Estate of Ämr
Jeffrey A. Blakely Above: An 1880 map of the area around Khirbet Ajlan, including Tell el-Hesi and Khirbe...
4 downloads
367 Views
39MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Estate of Ämr
Jeffrey A. Blakely Above: An 1880 map of the area around Khirbet Ajlan, including Tell el-Hesi and Khirbet Khisas. From C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener, Map of Western Palestine in 26 Sheets: From Surveys Conducted for the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Scale 1:63,360.
1890a, 161; 1890b, 220; 1891,10, 53). Almost immediately biblical scholars' interest in the site waned.
Ajlan first claimed notice in the scholarly At this same time, scholars in other disciplities were attracted world when pioneering biblical geographer Edward to Khirbet Ajlan. If not biblical Eglon, what was it? In 1890, Robinson visited the site on 22 May 1838. Robinson Guy LeStrange cited a text from the thirteenth-century scholar confidently identified the site with biblical Eglon (Robinson Yaqut stating that the seventh-century military and political and Smith 1841, 2:391-92), with the result that the site leader Amr b. al-As named his estate Ajlan after his mawla and its identification became known immediately, and it (former slave; 1866-1873, 2:413). In 1899, Charles Clermontbegan to receive a steady stream of visitors and scholars Ganneau connected Amr b. al-As's estate Ajlan with Khirbet throughout the rest of the nineteenth century (e.g., van de Ajlan, making it a notable mid-seventh-century site (1896Velde 1858, 115, 248, 308; Thomson 1874, 2:356-57; Por- 1899, 2:439 n.*). The estate acquired by Amr b. al-As, one of ter 1858, 1:260; 1866, 209; Guèrin 1869, 296-99; Conder the leaders of the Islamic conquests of Palestine and Eg-ypt, and Kitchener 1883, 278; see fig. 1). In the spring of 1890, would be a significant site for that reason alone. however, archaeologist William Matthew Flinders Pétrie Almost simultaneously. Crusader scholars were working to identify thirteenth-century villages in this area based on a discovered no pre-Roman remains at Khirbet Ajlan and concluded correctly that it could not be biblical Eglon (Pétrie deed dated 1256/1257 between John d'lbelin and the Hospi-
tal of Saint John (Paoli 1733-1737, 1:150-53; see figs, 2A-D), This deed lists fourteen villages sold by d'lbelin to the Hospital, atid atnong those villages were Agelen el Hayet and Agelen el Ahsses, Hatis Prutz (1881, 172) and Emtnatutel Rey (1883, 404, 412) worked on this deed in the 1870s and the early 1880s, and each equated Khirbet Ajlan with Agelen el Hayet. The publication of the Map and Survey of Western Palestine (Conder and Kitchener 1880, 1883; see opening photo) reinvigorated this scholarship by "discovering" the names of many Palestinian villages and ruins in the region. Reinhold Röhricht (1887, 240-41) and Claude Conder (1889) each sought to identify all the villages tunned in this deed, and each itnmediately accepted the identification of Agelen el Hayet as Khirbet
Fig. 1. This map shows tbe location of the larger sites and features described in this study set within a larger map of the Israel/Palestine/Jordan region. Map produced by William Isenberger in consultation with the author.
Ajlan, in part because Khirbet Ajlan was high upon a ridge. Although each scholar made other new identifications, neither could identify Agelen el Ahsses. It was only in the 1940s that Cjustav Beyer suggested that Agelen el Ahsses was Khirbet Khisas, a small site in the Ooodplain of W^adi el-Hesi (19461951, 256-58; see figs. 3A-B). This identification attracted little, if any, note or comtnent.
In July 2008, the Hesi Regional Survey visited Khirbet Khisas, a small site of a bit less than 1.4 ha (3.5 acres), and found no pottery from the Crusader period. If this date is accurate and representative for the site, this observation obviates Beyer's identification, and Agelen el Ahsses remains unidentified (see figs. 4A-C).
Fig. 2A. Khirbet Ajlan is a small site sitting on a ridge overlooking Wadi el-Hesi. In 1945 the Royal Air Force (RAF) photographed all of Palestine. This close-up of Kbirbet Ajlan is taken from tbose images. It sbows a small unremarkable site, but here tbe weti Rujm Abu Ajlan is visible before it and other structural remains at Kbirbet Ajlan were bulldozed. At present, no structures are to be found on the site beyond a few fragmentary wall lines flattened to ground level. Pbotograpb PS15-5058 was obtained from the Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for use in tbe study of tbe Hesi region. Tbis is a very small portion of tbe larger image.
Fig. 2B (left). Today Khirbet Ajlan is atop a ridge surrounded by i r r i g a t e d f i e l d s and overlooking a citrus grove. The site itself is not farmed, although the structures visible on the site in 1945 have now been flattened. This ¡mage is a rectified photomosaic of air photographs taken by a kite by members of the Hesi survey in July 2010.
Fig. 2C (right). The air photographs taken by the Hesi survey in July 2010 were rectified using the precise locations of many of the white dots seen here witbin the image, the white dots being carefully mapped in three dimensions. Overlap of the rectified images along with the survey data allowed this highly accurate orthophotograph to be created for which all distortions have been removed. The site is no more than about 100 m x 100 m, although modern agricultural activities may have removed the extreme edges of the site.
Fig. 2D (left). Khirbet Ajlan was also visited by the author in 1979. Here Khirbet Ajlan is atop a gentle slope overlooking a then modern but unirrigated field. The site is neither large nor impressive.
With only Khirbet Ajlan preserving the Ajlan or Agelen name, it is not surprising that the equation Khirbet Ajlan = Agelen el Hayet = the village Ajlan named after Atnr b. al-As's mawla has been unquestioned in the field. In addition, Ajlan was etiumerated in the 1596/1597 daftar-i mufassal (a village-by-village tax register) as having ten heads of hou.sehold who were taxed for production of wheat and barley, on other occasional revenues, and on their ownership of goats and bee hives (Hütteroth and Abdultattah 1977,143). It was also identified as the location of the center of Amr b. al-As's manor/estate. Not only was the site named alter Atnr b. al-As's mawla, but the site was the central place in a major estate that was created in the mid-seventh century and continued to be held by the al-As clan for generations (Lecker 1989). Finally, al-Tabari's accounts of Amr b. al-As's estate at Ajlan (al-Tabari 1990, 171-72; 1997, 191-92) suggest a site altogether larger than what is preserved at Khirbet Ajlan today. In July 2004, the Hesi Regional Survey visited Khirbet Ajlan and found a pottery sequence running from the Byzantine period to, probably, the Ayyubid/Mamluk period. The survey also found the site to be relatively small (about 0.9 ha, or 2.2 acres). To be sure, some of the site was impacted by agricultural activities over the past fifty years, but only a very limited sherd scatter could be detected in the fields beyond the site, covering at most an additional 0.95 ha (2.3 acres). Moreover, the lack of a good well at this high location casts doubt on the possibility that a significantly larger site could ever have been supported here. Both the daftar-i mufassal of 1596/1597 and Lecker's work on Amr b. al-As's estate suggest that Ajlan was a far larger site than that of Khirbet Ajlan. The connection between Crusader Agelen el I layet and Khirbet Ajlan seems reasonable, but why are they linked with the location of Amr b. al-A.s's estate Ajlan? By the logic used in making such an identification, it is just as likely that the location of Agelen el Ahsses should be linked with Amr b. al-As's Ajlan. The reason Agelen el Ahsses has been ignored and not equated with Atnr b. al-As's estate Ajlan is that its location has been lost. Conder and Kitebener (1880, sheet XX; 1883, 281, 286, 288) atid Pétrie (1890b, 221; 1891, 53) tioted two ruins of little consequence just about a kilometer downstream from Tell el-Hesi: Khirbet Tannar and Khirbet Hazzarah.' The descriptions provided by Conder and Kitchener, Pétrie, and subsequent archaeological inspectors during the Rritish Mandate (British Mandate Record Files;
Amr b. al-As
I
f you know your streets in Jerusalem, you may be aware that the entratice to the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research is located at the corner of Saladin Street and Amr b. al-As Street. But who was Atnr b. al-As? He was one of the most astute politicians, diplomats, and military leaders of the immediate followers of the Prophet Muhammad. Atnr b. al-As was born in the vicinity of Mecca at some point in the 580s. He came from a wealthy and infiuential family that was based in an estate located near Wadi Wajj in the vicinity of Ta'if, Saudi Arabia. About the year 629 he and his son Abdallah converted and became followers of the Prophet. Soon he was governor of Oman. With the death of the Prophet, he was recalled by Abu Bakr and by 633 led an army through Ayla to Palestitie, thereby commanding a protninent role in the conquest of Palestine atid Syria. He played major roles in the battles at Adjnadayn, Yarniuk, and Damascus. Subsequently he became governor of Filastin, and it is likely that it was at this titne he acquited his estate Ajlan. From 640-642, he was at the head of the Muslim armies that conquered Egypt. He became governor of Egypt, founded the new city of Fustat, and erected the first mosque in Africa. This mosque, now in downtown Cairo (see photo below), remains protninetit to this day, even though it has been tnodified, destroyed, and rebuilt a nutnber of times. With the rise of Uthman in the tnid-640s, Amr b. al-As was replaced as govertior of Egypt, and he seems to have retired in disgust to Ajlan. For more than a decade he remained in retirement, although he likely worked behind the scenes agaitist Uthman. It is at the end of this period of retirement that al-Tabari describes Amr b. al-As and his sons at Ajlan, undoubtedly sitting astride a major postal route, when a series of riders pass on their way to Gaza and Egypt bringing news of the insurrection against and then tbe death of Uthman. At this point Atnr b. al-As, now a relatively old man, openly allied himself with Muawiya and helped him secure the caliphate through both tnilitary and diplotnatic means. As a result, in about 658 Amr b. al-As was reappointed governor of Egypt, a position he held until his death in 664. Various traditions indicate that Amr b. al-As was buried at Ajlan, while his soti Abdallah was buried at Mulakis.
The Mosque of Amr b. al-As in modern-day Cairo.
NEAR HASTLRN ARC
!;;;^..\rV«r n u . - a l y - J i m r -i |njtsi: ç-.:>.'
t Joî),u) V'^iutj Craw V J.IJJ^K -. ?-•;•' '
Sxntiff - * ' t r r t i - 1 oonjttnp en i)erj2în.îCi.l)mRigc i u « J^tw ÎTulLuinif V
dujka : "N- •r' .r t
îcji- ,ijj,uinj- Á ehjiuwt
^vmir
rttrr .\ ijuant-jnatrice VJim,iiltc- > .\ ,Vtin-ca ginnx ^. • - •-
::i.l " • " ~ l - c u I.: 1-
toirt J»5 ma -* » u nje» W ' * i** t r ,l tun te •>«««- Sir ,J),II|VIT f^ A tt^jW cninir -nia t UB. tiM Jiiír^w*
'ivufä -»-
-Í i'
1 jiii^ Ati-.-f- « L La Mtí« t 1-Î '*!|VnJí' •" tí Bniiimicinmr S^Jotif • «* ^- >"" - f
líjVrt- f m t n r »« tt» jí«tt;fpo* > v i n » \ n « i í s » r
r. .» 'í"S,«ra;i,'j i ^ ,u:ninrr:,*iiiefr''^ l-JtpjH í-r- i » t CT cjiit ir « e l guT U"- ui) j i ' "^^
^
t . t u e s - T n:itrxf-!UíO ¿rn.1t» •» t j W t l o « ' m a n c m m r a t í i i r i r m e fi c|i!f m n M« t n l » l > » ' a ' '
i t n w ' ï e » a u » er .¡«wr'eft nimw. C n m n - S i W i p n),iTtj
l
Fig, 3A (above). In 1256/1257 John d'lbelin sold a parcel from his estate to the Hospital of Saint John, later known as tbe Knights of Malta. A variety of documents make up tbe deed. Tbis document, written in French on parchment, is an example of one. It was first published by Paoli in 1733. Tbis document is in tbe National Library of Malta (Arch. 5 docs., no. 51) in Valletta. Pbotographed by Harold Psaila for the autbor.
ii--
^
.a,imif;,t!
t
Fig. 3B (below). When John d'lbelin sold the parcel, fourteei villages were listed on tbe deed. Tbis is a photograph of village list tbere. Tbree villages discussed in tbis stud] Malagues, Agelen el Hayet, and Agelen el Absses, ar bighligbted. This document is in tbe National Library of Malt (Arch. 5 docs., no, 49), in Valletta, Pbotograpbed by Harol. Psaila for the author and subsequently digitally enhanced to highlight the writing.
Fig. 4A. Photograph of the site Khirbet Khisas. Beyer suggested that this might be the ruin of Agelen el Ahsses, but the site is very small and shallovi/, and the recent survey of the site found no Crusader-period pottery, something that would be expected if it had been Agelen el Ahsses. Photograph by the author.
Fig. 4B. Site plan of Khirbet Khisas. Plan produced by William Isenberger in consultation with the author.
Kh. Khisas
I I i I I 8 S i I I I !
Fig. 4C. Site plan of Khirbet Khisas. Plan produced by William Isenberger in consultation with the author.
N K A R KAS'I'HRN A R C H A K O L O G Y 71:4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 2 1 5
Khirbet Tannar and Khirbet Hazzarah) all include words such as "small," "ruined," "miserable," "no depth" (meaning Roman or later), and "not important" (e.g.. Pétrie 1891, 53; see fig. 5). In July 2008 the Hesi Regional Survey visited these sites. Each is of modest size, Khirbet Tannar (8.05 ha, or 19.9 acres) being larger than Khirbet Hazzarah (3.72 ha, or 9.2 acres). Khirbet Tannar is separated from Khirbet Hazzarah by the active channel of Wadi el-Hesi. In addition, both sites appear to have been divided into two parts by what seem to be relic channels of Wadi el-Hesi. If one examines the archaeological record of these sites, each has a ceramic sequence of Late Byzantine through Marnluk/Early Ottoman. For these reasons it seetiis likely that these two unimportant sites were formerly one large site that was subsequently eroded and dissected by Wadi el-Hesi. If this conclusion is warranted, then, instead of two modest, unimportant sites, we have one large site of about 29.5 ha (73 acres). The site has a reservoir, cisterns, tessellated tloors, pottery, glass, and basalt grinding stones. It also sports quantities of slag, the remnants left behind from a lime-slaking process that probably occurred after the abandontnent of the site (figs. 6 and 7).
