MURPHY, A., MOORE, R. 2008, Island of the Setting Sun. In Search of Ireland’s Ancient Astronomers, Dublin : Liffey Press. NEGBY, O. 1976, Canaanite Gods in Metal - An Archaeological Study of Ancient SyroPalestinian Figurines, Tel Aviv : University, Institute of Archaeology. NEWBERRY, P. E. 1906, Egyptian antiquities. Scarabs. An introduction to the study of Egyptian seals and signet rings, London : Constable. NIEMEYER, H. G. 1981, ‘Anno octogesimo post Troiam captam... Tyria classis Gadis condidit?’, Hamburger Beiträge für Archäologie 8, 9-33. RICCHIARDI, L. 1981, ‘Bronzetto raffigurante Minerva combattente’, in Prima Italia. L’Arte italica del I millenio a. C., Roma : De Luca, 169-170. RICHARSON, E. 1983, Etruscan Votive Bronzes. Geometric, Orientalising, Archaic, Mainz: Ph. von Zabern. RÖMER, M. 1989, Gottes- und Priesterherrschaft in Ägypten am Ende des Neuen Reiches, Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz. RÖMER, M. 1986, ‘Tanis’, in W. HELCK, E. OTTO (éds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie 6: Stele – Zypresse, Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz, 194-209. RUIZ-GÁLVEZ, M. 2013, Con el fenicio en los talones. Los inicios de la Edad del Hierro en la cuenca del Mediterráneo, Madrid : Bellaterra. SAPOUNA-SAKELLARAKIS, E. 1995, Die bronzenen Menschenfiguren aus Kreta und in der Ägäis (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 1/5), Stuttgart : F. Steiner. SASS, B. 2002, ‘Wenamun and His Levant. 1075 BC or 925 BC?’, Ägypten und Levante 12, 247-255. SAUVAGE, C. 2012, Routes maritimes et systèmes d’échanges internationaux au Bronze récent en Méditerranée orientale, Paris : Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux. SCHAUER, P. 1983, ‘Orient im spätbronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Occident. Kulturbeziehungen zwischen der Iberischen Halbinsel und dem Vorderen Orient während des späten 2. und des ersten Drittel des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.’, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 30, 175-194.
LA « PRÉCOLONISATION » PHÉNICIENNE DANS LE RHÔNE
461
SCHIPPER, B. U. 2005, Die Erzählung des Wenamun: Ein Literaturwerk im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Geschichte und Religion (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 209), Fribourg: Academic Press. SEEDEN, H. 1980, The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant (Prähistorische Bronzefunde I,1B), München : C.H. Beck. SPYCKET, A. 1989, La statuaire du Proche Orient ancien, Leiden : Brill. STIERLIN, H., ZIEGLER CH., LECLANT, J. 1987, Tanis. Trésors des Pharaons, Freiburg : Office du livre. TORRES, M. 2008, ‘Los ‘tiempos’ de la precolonización’, in S. CELESTINO, N. RAFEL, X.-L. ARMADA (éds.), Contacto cultural entre el Mediterráneo y el Atlántico (siglos XII-VIII ANE): La precolonización a debate, Madrid : Escuela Española de Historia y Arqueología en Roma/CSIC, 59-91. VAGNETI, L. 1982, Magna Grecia e mondo miceneo, Napoli : Istituto per la Storia e l’Archeologia della Magna Grecia. VAGNETI, L. 2000, ‘Western Mediterranean overview: Peninsular Italy, Sicily and Sardinia at the time of the Sea peoples’, in D. OREN (éd.), The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment, Philadelphia : Pennsylvania University Museum, 305-326. VAGNETTI, L., LO SCHIAVO, F. 1985, ‘Late Cypriot Imports to Italy and their Influence on Local Bronzework’, Papers of the British School at Rome 53, 1-73. VERCOUTTER, J. 1945, Les objets égyptiens et égyptisants du mobilier funéraire carthaginois (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 40), Paris : Geuthner. VON BECKERATH, J. 1951, Tanis und Theben. Historische Grundlagen der Ramessidenzeit in Ägypten (Ägyptologische Forschungen 16), Glückstadt : J.J. Augustin. YOYOTTE, J. 1988, ‘Une tentative de « truffage » ? Le doublet tanite du « Scarabée de Mandeure »’, Bulletin de la Société Française des Fouilles de Tanis 1, 55-59.
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH Eugène WARMENBOL*
A head It is with great pleasure that I contribute to this volume in honour of my lifelong friend Eric Gubel, with whom I share so many interests and passions, from a great love for the Levant (and, beyond, the Indian subcontinent) to a great love for our own country (and, beyond, Antwerp). I will go on a quest for the Phoenicians and their overlords the Persians in the Northern (especially North-Western) European archaeological record, only to come back with many gifts from the Greeks, who, as anybody with some culture knows, are to be feared, especially when they are gift-bearing1. They hold the field… The Ape Eric Gubel and the author both are (also!) in love with Italy: it seems fitting to start our quest here. The Etruscans were of course in close contact with the Eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks as well as the Phoenicians, and are, also, in close contact with North-Western Europe, especially Celtic-speaking Europe2. One of the most appreciated ‘commodities’ offered by the Phoenicians, at least in the Middle-East, as also illustrated in Neo-Assyrian art (Fig. 1), is the barbary ape (Macaca Sylvanus L.). They seem to have been introduced through commercial exchanges in Etruria as soon as the 8th century BC, most probably through the Phoenicians, not the Greeks3. The most conspicuous objet on which simians have been represented is the well-known wagon from Bisenzio ‘Olmo Bello’ (tomb 2), now in the Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia in Rome (Fig. 2). The wagon, on four wheels, found in a context datable to the third quarter of the 8th century BC4, is of local make, but has clearly been modelled on the * Université Libre de Bruxelles. 1 Some thoughts in WARMENBOL 2017, and a lot of bibliography. 2 We do not feel the need to show our erudition (?) by accumulating references here. One will browse with pleasure through BARTOLONI (ed.) 2000 or CELUZZA and CIANFERONI (eds.) 2010 to have a first glimpse of their commercial skills. 3 Some are to be seen on the famous Bocchoris-situla from Tarquinia ‘Monterozzi’. Full bibliography in SANNIBALE 2015, 318-319, cat. 187. 4 An excellent technical drawing is to be found in WOYTOWITSCH 1978, taf. 24 (see also 5860).
464
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 1: Phoenician (?) offering-bearer carrying monkeys, represented in the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II (Nimrud, next to Mossul, Iraq) (MARKOE 2007, fig. 1).
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
465
Fig. 2: Four-wheeled wagon from Bisenzio (Capodimonte, prov. di Viterbo, Italy), with its numerous three-dimensional figures (WOYTOWITSCH 1978, Taf. 24).
466
E. WARMENBOL
well-known Cypriote wheeled ‘incense burners’. It is covered with three-dimensional subjects, somewhat of a rarity in Central Italy (the object itself is unique), subjects which are everything but anecdotic5. Hanging from some kind of liana descending from the upper rim of the wheeled structure, i.e. the rim in which a cauldron (or incense-burner?) is inserted, four monkeys are depicted, alternating with eight birds, wings folded, as seated on a tether. The symbolical meaning of the monkeys will not retain us here6, what is important to us, is that Phoenicians were bringing gifts to Italian aristocrats, and that, among these gifts, were (probably) highly prized barbary apes. The Archaeology: 6th to 5th century BC Ihringen The richer tombs of the late Hallstatt-period of North-Western Europe have provided us with quite a few surprises, showing their owners, the ‘princes’ (and ‘princesses’!) of the era, were quite well connected, especially with Mediterranean Europe, and even beyond. One of the items that has received more attention than others, is the colourless glass cup from Ihringen (Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald), found in an archaeological context dating to Hallstatt phase Ha D3, about 500 BC (Fig. 3). It is a prestigious object indeed, as it is an obvious Grosskönigliches ‘symbolon’, a cup apparently belonging to the symbols of power of the Achaemenid Empire, and not put in the hands of just anyone. Erich Kistler showed in a rather laborious paper7, that the man who owned it and the object had most probably complex biographies, which should stop us in reading too much in the presence of the glass cup in Baden-Württemberg. One must wonder where it was actually produced, Asia Minor being a possibility8, and then it could actually be Eastern Greek, but the Levant, in our humble opinion, is another one. This could make it a Phoenician import… Lavau The latest discovery of a princely tomb happened to produce one that might have been among the last of its kind, still Ha D3 or La Tène A1. It is probably about a generation younger than the tomb in Ihringen, and was excavated next to Troyes (Aube), at Lavau, ZAC du Moutot, in 2015. It is an extremely rich CHERICI 2005; CUPITÒ 2003; PACCIARELLI 2002; TORELLI 1996. CUPITÒ 2003, 112 proposes: “l’alternanza fra le coppie di volatile e le scimmie, potrebbero alludere ad una polarità semantica di ordine supperiore, vale a dire quelle che oppone il mondo celeste, rappresentato dagli uccelli in volo […], al mondo infero, che si concretizza nelle valenze funerarie e ctonie veicolate dalle figure scimmiesche”. 7 KISTLER 2010. 8 IGNATIADOU 2010. 5
6
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
467
Fig. 3: Colourless glass cup of Eastern Greek or Achaemenid provenance found in Ihringen (Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) (WELT 2012, 168, Abb. 200).