Fig. 5. Site plan showing, in particular, tbe locations of Kbirbet Tannar and Kbirbet Hazzarab in relation to Wadi el-Hesi and Tell el-Hesi and other nearby sites. Tbe blue oval is tbe suggested limit of tbe combined site, Agelen el Absses, prior to erosion. This site plan is set over a pbotomosaic of tbe region created from 1945 RAF pbotograpbs. Tbe pbotomosaic and site plan were produced by William Isenberger in consultation with tbe autbor.
It is quite possible, therefore, that the cotnbined site Khirbet Tannar and Khirbet Hazzarah was Crusader Agelen el A lisses. Both the chronology and location along Wadi el-Hesi tit. Given the site's size and periods of use, it is also the likely location of Ajlan as enumerated in the 1596/1597 daftar-i mufassal with its ten heads of household. As befitting its Crusader natne, small Khirbet Ajlan/Agelen el Hayet is located high on the ridge, but just a little more than a kilometer to the south and along the banks of Wadi el-Hesi is the far larger and probable site of Early Ottoman Ajlan and Crusader Agelen el Ahsses, Khirbet Tannar-Hazzarah. For this discussion, most itnportantly, its size and ready access to water also suggest that this was Ajlan, the home of Amr b. al-As. If this identification is correct, then the location of an important site in the early
Islamic history of Palestine is now known. Assuming that Khirbet Tannar-Hazzarah is Amr b. al-As's Ajlan, other sites can be studied with an itnproved understanding. Khirbet Ajlan/Agelen el Hayet is located high on the ridge on the main road connecting Hebron with Gaza. It is a small occupational site probably located on Amr b, al-As's large estate. It would be interesting to excavate and determine, if possible, how Khirbet Ajlan/Agelen el Hayet related to Agelen el Ahsses/Khirbet Tannar-Hazzarah. Subsequent to occupation, Khirbet Ajlan was reused as a burial ground with a weli (shrine), which was called Rujm Abu Ajlan and was recently destroyed. The site of Mulakis (many titnes called Utnm Laqis), a large Byzantine to Ayyubid/Matnluk as well as
Fig. 6. Virtually all of what is the flood plain of the Wadi el-Hesi in tbe foreground of this photograph is eitber Kbirbet Tannar or old channels of Wadi el-Hesi tbat bave been filled witb loess and silt. Tbis land is now farmed. Kbirbet Hazzarab (not visible bere) would be to tbe left, across Wadi el-Hesi. Note Tell el-Hesi in tbe upper left-band corner of tbe pbotograpb dominating tbe landscape of tbe region. Pbotograpb by tbe autbor.
Fig. 7. This ¡s a low-altitude air pboto taken of Khirbet Tannar in tbe mid 1970s, illustrating bow tbe uneroded and remaining parts of tbe site rise a few meters above tbe loess and silt of tbe current Wadi el-Hesi flood plain. Pbotograph by Yaakov Huster.
N K A K K A S l liUN A R C H A H O I . C X i Y 7 i : 4 ( 2 0 1 0 ) 217
the excavation of Tell el-Hesi by Pétrie and Bliss and tbeir contributions to archaeological methodology assured the site's place in bistory. In 1970, a consortium of American and Canadian schools renewed excavation at Tell el-Hesi at the behest of famed biblical scholar and archaeologist G. Ernest Wright. The idea was to re-excavate the site alongside the cuts of Pétrie and Bliss in an attempt to determine how far the discipline of atcbaeology bad advanced over the previous tbreec[uarters of a century by cotnparing tlic quality and extent of stratigrapbic and chronological conclusions. Eigbt seasons were conducted betweeti 1970 and 1983, during which Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, Persian period, and Late Islamic remains were excavated and studied. As part of this work, each year the project also conducted a regional survey in an attempt to understand how Tell el-Hesi functioned within its etivirotis. By the titne the ptoject turned to prepare the tegional survey for publication, the discipline had changed to the extent that the survey data were ttnpublishable. Therefore, in 2004 and 2008 two additional seasons of survey were conducted using the tnost up-to-date Global Positioning System and Geographic Infortnation Systems equiptnent. In addition, it was clear that tnerely understanding how Tell el-Hesi functioned within its environs was inadequate. Rather, researchers must determine liow a specific region functioned through titne. The discovery of "sites" no longer was the focus of the work: the regional archaeological, geomorphological, and historical records tnust also be sought.
A
esearchers must determine how a specific region functioned through time.
Grusader site located 4 km to the west-northwest of what we should now take to be Amr b. al-As's Ajlan, is well fitted to be a subsidiary part ofthe estate, as already discussed by Lecker ( 1989, 32-33, 36). Mulakis is far larger than Khirbet Ajlan, and it was difficult to explain how the larger site was subsidiary to the smaller one when Khirbet Ajlan was identified with Atnr b. al-As's Ajlan. We now know that this was not so, and Mulakis is far smaller than the combined site of Khirbets Tannar and Hazzarah. Mulakis, Agelen el Ahsses, and Agelen el-Hayet were three ofthe fourteen sites sold by d'lbelin to the Hospital of Saint John in 1256. With Agelen el Ahsses now identified and added to the Grusader map ofthe region, we can see how the known villages sold by d'lbelin were arranged in what would have been the southern extent of his holdings (fig. 8). Finally, a ruined cobble and cement bartage dam is located heading across the Wadi cl-Kaneiterah a bit northeast of Tell el-Hesi. It was first studied by Pétrie and identified as Roman/ Byzantine (Pétrie 1891, 18, 54), but a date in the Early Islamic period is equally sustainable based on the litnited fragtnents of pottery found in the cement. This dam makes no sense to those who have studied the region previously, since Tell el-Hesi had been abandoned for about a millennium at the titne ofthe dam's construction. There is no apparent reason why anyone would make the effort to divert Wadi el-Kaneiterah and in effect channelize Wadi el-Hesi when no Roman or Islatnic settlement of any significance was known along the wadi (fig. 9). Assuming that Khirbet Tannar-Hazzarah/Agelen el Ahsses can be identified as Amr b. al-As's Ajlan, then this dam could well have been built at about the same time as Ajlan, in the mid-seventh century during the Rashidun Galiphate. What function might this dam have served, since water retention on a periodic stream in a sand and loess environment is unlikely? Amr b. al-As came from an agricultural estate in Arabia, the region around Mecca, and he probably understood an irrigation system based on harnessing flash floods through barrage dams and channels. From pre-Islamic to recent times in Yemen, for example, it was common to place towns or villages in flood plains adjacent to a major wadi. A barrage dam placed upstream from the town or village harnessed seasonal floods and diverted the water through channels, which then watered fields and gardens around the town or village (.see, e.g., Overstreet and Blakely 1996). This suggestion demands further research. Based on a variety of limited but greatly varied evidence collected and studied for the past 170 years, therefore, it is possible to identify the location of Amr b. al-As's Ajlan at a point about a kilometer downstream from Tell el-Hesi where two unremarkable khirbets have been known but dismissed as having no importance. Recognizing that collectively they formed one large site, in existence probably from about 640 to 1600, means that an improved understanding ofthe region is possible. Most scholars ignore this region from the demise of Tell el-Hesi at about 300 B.C.E. to the arrival of Robinson in 1838, except when dealing with the Grusades. We now know that a new and important site developed in the seventh century, prob-
NEAR l-ASTPRN ARCHAI-OIiXiY 71:4 (2010)
1
^H
E 114 ^^^H
E 110
• •• m
N 118
N112
S
î
•M 116
i\'U:km ereayH
J
N 108
N 108
—^
'1
N HM
1
'' Tj
;:
.
1
.
1
_\
ably Amr b. al-As's estate, Ajlan. This site probably controlled the entire region for at least two centuries until the importance of the al-As clan declined in the ninth century(Lecker 1989, 32-37). Nonetheless, the village of Ajlan continued to be occupied until soon after 1600, a time when, according to the Hesi Regional Survey, all villages in the region were seemingly abandoned. Finding and understanding Ajlan is an important first step toward writing a detailed history of this region that includes all historical periods.
a N 100
Fig. 8 (above). The deed of 1256/1257 between John d'lbelin and the Hospital of Saint John listed fourteen villages. Modern scholarship has yet to identify all of them, but this map shows that those currently identified are found in one general region. The site of Khirbet Zeidan, to the south and in red, has Crusader-period remains, but is yet to be matched with a Crusader-period village name. It is likely to be one of the unidentified sites from the deed. The map was produced by William Isenberger in consultation with the author.
PostScript for Biblical ^ Scholars
I
n 1924, W. F. Albright suggested that Tell el-Hesi was not biblical Lachish (1924, 7-8), and in 1929 he argued correctly that Tell ed-Duweir was Lachish (1929, 3), At the same time, Albright argued that Tell el-Hesi was biblical Eglon, since it was the closest ancient tell site to Khirbet Ajlan, the site Albright asserted preserved the tells biblical name (1924, 7-8; 1925,8), When Albright made this argument, he specifically discounted Clermont-Ganneau's use of Yaqut's statement that Ajlan was named after Amr b, al-As's mawla, Ajlan (Clermont-Ganneau 1896-1899, 2;438-39; Yaqut 1866-1873, 2:19), Albright discounted Yaqut's testimony because it dated six full centuries after the events described. Albright's dismissal of Yaqut s statetnent is probably not warranted, since Yaqut was simply quoting Baladhuri's testimony, which dated only about two centuries after the founding of Atnr b. al-As's Ajlan while the estate remained with the al-As clan. With renewed excavations at Tell el-Hesi in the early 1970s, two other arguments aligned against the idea that Icll el-Hesi was biblical Eglon, Rainey argued against it on geographical grounds, suggesting that Tell Etun is a more likely candidate (1976). Blakely and Horton argued that Tell el-Hesi was altogether too small (at about 0.6 ha, or 1.5 acres) to be a significant site at the end of the Late Bronze Age (2001, 33), Thus, the identification of Tell el-Hesi with biblical Eglon seems unlikely. By suggesting that the center of Amr b, al-As's estate Ajlan is located just a kilometer or so downstream from Tell elHesi, it is probable that some may follow Albright and seek lo resurrect the identification of biblical Eglon with Tell elI Icsi. The proximity might seem compelling, but the arguments against such an identification enumerated by Rainey (1976) and Blakely and Horton (2001) remain. This will be countered by the scholar of the obscure who will note that local informants called Tell el-Hesi Tell Ajlan when it was pointed out to Archibald Henry Sayce in 1881 (Sayce 1890, 427), However, this is almost proof positive that Amr b, al-As's Ajlan is, in fact, located just downstream from Tell cl-Hesi. Even until 1881 the memory of Amr b. al-As's Ajlan was preserved by a few. After all, what else would one call a major tell located very close to the important early Islamic site of Ajlan other than the tell belonging to that estate, hence Tell Ajlan. Tell el-Hesi might have been called Tell Ajlan by many during the period when Ajlan was occupied. After Ajlan was dissected by Wadi el-Hesi and abandoned by the early seventeenth century as new Bedouin tribes moved into the area (Blakely and Horton 1995, 124-30), new names started to take hold, and, in all likelihood, the descriptive Tell cl-Hesi supplanted Tell Ajlan, since neighboring Ajlan no longer existed.
Note 1. There is great confusion in the archaeological documentation aiul maps for this particular region. On various maps and record.s, the sites of Khirbet Abu Zureii, Khirbet Tannar, Khirbet Wahashiyeh, and Khirbet Hazzarah get confused, Conder and Kitchener (1880, 1883) were clear and precise on Khirbet Tannar, Khirbet Wahashiyeh, and Khirbet Hazzarah, and the Hesi Regional Survey found these satne sites exactly where Conder and Kitchener originally identified them, so I am following their identifications. More recently another site, Khirbet Zureii, was identified and also, occasionally, confused. This site is known by us as well. The locations of these sites are accurately portrayed on the site tiiap.
References Albright, W. F. 1924. Researches of the School in Western Judaea, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 15:2-11, . 1925. The Fall Trip of the School in lerusalem: From Jerusalem to Gaza and Back. Bulletin of the American Scliools of Oriental Research 17:4-9, . 1929. The American Excavations at Tell Beit Mirsim. Zeitschrift für die alttestanientliche Wissenschaft 47:1 -17.
Beyer, G, 1946-1951, Die Kreuzfahrergebiete Südwestpalästinas. Beiträge zur biblischen Landes- und Altertumskunde = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 68:148-92, 249-81. Blakely, J. A., and F. L. Horton Jr. 1995. Tell el-Hesi: What Is in a Name? Pp. 94-149 in The Yahweh/Baal Confrontation and Other Studies in Biblical Literature and Archaeology: Essays in Honor ofEwmett Willard Hamrick, ed. F. L. Horton Jr. and J, M, O'Brien, Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen. , 200L On Site Identifications Old and New: The Example of Tell el-Hesi. Near Eastern Archaeology 64:24-36. Bliss, F. J. 1894. A Mound of Many Cities: or. Tell el Hesy Excavated. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet Hazzara. n.d. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files. Number 4: Khirbet Hazzara. Jerusalem. British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet Abu Zurei'i. n.d. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files. Number 4: Khirbet Abu Zurei'i. Jerusalem. British Mandate Record Files: Tell el-Hesi. n.d, Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files. Number 63: Tell el-Hesi. Jerusalem. British Mandate Record Files: Al-Quneitira. n.d. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files, Number 154: Al-Quneitira. Jerusalem, British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet Tannar. n.d. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files, Number 181: Khirbet Tannar. Jerusalem. British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet cl-Wahshiya. n.d. Israel Antiquities Authority Archives, British Mandate Record Files, Number 192: Khirbet el-Wahshiya. Jerusalem. Clermont-Ganneau, C, 1896-1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873-1874. 2 vols. Trans, by J. MacFarlane. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, Conder, C. R, 1889. Norman Palestine. Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund 2l:\95'20\. Conder, C, R,, and H, H, Kitchener, 1880. Map of Western Palestine in 26 Sheets: From Surveys Conducted for the Committee of the
AliOLOüY 75:4 (2010) 221
Palestine Exploration Fund. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. by R. S. Humphreys. Bibliotheca Pérsica; SUNY Series in Near Scale 1:63,360. Eastern Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press. -. 1883. ludaea. Vol. 3 of The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs -, 1997. The Gommunity Divided. Vol. 16 of The History of of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. al-Tabari. Trans, by A. Brockett. Bibliotheca Pérsica; SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. Albany: State University of New York London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Press. Guèrin, H. V. 1869. ludée. Part 1, vols. 2-3 of Description géographique, Thomson, W. M. 1874. The Land and the Book; or. Biblical Illustrations historique, et archéologique de la Palestine. Paris: Imperiale. Drawn from the Manners and Gustoms, the Scenes and Scenery, of Hartmann, R. 1916. Politische Geographie des Mamlükenreichs: Kapitel the Holy Land. 3 vols. New York: Harper & Brothers. 5 und 6 des Staatshandbuchs Ibn Fadlallàh al-'Omari's. Zeitschrift Velde, G. W. M. van de. 1858. Memoir to Accompany the Map of the Holy der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 70:476-511. Land. Gotha: Perthes. Hütteroth, W.-D., and K. Abdulfattah. 1977. Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Gentury. Yaqut (Yäqüt ibn 'Abd Allah al-Hamawi). 1866-1873. Kitab Mu'jam Erlanger Geographische Arbeiten Sonderband 5. Erlangen: Fränal-Buldän. 6 vols. Ed. by H. F V^üstenfeld. Leipzig: Brockhaus. kische Geographische Gesellschaft. Lecker, M. 1989. The Estates o f Amr b. al-'Âs in Palestine: Notes on a New Negev Arabic Inscription. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 52:24-37. LeStrange, G. 1890. Palestine under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin. Overstreet, W. G., and J. A. Blakely, eds. 1996. Environmental
Research
in Support of Archaeological Investigations in the Yemen Arab Republic, 1982-1987. V^^adi al-Jubah Archaeological Project 5. Washington, D.G.: American Foundation for the Study of Man. Palmer, E. H. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine: Arabic and English Name Lists. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Paoli, S., ed. 1733-1737. Godice diplomático del sacro militare ordine Gerosolimitano oggi di Malta. 2 vols. Lucca: Marescandoli. Pétrie, W. M. F. 1890a. Explorations in Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 22:159-66.