tomb, the prince buried here wearing a golden torc comparable to that of the princess of Vix. There were several bronze vessels of Etruscan origin, the whole set made for serving wine (200 liters of it), not mead as is more usual. Among the more exceptional items, one can count a black-figure oenochoe that was ‘customized’ towards the local taste. Of particular interest to us, at least in the context of this paper, are three items in gilded silver: a filter (Fig. 4), a strainer and the foot of a goblet that had an organic bowl. These are definitely not of Etruscan origin, but, again, could come from Asia Minor9, or some other area under Achaemenid control, such as the Levant. They could be Eastern Greek. One should not forget Massalia, now Marseille (Bouchesdu-Rhône), was a Phocean colony, created at the end of the 7th or in the early 6th century BC, and that Phocaea is indeed an Eastern Greek city, at the border of Aeolia. 9 VERGER 2018, 290-291 shows comparable material from Güre, in ancient Lydia. He does lead excavation in Kymè, in Aeolia, not far from there. Our excellent colleague has an Eastern Greek ‘culture’ most scholars working on the Celtic realm do not have. We will be mentioning Phocaea, also nearby.
468
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 4: Gilded silver filter of Eastern Greek or Achaemenid provenance excavated in Lavau (Aube, France) (DUBUIS 2018, 485).
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
469
Fig. 5: Bronze throne from Hochdorf (Kr. Ludwigsburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany), probably from Alpine Italy (BIEL 2002, 193, Abb. 10).
However, they might be Phoenician! Were not the famous gilded silver paterae, often with egyptianising motifs, a prized possession of Etruscan aristocrats, as illustrated by the finds in the Bernardini tomb of Palestrina and the RegoliniGalassi tomb of Cerveteri, admittedly dating to the early 7th century BC10? The Myth One of the most spectacular objects found in a late Hallstatt period tomb, is the bronze ‘throne’ discovered in Eberdingen-Hochdorf (Kr. Ludwigsburg) (Fig. 5), most probably made in Alpine Italy, some evidence suggesting the Western Alpine area, other evidence the Eastern Alpine area. According to Stéphane Verger11, it belongs to the ‘Golasecca culture’, which is a Celtic-speaking culture, an observation that might not be an unimportant point in the coming discussion. The luxurious piece of furniture, dating about the third quarter of the 6th century BC, carried the body of the dead prince in the tomb, but this way of putting it to use is quite obviously of a secondary nature, as it was originally used to be seated in, or squatted on12. This was the prince’s vehicle (it is wheeled!) to the Other World, as is also shown by the fact, and this is in order to access it, he had his left shoe on his right foot and vice-versa13. It is supported by eight figures, usually described as female, but actually sexless, though possibly gendered, as female indeed, by the jewellery they are wearing, One could read them as allegories of the eight segments of society on which the prince’s power rested; and this ninehood, eight plus one, is also to be found in other forms in the prince’s tomb, such as in the number of drinking horns14. 10
Again, we do not feel the need to show our erudition (?) by accumulating references here. See MARKOE 1985. Full bibliography in SANNIBALE 2015, 323 (cat. 193). 11 VERGER 2006. Dirce Marzoli’s monograph on the throne is still in the making. 12 JUNG 2004 and 2007. 13 WARMENBOL 2007, 392; VEIT 1988. 14 VERGER 2006. See also PESCHEL 1989 and WARMENBOL 2010.
470
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 6: The tomb of Artaxerxes II or III next to the Palace of Persepolis (Fars, Iran) (PANAINO 2001, Abb. 3).
This makes one think of the twenty-eight satraps carrying the throne of the Great King of Persia, as represented on the door-jambs of the Hall of the Hundred Columns of Persepolis, and also above the doorways of the royal tombs of Naqsh e-Rustam and Persepolis (Fig. 6), the Great King actually standing in the front of a Fire Altar, Ahura Mazda hovering between them. Achaemenid influences? We think not. Just something which explains why a Groupe de Contact ‘Études celtologiques et comparées’ thrives within the Société belge d’Études celtiques that the present author presides. It might sound ‘politically incorrect’, but a common Indo-European background must be at work here. The Myth revisited Eric Gubel and the author share a common origin: we were both born in Antwerp. The Phoenician origins of this world-class port were of no doubt to some 19th-century authors. If one could believe Count Clemens-Wenceslas de Renesse-Breidbach (1775-1833), the ruins of an Egyptian or, rather, a Phoenician temple, were indeed discovered while excavating the Bonaparte dock, to the North of Antwerp15. 15 GUBEL 1995, 14; SCHUERMANS 1872. See also WARMENBOL 2012, 167-170. SCHUERMANS 1872, 462, quoting Clemens-Wenceslas de Renesse, writes: “il paraît cependant que d’anciens peuples, tels que les Phéniciens, ont séjourné dans le lieu où est présentement Anvers ; car, lors de
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
471
Fig. 7: Frederic Leighton, Phoenicians Trading with Early Britons on the Coast of Cornwall (1894/1895), Royal Exchange, London (CHARBONNIER 2007, 63).
Apart from the fact that not the slightest trace of the finds remain to this day, we should not forget this collector had an impressive collection of objects that were either forgeries, or objects with a false provenance, or both. The myth of Phoenician origins, though, is to be found also in Breton and British lore16. “Phoenicians Trading with Early Britons on the Coast of Cornwall” (1895) by Sir Frederic Leighton, a mural at the Royal Exchange in London (Fig. 7), gives some substance to the claim. la confection du grand bassin, on y a trouvé des débris de colonnes et bas-reliefs qui n’indiquent pas une bâtisse romaine, mais plutôt des Phéniciens ou Égyptiens. On a même trouvé, tout près, quelques années avant, en creusant les fondements d’une maison, une statue en marbre d’une Isis assez bien conservée […], qui se trouve encore actuellement entre les mains d’un habitant de cette ville. Près de l’Escaut, on a découvert, ainsi qu’à Katwyck, en Hollande, un grand nombre de monnaies en argent avec des caractères phéniciens”. 16 FRERE 2008; CHAMPION 2001.
472
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 8: Glass masks of Punic origin from Saint-Sulpice (ct. de Vaud, Switzerland) (MÜLLER 2009, Abb. 98).
We did not state there is no such thing as Phoenician interest in the tin mines of North-Western Europe. They did have a monopoly over the tin trade between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as stated by several ancient authors, but we deem it does not matter here to determine if the Cassiterides are to be found in Britany or in Great Britain17. The trade is mainly by sea, in Phoenician style, though tin mines might have been reached by land routes too, and not necessarily the same mines for that matter18. The Archaeology – 4th to 3rd century BC Reinheim Undoubtedly Phoenician or Punic objects from North-Western Europe actually remain somewhat of a rarity, to the contrary of Greek or Etruscan objects, which mostly are to be dated to the second half of the 6th or the 5th century BC. The most obvious Punic imports are of course the two glass mask pendants from the Saint-Sulpice En Pétoleyres cemetery (Vaud, Switzerland) (Fig. 8), worn by a young female, who died somewhere in the middle of the 4th century BC19. 17 18 19
DE BEER 1960; DION 1952. HIERNARD 1982. MÜLLER 2009, 95 and Abb. 98 (colour); MÜLLER 1991, 72 and fig. 16 (b/w); HAEVERNICK 1979.
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
473
Fig. 9: Half a glass mask of Punic origin from Witry-les-Reims (Marne, France) (right) (DÉCHELETTE 1914, fig. 574).