. 1890b. Journals of Mr. W. M. Flinders Pétrie. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 22:219-46. -. 1891. Tell el-Hesy (Lachish). London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Porter, J. L. 1858. A Handbook for Travellers in Syria and Palestine. 2 vols. Murray's Handbooks for Travelers. London: Murray. . 1866. The Giant Gities ofBashan and Syria's Holy Places. New York: Nelson. Prutz, H. 1881. Die Besitzungen des Johanniterordens in Palästina und Syrien. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 4:157-93. Rainey, A. F. 1976. Eglon (City) L Page 252 in supplement volume to The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: An Illustrated Encyclopedia Identifying and Explaining All Proper Names and Significant Terms and Subjects in the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha, with Attention to Archaeological Discoveries and Researches into the Life and Faith of Ancient Times, ed. K. Crim. Nashville: Abingdon. Rey, E. G. 1883. Les colonies franques de Syrie, aux XU'"' et XIIP"siècles. Paris: Picard. Robinson, E. and E. Smith. 184L Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838. 3
vols. London: Murray. Röhricht, R. 1887. Studien zur mittelalterlichen Geographie und Topographie Syriens. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 10:195-345. Sayce, A. H. 1890. Excavations in Judaea. The Gontemporary Review 58 {September):427-34. Tabari, al- (Muhammad ibn larlr ibn Yazid al-Tabari). 1990. The Grisis of the Early Galiphate. Vol. 15 of The History of al-Tabari. Trans.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR leff Blakely has conducted archaeological research in North America, Israel, Yemen, and Jordan and has been associated with Tell el-Hesi since 1971. For the past twenty years he has examined the historical record for the Hesi region in first-person medieval, premodern, and earlymodern accounts. In 2004 and 2008, he co-directed the Hesi Regional Survey with Jimmy Hardin. This study presents results generated from the entirety of this Hesi experience. The photograph of Blakely was taken during the 2008 survey season hy H. K, Sheeler.
Site Names and Their Meanings
I
t is important to remember that the Arabic names of the archaeological sites have meaning. Many times they preserve a long tradition of the name, one that has Hebrew, Greek, or Latin origins but is then altered as it finds its home in the Arabic tongue. So, a site can preserve an ancient name, but the name may also be descriptive of the physical characteristics of the site, of the plants growing on the site, or of work tasks or acts performed on the site. The name may also be that of a current or recent owner. Understanding a site's current Arabic name is an important consideration in trying to identify its ancient name. This can be demonstrated in a discussion of the place names encountered in this study. In most cases these are the names as recorded by the Survey of Western Palestine and published and transliterated by Palmer (1881), Khirbet Ajlan was recorded in 1838 by Robinson and by all subsequent scholars. It was translated "the ruin of Eglon" (e,g,. Palmer 1881, 369), Soon thereafter Clermont-Ganneau noted the work of Yaqut and suggested "ruins of'Ajlan" (1896-1899, 2:439 n, *), which seems the appropriate translation. The name Hesi is associated with both a tell and a wadi, Hesi has a meaning something like "water accumulated in the sand" (Palmer 1881, 379, 381), This is an apt meaning, since there are several small fresh-water seeps along Wadi el-Hesi, and one of these is located at the base of Tell el-Hesi, It is unclear, therefore, if the tell derives its name from the wadi or the wadi derives its name from the tell. The name Mulakis seems to come from an Arabic root meaning "patient or enduring" (Clermont-Ganneau 1896-1899,2:438 n, *), It is first mentioned in a mid-ninth-century report of al-Asqalani, who was subsequently quoted by Ibn Asakir (Lecker 1989, 32-33), It is also known esi has a meaning by medieval Arabic-language historians and geographers from the inething like "water mid-fourteenth century onward (e,g,. Hartmann 1916, 488) and then appears in the dafiar-i mufassal in 1596/1597 (Hütteroth and accumulated in the Abdulfattah 1977, 148). It first appears in a European language, sand." French, in the d'lbelin deed of 1256 as "Malaques," a name having no apparent meaning in Latin, Greek, or any other Romance language of the time. One can assume, therefore, that the Crusaders had simply accepted the extant Arabic name. When Robinson first visited the site in 1838 and asked for its name, he heard "Umm Lakis" (Robinson and Smith 1841, 2:388), This name could have a meaning something like "the place of the itch" or "mother of itch" or "her mother was Lachish" (e,g„ Palmer 1881, 380; Petrie 1891, 20; Bliss 1894, 141), Some scholars (but not Robinson) took this name and identified the site as biblical Lachish, Later, when Pétrie proved there were no pre-Roman remains on the site, other scholars contended that the name "Umm Lakis" preserved the Lachish name and that biblical Lachish must be nearby, with Tell el-Hesi being the favored choice. As Clermont-Ganneau described in 1899, Robinson simply misheard the Arabic, and the local population called the site "M'lakis," Unfortunately, the site has been named "Umm Lakis," and that is how it appears on maps today. It is the fact that Robinson misheard the name that led the Palestine Exploration Fund to excavate at Tell el-Hesi between 1890 and 1892, thinking they were excavating biblical Lachish! The probable meanings of other associated sites are as follows: •
Khirbet Khusas (now, universally, Khisas): "The ruin of reed huts" (Palmer 1881, 372),
•
Khirbet Wahashiyeh: "The ruin of the wild place" (Palmer 1881, 376; British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet el-Wahshiya),
•
Khirbet Tannar: "The ruin of ovens or reservoirs" (Palmer 1881, 375). The site is described as having had cisterns, so "reservoirs" is probably the preferred meaning,
•
Khirbet Hazzarah: "The ruin of nightingales" (Palmer 1881, 371),
•
Khirbet Abu Zureii: "The ruin of Abu Zureii," indicating a site once owned by Abu Zureii, probably in the nineteenth or twentieth century (British Mandate Record Files: Khirbet Abu Zurei'i),
*•
Wadi el-Kaneiterah: "The valley of the small arch" (Palmer 1881, 382),
•
Wadi Tubakah: "The valley of the terrace" (Palmer 1881, 383),
Archaeological Research Focused on the Tell > el-Hesi Region
S
cholarly interest in this region began with the publication of Robinson's studies in 1841. At that titne tnuch ofthe scholarly world concluded that biblical Lachish and Eglon must be located in this area, since they had found the ruins of "Umm Lakis" and Khirbet Ajlan, respectively. In 1890, the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEE) sent famed Egyptologist William Matthew Flinders Pétrie to excavate biblical Lachish, at "Umm Lakis." A few days there confirmed to Pétrie that this site had no pre-Roman temains, so he decided to excavate Tell el-Hesi, a site showing ample pre-Roman remains in the natural cross-section where the site had been eroded away by the Wadi el-Hesi. He worked at Tell el-Hesi for about a month and in the process discovered ceramic chronology, one ofthe most basic tools for archaeologists of this region. After excavation, he was convinced he had excavated Lachish, but he did not like Palestine and returned to Egypt. In 1891 and 1892, the PEF continued its excavation at Tell el-Hesi, now under the leadership of Frederick Jones Bliss, an American who learned archaeological method from Pétrie in Egypt. Bliss excavated about a third of Hesi's acropolis and in so doing discovered how to excavate stratigraphically. Stratigraphie excavation and ceramic chronology remain at the heart ofthe discipline of archaeology today. As it turns out. Tell el-Hesi was not Lachish, but the historic nature of
This photograph (to the right) of Tell el-Hesi was taken in the 1920s. Notice the pie-shaped quadrant of tbe tell (now called "Bliss's Cut") that was excavated by Bliss between 1891 and 1892. This photograph was probably taken in April or May. Notice the stark landscape, in part a result of overgrazing. The sheep and goats in the photograph were probably leaving after watering at the old well at the base of Tell el-Hesi. British Mandate Record Files: Tell el Hesi, photograph 1133.
lotograph (left) of Tell el-Hesi ken in July 2009 from almost me location as the previous graph. Bliss's Cut is still us. Notice the trees, cane, leid crops, even tbougb this igraph was taken later in tbe I.er. Overgrazing has ceased, and modern irrigation runoff is feeding lel-Hesi. Soil in the Wadi el-Hesi plain is rieb and only needs an adequate water supply to grow lush liants. Controlled agriculture through lood-water irrigation could have 'ced abundant crops.
218 NHAR tASTERN ARCHAR)LO(¡Y 7 5:
the excavation of Tell el-Hesi by Pétrie and Bliss and tbeir contributions to archaeological methodology assured the site's place in bistory. In 1970, a consortium of American and Canadian schools renewed excavation at Tell el-Hesi at the behest of famed biblical scholar and archaeologist G. Ernest Wright. The idea was to re-excavate the site alongside the cuts of Pétrie and Bliss in an attempt to determine how far the discipline of atcbaeology bad advanced over the previous tbreec[uarters of a century by cotnparing tlic quality and extent of stratigrapbic and chronological conclusions. Eigbt seasons were conducted betweeti 1970 and 1983, during which Early Bronze Age, Iron Age, Persian period, and Late Islamic remains were excavated and studied. As part of this work, each year the project also conducted a regional survey in an attempt to understand how Tell el-Hesi functioned within its etivirotis. By the titne the ptoject turned to prepare the tegional survey for publication, the discipline had changed to the extent that the survey data were ttnpublishable. Therefore, in 2004 and 2008 two additional seasons of survey were conducted using the tnost up-to-date Global Positioning System and Geographic Infortnation Systems equiptnent. In addition, it was clear that tnerely understanding how Tell el-Hesi functioned within its environs was inadequate. Rather, researchers must determine liow a specific region functioned through titne. The discovery of "sites" no longer was the focus of the work: the regional archaeological, geomorphological, and historical records tnust also be sought.
A
esearchers must determine how a specific region functioned through time.
Grusader site located 4 km to the west-northwest of what we should now take to be Amr b. al-As's Ajlan, is well fitted to be a subsidiary part ofthe estate, as already discussed by Lecker ( 1989, 32-33, 36). Mulakis is far larger than Khirbet Ajlan, and it was difficult to explain how the larger site was subsidiary to the smaller one when Khirbet Ajlan was identified with Atnr b. al-As's Ajlan. We now know that this was not so, and Mulakis is far smaller than the combined site of Khirbets Tannar and Hazzarah. Mulakis, Agelen el Ahsses, and Agelen el-Hayet were three ofthe fourteen sites sold by d'lbelin to the Hospital of Saint John in 1256. With Agelen el Ahsses now identified and added to the Grusader map ofthe region, we can see how the known villages sold by d'lbelin were arranged in what would have been the southern extent of his holdings (fig. 8). Finally, a ruined cobble and cement bartage dam is located heading across the Wadi cl-Kaneiterah a bit northeast of Tell el-Hesi. It was first studied by Pétrie and identified as Roman/ Byzantine (Pétrie 1891, 18, 54), but a date in the Early Islamic period is equally sustainable based on the litnited fragtnents of pottery found in the cement. This dam makes no sense to those who have studied the region previously, since Tell el-Hesi had been abandoned for about a millennium at the titne ofthe dam's construction. There is no apparent reason why anyone would make the effort to divert Wadi el-Kaneiterah and in effect channelize Wadi el-Hesi when no Roman or Islatnic settlement of any significance was known along the wadi (fig. 9). Assuming that Khirbet Tannar-Hazzarah/Agelen el Ahsses can be identified as Amr b. al-As's Ajlan, then this dam could well have been built at about the same time as Ajlan, in the mid-seventh century during the Rashidun Galiphate. What function might this dam have served, since water retention on a periodic stream in a sand and loess environment is unlikely? Amr b. al-As came from an agricultural estate in Arabia, the region around Mecca, and he probably understood an irrigation system based on harnessing flash floods through barrage dams and channels. From pre-Islamic to recent times in Yemen, for example, it was common to place towns or villages in flood plains adjacent to a major wadi. A barrage dam placed upstream from the town or village harnessed seasonal floods and diverted the water through channels, which then watered fields and gardens around the town or village (.see, e.g., Overstreet and Blakely 1996). This suggestion demands further research. Based on a variety of limited but greatly varied evidence collected and studied for the past 170 years, therefore, it is possible to identify the location of Amr b. al-As's Ajlan at a point about a kilometer downstream from Tell el-Hesi where two unremarkable khirbets have been known but dismissed as having no importance. Recognizing that collectively they formed one large site, in existence probably from about 640 to 1600, means that an improved understanding ofthe region is possible. Most scholars ignore this region from the demise of Tell el-Hesi at about 300 B.C.E. to the arrival of Robinson in 1838, except when dealing with the Grusades. We now know that a new and important site developed in the seventh century, prob-
NEAR l-ASTPRN ARCHAI-OIiXiY 71:4 (2010)
FORMAT IN DEATH: "¡HI-
•'
ACaseSfady of Coffins issiderlrtod-E
f ;
Kathlyn M. Cooney
A
ccording to ancient texts, literate and educated Egyptians believed that creation and regeneration specifically belonged to the male gender. Men were thought to be responsible for off spring from a sexual union, not women (Roth 2000). Egyptian mythologies dealing with rebirth after death were also highly masculinized (Zandee 1992). In the ancient Egyptian mindset, only male divine beings such as Atum, Osiris, or Re had access to the powers of creation or resurrection (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). Goddesses were believed to be protective vessels.
Atum, who dwelled at Heliopolis, was thought by the ancient Egyptians to have created himself, and the entire world, through an act of sex with himself. Once this act was complete, he sneezed out a void, separating himself from the primeval matter of chaos. The most ancient colossal statuary from all of Egypt depicts a god in this act of masturbation, which for the ancient Egyptians represented the most sacred moment ofthe first creation. TJiese statues come from a pre-Dynastic cult center, over five tJiousand years old, in the Egyptian city of Coptos (fig. 1). This male sexual act was thought to be so potent in generating new life that the Egyptians made it a practice to remove the hands and phalluses from their enemy dead.
lest tJiey resurrect themselves to wreak havoc on their killers (fig. 2).
Death and Masculine Regeneration The ancient Egyptians went another step and brought notions of masculine potency into their own funerary beliefs. Tbey tbougJit that tbeir dead needed to actually transform into manifestations ofthe gods of creation and regeneration— Atum, Osiris, and Re—in order to harness tJie powers of masculine sexuality and be reborn into the next world. This solution worked well for the men of ancient Egypt, whose bodies naturally contained such regenerative power, but such a physical notion of rebirth was obviously problematic for Egyptian women. The Egyptians were very much aware of these gender problems, and they developed a number of solutions to address them. Although one might assume today that an Egyptian woinan could have associated herself with a powerful goddess sucb as Isis, mistress of magic, or Hathor, goddess ofthe western necropolis, the Egyptians did not make a connection between a dead woman and a goddess until the Greco-Roman period (Smith 1987, 130; Riggs and Stadler 2003). During Dynastic times, the Egyptians believed that a dead woman needed to
become a god of masculine virility, since a goddess lacked the creative spark needed to be reborn. Because of this, ancient Egyptian women had to contend with a variety of innovative and nuanced adaptations to their gender when preparing for death. Essentially, Egyptian women had to shift their gender and "masculinize" themselves to enter the Fields of Peace and other realms of the afterlife (Roth 2000). These gender alterations therefore had to be included in an elite Egyptian woman's lunerary equipment, particularly her coffin. The Egyptian coffin was an excellent vehicle to transform the woman (or the man, for that matter) into versions of Osiris, Re, and Atum
' ancient Egyptian city of Coptos showing tbe god Min engendering bis own creation, ca. 3200 B.C.E. NOW in Oxford, England, Ashmolean Museum. Accession number 1894.105e. Pboto courtesy of Katherine Wodebouse of the Asbmolean Museum,
Fig. 2 (below). Piles of phalluses of enemy dead presented to tbe god Amen-Re by King Ramesses III, represented in a relief from tbe first court of the mortuary temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, Luxor Egypt. Photo by Art Muir.
(Taylor 2001, 214-17). The coffin was believed to modify the very essence of the dead person. The deceased was called Osiris in the sacred hieroglyphs. Artisans also inscribed the coffin with a variety of underworld texts, particularly the Coffin Texts of the Middle Kingdom (2055-1650 B.C.E.) or the Book of the Dead of the New Kingdom (1550-1069 B.C.E.), both of which explicitly likened the dead to masculine gods of creation and helped them find their way on their perilous journey. The coffin permitted the female individual a kind of impermanent gender shift that allowed her to become temporarily like the gods Osiris, Atum, and Re, in order to use their powers of transformation to become an eternal, pure being—an akh soul. The akh was believed to be one of the "blessed dead," an individual who had successfully passed the tribunal and moved as an effective and protected spirit into the afterlife (Taylor 2001, 31-32). When the woman finally reached this blessed state, funerary images suggest that she returned to her feminine self, her true form for all eternity. Essentially, the same was true for men, who joined with Osiris temporarily, in order to become an akh spirit, only to return to a transcendent human-like form. With this as background, in this article I will examine the
profound link between gender and rebirth in the Egyptian mindset and how funerary objects, particularly body containers, expressed this belief system for the ancient Egyptians. Ramesside period (1295-1069 B.C.E.) coffins will serve as the main examples (for a catalogue of Ramesside coffins, see Cooney 2007, 397-484).
The Solar and Osirian Cycles So why did the ancient Egyptians connect masculinity so intimately to creation and resurrection? Further, why did the goddesses lack these powers? From the very beginnings of Egyptian civilization, divine creation and rebirth had a sexual subtext. As early as 3,000 B.C.E., an ithyphallic (i.e., with an erect penis) creator-god was depicted in statue form in the ancient cult site of Coptos (see fig. 1). As early as the Old Kingdom (2686-2125 B.C.E.), the god Atum was described in funerary literature as "self-created" through an explicit act of masturbation, and he was said to create the next generation of gods through acts of ejaculation, sneezing, and spitting (Allen 1988; Zandee 1992). A female entity—his hand, djeret in Egyptian and a feminitie word—helped Atum create himself by acting as stimulant and vessel.
Fig. 3. A depiction of the sun-god as a red disc setting into the western horizon and entering into the mouth of his mother Nut (in the lower right of the photograph) in the tomb of Ramesses VI in the Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt, Twentieth Dynasty. Photo by the author.
THRN AR(.:HAhi.)LOCiY 7 ):4 (2010)
Atum was the first known creator-god in the Egyptian pantheon, but he was also a solar deity, and the daily cycle of the sun can be seen as a sexualized male creation through union with the sky-goddess Nut (Allen 1988, 5-6; Assmann 2005, 172-74). Atutn was considered a tnanifestation ofthe evening sun, which would die but remained full of potentiality for rebirth. When the sun set in the west, Atum entered the mouth ofthe sky-goddess Nut, whose body was thought to contain the duat, or "netherworld." This essentially planted the seed of conception and Atum's reborn self within his own mother (fig. 3).
Fig. 4. A so-called "corn mummy" placed in a Late Period tomb, representing Osiris ready to bring about bis own resurrection. Now in tbe Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Photo by Art Muir witb permission from Yasmin el-Sbazly of tbe Egyptian Museum Cairo.
The ancient Egyptians understood these gods as models for their dead. The deceased needed to actually become Atum or the sun-god. Re, and this sacred transformation was thought to grant the dead ihe ability to create their own rebirth from death. This divine claitn is made very clear in chapter 79 of the Book ofthe Dead, in which the deceased states; 1 atn Atutn who made the sky and created what exists, who came forth from the earth, who created seed. Lord of All, who fashioned the gods, the Great God, the self-created, the Lord of Life, who made the Ennead to fiourish. (Eaulkner and Goelet 1994, 109) Another creator-god, Osiris, was thought to have the same potentiality for resurrection. After his murder and dismemberment by his brother Seth, his consort and sister Isis reassembled him. Osiris was then able to re-create himself through a sexual act with hitnself, the same act of masturbation used by Atum at the first moment of creation. Isis provided sexual cxcitetnent, but it was Osiris who essentially raised himself trotn the dead (fig. 4). Isis created the enclosure lor Osiris's rebirth—his mummy wrappings—and she acted as the vessel lor the conception of their son, Horus. But Isis was not thought to bring Osiris back to life; instead, she manifested a situation in which he could bring himself back to life. Because of Osiris's potentiality for life from death, the ancient Egyptians also linked the rebirth ofthe human dead to the Osirian cycle.
Gender, Power, and Resurrection The solar and Osirian versions of regeneration did not compete with one another but were cotnplementary. In chapter 69 ofthe Book ofthe Dead, the deceased links his rejuvenation directly to divine masculine sexuality by claiming to be a number of creator-gods, both Osirian and solar; I am Osiris, Lord of Persons, alive of breast, strong of hinder-parts, stiff of phallus, who is within the bound-
ary ofthe comtnon folk. I am Orion who treads his land, who precedes the stars ofthe sky which are on the body of my mother Nut, who conceived tne at her desire and bore me at her will. (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, 107) Both Atum and Osiris used their masculine potency to manifest new life. The Book ofthe Dead (ch. 82) actually links power in the afterlife specifically to masculine sexuality, particularly by providing a connection to Atum of Heliopolis; Those who are in Heliopolis bow their heads to me, for I am their lord, I am their bull. I am mightier than the Lord of Terror; 1 copulate and I have power over myriads. (Eaulkner and Goelet 1994, pi. 27) These texts make it quite clear that the ancient Egyptians understood the male sexual act as the process that allowed rebirth. Essentially, it reunited the disparate parts of a person, or a god, into a complete whole after death (or before creation). That is why we see these sexual acts represented in funerary literature and art. Atum's sexual act occurred just at that moment of bare self-awareness, before he understood his entire being and before he had fully created his own body. The sun-god's sexual act with his tnother. Nut, happerted at the very moment of his death in the western horizon, when he was dissolving and fading. The sexual act of Osiris with Isis happened after his death, after his body was dismetnbered, physically fragmented, and then magically reunited. The sexual act was believed to reconstitute and reawaken the god.
NEAR EASTtRN ARC:HAEOL(XiY 75:4 (2010) 227
In the same Osirian-solar mythologies of rebirth and cre6 below). She was not called Isis-Henut-mehyt, because Isis ation, the female element took on the role of aggressive protecwas not thought to have the necessary regenerative powers. tor, helper, and empty vessel. Although the goddesses Isis, Nut, The renaming ofthe deceased as Osiris + the personal name and Hathor excited the male with feminine presence, provided suggests a kind of metamorphosis. In other words, the hutnan sustenance, protected him from harm, reconstituted his shape, being had to undergo a transformation by joining with a god and contained him in a womb, they who was capable of creating existence were not believed to be responsible from nothing, or life after death. Artifor the spark of creation that gave new ^ ^ sans depicted Osiris's consorts and life (Bryan 1996; Roth 2000). In Egypprotectors Isis and Nephthys at the Egyptian mythologies tian funerary literature, nourishment ' foot and head ofthe coffin—as if the usually came from a female source dead person inside were the god Osiris of rebirth focused oiw. (Assmann 2005, 223-24), suggesting himself. Artisans and scribes also masculine creator-gods. an intimate connection between the equated the female individual to the consumption of food and subsequent sun-god through invocations, by promasculine sexual activity. In the Midviding her with solarizing skin colors dle Kingdom (2055-1650 B.C.E.), this (gold or dark red), or by naming Nut female source of sustenance was often fashioned into a small as the mother ofthe deceased in the central text patiel. Scribes statuette of a young, partially naked woman carrying beer, also used the masculine pronouns "he" and "him" instead bread, and fowl, which was placed into the tomb. In the New ofthe feminine "she" and "her" in transformative funerary Kingdom (1550-1069 B.C.E.), artisans sometimes painted the inscriptions written onto the coffin. tree-goddess onto the anthropoid coffin lid, particularly durThe form ofthe coffin was also important. During the Old ing the Ramesside Period, and she was thought to nourish the and Middle Kingdoms (2686-1650 B.C.E.), when rectangular deceased with bread and water (fig. 5). Female divine power coffins were in vogue, the shape ofthe coffin did not contribwas therefore believed to be a necessary, active, and dynamic ute to a gender idetitification. However, by the New Kingdom component ofthe resurrection process—albeit as an enclosure, (1550-1069 B.C.E.) people were using anthropoid coffins, a nurturer, not as the seed. which pictured the deceased in his or her bodily form. This posed a particular problem for the female dead because their Interestingly, ancient Egypt was not the only ancient culture gender was now more obvious. What was the solution? The to connect transformation with masculinity. Greation and female's burial had to follow the patterns of her male counterrebirth were male prerogatives in other ancient belief sysparts in inscription, form, and style, with only a few decoratems as well. For example, in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, tive markers that gave notice to her female gender. Artisans a version of which was found in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, Jesus provided elite women ofthe New Kingdom and thereafter with tells Mary Magdalene that she must be masculine to become an androgynous but still human-shaped tnummy case that reborn: "For every woman who makes herself male will enter provided the dead female with a new and fully bound Osirian the kingdom of heaven" (Hopkins 2000, 322). Wholly disconbody for her transformation. nected from Egypt, according to the Buddhist Lotus Sutra, a woman must become a man briefly, just so that she can attain The Egyptian Coffin as a Means of Divinizing the her enlightenment and reach nirvana (Peach 2002).
Deceased
Adaptations for the Rebirth of the Ancient Egyptian Woman Egyptian mythologies of rebirth focused on masculine creator-gods, and the deceased female essentially required a male divine identity to be reborn. This created problems for elite Egyptian women and encouraged a great deal of ingenious and innovative adaptation in their funerary art. Elite artisans, priests, and patrons (male and female) were aware ofthe problem of female rebirth, and they offered many possible solutions. First, they associated the female deceased with Osiris by combining her name with the god's in coffin inscriptions. As early as the Sixth Dynasty (2345-2181 B.C.E.), the names ofthe dead, whether they were male or female, were combined with the name of Osiris, as Osiris -i- the personal name (Assmann 2005, 74). In other words, the name of a Ramesside woman named Henut-mehyt would be inscribed on her coffin and other funerary objects as "Osiris-Henut-mehyt" (see fig.
There were no clear rules for the artisans who made funerary objects, but some adaptations were standard on coffins made for Egyptian women, in particular the association ofthe dead female with Osiris after her death, as Osiris ^- personal name (e.g., Osiris Henut-mehyt). This connection with Osiris allowed the dead woman to become not only masculine but also divine, providing her with regenerative powers like a creator-god. The coffin offered the ideal means of divinizing the deceased—at least for those elites who could afford one. This wooden container surrounded the dead individual with texts and scenes that remade him or her into the image of a god (Taylor 2001, 1\\-\1\ Gooney 2007,18-21). The coffin can be understood as the chief material manifestation, for the elite people who could buy them, of a kind of assimilation into Osiris. The main purpose of the coffin was to identify the deceased with a god of creation. The high-value coffin set of Henutmehyt ofthe Nineteenth Dynasty (fig. 6), for example, pro-
I. 5 (below). A detail on feet of the New Kingm coffin of Sennedjem, a Theban artisan, showing ' tree-goddess providing bread and water to the eased. Now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Acces-
, on number JE 27308. Photo by author with permission from Yasmin el-Shazly of the Egyptian Museum Cairo. (The coffin is pictured upside down.)
Fig. 6 (above). The coffin set of Henut-mehyt, a wealthy Theban woman. Now in London at the British Museum. Accession number EA 48001. Photo by author with permission from John H. Taylor of the British Museum.