One can add to these well-known pieces, a single (just the upper half, actually), and much forgotten example from Witry-les-Reims ‘La Noue du Haut Chemin’ (?) (Marne) (Fig. 9), from an even older excavation in a cemetery of the same date20. Other glass finds might be added to this short list, such as the big bead from the Gersheim-Reinheim (Kr. Saarland) tomb B, not that remarkable for its imports, but well-known for an object exotic by its function, i.e. a mirror, actually one of three known from the Celtic world21. The lady buried here in the second quarter of the 4th century BC had a bag deposited next to her left shoulder, an organic container with an assortment of amulets, amber and glass beads (Fig. 10). The glass beads are not of local manufacture, but, apparently, are Mediterranean imports22. From one presentation of the Gersheim-Reinheim finds to another, their Carthaginian or Punic origin goes from possible through plausible to proven, to the point it seems almost a matter of belief23. Clearly, work remains to be done on glass beads, and, maybe, chemical analysis might help us to provenance them, as typology does not24. Heerlen A massive gold torc (weight: 219 g) with buffer terminals (Fig. 11) was found in 1998 during construction work in the periphery of Heerlen (Limburg, the Netherlands)25. It was found in former heathland, near to the ‘Heksenberg’, generally considered to be an artificial mound. Comparative material can be DÉCHELETTE 1914, 1317, fig. 574, 6. See DEMOULE 1999, 295, 314. ALVAREZ 2016. 22 KUNTER 1986, 91-93 and 95-100 is very cautious about the Mediterranean origin of the two smaller “compound-eye”-beads. 23 REINHARD 2004; ECHT 1999. 24 BRETON et al. 2009, 304-318, for instance, show a lot of reluctance. 25 ECHT et al. 2011. 20 21
474
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 10: Glass pearls of Punic origin and amber pearls made from Baltic amber found in Gersheim-Reinheim (Kr. Saarpfalz, Saarland, Germany) (REINHARD 2004, 52, Abb. 74).
found in the Champagne-Ardennes as well as in the Hunsrück-Eifel region, dating the torc to the end of the 5th or the early 4th century BC. Vincent Megaw proposes some interesting comparisons with bronze material from the Belgian Ardennes, such as the bracelets from tomb IV-1 in Neuchâteau ‘Le Sart’ (Luxembourg), but the bronze torc from Juseret ‘Bercheux’ (Luxembourg) indeed offers a very close parallel26. 26
WARMENBOL 2018, 393-394.
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
475
Fig. 11: Gold torc locally made from Achaemenid Darics, found in Heerlen (Limburg, the Netherlands) (courtesy of L. Verhart).
What is really important here is that the analysis of the Heerlen torc seems to show it was made from recycled Daric-staters. To quote Rudolf Echt27: “Keeping [Martin] Guggisberg’s weight range of 8.35-8.46 g for a Daric in mind, the weight of the Heerlen torc with 219 g fits in the span of 217.1-219.96 g, which corresponds to 26 Daric-Staters. The correspondence between the weight of late Hallstatt and early La Tène gold attire and eastern Mediterranean coins, as rightly identified by Guggisberg, is once again demonstrated”28. Our Swiss colleague actually showed that as many as a dozen gold torcs and armlets dating to the late Hallstatt or early La Tène period weigh an even multiple of Persian Darics, while another half-dozen show a half-weight multiple29. What was paid with these Darics? Services delivered by mercenaries30? We know Celtic mercenaries were enrolled by Hannibal… 27 Rudolf Echt also excavated in Kamîd el-Loz, in Lebanon, and that is not just anecdotic, in our opinion. 28 ECHT et al. 2011, 44. 29 GUGGISBERG 2000, 100. 30 BARAY 2017; BARAY 2016.
476
E. WARMENBOL
Fig. 12: Skull of a barbary ape discovered in a ditch of Navan Fort (Co. Armagh, Northern Ireland) (LYNN 2003, 49, fig. 29).
The Legend One of the frankly unexpected archaeological discoveries in the North-West of Europe, was that of the skull and mandible of a barbary ape (Macaca sylvanus L.) (Fig. 12) on the site of Navan Fort in Northern Ireland, a ‘royal site’ that is as much part of Ireland’s history as of its mythology. The authenticity of the find is beyond any doubt and a radiocarbon date shows it belongs to the (very?) end of the Iron Age. To some, this ape is a product of Phoenician trade, and they cannot be proven wrong. As Chris Lynn stated: “the Navan ape must have been brought from the Mediterranean region, presumably by seafarers or traders31. It was a prestige gift to whomever was living on site B”, he says, “where it arrived somewhere between the fourth and second century BC”, he adds32. Ring slot C2, were the skull was found, is actually 14C-dated 2150 ± 70 BP (OxA-3321), i.e. at 68.2 % of probability 360 BC (22.1 %) 280 BC or 240 BC (46.1 %) 90 BC, and at 95.4 % of probability 390 BC (95.4%) 30 BC33. This date in fact takes us ‘dangerously’ close to the Roman times, certainly on the 31 LYNN 2003, 49-50. If they were coming from Gibraltar, where these little fellows are still to be found, the Navan Fort ape actually had a British passport… 32 Admittedly, we do not know what they were expecting in return from the predecessors of the mythical Conchobar Mac Nessa, who ruled from Emain Macha, now Navan Fort. 33 Thanks to Mathieu Boudin (KIK-IRPA, Brussels) who checked the calibration for us.
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
477
Continent. Several Roman barbary apes have indeed been found there, mostly dated to the 2nd or 3rd century AD, sometimes deposited in a grave34. And we probably do not have to remind our readers that Carthage was destroyed in 146 BC. So, one may doubt that those ultimately responsible for the ape’s presence were Phoenicians, because they might have been Romans, though its date seems very early for a Roman import, as shown by a study of the Roman imports on another Irish ‘royal site’, Tara35. So maybe it is indeed more reasonable to state that the ape was a product of gift-exchange, between Phoenicians or Punics on the one hand, and Atlantic Celts on the other hand. The ape, the myth, the legend, this is what it was all about in this paper. Cheers, Eric! A tail Here is a crazy scenario explaining Navan Fort’s small visitor. The little ape came to Britain with the Roman army, maybe as a pet of a Balearic slinger in Caesar’s service, one of the guys who lost an Ebusitan coin or two36, and abandoned a sling-bullet or two37. The human-like animal is captured and becomes a kind of prisoner of war, ending up in Navan Fort for mysterious reasons. Here it is decapitated, as suggested by Ian Armit, and the head (the only part found), ritually deposited38: “It is pleasing to speculate”, writes Ian Armit, “on the impact that a diminutive, hairy, tail-less, humanlike creature might have had, swinging around the timber structures of this windswept Irish drumlin”. Monkey business, or pets going ape39… References ALVAREZ, L. 2016, Le miroir en Europe centro-occidentale à La Tène ancienne. Image de la tradition et reflet des échanges (unpublished MA thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles), Bruxelles. ARMIT, I. 2012, Head Hunting and the Body in Iron Age Europe, Cambridge: University Press. GERBER and BAUDRY-DAUTRY 2012. ARMIT 2013. 36 The association of these coins with the Caesarian conquest seems more and more doubtful. See DOYEN 2011. Thanks to Jean-Marc Doyen (Université de Lille), another life-long friend, for discussing this and other issues with me. 37 These are indeed encountered – made of Iberian lead – on Caesarian sites. See POUX 2008, 365-371 and SCHEERS et al. 2012, 83-84 and fig. 4. 38 ARMIT 2012, 72. 39 This expression is borrowed from https://mad.hypotheses.org/37. MAD stands for Medieval Animal Data-Network. 34 35