\ ided the deceased female owner with a set of nesting Osirian bound bodies that, unlike hutiian flesh, wouJd not decay because they were made of wood and gold. The inner coffin and tnutnmy board in this set were fully gilded, providing Henut-mehyt with flesh like the sun-god himself. On the coffin lid text panel, she is identified as "the Osiris, Chantress of Amen in Ipet-Sut, Mistress ofthe House, Henut-mehyt" (Taylor 1999). The coffin thus transformed the woman into a divinized masculine being, mingling her essence with that of Osiris. Interestingly, only a few decorative elements hinted ihat the dead individual inside the coffin was female: modeled breasts undertieath her wesekh collar, her feminine wig, her feminine name and titles, and the feminine pronoun "she" in the central text column on the lid. Most ofthe other Book of the Dead texts on this coffin use the masculine pronoun, which can be understood as a purposeful negotiation of gender used by educated commissioners and highly literate artisans. This Nineteenth Dynasty coffin indicates that gender ¡lexibility, not a complete gender change, was useful in helping
the female attain her desired goal of rebirth as a transformed akh, while still retaining her feminine self The Egyptian Coffin and Gender Flexibility Anthropoid coffins came into vogue during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties (1580-1295 B.C.E.), replacing the rectangular coffins ofthe Old and Middle Kingdoms (2686-1650 B.C.E.). For the female dead, these first anthropoid cases were quite masculinizing. However, with the Ramesside Period (1295-1069 B.C.E.), coffins started to become illustrative of gender flexibility in forms and styles more inclusive ofthe feminine than ever seen before. For example, the coffin set of Iy-neferty, once belonging to a Nineteenth Dynasty Theban woman and now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Hayes 1959, 14-16), includes sotne creative adaptations for the female gender (fig. 7). In this coffin set, the female body is actually depicted, but only on the inner mummy board. The mummy board shows the lady wearing a pleated and fringed white dress, with the feminine arm posture of one arm folded
N b A R l i A S T L R N ARC 1 I A I . ( M J
or perhaps better, individualized her; even Ramesside period men used a depiction of themselves in white, pleated, and fringed garments for their mummy board (Cooney 2007, 19597), Representing the deceased in pure white seems to have allowed for a different conception of the human personality than the anthropoid coffin. Women could display their femininity in a fringed, white gown, wearing jewelry and holding flowers, while men could represent themselves unbound and clothed in the white kilt of the afterlife (fig, 8), Such depictions of the deceased in pure white can be linked to many allusions to dress in the Book of the Dead, including the opening rubric to chapter 125: The correct procedure in the Hall of Justice, One shall utter this chapter pure and clean and clad in white garments and sandals, painted with black eye-paint and anointed with myrrh, (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, pi, 32) This white garment is explicitly linked with the purity of successfully passing through the Hall of Justice as a blessed soul, an akh. In the Book of the Dead, spell 75, the deceased travels to Heliopolis to take his rightful place, and his garments are specifically described as given to him after his transformation into a pure akh soul, free from wrongdoing: Fig. 7. Coffin set of ly-neferty, a Tbeban lady of tbe New Kingdom, showing the deceased in pure white dress on tbe interior mummy board but in Osirian style on the coffin lid. Now in New York, at tbe Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accession number 86.1.5a-c, purchased witb funds from various donors. Pboto by autbor witb permission from Marsba Hill of tbe Metropolitan Museum of Art,
below the breast and the other fiat on the thigh. Interestingly, this feminized depiction of the deceased was only placed inside her coffin. It was her outer coffin that transformed her more clearly into a masculinized manifestation of Osiris. In fact, the coffin betrayed her gender only with abbreviated and unnaturalistic breasts and a feminine wig. Like Henut-mehyt's coffins, this coffin set relied on flexibility of gender. Both the anthropoid coffin and the mummy board depicted the woman with dark red skin, a color typically reserved for men but often used for females during the reign of Ramesses II, including Oueen Nefertari in her tomb in the Valley of the Oueens (McCarthy 2002; Harrington 2005), The placement of the feminized mummy board inside an androgynous anthropoid coffin suggests that the masculine and Osirian transformation Iy-neferty had to undergo was somehow partial or temporary and would not affect her final, intended nature. In short, it seems that the outer coffin piece of a woman masculinized her, while her inner mummy board feminized.
I have gone forth from the limits of the earth that I may receive my fringed cloak for the heart of the Baboon I have appeared in glory, I have been initiated, I have been ennobled as a god, (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, 108) This depiction of the deceased in pure white on a coffin is a Ramesside innovation, and it is not gender-fiexible; when the deceased is wearing white, the dead individual appears according to his or her inherent sexuality as a woman or a man, not as an androgynous being associated with Osiris, This is an important point. It could even be said that the mummy board of the Ramesside period actually takes the creative step of displaying, in three-dimensional form, the deceased as an effective akh soul—as a whole, pure being after a successful entry into the afterlife. The white garment represents the purity of a soul whose heart has passed the scales of truth. Most intriguing, this particular image of the deceased is almost always found inside the anthropoid coffin, which depicts the deceased in an androgynous and divinized manner. It is therefore possible to view the anthropoid coffin as a depiction of the ka spirit of the deceased (i,e., the part most associated with divinity). The ancient Egyptians believed that the human individual was splintered at death into a number of different parts, spirits, or manifestations, each of which contributed to the whole, Egyptologists still have a difficult time understanding and defining many of these elements, but the ka may be best explained as the divine essence of a person. The ba seemed to represent the soul of mobility, depicted as a human-headed bird that can fiy away from the tomb to see the sunrise. The shut was the shadow, a being able to dwell in sunlight. The
ren was the name, the chief means of identification and thus essential to inscribe on the coffin. All of these parts of the human were united in one vessel: the khat, or the corpse (Taylor 2001,14-24). The coffin contained that corpse, and it could be argued that the coffin was representative of many of these hutnan elements. Externally, the coffin represented the ka, the spirit that acted in concert with the divine as the vehicle for the immortal human personality, or akh, to appear and manifest. The Egyptians manipulated body containers to represent these funerary beliefs. Some inner-coffin pieces depict the deceased wearing pure white, in his or her akh form, which was really the intended outcome and final step of an individual's rebirth after death, Ramesside women, usually given fewer funerary goods in comparison to male members of the same family (Meskell 1999), could include this creative depiction of the pure and effective akh soul, even when they could afford only one anthropoid coffin but not an additional mummy board. Lady Iset, for example, was buried with only a coffin, and she had no board to go with it. The lid ofher coffin displays her in a pure white garment with her femininity clearly represented in
her modeled body contours and jewelry (Desroches Noblecourt 1976,170-71; Tiradritti 1999, 272; see fig, 9), This coffin combines a feminizing depiction in pure white on the coffin's hd with masculinizing outer case sides. The coffin sides have a solarizing yellow background color and Book of the Dead texts that liken the deceased to tnale creator-gods in both text and image. This one coffin was therefore a creative adaptation. The artisans who made it were able to represent Lady Iset's multiple manifestations for her journey into the netherworld on a single funerary object. The lid depicted her as an akh beitig, while the case sides showed her transformation into a creative masculine god through Book of the Dead texts. These correlations between particular funerary objects and human manifestations cannot and should not be understood as exact. Nonetheless, it is possible that such innovative and multilayered depictions of the deceased represented the fragmentation of the individual at death and his or her subseqtient reconstitution into a whole being—within the material matter of the coffin set itself. In fact, it is possible to see the coffin of Iset as representing two stages ofher afterlife journey simultaneously on one funerary object: the masculine transformative
Fig. 8. One of the painted vignettes on the sarcophagus of Sennedjem, a New Kingdom artisan, showing him and his wife wearing pure white. Now in the Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Accession number JE 27301. Photo by author with the permission from Yasmin el-Shazly of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Fig. 9. Tbe coffin of Iset, a New Kingdom lady depicting tbe deceased dressed in pure wbite on tbe lid and with transformative Book of tbe Dead texts on tbe case sides. Now in tbe Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Accession number JE 27309a. Pboto by autbor witb permission from Yasmin el-Sbazly of tbe Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
moment of rebirth; and the end result—a peaceful afterlife in the duat netherworld, which for her would have been spent as a pure feminine being. We should not forget that all Egyptian art, especially funerary art, was performative, with every image and hieroglyph functioning to bring about a desired reality. Still, not all Ramesside women's coffin sets included the mummy board ofthe akh soul dressed in pure white. This tnakes it clear that there were no straightforward rules about how to represent gendered manifestations in Egyptian funerary etiquette. Solutions to the problem of female rebirth were solved in many different ways, sometimes with the depiction ofthe feminine within another masculinized form, as with the coffin sets of Iset and Iy-neferty, and sometimes with overt masculinization at the expense ofthe feminine. Eor example, a Ramesside coffin set of a woman named Ta-kayt now in Erankfurt lacks a representation ofthe female in a white, fringed garment on the inner piece (Polz 1993, 302-23; Beck and Bol 1981, 25-27; see fig. 10). In fact, all of this individual's coffin pieces are masculinized. Her arm posture and body shape are Osirian, and the mythological texts inscribed on the front and sides of this woman's coffin use mascuhne pronouns exclusively. On the front of the coffin in the central text strip, the Book of the Dead invocation is written djed.f, "He says," and addresses his mother Nut, not her mother. The inclusion of these male pronouns on female coffin inscriptions is best understood as a purposeful and powerful association with the male gender and its regenerative powers (Robins 1993; McCarthy 2002). Nonetheless, this woman Ta-kayt still maintained gender flexibility by retaining some of her femininity within her coffin set; she wears a stylish woman's wig and prominent earrings and jewelry, and her inner mummy mask shows abbreviated breasts. Interestingly, this woman was also depicted in the white female dress of an akh in small
two-dimensional representations painted onto the lids ofthe anthropoid coffins, and it could be argued that this feminine two-dimensional depiction ofthe deceased on a masculinizing three-dimensional coffin granted the female individual gender flexibility on one and the same coffin, just like Iset. Multiple manifestations ofthe individual and the inclusion of both genders seem to have been necessary for the deceased female's rebirth in the next realm. A man's coffins could also depict hitn in multiple manifestations (if not multiple genders) in the same coffin set, and again it is possible to see each funerary piece as representing a different adaptation that the deceased could use on the journey to the afterlife. Eor example, the Ramesside Deir el-Medina craftsman Khonsu owned two coffins, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Hayes 1959, 417; see fig. 11). In both coffins, he is shown in Osirian form, bound with mummy bands, but the outer coffin represents the man in a more godly tnanifestation, because he wears the long curled divine mummy beard. His inner coffin, on the other hand, shows him wearing the short beard of a man. It seems that, even though he owned no mummy board showing him in pure white, artisans could use details as small as the human beard on various coffin pieces within a set to depict the adaptability of a person's manifestations.
The Coffin as Vehicle to the Afterlife Ancient Egyptian funerary equipment expressed and adapted to the fragmentation ofthe hutnan being at death (Assmann 2005, 23-28), as well as the re-creation of a whole and effective eternal being. Mummification itself was a form of fragmentation and réintégration. It was a method of preservation that grappled with the temporary separation ofthe soul from the body. In Egypt, when the body was no Ion-
ger alive, it was thought of as a preserved corpse: the khat (corpse) or the wet (the embalmed body; both of these words are feminine and describe the corpse acting as a vessel for the manifestations ofthe deceased). The anthropoid coffin is also called wet in the Egyptian language, and the word is followed hy a hieroglyph for wood, indicating that it represented a kind of wooden vehicle for tnultiple tnanifestations ofthe deceased. The coffin is understood by tnany Egyptologists as the female power that cotiveys and protects the deceased, as the body of the sky-goddess Nut, the womb, the egg, and the duat (Assmann 2005, 165-66). Indeed, the word most often used for the anthropoid coffin in the Ramesside period is wet. Many Egyptian words for coffin were fetninine, including the more
archaic afdet, meaning "chest"; the sukhet, referencing an inner body cover; the ytit, also a smaller body cover; and the djebat, a rectangular sarcophagus. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the cotfin represents both male and fetnale gendered power in one three-dimensional object. In fact, not all Ramesside words referencing the anthropoid coffin are fetninine. The older compound neb-ankh "lord of life," often used in formal funerary texts, and the word men-ankh, perhaps "one enduring of life," often used in socioeconomic documents (Gooney 2007, 20-21), were both tnasculine words and seemed to refer to the Osirian deceased contained by the coffin, not to the container itself. If we understand Egyptian funerary texts and lexicography correctly, the coffin as a feminine container referenced only
Ancient Egyptian funerary equipment expressed and adapted to the fragmentation of the human being at death.
Fig. 10. The four-piece coffin set of Ta-kayt, a Theban lady of the New Kingdom. Now in Frankfurt, in the Städtische Galerie Liebieghaus. Accession numbers 1651a-f. Photo by author with permission from P. C. Bol of the Liebieghaus.