478
E. WARMENBOL
ARMIT, I. 2013, ‘Objects and ideas: Roman influences at Tara and beyond’, in M. O’SULLIVAN, C. SCARRE, M. DOYLE (eds.), Tara – From the Past to the Future: Towards a New Research Agenda, Dublin: Wordwell, 288-294. BARAY, L. 2016, Sociétés celtiques et mercenaires (VIIe-Ier siècle av. J.-C.). La terre, le pouvoir et les hommes, Paris: CNRS Editions. BARAY, L. 2017, Celtes, Galates et Gaulois, mercenaires de l’Antiquité. Représentation, recrutement, organisation, Paris: Picard. BARTOLONI, G. (ed.) 2000, Principi etruschi tra Mediterraneo ed Europa (ex.cat. Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico), Venezia: Marsilio. BEILHARZ, D., HOPPE, T., RÖBER, R. (eds.) 2012, Die Welt der Kelten. Zentren der Macht – Kostbarkeiten der Kunst (ex.cat. Archäologisches Landesmuseum BadenWürttemberg), Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag. BIEL, J. 2002, ‘Macht und Dynamik. Fürstengräber der frühen Keltenzeit’, in W. MENGHIN, D. PLANCK (eds.), Menschen. Zeiten. Raüme. Archäologie in Deutschland (ex.cat. Berlin, Gropius Bau), Stuttgart: Theiss. BRETON, C., DURAND, A., LOURDAUD, S., ROBERT, B., AUXIETTE, G., DESENNE, S., POMMEPUY, CL., DEMOULE, J.-P. 2009, ‘La parure’, in S. DESENNE, CL. POMMEPUY, J.-P. DEMOULE (eds.), Bucy-le-Long (Aisne). Une nécropole de La Tène ancienne (Ve-IVe siècle avant notre ère). Volume I. Présentations et études : une approche de la population, des sépultures et du mobilier (Revue Archéologique de Picardie NS 26), Amiens: Société Archéologique de Picardie, 271-334. CELUZZA, M., CIANFERONI G. C. (eds.) 2010, Signori di Maremma. Elites etrusche fra Populonia e Vulci (ex.cat. Firenze, Museo Archeologico Nazionale), Firenze: Polistampa. CHAMPION, T. 2001, ‘The Appropriation of the Phoenicians in British Imperial Ideology’, Nations and Nationalism 7/4, 451-465. CHARBONNIER, J.-M. 2007, ‘À la recherche des Phéniciens’, in La Méditerranée de Phéniciens, de Tyr à Carthage (Connaissance des Arts Hors-série 344), Paris: Institut du Monde arabe, 58-63. CHERICI, A. 2005, ‘Armi e armati nella società visentina : note sul carrello e sul cinerarion dell’Olmo Bello’, Annali della Fondazione per il Museo « Claudio Faina » XII, 125-172. CUPITÓ, M. 2003, ‘Il Sistema figurative del carrello di Bisenzio: iconografia del potere aristocratico e del kosmos socio-politico protourbano’, Antenor. Miscellanea di Studi di Archaeologia 4, 91-118. DE BEER, G. 1960, ‘Iktin’, The Geographical Journal 126/2, 160-167. DÉCHELETTE, J. 1914, Manuel d’archéologie préhistorique, celtique et gallo-romaine. II : Archéologie celtique ou protohistorique. Troisième partie : Second âge du Fer ou époque de La Tène, Paris: Picard. DEMOULE, J.-P. 1999, Chronologie et société dans les nécropoles celtiques de la Culture Aisne-Marne, du VIe au IIIe siècle avant notre ère (Revue Archéologique de Picardie NS 15), Amiens: Société Archéologique de Picardie. DION, R. 1952, ‘Le problème des Cassitérides’, Latomus 11, 306-314. DOYEN, J.-M. 2011, ‘Les monnaies d’Ebusus en Gaule du nord et en Bretagne : un faux « traceur » des campagnes césariennes ?’, Revue Numismatique 167, 265283. DUBUIS, B. 2018, ‘Passoire’, in Archéologie dans l’Aube. Des premiers paysans au prince de Lavau (ex.cat. Troyes, Hôtel-Dieu-le-Comte), Gand: Snoeck, 484-485. ECHT, R. 1999, Das Fürstinnengrab von Reinheim. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte der FrühLatène-Zeit (Blesa 2 / Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 69), Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
THE APE, THE MYTH, THE LEGEND. PHOENICIANS IN THE NORTH
479
ECHT, R., MARX, M., MEGAW, V., THIELE, W.-R., VAN IMPE, L., VERHART, L. 2011, ‘An Iron Age gold torc from Heerlen (prov. Limburg, Nl)’, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 41/1, 39-49. FRERE, D. 2008, ‘Les origines phéniciennes de la Bretagne. Archéologie d’un mythe’, Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l’Ouest 115/2, 37-65. GERBER, F., BAUDRY-DAUTRY, A. 2012, ‘La mode de l’animal exotique dans la haute société gallo-romaine. Sépulture d’un singe dans la nécropole de la rue des Caillons à Poitiers’, Archéopages. Archéologie et société 35, 42-47. GUBEL, E. 1995, ‘Van Nijl tot Schelde’, in E. GUBEL (ed.), Egypte onomwonden. Egyptische oudheden van het museum Vleeshuis, Antwerpen: Pandora, 13-26. GUGGISBERG, M. 2000, Der Goldschatz von Erstfeld. Ein keltischer Bilderzyklus zwischen Mitteleuropa und der Mittelmeerwelt (Antiqua 32), Basel: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte. HAEVERNICK, Th. E. 1979, ‘Funde aus fernen Länderen’, Helvetia Archaeologica 10, 50-57. HIERNARD, J. 1982, ‘Corbilo et la route de l’étain’, Bulletin de la Société des Antiquaires de l’Ouest XVI, 497-578. IGNATIADOU, D. 2010, ‘Achaemenid and Greek Colourless Glass’, in J. CURTIS, ST. J. SIMPSON (eds.), The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of a conference at the British Museum, 29th September-1st October 2005, London: I. B. Tauris, 419-426. JUNG, M. 2004, ‘Überlegungen zu möglichen Sitz- und Liegepositionen auf der Hochdorfer “Kline”’, Archäologische Informationen 27/1, 123-132. JUNG, M. 2007, ‘Kline oder Thron? Zu den Fragmenten eines griechischen Möbelpfostens aus dem späthallstattzeitlichen “Fürstengrab” Grafenbühl in Asperg (Kr. Ludwigsburg)’, Germania 85, 95-107. KISTLER, E. 2010, ‘Grosskönigliches symbolon im Osten – exotisches Luxusgut im Westen: Zur Objektbiographie der achämenidischen Glasschale aus Ihringen’, in R. ROLLINGER, B. GUFLER, M. LANG, I. MADREITER (eds.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 63-95. KUNTER, K. 1986, ‘Funde aus fernen Ländern II. Zu den polychromen Glasperlen aus dem Fürstengrab von Reinheim, Kr. St. Ingbert’, in O. FREY, H. ROTH, C. DOBIAT (eds.), Gedenkschrift für Gero von Merhart, zum 100. Geburtstag (Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 7), Marburg and Lahn: Hitzeroth, 91-128. LYNN, C. 2003, Navan Fort. Archaeology and Myth, Bray: Wordwell. MARKOE, Gl. 1985, Phoenician Bronze and Silver Bowls from Cyprus and the Mediterranean, Berkeley/London: University of California Press. MARKOE, G. 2007, ‘Les échanges de matières premières’, in La Méditerranée des Phéniciens de Tyr à Carthage (Connaissance des Arts Hors-série 344), Paris: Institut du Monde arabe, 103-105. MÜLLER, F. 1991, ‘La période de La Tène. Le monde se met en mouvement’, in A. FURGER, F. MÜLLER (eds), L’or des Helvètes. Trésors celtiques en Suisse (ex.cat. Genève, Musée d’art et d’histoire), Zurich: Schweizerisches Landesmuseum, 71-82. MÜLLER, F. 2009, Kunst der Kelten (ex.cat. Bern, Historischen Museum and Stuttgart, Landesmuseum Württemberg), Stuttgart: Belser. PACCIARELLI, M. 2002, ‘Raffigurazioni di miti e riti su manufatti metallici di Bisenzio e Vulci tra il 750 e il 650 a.C.’, in A. CARANDINI (ed.), Archeologia del mito. Emozione e ragione fra primitivi e moderni, Roma/Bari: Einaudi, 301-332. PANAINO, A. 2001, ‘Religionen in antiken Iran’, in W. SEIPEL (ed.), 7000 Jahre persische Kunst. Meisterwerke aus dem Iranischen Nationalmuseum in Teheran, Milano: Skira, 22-29.