Fig. 11. The outer and inner coffins of Khonsu, a New Kingdom artisan from ancient Thebes. Now in New York, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accession numbers 86.1.1a-b, purchased with funds from various donors. Photo by author with permission from Marsha Hill of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
the internal space as an enclosure for the deceased. By placing the mummy inside a coffin, ritual participants seem to have believed that they were placing an image of Osiris into a protected conveyance from which rebirth was possible (Taylor 2001, 215). The feminine principle ofthe coffin was therefore the empty space ofthe enclosure. The masculine was what was placed inside, and when a human body was put into a coffin, even if it beJonged to a dead woman, it was thought to be inside the feminine. Interestingly, almost all Ramesside coffin interiors are painted with a thick black pitch resin (fig. 12), probably representative ofthe darkness of a womb-like duat netherworld and ofthe space of enclosure that the feminine principle represents. Later in the Third Intermediate Period (1069-664 B.C.E.), text and iconography were painted on the interior surface of the coffin to represent features and beings thought to exist in the duat afterlife space. By the TwentyFifth Dynasty (747 B.C.E.), the goddess ofthe west or the sky-mother Nut was often depicted on the coffin lid's underside, stretched out over the mummy ofthe deceased like the canopy ofthe sky (Taylor 2001, 229-33). The mummy itself was meant to represent Osiris—whether the individual was male or female. The external decoration on an anthropoid coffin usually remade the deceased into the image of masculine gods Osiris and Re, with crossed arms, golden skin, and stylized mummy bandages. The external decoration of the Ramesside coffin included representations of divine protectors, both masculine and feminine—whether the coffin belotiged to a man or woman. Isis and Nephthys were depicted at the head and foot of the case, protecting the body ofthe dead as they had for Osiris in funerary mythology. On the case sides were the four sons of Horus—Imsety, Hapy, Duamutef, and Oebehsenuef—in the company of Anubis and Thoth, who protected the mummy from dying a second death on his journey to the desired parts of the duat netherworld (fig. 9). The tree-goddess was often shown at the feet ofthe coffin lid providing the deceased with cool waters and sustenance (fig. 5). Nut was shown spreading her wings over the deceased at mid-body on the lid, and the deceased's invocation was drawn between the bound legs on the Jid exterior: "Oh my mother Nut, stretch yourseJf over me that (I) may be placed among the Imperishable Stars" (fig. 7). This invocation tells us that the feminine principle of the coffin was thought to be inside the coffin, as interior space. To put it another way, every anthropoid Egyptian coffin was representative ofthe enclosure (the feminine sky-goddess Nut, the duat underworld, and the womb) as well as the enclosed Osirian mummy, who was also represented on the coffin lid. For ancient Egyptian elites, the coffin represented the container and the contained, the transformation and the outcome. It was made up ofthe exterior surface area, the interior space, and the contained mummy. The ancient Egyptian coffin therefore represented both human sexes in one multilayered substitute wooden body. The representational logic follows biological reality: the masculine is represented outside, just as the male sex organs are outside the human body; the
234 N E A R H A S T l i R N A r u : H A E O L O ( ! Y 73:4 (201
Fig. 12. The interior of the coffin of Iy-neferty, a Theban lady of the New Kingdom. Now in New York, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accession numbers 86.1.5a-c, purchased with funds from various donors. Photo by author with permission from Marsha Hill of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
feminine is represented hidden inside, just as the female sex organs are hidden inside the human body (Kampen 1996). One could take this thought further. The feminine acts as the vessel for masculine regenerative power, a power that is only viable when it is enclosed, contained, and protected within this feminine element. The duat afterlife space was thought to be an enclosure or a bodily interior from which birth was possible in the manner ofthe sun-god. For example, in chapter 180 ofthe Book ofthe Dead, the deceased addresses the dead in the duat and tells them how his rebirth as the "heir of Osiris" involves coming forth from the underworld:
I am the heir of Osiris, I have received his Nemes headdress in the duat; look at me, for I have appeared in glory in coming forth from your body, I have become his father, and he applauds. Look at me, rejoice over me, for behold, I am on high, I have come into being, one who provides his own shape, (Faulkner and Goelet 1994,132) The transformation of the ancient Egyptian deceased, whether of a tnan or woman, could only occur inside hidden space— cither inside the coffin or the burial chamber—functioning as analogies for the duat afterlife realm inside of the sky-goddess Nut. The coffin was thought to be the vehicle that conveyed the deceased to destinations in the afterlife, particularly to the stars known as the Imperishable Ones usually mentioned on the coffin-lid invocation. The coffin could therefore be compared to the ferry that the deceased had to summon to bring him or her to the heavens. This ferry boat also had a feminine identity and was likened to the dead body before rebirth—inert and in pieces. As stated in the Book of the Dead, chapter 99 (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, 110-12), the deceased had to find a way to make the mekhnet "ferry boat"—a feminine word—whole again. The means to this rebirth was also sexual in nature. When the mast of the ferry boat was missing, the deceased had to say, "Bring this phallus of Babai that creates children and begets calves," The dead person then had to attach the mast to "the thighs that open out the shanks" of the feminine ferry boat. Once the ferry boat had been reconstructed out of the requisite members and limbs, the boat itself spoke and demanded that the deceased name each and every part before he or she was allowed to come aboard. The deceased then equated every body part of the ferry boat with a different divinity, a classic treatment of the fragmentation of the body in Egyptian funerary texts. The mooring post was identified as "Lady of the Two Lands in the shrine." The mast was "He who brought back the Great Goddess after she had been far way," and the sail was fittingly called "Nut," the sky-goddess. The wooden ribs along the sides of the boat were called "Imsety, Hapy, Duamutef and Qebehsenuef," the four sons of Horus (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, 110-11), This description of the ferry boat is very similar to a dual-gendered understanding of the Egyptian coffin as the imperishable body of the deceased with interior and exterior meanings. The combination of the mast and hull was understood as a union of masculine and feminine. The sail of the ferry boat was Nut, who covered and enclosed the deceased as the vault of the sky, exactly as she was thought to do on the lid of a New Kingdom coffin at mid-body in her form of a human bird with wings outstretched. The four sons of Horus took a position on the case sides of a coffin (Lüscher 1998, 73), like the ribs of the ferry boat. Just like the ferry, the ancient Egyptians understood the coffin to be a multigendered vehicle launching the deceased into the afterlife.
Masculine and Feminine Powers Combined The process of fragmentation was a powerful and creative mechanism (Assmann 2005), By breaking the person, the coffin, or even the ferry boat into various conceptual parts, it is possible to make adaptations that the whole being cannot sustain. This fragmentation explains how the Egyptians were able to apply a masculine sexualized creation mythology to an individual female's rebirth into the next world. It was also how they applied a divine identity to a human being. Fragmentation allowed the wet coffin, which was thought to be a feminine object, to include masculine powers of rebirth. Death caused the separation of a person's elements; rebirth reconstituted that which had been fragmented into a more powerful and eternal form, like the reconstituting of Osiris's body parts or the refitting of the ferry that conveyed the deceased to the heavens. In general, only when a person was vulnerable and fragmented were transformations into a god or into another gender possible. When the rebirth transformation was achieved, wholeness was achieved, and the deceased is shown whole as a gendered akh in the act of worshiping Osiris and Re (fig, 8), Some Egyptologists have explained resurrection in ancient Egypt as a need for masculine power that the feminine principle lacks (Roth 2000), Other specialists of Egyptian funerary religion have left gender largely untreated (Assmann 2005); however, at least by the New Kingdom (1550-1069 B.CE.), it appears that the Egyptians believed that the deceased needed to become associated with both genders to be reborn. For example, in chapter 17 of the Book of the Dead, the deceased likens himself not only to male gods of creation, Osiris and Re, but to the goddesses Isis and Nephthys, who incorporate the powers of protection, sustenance, and gestation: I have come into this land, I have made use of my feet, for I am Atum, I am in my city. Get back, O Lion, bright of mouth and shining of head; retreat because of my strength, take care, O you who are invisible, do not await me, for I am Isis, You found me when I had disarranged the hair of my face and my scalp was disordered. I have become pregnant as Isis, I have conceived as Nephthys, (Faulkner and Goelet 1994,10) Chapter 42 of the Book of the Dead goes even further in its nuanced explanation and likens each body part to a different divinity. The deceased is described with parts that are both male and female; the body possesses both breasts and phallus: My hair is Nun; my face is Re; my eyes are Hathor; my ears are Wepwawet; my nose is She who presides over her lotus-leaf; my lips are Anubis; my molars are Selket; my incisors are Isis the goddess; my arms are the Ram, the Lord of Mendes; my breast is Neith, Lady of Sais; my back is Seth; my phallus is Osiris; my muscles are the Lords of Kheraha; my chest is He who is greatly majestic;
my belly and my spine are Sekhmet; my buttocks are the Eye of Horus; my thighs and my calves are Nut; my feet are Ptah; my fingers are Orion; my toes are living uraei; there is no member of mine devoid of a god, and Thoth is the protection of all my flesh. (Faulkner and Goelet 1994, pi. 32) Egyptian funerary equipment, particularly the anthropoid coffin, was the materialization of the abstract notion of Egyptian fragmentation and recombination of powers associated with gender and divinity. The dead had to become a masculine divinity to create new life after death, but he or she also had to incorporate female divine powers, essentially to give birth to one's own resurrected self. The Egyptian coffin did not simply reassign gender to the female dead; it provided deceased men and women with nuanced powers associated with both genders. Composers of the Book of the Dead adapted to this flexibility more and more, allowing for an increasingly dual-gendered understanding of creation. For example, chapter 164 includes a spell meant to be spoken over a bisexual divinity: To be said over (a figurine of) Mut having three heads: one being the head of Pakhet wearing plumes, a second being a human head wearing the Double Crown, the third being the head of a vulture wearing plumes. She also has a phallus, wings, and the claws of a lion. Drawn in dried myrrh with fresh incense, repeated in ink upon a red bandage. A dwarf stands before her, another behind her, each facing her and wearing plumes. Each has a raised arm and two heads, one is the head of a falcon, the other a human head, (Faulkner and Goelet 1994: 125) In the guidelines of this spell, the masculine phallus and feminine form are combined; the masculine creator and the feminine enclosure are found in one and the same body. The spell thus grants the deceased the creative powers of both genders. Interestingly, this Book of the Dead spell is recent in comparison to most other chapters; it probably dates to the Ramesside or Third Intermediate Periods. The creation of such a spell may signal a trend in which creation and rebirth was becoming more and more associated with the masculine in combination with the feminine, not to its exclusion (McCarthy 2002, 193; Cooney 2008).
References Allen, J. P. 1988. Genesis in Egypf: The Philosophy of Ancienf Egypfian Greafion Accounts. Yale Egyptological Studies 2. New Haven: Yale Egyptological Seminar, Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Graduate School, Yale University. Assmann, J. 2005. Death and Salvafion in Ancienf Egypf. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
EASTERN.
"OLOC.Y 73:4 (2010)
Beck, H., and P. C. Bol, eds. 1981. Ägyptische Kunst im Liebieghaus. Frankfurt am Main: Liebieghaus. Bryan, B. M. 1996. In Women Good and Bad Fortune Are on Earth: Status and Roles of Women in Egyptian Culture. Pp. 25-46 in Mistress of the House, Mistress of Heaven: Women in Ancient Egypt, ed. A. K. Capel and G. E. Markoe. New York: Hudson Hills Press in association with Cincinnati Art Museum. Cooney, K. M. 2007. The Gost of Death: The Social and Economic Value of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art in the Ramesside Period. Egyptologische Uitgaven 22. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. . 2008. Androgynous Bronze Figurines in Storage at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Pp. 63-72 in Servant of Mut: Studies in Honor of Richard A. Eazzini,ed. S. H. D'Auria. Probleme der Ägyptologie 28. Leiden: Brill. Desroches Noblecourt, C , ed. 1976. Ramses le Grand: Galeries nationales du Grand Palais. Paris: Presses Artistiques. Faulkner, R., and O. Goelet, trans. 1994. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth by Day: Being the Papyrus of Ani (Royal Scribe of the Divine Offerings), Written and Illustrated Girca 1250 B.G.E., by Scribes and Artists Unknown, including the Balance of Ghapters of the Books of the Dead Known as the Theban Recension, Gompiledfrom Ancient Texts, Dating Back to the Roots of Egyptian Givilization. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. Harrington, N. 2005. From the Cradle to the Grave: Anthropoid Busts and Ancestor Cults at Deir el-Medina. Pp. 71-88 in Gurrent Research in Egyptology 2003: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Symposium Which Took Place at the Institute of Archaeology, University Gollege London, ¡8-19 January 2003, ed. K. Piquette and S. Love. Oxford: Oxbow. Hayes, W. C. 1959. The Hyksos Period and the New Kingdom (16751080 B.G.). Part 2 of The Scepter of Egypt: A Background for the Study of the Egyptian Antiquities in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Harper, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Hopkins, K. 2000. A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph ofGhristianity. New York: Free Press. Kampen, N. B. 1996. Gender Theory in Roman Art. Pp. 14-25 in /, Glaudia: Women in Ancient Rome, ed. D. E. E. Kleiner and S. B. Matheson. New Haven: Yale University Art Gallery; Austin, Tex.: Distributed by the University of Texas Press. Lüscher, B. 1998. Untersuchungen zu Totenbuch Spruch ¡51. Studien zum Altägyptischen Totenbuch 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. McCarthy, H. L. 2002. The Osiris Nefertari: A Case Study of Decorum, Gender, and Regeneration. Journal of the American Research Genfer in Egypt 39:173-95. Meskell, L. 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life: Age, Sex, Glass et cetera in Ancient Egypt. Social Archaeology. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Peach, L. J. 2002. Social Responsibility, Sex Change, and Salvation: Gender lustice in the Lotus Sutra. Philosophy East and West 52:50-74. Polz, D. 1993. Sargensemble der Takait. Pp. 302-23 in Skulptur, Malerei, Papyri und Särge, ed. E. Bayer-Niemeier. Wissenschaftliche Kataloge, Ägyptische Bildwerke 3. Melsungen: Verlag Gutenberg. Riggs, C , and M. A. Stadler. 2003. A Roman Shroud and Its Demotic Inscription in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Journal of the American Research Genfer in Egypt 40:69-87. Robins, G. 1993. Women in Ancienf Egypt. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roth, A. M. 2000. Father Earth, Mother Sky; Aticient Egyptian Beliefs about Cotiception atid Fertility. Pp. 187-201 in Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, ed. A. E. Rautman. Regendering tbe Past. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, M. 1987. The Mortuary Texts of Papyrus BM 10507. Vol. 3 of Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the British Museum. London: Briti.sb Museum Press. Taylor, J. H. 1999. Tbe Burial Assemblage of Henutmehyt: Inventory, Date and Provenance, Pp. 59-72 in Studies in Egyptian Antiquities: A Tribute to T. G. H. lames, ed. W. V. Davies. London: Britisb Museum Press. , 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London: Britisb Museum Press. Tiradritti, F. 1999. Egyptian Treasures from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. New York: Abrams. Zandee, |. 1992. Tbe Birtb-Giving Creator-God in Ancient Egypt. Pp. 169-85 in Studies in Pharaonic Religion and Society in Honour of I. Ciwyn Griffiths, ed. A. B. Lloyd. Occasional Publications of tbe Egypt Exploration Society 8. London: Egypt Exploration Society.
ASOR KHIRBATISKANDAR FINAL RhKÏRT ON THI-; TARIY «RONZt IV AR£A(:t.ATl-;WAVANlJCKMtTE.RIE,S
it S Hohlurr. dntl t'ikn F^tcniun
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Kathlyn M. Cooney is Assistant Professor of Egyptian Art and Architecture at UCLA. Sbe earned her PhD in Near Eastern Studies from Johns Hopkins University in 2002. Her first book. The Cost of Death: The Social and Economic Value of Ancient Egyptian Funerary Art in the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Ramesside Period, was published in 2007, She is currently working on tomb robbery and coffm reuse during the Twenty-First Dynasty. Her television series Out of Egypt appeared on Discovery Channel and Planet Green in 2009 and 2010.