480
E. WARMENBOL
PESCHEL, K. 1989, ‘Zur kultischen Devotion innerhalb der keltischen Kriegergemeinschaft’, in F. SCHLETTE, D. KAUFMANN (eds.), Religion und Kult in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Zeit (13. Tagung der Fachgruppe Ur- und Frühgeschichte vom 4. bis 6. November 1985 in Halle (Saale), Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 273-282. POUX, M. 2008, ‘L’empreinte du militaire césarien dans les faciès mobiliers de La Tène finale’, in M. POUX (ed.), Sur les traces de César. Militaria tardo-républicains en contexte gaulois. Actes de la table ronde de Bibracte, 17 octobre 2002, Glux-enGlenne: Bibracte, 299-432. REINHARD, W. 2004, Die keltische Fürstin von Reinheim, Blieskastel: Stiftung Europäischer Kulturpark. SANNIBALE, M. 2015, ‘Levantine and Orientalizing luxury goods from Etruscan tombs’, in J. ARUZ, S. B. GRAFF, Y. RAKIC (eds.), Assyria to Iberia at the Dawn of the Classical Age, New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 313-317, cat. Nrs. 186-202. SCHEERS, S., CREEMERS, G., ROYMANS, N., VAN IMPE, L. 2012, ‘Three gold hoards from Thuin’, in N. ROYMANS, G. CREEMERS, S. SCHEERS (eds.), Late Iron Age Gold Hoards from the Low Countries and the Caesarian Conquest of Northern Gaul (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 18), Amsterdam/Tongeren: Amsterdam University Press, 73-87. SCHUERMANS, H. 1872, ‘Découverte d’antiquités égyptiennes à Anvers’, Bulletin des Commissions royales d’Art et d’Archéologie (1872), 454-465. TORELLI, M. 1996, ‘Rango e ritualità nell’iconografia italica più antica’, Ostraka V, 333380. VEIT, U. 1988, ‘Des Fürsten neue Schuhe: Überlegungen zum Befund von Hochdorf’, Germania 66, 162-169. VERGER, S. 2006, ‘La grande tombe de Hochdorf, mise en scène funéraire d’un « cursus honorum » tribal hors pair’, Siris 7, 5-44. VERGER, S. 2018, ‘La place de l’Aube dans les réseaux d’échanges entre l’Europe tempérée et la Méditerranée (VIIe-Ve siècle av.n.è.)’, in Archéologie dans l’Aube. Des premiers paysans au prince de Lavau (ex.cat. Troyes, Hôtel-Dieu-le-Comte), Gand: Snoeck, 284-293. WARMENBOL, E. 2007, ‘Miroirs et mantique à l’âge du Bronze’, in C. BURGESS, P. TOPPING, F. LYNCH (eds.), Beyond Stonehenge. Essays on the Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess, Oxford: Oxbow, 377-396. WARMENBOL, E. 2010, ‘Drowning by numbers – nine lives, twelve deaths in the Bronze Age’, in H. MELLER, F. BERTEMES (eds.), Der Griff nach den Sternen. Internationales Symposium in Halle (Saale) 16.-21. Februar 2005 (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle 5), Halle: Landesmuseum für Vorgeschichte, 563-576. WARMENBOL, E. 2012, Le lotus et l’oignon. Égyptologie et égyptomanie en Belgique au XIXe siècle (Lucernae Novantiquae 4), Bruxelles: Le Livre Timperman. WARMENBOL, E. 2017, ‘Quelques aspects des échanges de matériaux, produits et savoirfaire à l’âge du Fer (VIe-Ve av. n. è.) dans le Nord-Ouest de l’Europe’, in P. CATTELAIN, A. LEBLON (eds.), Potins et pots de vins. Échange, commerce et transport vers la Gaule du Nord, Treignes: Éditions du Cedarc, 31-46. WARMENBOL, E. 2018, ‘Iron Age gold in Belgium and the Southern Netherlands’, in R. SCHWAB, P.-Y. MILCENT, B. ARMBRUSTER, E. PERNICKA (eds.), Early Iron Age Gold in Celtic Europe. Society, Technology and Archaeometry. Proceedings of the International Congress held in Toulouse, France, 11-14 March 2015, Rahden (Westf.): Verlag Marie Leidorf, 385-405. WOYTOWITSCH, E. 1978, Die Wagen der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit in Italien (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XVII/1), München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
ORIENTALIA LOVANIENSIA ANALECTA 1. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. 2. J. QUAEGEBEUR, Le dieu égyptien Shaï dans la religion et l’onomastique. 3. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaigns in Sind and Baluchistan and the Siege of the Brahmin Town of Harmatelia. 4. W.M. CALLEWAERT, The Sarvangī of the Dadupanthī Rajab. 5. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I. 6. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East II. 7. M.-C. DE GRAEVE, The Ships of the Ancient Near East (c. 2000-500 B.C.). 8. W.M. CALLEWAERT (ed.), Early Hindī Devotional Literature in Current Research. 9. F.L. DAMEN, Crisis and Religious Renewal in the Brahmo Samaj Movement (1860-1884). 10. R.Y. EBIED, A. VAN ROEY, L.R. WICKHAM, Peter of Callinicum, Anti-Tritheist Dossier. 11. A. RAMMANT-PEETERS, Les pyramidions égyptiens du Nouvel Empire. 12. S. SCHEERS (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata I. Numismatica Antiqua. 13. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II. Orientalia Antiqua. 14. E. PLATTI, Yahya ibn ῾Adī, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe. 15. E. GUBEL, E. LIPIŃSKI, B. SERVAIS-SOYEZ (eds.), Studia Phoenicia I-II. 16. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Middle Iranian Studies. 17. M. VAN MOL, Handboek Modern Arabisch. 18. C. LAGA, J.A. MUNITIZ, L. VAN ROMPAY (eds.), After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History. 19. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations. 20. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs. 21. K. VAN LERBERGHE, Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia. 22. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C. 23. M. HELTZER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (1500-1000 B.C.). 24. M. VAN DE MIEROOP, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: a Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šu-Ilišu. 25. G. POLLET (ed.), India and the Ancient World. History, Trade and Culture before A.D. 650. 26. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Carthago. 27. E. VERREET, Modi Ugaritici. Eine morpho-syntaktische Abhandlung über das Modalsystem im Ugaritischen. 28. R. ZADOK, The Pre-Hellenistic Israelite Anthroponomy and Prosopography. 29. W. CALLEWAERT, M. LATH, The Hindī Songs of Namdev. 30. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy. 31. N. BAUM, Arbres et arbustes de l’Égypte ancienne. 32. J.-M. KRUCHTEN, Les Annales des prêtres de Karnak (XXIe-XXIIIe dynasties) et autres textes relatifs à l’initation des prêtres d’Amon. 33. H. DEVIJVER, E. LIPIŃSKI (eds.), Punic Wars. 34. E. VASSILIKA, Ptolemaic Philae. 35. A. GHAITH, La Pensée Religieuse chez Gubrân Halil Gubrân et Mihâ᾿îl Nu῾ayma. 36. N. BEAUX, Le Cabinet de curiosités de Thoutmosis III. 37. G. POLLET, P. EGGERMONT, G. VAN DAMME, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae. Part II: Archaeological Sites. 38. S.-A. NAGUIB, Le Clergé féminin d’Amon thébain à la 21e dynastie. 39. U. VERHOEVEN, E. GRAEFE (eds.), Religion und Philosophie im Alten Ägypten. Festgabe für Philippe Derchain zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. 40. A.R. GEORGE, Babylonian Topographical Texts. 41. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qohelet. Part I: Grammatical Features.
42. G. REININK, H.E.J. VAN STIPHOUT (eds.), Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. 43. C. TRAUNECKER, Coptos. Hommes et dieux sur le parvis de Geb. 44. E. LIPIŃSKI (ed.), Phoenicia and the Bible. 45. L. ISEBAERT (ed.), Studia Etymologica Indoeuropaea Memoriae A.J. Van Windekens dicata. 46. F. BRIQUEL-CHATONNET, Les relations entre les cités de la côte phénicienne et les royaumes d’Israël et de Juda. 47. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. 48. W. SKALMOWSKI, A. VAN TONGERLOO (eds.), Medioiranica. 49. L. LAUWERS, Igor’-Severjanin, His Life and Work — The Formal Aspects of His Poetry. 50. R.L. VOS, The Apis Embalming Ritual. P. Vindob. 3873. 51. F. LABRIQUE, Stylistique et Théologie à Edfou. Le rituel de l’offrande de la campagne: étude de la composition. 52. F. DE JONG (ed.), Miscellanea Arabica et Islamica. 53. G. BREYER, Etruskisches Sprachgut im Lateinischen unter Ausschluß des spezifisch onomastischen Bereiches. 54. P.H.L. EGGERMONT, Alexander’s Campaign in Southern Punjab. 55. J. QUAEGEBEUR (ed.), Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. 56. A. VAN ROEY, P. ALLEN, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century. 57. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. 58. F.R. HERBIN, Le livre de parcourir l’éternité. 59. K. GEUS, Prosopographie der literarisch bezeugten Karthager. 60. A. SCHOORS, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philohistôr. Miscellanea in honorem Caroli Laga septuagenarii. 61. M. KRAUSE, S. GIVERSEN, P. NAGEL (eds.), Coptology. Past, Present and Future. Studies in Honour of R. Kasser. 62. C. LEITZ, Altägyptische Sternuhren. 63. J.J. CLÈRE, Les Chauves d’Hathor. 64. E. LIPIŃSKI, Dieux et déesses de l’univers phénicien et punique. 65. K. VAN LERBERGHE, A. SCHOORS (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. 66. G. POLLET (ed.), Indian Epic Values. Ramayana and its impact. 67. D. DE SMET, La quiétude de l’Intellect. Néoplatonisme et gnose ismaélienne dans l’œuvre de Hamîd ad-Dîn al-Kirmânî (Xe-XIe s.). 68. M.L. FOLMER, The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period. A Study in Linguistic Variation. 69. S. IKRAM, Choice Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt. 70. H. WILLEMS, The Coffin of Heqata (Cairo JdE 36418). A Case Study of Egyptian Funerary Culture of the Early Middle Kingdom. 71. C. EDER, Die Ägyptischen Motive in der Glyptik des östlichen Mittelmeerraumes zu Anfang des 2. Jts. v. Chr. 72. J. THIRY, Le Sahara libyen dans l’Afrique du Nord médiévale. 73. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras I. 74. P. ARÈNES, La déesse sGrol-Ma (Tara). Recherches sur la nature et le statut d’une divinité du bouddhisme tibétain. 75. K. CIGGAAR, A. DAVIDS, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations I. 76. M. BROZE, Mythe et Roman en Égypte ancienne. Les Aventures d’Horus et Seth dans le papyrus Chester Beatty I. 77. L. DEPUYDT, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. 78. P. WILSON, A Ptolemaic Lexikon. A Lexicographical Study of the Texts in the Temple of Edfu.
79. A. HASNAWI, A. ELAMRANI, M. JAMAL, M. AOUAD (eds.), Perspectives arabes et médiévales sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque. 80. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. 81. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara I. Traduction. 82. C. EYRE (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Egyptologists. 83. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II. 84-85. W. CLARYSSE, A. SCHOORS, H. WILLEMS (eds.), Egyptian Religion. The Last Thousand Years. 86. U. VERMEULEN, J.M. VAN REETH (eds.), Law, Christianity and Modernism in Islamic Society. 87. U. VERMEULEN, D. DE SMET (eds.), Philosophy and Arts in the Islamic World. 88. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara II. Traduction. 89. G.J. REININK, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), After Bardaisan. Studies on Continuity and Change in Syriac Christianity in Honour of Professor Han J.W. Drijvers. 90. C.R. KRAHMALKOV, Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. 91. M. TAHTAH, Entre pragmatisme, réformisme et modernisme. Le rôle politicoreligieux des Khattabi dans le Rif (Maroc) jusqu’à 1926. 92. K. CIGGAAR, H. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations II. 93. A.C.J. VERHEIJ, Bits, Bytes, and Binyanim. A Quantitative Study of Verbal Lexeme Formations in the Hebrew Bible. 94. W.M. CALLEWAERT, D. TAILLIEU, F. LALEMAN, A Descriptive Bibliography of Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938). 95. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara III. Traduction. 96. K. VAN LERBERGHE, G. VOET (eds.), Languages and Cultures in Contact: At the Crossroads of Civilizations in the Syro-Mesopotamian Realm. 97. A. CABROL, Les voies processionnelles de Thèbes. 98. J. PATRICH (ed.), The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the Present. Monastic Life, Liturgy, Theology, Literature, Art, Archaeology. 99. U.VERHOEVEN, Untersuchungen zur späthieratischen Buchschrift. 100. E. LIPIŃSKI, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. 101. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara IV. Traduction. 102. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III. 103. H. WILLEMS (ed.), Social Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms. 104. K. GEUS, K. ZIMMERMANN (eds.), Punica – Libyca – Ptolemaica. Festschrift für Werner Huß, zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Schülern, Freunden und Kollegen. 105. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les fêtes d’Hathor. 106. R. PREYS, Les complexes de la demeure du sistre et du trône de Rê. Théologie et décoration dans le temple d’Hathor à Dendera. 107. A. BLASIUS, B.U. SCHIPPER (eds.), Apokalyptik und Ägypten. Eine kritische Analyse der relevanten Texte aus dem griechisch-römischen Ägypten. 108. S. LEDER (ed.), Studies in Arabic and Islam. 109. A. GODDEERIS, Economy and Society in Northern Babylonia in the Early Old Babylonian Period (ca. 2000-1800 BC). 110. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band I. 111. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band II. 112. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band III. 113. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band IV. 114. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band V. 115. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VI. 116. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VII. 117. M. VAN MOL, Variation in Modern Standard Arabic in Radio News Broadcasts.
118. M.F.J. BAASTEN, W.T. VAN PEURSEN (eds.), Hamlet on a Hill. Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T. Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 119. O.E. KAPER, The Egyptian God Tutu. A Study of the Sphinx-God and Master of Demons with a Corpus of Monuments. 120. E. WARDINI, Lebanese Place-Names (Mount Lebanon and North Lebanon). 121. J. VAN DER VLIET, Catalogue of the Coptic Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Copt.). 122. A. ŁAJTAR, Catalogue of the Greek Inscriptions in the Sudan National Museum at Khartoum (I. Khartoum Greek). 123. H. NIEHR, Ba῾alšamem. Studien zu Herkunft, Geschichte und Rezeptionsgeschichte eines phönizischen Gottes. 124. H. WILLEMS, F. COPPENS, M. DE MEYER, P. DILS, The Temple of Shanhûr. Volume I: The Sanctuary, The Wabet, and the Gates of the Central Hall and the Great Vestibule (1-98). 125. K. CIGGAAR, H.G.B. TEULE (eds.), East and West in the Crusader States. Context – Contacts – Confrontations III. 126. T. SOLDATJENKOVA, E. WAEGEMANS (eds.), For East is East. Liber Amicorum Wojciech Skalmowski. 127. E. LIPIŃSKI, Itineraria Phoenicia. 128. D. BUDDE, S. SANDRI, U. VERHOEVEN (eds.), Kindgötter im Ägypten der griechischrömischen Zeit. Zeugnisse aus Stadt und Tempel als Spiegel des Interkulturellen Kontakts. 129. C. LEITZ (ed.), Lexikon der ägyptischen Götter und Götterbezeichnungen, Band VIII. 130. E.J. VAN DER STEEN, Tribes and Territories in Transition. 131. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Traduction. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 132. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara V-VI. Index phraséologique. Les cryptes du temple d’Hathor. 133. M. IMMERZEEL, J. VAN DER VLIET, M. KERSTEN, C. VAN ZOEST (eds.), Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium. Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies. Leiden, August 27 - September 2, 2000. 134. J.J. VAN GINKEL, H.L. MURRE-VAN DEN BERG, T.M. VAN LINT (eds.), Redefining Christian Identity. Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam. 135. J. MONTGOMERY (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Cambridge, 6-10 July 2002. 136. T. BOIY, Late Achaemenid and Hellenistic Babylon. 137. B. JANSSENS, B. ROOSEN, P. VAN DEUN (eds.), Philomathestatos. Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. 138. S. HENDRICKX, R.F. FRIEDMAN, K.M. CIAŁOWICZ, M. CHŁODNICKI (eds.), Egypt at its Origins. Studies in Memory of Barbara Adams. 139. R. ARNZEN, J. THIELMANN (eds.), Words, Texts and Concepts Cruising the Mediterranean Sea. Studies on the Sources, Contents and Influences of Islamic Civilization and Arabic Philosophy and Science. 140. U. VERMEULEN, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IV. 141. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume I: Arabic text. 142. P. VAN NUFFELEN, Un héritage de paix et de piété. Étude sur les histoires ecclésiastiques de Socrate et de Sozomène. 143. A. SCHOORS, The Preacher Sought to Find Pleasing Words. A Study of the Language of Qoheleth. Part II: Vocabulary. 144. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 1. 145. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 2.