Recent Publications
Khirbat Iskandar Final Report on the Early Bronze IV Area C "Gateway" and Cemeteries edited by Suzanne Richard, Jesse C. Long, Paul S. Holdorf, and Glen Peterman
The Early Bronze IV (ca, 2300-2000 BCE) is a period knowti for one-phase sites and isolated cemeteries. The stratified remains at Khirbat Iskandar, situated on the Wadi al-Walâ north of Dhiban, offer important data on rural complexity in a sedentary community of the late third trtillennium BCE. Includes studies of stratigraphy, the environment, artifacts, faunal remains, skeletal remains from the tornbs, and C14 determinations, as well as quantitative and pétrographie ceramic studies. AMERtCAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAI. RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOQtCAL REPORTS
American Schools of Oriental Research Archaeological Ref^orts, Volume 14, Scries Editor Kevin McGeough, ASOR 2010, 472 pages, 205 b/w figures, 22 b/w plates, tables, ISBN 978-0-89757-082-4, $89.95.
Available from The David Brown Book Company — www.oxbowbooks.com
Discoveries» Displays» and The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani J. Paul Getty Museum, at the Getty Villa July 16-October 5, 2009 It is said that in their country, gold is carried down by mountain torrents, and that the locals collect it with perforated troughs and fleecy skins, and that this is the origin ofthe myth ofthe Golden Fleece. (Strabo, Geography 11.2.19)
The Exhibit Situated on the eastern edge ofthe Black Sea and at the crossroads of the many civilizations of Gentral Asia, Iran, Turkey, and the Mediterranean, today's Republic of Georgia has a long history of contributing to each. The region's strategic geographical location and its legendary abundance of natural resources, including forests, iron, and gold, brought Greek colonists to its seashores. Silk Road traders to its markets, and a seemingly ceaseless line of imperial interests to its borders (Assyrian, Persian, Seleucid, Roman, Byzantine, and Parthian, to name an ancient few). Within this rich and complex land, "The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani" have a unique and illuminating story to tell. The temple-city of Vani is located inland from the Black Sea (about 40 miles upstream), perched on a hill overlooking the confluence ofthe rivers Sulori and Rioni (Phasis). While Vani's ancient name remains a mystery, the western mythological tradition remembers the region to which Vani belongs as the ancient kingdom of Golchis—the land ofthe Golden Fleece and a domain of sorcery and dragons, to which Jason and the Argonauts sailed before the fall of Troy.' Signs that this region's wealth in gold existed beyond the poetic imagination began appearing at Vani in the 1870s, when local inhabitants found a grave filled with gold bracelets, rings, earrings, coins, a diadem, and a harness for a horse decorated with gold. On May 28, 1876, the Tbilisi-based newspaper Droeba reported that "[e]very time it rains, the water brings into the yards ofthe Akhvlediani [of Vani] so many pieces of jewelry, so many gold chains, so many coins and all sorts of other objects...." Systematic excavations have since revealed the city of Vani as an important center of Golchian cult, admin-
EASTERN ARCH '
istration, and trade during the eighth-first centuries B.C.E. (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008). If Vani and its spectacular finds are not well known outside of specialist circles now, they will be in the near future. A primary aim of the J. Paul Getty Villa exhibit "The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani" was to introduce this fascinating site and its culture to the west coast ofthe United States, and it stands at the beginning of what promises to be a long program of collaborative enterprises involving the Getty. Jennifer Ghi, Associate Director for Exhibitions and Public Programs at the Institute for the Study ofthe Ancient World (ISAW), designed and organized the exhibition in collaboration with the Georgian National Museutn and the Vani Archaeological Museum. The unique installation at the Getty Villa was achieved in partnership with Getty curator David Saunders.' It was the first international traveling exhibition to present the new archaeological discoveries frotn Vani, with earlier manifestations having appeared at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution (December 1, 2007-February 4, 2008), the ISAW (March 12, 2008-June 1,2008), and previously at several European venues. In the United States, the ISAW exhibit included a greater number of finds than the Sackler one, and the Getty added new selections of its own. A leading accomplishment of this traveling exhibition is its catalog, which makes this material comprehensively available for the first time in English (Kacharava and Kvirkvelia 2008). In addition to numerous bronzes (including four bronze lamps from a hoard just discovered in 2007), the Getty installation presented an extraordinary array of over one hundred finds from the twenty-eight graves thus far excavated at the site (fig. 1). The graves date between 450 and 250 B.C.E., when Vani's prosperity was at its peak. There could be no centerpiece of this exhibit, as there was scarcely a gold object, and few bronze objects, that were not worthy of special distinction. Most every piece of gold-work from the exhibition reveals the masterful skill of Golchian craftstnen, with their signature appreciation for intricacy and charm, often expressed in an affinity for abundant granulation and an engagement with the natural world. Many of the objects, both gold and bronze, were displayed with the intent of foregrounding Vani as a crucible of cultural interaction. Valuable imports from Greece and Persia were showcased alongside several "hybrid" artifacts that exemplify the ability of Vani's unique aesthetic to artfully incorporate influences from Achaemenid Iran and Greece, while remaining decidedly true to itself. The exhibit successfully explored the dazzling artistic and extraordinary technological accomplishments of Golchian metal-workers, while presenting compelling testimony of cultural exchange within the region.
xhibitíons of Special Note
Fig. 2. Figurine with gold jewelry, Colchian, made in Vani, ca. 300200 B.C.E. A headdress of gold rosettes once adorned its head. In addition to the torque, bracelets, and earrings, pendants and glass beads were found nearby. Its hoop-and-pendant earrings are of a type well known at Vani from the end of the fourth to the first century B.C.E. Discovered in a lined, rectangular pit, just outside of the sanctuary proper (Sanctuary I). Bronze, gold. Height: 25 cm; width (arms): 8.4 cm. Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, Georgia, 1-2007/1.
Fig. 1. Detail of Grave 24, excavated in 2004, the most spectacular of Vani's burials. The pit held five humans and a horse. The principal deceased, placed in the center, wore an extremely rich arrangement of gold jewelry and a shroud decorated inside and out with polychrome glass beads as well as figurai appliqués made of gold. Bejeweled and sacrificed servants were placed nearby. The Otar Lordkipanidze Center for Archaeological Research, Georgian National Museum
The Getty Museum achieved a lovely intimacy by limiting ihe installation to three main rooms and to an elegant selection of genuinely remarkable objects. The first gallery cleverly introduced later materials first (300-100 B.C.E.), highlighting iron objects alongside the important achievements and intriguing character of Vani's local bronze-working tradition, lest the visitor Jose sight of them in the midst of so much gold. Particularly fascinating were the bronze and iron figurines (fig. 2), dating between 300 and 200 B.C.E., that were deliberately buried in manners analogous to the human interments at Vani. The attentive juxtaposition ofthe figurines allowed visitors to appreciate striking and apparently formulaic commonalities. Hach is smaJJ, ranging from 16 to 30 cm in height, standing
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAHOl.OCiY 75:4 (2010)
o with outstretched hands. Their miniature ornaments, including gold spiral-torques and earrings, are paralleled in the types of jewelry buried with the Colchian dead in the third century B,c,E, Throughout the exhibit, judiciously prepared text and illustration panels selected from complex details of context captured and conveyed the extraordinary; in this case, it was revealed that all of the figurines were discovered in association with cult buildings and placed in specially hewn and lined pits, constructed in imitation of the human pit-graves. Imprints of fabric and fragments of gold thread indicate that each of the figures had probably been clothed at the tirne of deposition. One figurine (no, 7 in the catalog) rightfully received special consideration, both because it was accompanied by miniature appliqués, which might have been sewn into its "shroud" (as in the human burials), and also because it was a Hellenistic import. More precisely, the display exposed the figurine's previous incarnation as a bronze satyr. It had been adapted for use as a ritual figurine at Vani by the deliberate removal of its tail and the addition of seemingly requisite gold jewelry (a torque or neck-ring and bracelets). As mentioned above, each incarnation of the exhibit in the United States has been different; new at the Getty installation were four elaborate bronze lamps dated circa 250-100 B,C,E. These lamps were never before displayed together, and all were discovered in a hoard of precious bronzes during the 2007 excavation season. The curator suggests that one "lamp," inventively adorned with three Indian elephant heads, may have functioned as an incense burner with flames or smoke meant to emanate from the elephants' gaping mouths, underneath their arching trunks. This object becomes all the more intriguing in light of the fact that its iconography remains unsourced. Research is just beginning on these fascinating new fmds, and the exhibition's running video of their conservation informatively spotlighted some of the opportunities for future exchanges between the Getty Museum and its Georgian colleagues. Two of these bronze lamps (one decorated with Zeus and Ganymede, the other with Erotes) were brought to the Getty for cleaning and analyses, where meticulous work was carried out for several weeks with visiting Georgian conservator, Nino Kalandadze. The Getty Museum's Senior Gonservator of Antiquities, Jerry Podany, observed that this was the first time objects had been brought directly from an archaeological site to the Museum for treatment and conservation. The exhibition video expertly guides the audience through this auspicious undertaking, demonstrating at each stage the range of advanced techniques used to clean and restore the lamps. Now unveiled from millennia-old layers of corrosion, the lamps stand as a compelling testament to the excellence of both ancient Golchian bronze-workers and also the Getty and Georgian conservators, i.le th.e G.çtty Villa'sr exhibition closed on October 5, 2009,
240
N l A K I- \ S | I R N
ARCH"
the important finds from the Golden Graves of Ancient Vani, as well as the conservation video, remain widely accessible on the exhibition's webpage (http://www,getty,edu/art/exhibitions/ vani/). Planned, cooperative publications also hold the opportunity to learn more about the bronze hoard, its discovery, context, and scientific interpretation. A team from the Getty visited Georgia in March 2010 to sample material from the hoard and anticipates the publication of results in collaboration with ISAW and the Georgian National Museum. Before leaving the first gallery behind, the visitor would not have wanted to miss out on an unexpected encounter with a solid iron battering ram—the sheer weight and unwieldy form of which constituted this a triumph of installation. This imposing object, astutely included in an exhibit that presented so many delicately wrought ornaments, served as an important reminder of the militaristic environment in which the people of Vani lived, with evidence for incursions at the site increasing after circa 150 B,C,E„ culminating in its final destruction around 50 B.CE. On the way from the first to the third gallery, the visitor was obliged to pass through a narrowed, black corridor, the design of which ingeniously focused attention on the stunning workmanship and charming detail of the few dramatically illuminated objects displayed there. Adjacent to a small pile of delicately preserved golden thread (which immediately conjured associations with Jason's Golden Fleece) was a pair of gold temple ornaments, lavishly detailed with delicately granulated birds and chains with acorn finials (fig, 3), These were mounted with a skill and creativity that showcased the captivating intricacy achieved by Golchian goldsmiths; a few of the chains on one of the temple ornaments had been raised to disclose the beguiling presence of tiny, granulated birds hiding within. This gallery's close attention to just a few pieces of finely worked gold jewelry demonstrated that the exhibit could enchant its audience without the slightest hint of gratuitous ostentation. From there, the third gallery was free to abound in an exuberant but studied array of gold jewelry, glass objects, and metal and clay vessels from the graves of ancient Vani. Highlights from the third gallery included a young woman's striking polychrome pectoral from Grave 6 (fig. 4), Gurators aptly featured this exceptional composite of Golchian and ancient Persian artistry to exemplify Golchis's distinctive aesthetic identity. From the explanations of this outstanding piece and others, the visitor instantly understood that incorporated external influences were neither slavish nor repetitive, but vibrant expressions of Golchian appreciation for what its crosscultural contacts offered. Informative object-cards clarified the Persian origin of the colorful, Egyptian-style pendant, A
r
SIlffSlISilfŒiKSIlll^ïlif'
•
Fig 3 (below). Pair of gold temple ornaments or earrings decorated with birds, chains, and acorn finials with granulation defining the details. Such pendant ornaments are a form of jewelry typical to Colchis and may have hung from either side of the owner's temples as part of a complex headdress. Grave 24, Vani, ca. 35030C B.C.E. Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, Georgia,1-2005/8, Part 2a-b. Photo: Amiran Kiladze.
Fig. 4 (above). Pectoral with griffins and birds, A, nid and Colchian, ca. 400-350 B.C.E. Gold, glass, came and turquoise. Found in a female burial (Grave 6). A l o t u ^ flower appears on the pendant between back-to-back griffins with two birds in profile in the lower register. The use of inlaid glass and semiprecious stones is not characteristic of the gold-work from Vani. This grave also contained glass vessels, probably made on the Aegean island of Rhodes. Height: 31 cm at its greatest extent. Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, Georgia, 11-974:13. Photo: Robb Harrel, Freer and Sackler Galleries.
^ l í ^ Colchian jeweler adapted it to the tastes of Vani's elites by adding a pin from Anatolia and eight locally made chains. Throughout the installation, details of design and cultivated craftstTtanship were made especially clear by the use of strategically placed magnifying lenses. Through t h e m , v i s i t o r s could admire the many sophisticated facets of Colchian gold-work and discover the refinement of what is quickly becoming one of Colchian jewelry's most celebrated features: a love of granulation (the application of numerous tiny gold spheres). The golden necklace with turtle pendants presents a stunning example of this art form and deservedly graces the cover ofthe exhibition catalog (fig, 5). Only by encountering the turtles in person, however, could one hope to appreciate the object's wonderfully glittering details and playful character. The Getty exhibit brilliantly captured these features by positioning the necklace at just the right angle, underneath precisely directed lighting. This necklace was one of five discovered in Grave 11, which contained four bodies and is perhaps the earliest and richest of Vani's burials uncovered to date. Enlarged facsimiles of archival photos (3 x 4 ft) partly served to illustrate the dramatic revelation of gold and ornaments at the time of excavation, thereby creating for visitors some of the excitement that excavators must have experienced as these objects began to surface. With descriptions ofthe photographs keyed directly to the objects in cases, the facsimiles conveyed such versatile information as the original placement of objects on the bodies and their presumable function at the time of burial, while providing a broad showing ofthe incredible array of gold jewelry found in single tombs. Images from the field also emphasized that the success ofthe Getty Villa's installation also stands on the resilience and perennial dedication of Georgian experts to careful excavation and recovery. Nearly every displayed object served to communicate the elite status ofthe dead, and curators selected many pieces to exemplify the cultural contacts that Vani's aristocracy enjoyed with the Greek world. Among the numerous vessels imported from, or inspired by, the Greek world was a solid-silver Athenian kylix (wine cup) with gilded handles, found in Grave
Fig. 5. Necklace with turtle pendants, Colchian, ca. 450 B.C.E. One of five necklaces discovered in Grave 11, which is one of the earliest and richest burials. It contained four bodies laid inside a wooden structure; outside it was a horse. Gold. Height of pendants: 3 cm. Length of chain: 66 cm. Georgian National Museum, Tbilisi, Georgia, 10-975:56.