146. M. CACOUROS, M.-H. CONGOURDEAU (eds.), Philosophie et sciences à Byzance de 1204 à 1453. Les textes, les doctrines et leur transmission. 147. K. CIGGAAR, M. METCALF (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean I. 148. B. MICHALAK-PIKULSKA, A. PIKULSKI (eds.), Authority, Privacy and Public Order in Islam. 149. E. CZERNY, I. HEIN, H. HUNGER, D. MELMAN, A. SCHWAB (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. 150. J.-Cl. GOYON, C. CARDIN (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Egyptologists. Actes du neuvième congrès international des Égyptologues. Grenoble, 6-12 septembre 2004. 151. S. SANDRI, Har-pa-chered (Harpokrates). Die Genese eines ägyptischen Götterkindes. 152. J.E. MONTGOMERY (ed.), Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank. 153. E. LIPIŃSKI, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches. 154. M. MINAS-NERPEL, Der Gott Chepri. Untersuchungen zu Schriftzeugnissen und ikonographischen Quellen vom Alten Reich bis in griechisch-römische Zeit. 155. H. WILLEMS, Dayr al-Barsha Volume I. The Rock Tombs of Djehutinakht (No. 17K74/1), Khnumnakht (No. 17K74/2), and Iha (No. 17K74/3). With an Essay on the History and Nature of Nomarchal Rule in the Early Middle Kingdom. 156. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, J. DRIESSEN, K. VAN LERBERGHE (eds.), Power and Architecture. Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean. 157. A. CAMPLANI, G. FILORAMO (eds.), Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in Late Antique Monasticism. 158. J. TAVERNIER, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.). Lexicon of Old Iranian Proper Names and Loanwords, Attested in Non-Iranian Texts. 159. P. KOUSOULIS, K. MAGLIVERAS (eds.), Moving Across Borders. Foreign Relations, Religion and Cultural Interactions in the Ancient Mediterranean. 160. A. SHISHA-HALEVY, Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. 161. B. LURSON, Osiris, Ramsès, Thot et le Nil. Les chapelles secondaires des temples de Derr et Ouadi es-Seboua. 162. G. DEL OLMO LETE (ed.), Mythologie et Religion des Sémites occidentaux. 163. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS (eds.), Actes du huitième congrès international d’études coptes. Paris, 28 juin - 3 juillet 2004. 164. A. BERLEJUNG, P. VAN HECKE (eds.), The Language of Qohelet in Its Context. Essays in Honour of Prof. A. Schoors on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. 165. A.G.C. SAVVIDES, Byzantino-Normannica. The Norman Capture of Italy and the First Two Invasions in Byzantium. 166. H.T. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded (Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf). Volume II: English translation, introduction and notes. 167. S. ARGUILLÈRE, Profusion de la vaste sphère. Klong-chen rab-’byams (Tibet, 1308-1364). Sa vie, son œuvre, sa doctrine. 168. D. DE SMET, Les Épîtres sacrées des Druzes. Rasa᾿il al-Hikma. Volumes 1 et 2. 169. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V. 170. W.J. VAN BEKKUM, J.W. DRIJVERS, A.C. KLUGKIST (eds.), Syriac Polemics. Studies in Honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink. 171. K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam. Studies in Honour of Professor Urbain Vermeulen. 172. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, J. ROWLAND, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 2.
173. J.H.F. DIJKSTRA, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion. A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298-642 CE). 174. I. UYTTERHOEVEN, Hawara in the Graeco-Roman Period. Life and Death in a Fayum Village. 175. P. KOUSOULIS (ed.), Ancient Egyptian Demonology. Studies on the Boundaries between the Demonic and the Divine in Egyptian Magic. 176. A. KARAHAN, Byzantine Holy Images – Transcendence and Immanence. The Theological Background of the Iconography and Aesthetics of the Chora Church. 177. J. NAWAS (ed.), ‘Abbasid Studies II. Occasional Papers of the School of ‘Abbasid Studies, Leuven, 28 June - 1 July 2004. 178. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume I: Traduction. 179. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le temple d’Isis. Volume II: Analyse à la lumière du temple d’Hathor. 180. M. ZITMAN, The Necropolis of Assiut. 181. E. LIPIŃSKI, Resheph. A Syro-Canaanite Deity. 182. C. KARLSHAUSEN, L’iconographie de la barque processionnelle en Égypte au Nouvel Empire. 183. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VI. 184. M. IMMERZEEL, Identity Puzzles. Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. 185. D. MAGEE, J. BOURRIAU, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Sitting Beside Lepsius. Studies in Honour of Jaromir Malek at the Griffith Institute. 186. A. STEVENSON, The Predynastic Egyptian Cemetery of el-Gerzeh. 187. D. BUMAZHNOV, E. GRYPEOU, T.B. SAILORS, A. TOEPEL (eds.), Bibel, Byzanz und Christlicher Orient. Festschrift für Stephen Gerö zum 65. Geburtstag. 188. J. ELAYI, A.G. ELAYI, The Coinage of the Phoenician City of Tyre in the Persian Period (5th-4th Century BCE). 189. F. HAGEN, J. JOHNSTON, W. MONKHOUSE, K. PIQUETTE, J. TAIT, M. WORTHINGTON (eds.), Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Literary and Linguistic Approaches. 190. V. VAN DER STEDE, Les pratiques de stockage au Proche-Orient ancien du Natoufien à la première moitié du troisième millénaire avant notre ère. 191. W. CLAES, H. DE MEULENAERE, S. HENDRICKX (eds.), Elkab and Beyond. Studies in Honour of Luc Limme. 192. M. MARÉE (ed.), The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties). Current Research, Future Prospects. 193. I. JACOBS, Aesthetic Maintenance of Civic Space. The ‘Classical’ City from the 4th to the 7th c. AD. 194. H. KNUF, C. LEITZ, D. VON RECKLINGHAUSEN (eds.), Honi soit qui mal y pense. Studien zum pharaonischen, griechisch-römischen und spätantiken Ägypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef Thissen. 195. I. REGULSKI, A Palaeographic Study of Early Writing in Egypt. 196. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIII. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Façade et colonnes. 197. M. KUHN, Koptische liturgische Melodien. Die Relation zwischen Text und Musik in der koptischen Psalmodia. 198. B. SNELDERS, Identity and Christian-Muslim Interaction. Medieval Art of the Syrian Orthodox from the Mosul Area. 199. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean II. 200. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics III. 201. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XIV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Parois intérieures. 202. K. DUISTERMAAT, I. REGULSKI (eds.), Intercultural Contacts in the Ancient Mediterranean. 203. F.S. JONES, Pseudoclementina Elchasaiticaque inter Judaeochristiana. Collected Studies.
204. D. ASTON, B. BADER, C. GALLORINI, P. NICHOLSON, S. BUCKINGHAM (eds.), Under the Potter’s Tree. Studies on Ancient Egypt Presented to Janine Bourriau on the Occasion of her 70th Birthday. 205. R.F. FRIEDMAN, P.N. FISKE (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 3. 206. S. DORPMUELLER (ed.), Fictionalizing the Past: Historical Characters in Arabic Popular Epic. 207. G. CONTU (ed.), Centre and Periphery within the Borders of Islam. 208. B. MAHIEU, Between Rome and Jerusalem: Herod the Great and his Sons in their Struggle for Recognition. 209. M.M. BAR-ASHER, A. KOFSKY, Kitab al-Ma῾arif by Abu Sa῾īd Maymun b. Qasim al-Tabaranī. Critical Edition with an Introduction. 210. M. DE MEYER, Dayr al-Barsha Volume II. First Intermediate Period Restoration of Old Kingdom Tombs. 211. R. EL-SAYED, Afrikanischstämmiger Lehnwortschatz im älteren Ägyptisch. 212. P. VAN DEUN, C. MACÉ (eds.), Encyclopedic Trends in Byzantium? 213. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara XV. Traduction. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor: Plafond et parois extérieures. 214. L. EVANS (ed.), Ancient Memphis, “Enduring is the Perfection”. 215. V. KLEMM, N. AL-SHA῾AR (eds.), Sources and Approaches across Disciplines in Near Eastern Studies. 216. A.M. BAGG, Die Assyrer und das Westland. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. 217. B. BADER, M.F. OWNBY (eds.), Functional Aspects of Egyptian Ceramics in their Archaeological Context. 218. F. HAGEN, An Ancient Egyptian Literary Text in Context: The Instruction of Ptahhotep. 219. I. REGULSKI, K. DUISTERMAAT, P. VERKINDEREN (eds.), Seals and Sealing Practices in the Near East. Developments in Administration and Magic from Prehistory to the Islamic Period. 220. T. BOIY, J. BRETSCHNEIDER, A. GODDEERIS, H. HAMEEUW, G. JANS, J. TAVERNIER (eds.), The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe. 221. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Le pronaos du temple d’Hathor : Analyse de la décoration. 222. N. TACKE, Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches. 223. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VII. 224. J. YOYOTTE, Histoire, géographie et religion de l’Égypte ancienne. Opera selecta. Textes édités et indexés par Ivan Guermeur. 225. H. DAVIES, Yusuf al-irbīnī’s Kitab Hazz al-Quhuf bi-arh Qasīd Abī aduf (“Brains Confounded by the Ode of Abu aduf Expounded”). Volume III: A Lexicon of 17th-century Egyptian Arabic. 226. A. CILARDO (ed.), Islam and Globalisation. Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. 227. S. BROCK, L. VAN ROMPAY, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts and Fragments in the Library of Deir al-Surian, Wadi al-Natrun (Egypt). 228. G. POLLET, G. VAN DAMME, F. DEPUYDT, Corpus Topographicum Indiae Antiquae III: Indian Toponyms in Ancient Greek and Latin Texts. 229. M. DEPAUW, S. COUSSEMENT (eds.), Identifiers and Identification Methods in the Ancient World. 230. E. LIPIŃSKI, Semitic Linguistics in Historical Perspective. 231. M. DEPAUW, Y. BROUX (eds.), Acts of the Tenth International Congress of Demotic Studies. 232. S.H. AUFRÈRE, P.S. ALEXANDER, Z. PLEŠE (eds.), On the Fringe of Commentary. Metatextuality in Ancient Near Eastern and Ancient Mediterranean Cultures. 233. C. WAERZEGGERS, Marduk-rēmanni. Local Networks and Imperial Politics in Achaemenid Babylonia. 234. M. SOKOLOFF, A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. 235. M. SOKOLOFF, Texts of Various Contents in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.
236. R.A. FAZZINI, J. VAN DIJK (eds.), The First Pylon of the Mut Temple, South Karnak: Architecture, Decoration, Inscriptions. 237. E. LIPIŃSKI, Peuples de la Mer, Phéniciens, Puniques. Études d’épigraphie et d’histoire méditerranéenne. 238. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Harsomtous. 239. A.S. LA LOGGIA, Engineering and Construction in Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period. 240. A.H. PRIES (ed.), Die Variation der Tradition. Modalitäten der Ritualadaption im Alten Ägypten. 241. P. KOUSOULIS, N. LAZARIDIS (eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Egyptologists, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, 22-29 May 2008. 242. P. COLLOMBERT, D. LEFÈVRE, S. POLIS, J. WINAND (eds.), Aere perennius. Mélanges égyptologiques en l’honneur de Pascal Vernus. 243. A. BINGGELI, A. BOUD’HORS, M. CASSIN (eds.), Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia. Mélanges monastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin. 244. U. VERMEULEN, K. D’HULSTER, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras VIII. 245. B. BADER, C.M. KNOBLAUCH, E.C. KÖHLER (eds.), Vienna 2 – Ancient Egyptian Ceramics in the 21st Century. 246. J. VAN DIJK (ed.), Another Mouthful of Dust. Egyptological Studies in Honour of Geoffrey Thorndike Martin. 247. P. BUZI, A. CAMPLANI, F. CONTARDI (eds.), Coptic Society, Literature and Religion from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. 248. M. REINKOWSKI, M. WINET (eds.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Europe and Beyond. Études arabes et islamiques en Europe et au-delà. 249. E. AMATO, A. CORCELLA, D. LAURITZEN (eds.), L’École de Gaza: espace littéraire et identité culturelle dans l’Antiquité tardive. 250. E. LIPIŃSKI, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics IV. 251. V. SOMERS, P. YANNOPOULOS (eds.), Philokappadox. In memoriam Justin Mossay. 252. M.D. ADAMS, B. MIDANT-REYNES, E.M. RYAN, Y. TRISTANT (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 4. 253. M.E. STONE, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Armenian Studies. Collected Papers: Volume 3. 254. J. HÄMEEN-ANTTILA, P. KOSKIKALLIO, I. LINDSTEDT (eds.), Contacts and Interaction. 255. J. STAUDER-PORCHET, Les autobiographies de l’Ancien Empire égyptien. 256. N. BOSSON, A. BOUD’HORS, S. AUFRÈRE (eds.), Labor omnia uicit improbus. Miscellanea in honorem Ariel Shisha-Halevy. 257. S. BICKEL, L. DÍAZ-IGLESIAS (eds.), Studies in Ancient Egyptian Funerary Literature. 258. L. MUEHLETHALER, G. SCHWARB, S. SCHMIDTKE (eds.), Theological Rationalism in Medieval Islam. 259. M. IMMERZEEL, The Narrow Way to Heaven. Identity and Identities in the Art of Middle Eastern Christianity. 260. B. MIDANT-REYNES, Y. TRISTANT, E.M. RYAN (eds.), Egypt at its Origins 5. 261. D. KNIPP, The Mosaics of the Norman Stanza in Palermo. A Study of Byzantine and Medieval Islamic Palace Decoration. 262. G. MINIACI, M. BETRÒ, S. QUIRKE (eds.), Company of Images: Modelling the Imaginary World of Middle Kingdom Egypt (2000-1500 BC). 263. D. BRAKKE, S.J. DAVIS, S. EMMEL (eds.), From Gnostics to Monastics. Studies in Coptic and Early Christianity in Honor of Bentley Layton. 264. R. DEKKER, Episcopal Networks and Authority in Late Antique Egypt. Bishops of the Theban Region at Work. 265. C. JURMAN, B. BADER, D. ASTON (eds.), A True Scribe of Abydos. Essays on First Millennium Egypt in Honour of Anthony Leahy. 266. M. WISSA (ed.), Scribal Practices and the Social Construction of Knowledge in Antiquity, Late Antiquity and Medieval Islam. 267. E. LIPIŃSKI, Toponymes et gentilices bibliques face à l’histoire.
268. A. BATMAZ, G. BEDIANASHVILI, A. MICHALEWICZ, A. ROBINSON (eds.), Context and Connection. Essays on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of Antonio Sagona. 269. K. CIGGAAR, V. VAN AALST (eds.), East and West in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean III. 270. K. LEVRIE, Jean Pédiasimos, Essai sur les douze travaux d’Héraclès. Édition critique, traduction et introduction. 271. M. PIASENTIN, F. PONTANI, Cristoforo Kondoleon, Scritti Omerici. 272. A. HILKENS, The Anonymous Syriac Chronicle of 1234 and its Sources. 273. M. HONEGGER (ed.), Nubian Archaeology in the XXIst Century. 274. M. ABOU-ABDALLAH, L’histoire du royaume de Byblos à l’âge du Fer, 1080-333. 275. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Israel. 276. L. SELS, J. FUCHSBAUER, V. TOMELLERI, I. DE VOS (eds.), Editing Mediaeval Texts from a Different Angle: Slavonic and Multilingual Traditions. 277. C. WAERZEGGERS, M. SEIRE (eds.), Xerxes and Babylonia: The Cuneiform Evidence. 278. K. D’HULSTER, G. SCHALLENBERGH, J. VAN STEENBERGEN (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras IX. 279. M.-J. ROCHE, Inscriptions nabatéennes datées de la fin du IIe siècle avant notre ère au milieu du IVe siècle. 280. W. CLARYSSE, A.I. BLASCO TORRES (eds.), Egyptian Language in Greek Sources. Scripta onomastica of Jan Quaegebeur. 281. J. BRETSCHNEIDER, G. JANS (eds.), About Tell Tweini (Syria): Artefacts, Ecofacts and Landscape. 282. J. LEEMANS, G. ROSKAM, J. SEGERS (eds.), John Chrysostom and Severian of Gabala: Homilists, Exegetes and Theologians. 283. A. PELLITTERI, M.G. SCIORTINO, D. SICARI, N. ELSAKAAN (eds.), Re-defining a Space of Encounter. Islam and Mediterranean: Identity, Alterity and Interactions. 284. E. DESPOTAKIS, John Plousiadenos (1423?-1500). A Time-Space Geography of his Life and Career. 285. J.-M. DAHMS, Die Särge des Karenen. Untersuchungen zu Pyramidentexten und Sargtexten. 286. A. BUCOSSI, A. CALIA (eds.), Contra Latinos et Adversus Graecos. The Separation between Rome and Constantinople from the Ninth to the Fifteenth Century. 287. E. LIPIŃSKI, A History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Judah. 288. M. CONTERNO, M. MAZZOLA (eds.), Intercultural Exchange in Late Antique Historiography. 289. A.R. WARFE, J.C.R. GILL, C.R. HAMILTON, A.J. PETTMAN, D.A. STEWART (eds.), Dust, Demons and Pots. Studies in Honour of Colin A. Hope. 290. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Catalogue des dieux et des offrandes. 291. D. OLTEAN, Devenir moine à Byzance. Coutumes sociales, règles monastiques et rituels liturgiques. 292. M.M. GROß, At the Heart of an Empire: The Royal Household in the Neo-Assyrian Period. 293. Å. ENGSHEDEN, Ancient Place-Names in the Governorate of Kafr el-Sheikh. 294. M.L. AGATI, Il De tragoedia “barocciano”. Una rivisitazione cinquant’anni dopo. 295. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Hymnes à Hathor et à Isis. 296. S. CAUVILLE, Dendara. Les structures décoratives du temple d’Hathor. 297. S.H. AUFRÈRE, C. SPIESER (eds.), Le microcosme animal en Égypte ancienne. De l’effroi à la vénération. 298. A. RIGO, Gregorio Palamas, Tomo aghioritico. La storia, il testo e la dottrina. 299. V.W.J. VAN GERVEN OEI, A Reference Grammar of Old Nubian.
PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER
• IMPRIME
SUR PAPIER PERMANENT
N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT
• GEDRUKT
OP DUURZAAM PAPIER
50, B-3020 HERENT
- ISO 9706