11. To help explain the apparently ptogratntnatic placement of drinking \ essels and utensils in the lotnbs at Vani, the exhibit made agile use of a silver belt from Grave 24; the Colchian belt depicts a banquet scene with a male figure holding a bowl and reclining on a couch. It may illustrate ^ the important role that banqueting played in local funeral rituals.
The Exhibition Catalog While Otar Lordkipanidze and his team published with laudable consistency nine volumes of Vani: Archaeological Excavations since 1972 (in Georgian, with Russian summaries), and a history ofthe excavations up to 1995 exists partly in French (see Lordkipanidze 1995), English-speaking audiences cannot help but be grateful for Darejan Kacharava and Guram Kvirkvelia's Wine, Worship, and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani, which accompanied the traveling exhibit as its catalog (215 pages, with 217 color illustrations, 24 halftones, and 23 line drawings). Published by the ISAW in association with the Princeton University Press and edited by Jennifer Chi, it contains a collection of introductory letters from Roger Bagnall, Jennifer Chi, David Lordkipanidze, and Julian Raby, and seven essays providing historical and archaeological overviews, descriptions and interpretations of the exhibited artifacts, and specialist discussions concerning ritual, gold-working, and viticulture. Together, the letters and essays offer the first comprehensive discussion of Vani and its finds available in English. Written with style and content suitable to a general-interest audience and experts alike, this volutne is rich in remarkable details as well as broad in scope. Nino Lordkipanidze's introductory chapter on "Medea's Colchis" explores the Greek relationship to Colchis through the myths of Jason and Medea and
G
Wine, Worship, and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani
considers the possibilities of precolonial contact between Late Bronze Age or Mycenaean Greece' and the Golchian region. This essay provides essential mythological background, a description of sociopolitical developments in Golchis roughly contetnporary with Mycenaean Greece, and evidence for Golchian relations with the Assyrians, Urartians, and Archaic Cireeks. Michael Vickers's engaging essay "Vani: Rich in Gold" introduces the site through the history of its excavations and excavators. Thoughtful details bring to life Vani's emergence from obscurity begitining in the 1800s and also the abiding place of ancient Golchis in the Georgian imagination today. Particularly valuable is the author's coverage ofthe site's possible identity as a sanctuary city from the perspectives of epigraphy, architecture, and artifacts. Finally, Vickers's discussion of related aspects of wine-making, worship, banqueting, and metalwork offers insights into the intersections of Golchian, Greek, and Persian cultures. Anna Ghqonia uses the stunning gold finds from Vani to provide a careful, diachronic exatnination of Golchian gold-working traditions in her essay "Golchian Goldwork." Twenty-one color photographs of thirty-seven ornaments from the exhibit are precisely keyed to important explications of both the diverse and typical features of Golchian craftsmanship. Although the catalog's pritnary aim was to discuss the objects
presented in the exhibition, Darejan Kacharava and Guram Kvirkvelia take the opportunity to provide a condensed site report in three essays: "The Archaeology of Vani," "Religious Ritual: Bronze and Iron Figurines from Vani," and "The Golden Graves oí Ancient Vani." They cover four phases of occupation between the eighth and first centuries B.C.E. and include finds unearthed from 1947 to the present. Gomprehensive and phase-specific site plans, which together itetnize the location of 126 defined and dated structures, as well as ceramic typologies, a catalog of grave goods with commentary on grave construction and burial practices, and a detailed account ofthe cultic contexts of bronze and iron figurines, cotnbine to present as coherent a reconstruction of ancient Vani's cultural, sociopolitical, and ritual life as the evidence allows. Finally, in their fourth essay, "Viticulture and Dionysos in Hellenistic Vani," Kacharava and Kvirkvelia relate local finds such as vessels, terracotta images of Dionysus, and a partially preserved architectural cotnplex to the prominent place that the production and consumption of wine held in Golchian culture, economy, and cult. Generous and helpful illustrations and inserts appear throughout the text, including a chart ofthe region's Asomtavruli and Mkhedrull alphabets (with transcription and pronunciation keys), photographs of the site's previous excavators, maps of ancient Golchis and neighboring Iberia, and archival drawings and photos. With its bibliography, illustrated checklist of additional objects, numerous line drawings, site plans, photographs of objects in situ, and specialist e.ssays, this exhibition catalogue cum site report makes available for the first time in English a unified account of Georgian publications spanning more than fifty years. It should prove of lasting value to researchers in archaeology, ancient history, classics, ancient Near Eastern studies, art and architecture, anthropology, and museum studies.
Concluding Remarks Few people know that gold on earth originates from collapsing, exploded stars or supernovae (Ghen 2006^), or that the ratio of iron to gold atoms in the universe is roughly one million to one, but everyone understands the implications of gold's rarity on earth: any region rich in this metal is bound to have a role of consequence on the stage of history. Vani and Golchis are proving to have been no exception. As the Republic of Georgia emerges from its Soviet past, the ancient kingdom of Golchis is playing a unifying role in regional and cultural identity (Pelkmans 2006). Jason and Medea are still celebrated in a surprising range of cultural phenomena, from festivals to colossal statues; the Getty Villa's exhibit has provided the American public and specialists alike with unprecedented opportunities to begin learning firsthand the truths behind the myths.
\mi
The Getty exhibit was exemplary in demonstrating what international partnerships can do to create accessibility, and the successful publication of the catalog ensures that the many admirable accompJishments ofthe Georgian researchers and exhibition curators will remain accessible after the exhibit's concJusion. If the recent return ofthe objects to TbJisi and Vani's local museum underscores the general absence of Colchian culture in North American museums, the unequivocal success ofthe Getty exhibit has generated a great deal of optimism in ongoing collaborative enterprises that promise to illuminate further the history of this fascinating region through its artifacts.
Christine M. Thompson University of Akron, Ohio Notes 1. The Homeric epics indicate that the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece was circulating in the eight century B.C.E. The earliest canonical account is found in the third century B.C.E. in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes. 2. This support was provided in partnership with the Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection, and Sport of Georgia, and with funding from the Getty Museum's Villa Council. 3. This is the period to which ancient Greeks assigned Jason and their Trojan War heroes. 4. For a more accessible account, see Krulwich 2007.
References Chen, Z., J. Zhang, Y Chen, W Cui, and B. Zhang. 2006. The Yields of r-Process Elements and Chemical Evolution ofthe Galaxy. Astrophysics and Space Science 306:33-39. Kacharava, D., and G. Kvirkvelia. 2008. Wine, Worship, and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani. Edited by J. Chi. Princeton: Institute for the Study ofthe Ancient World in association with Princeton University Press. Krulwich, R. 2007. Galactic Gold: A Valentine Story. NPR. February 14. Online: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story. php?storyld=7397200. Lordkipanidze, O. 1995. Vani: Une Pompéi géorgienne. Centre de recherches d'histoire ancienne 139. Paris: Belles lettres. Pelkmans, M. 2006. Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of Georgia. Culture and Society after Socialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
''44 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOL'^'^'"
m
\m
Out on the Tiles Animal Footprints from the Roman Site of Kefar 'Othnay (Legio), Israel Tracking animal footprints from archaeoJogicaJ sites is not a common endeavor. Nevertheless, once found they provide knowJedge about the composition, abundance, and environmentaJ range of animal communities and their activities around human habitations. Carnivore footprints found on tiles in the Roman vilJage of Kefar 'Othnay near the Roman camp of the Sixth Legion Ferrata in the Jezreel Valley complement the known spectrum of animals known from the site by conventional zooarchaeological methods and point to the straying of dogs, cats, and small wild carnivores in and around the site. The site of Kefar 'Othnay is situated at the meeting point of Mount Carmel and the Samaria Hills in the Jezreel Valley, near the camp ofthe Sixth Legion Ferrata. It is located near a main junction for several Roman imperial roads, which are connected to Caesarea, Scytopolis, Akko-Ptolemais, and Jerusalem via NeapoJis (fig. 1). The excavated site is identified with the village of Kefar 'Othnay mentioned in the Mishnah (compiled ca. 200 c.E.) as the southern boundary of Jewish Galilee (m. Gittin 7:7). During 2004-2008, the site, which is currently part ofthe Megiddo prison compound, was methodically excavated on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (fig. 2). The findings included several Jewish ritual baths (miqvaot) and Jewish stone vesseJs. AdditionaJ excavated structures included the famed ancient Christian prayer haJJ dated to the Roman period, specificaJJy the third century C E . The mosaic fioor ofthat Christian prayer hall was paid for by a centurion from the Roman Legion (Tepper and Di Segni 2006). The animal footprints discussed here were found in loci from several domestic structures dated to the beginning of the second/third century c.E., belonging to the main phase of the Middle Roman stratum at the site. These tracks include five footprints from carnivores, four of which were printed on roof tiles and one on a ceramic jar/amphora (see fig. 3 below). Pétrographie and mineralogical analyses ofthe tiles show that they were made of local clay and burned in a nearby production center (Shapiro, personal communication). Tiles stamped with "LEG VJ FER" provide evidence for tile production by the Roman Legion during their occupation ofthe site (Tepper 2007). The imprints were made when the animals walked over the newly formed tiJes and vesseJ, laid to dry in the open air before being fired. Their abundance reflects a frequent presence of stray carnivores such as dogs and cats in the vicinity of site. Since the body-size range of canids is large and certain fea-
\mi
The Getty exhibit was exemplary in demonstrating what international partnerships can do to create accessibility, and the successful publication of the catalog ensures that the many admirable accompJishments ofthe Georgian researchers and exhibition curators will remain accessible after the exhibit's concJusion. If the recent return ofthe objects to TbJisi and Vani's local museum underscores the general absence of Colchian culture in North American museums, the unequivocal success ofthe Getty exhibit has generated a great deal of optimism in ongoing collaborative enterprises that promise to illuminate further the history of this fascinating region through its artifacts.
Christine M. Thompson University of Akron, Ohio Notes 1. The Homeric epics indicate that the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece was circulating in the eight century B.C.E. The earliest canonical account is found in the third century B.C.E. in the Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes. 2. This support was provided in partnership with the Ministry of Culture, Monuments Protection, and Sport of Georgia, and with funding from the Getty Museum's Villa Council. 3. This is the period to which ancient Greeks assigned Jason and their Trojan War heroes. 4. For a more accessible account, see Krulwich 2007.
References Chen, Z., J. Zhang, Y Chen, W Cui, and B. Zhang. 2006. The Yields of r-Process Elements and Chemical Evolution ofthe Galaxy. Astrophysics and Space Science 306:33-39. Kacharava, D., and G. Kvirkvelia. 2008. Wine, Worship, and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani. Edited by J. Chi. Princeton: Institute for the Study ofthe Ancient World in association with Princeton University Press. Krulwich, R. 2007. Galactic Gold: A Valentine Story. NPR. February 14. Online: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story. php?storyld=7397200. Lordkipanidze, O. 1995. Vani: Une Pompéi géorgienne. Centre de recherches d'histoire ancienne 139. Paris: Belles lettres. Pelkmans, M. 2006. Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of Georgia. Culture and Society after Socialism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
''44 NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOL'^'^'"
m
\m
Out on the Tiles Animal Footprints from the Roman Site of Kefar 'Othnay (Legio), Israel Tracking animal footprints from archaeoJogicaJ sites is not a common endeavor. Nevertheless, once found they provide knowJedge about the composition, abundance, and environmentaJ range of animal communities and their activities around human habitations. Carnivore footprints found on tiles in the Roman vilJage of Kefar 'Othnay near the Roman camp of the Sixth Legion Ferrata in the Jezreel Valley complement the known spectrum of animals known from the site by conventional zooarchaeological methods and point to the straying of dogs, cats, and small wild carnivores in and around the site. The site of Kefar 'Othnay is situated at the meeting point of Mount Carmel and the Samaria Hills in the Jezreel Valley, near the camp ofthe Sixth Legion Ferrata. It is located near a main junction for several Roman imperial roads, which are connected to Caesarea, Scytopolis, Akko-Ptolemais, and Jerusalem via NeapoJis (fig. 1). The excavated site is identified with the village of Kefar 'Othnay mentioned in the Mishnah (compiled ca. 200 c.E.) as the southern boundary of Jewish Galilee (m. Gittin 7:7). During 2004-2008, the site, which is currently part ofthe Megiddo prison compound, was methodically excavated on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority (fig. 2). The findings included several Jewish ritual baths (miqvaot) and Jewish stone vesseJs. AdditionaJ excavated structures included the famed ancient Christian prayer haJJ dated to the Roman period, specificaJJy the third century C E . The mosaic fioor ofthat Christian prayer hall was paid for by a centurion from the Roman Legion (Tepper and Di Segni 2006). The animal footprints discussed here were found in loci from several domestic structures dated to the beginning of the second/third century c.E., belonging to the main phase of the Middle Roman stratum at the site. These tracks include five footprints from carnivores, four of which were printed on roof tiles and one on a ceramic jar/amphora (see fig. 3 below). Pétrographie and mineralogical analyses ofthe tiles show that they were made of local clay and burned in a nearby production center (Shapiro, personal communication). Tiles stamped with "LEG VJ FER" provide evidence for tile production by the Roman Legion during their occupation ofthe site (Tepper 2007). The imprints were made when the animals walked over the newly formed tiJes and vesseJ, laid to dry in the open air before being fired. Their abundance reflects a frequent presence of stray carnivores such as dogs and cats in the vicinity of site. Since the body-size range of canids is large and certain fea-
m
B]
Tiberias I
Legio, Capercotani
1. Daher ed-Dar—Maximianopolis 2. El Manakh—The Roman military camp 3. Kefar Olhnay 4. Roman fortress 5. Tel Megiddo Ancient road
Fig. 1 (above). Schematic map of the Roman imperial road and the settlements in the Legio region (after Tepper and Di Segni 2006, 7).
Fig. 2 (right). Aerial photograph (sky-view) of area Q, looking west (Tepper and Di Segni 2006, 21).
tures in canid tracks are common to all of the dog family (dog, wolf, jackal, and fox), it is impossible to characterize the Kefar 'Othnay footprints with much certainty. However, it is rather easy to distinguish front and hind tracks, as the front foot is larger then the hind foot, and the toes of the front paws tend to spread more as they strike the ground (Murie and Elbroch 2005,157), It is noticeable that footprints from Kefar 'Othnay reflect two types of dogs. The first imprint, found on a tile fragment in Locus 1001, was made by the front feet of a medium-sized dog, roughly the same size as a Gocker Spaniel, or a jackal (Canis attreus; fig, 3a), A second imprint, found on another tile in Locus 5058, was made by the front foot of a large-sized dog similar in build to a wolf (Cfln/i lupus; fig, 3b), The most distinctive difference between cat and dog tracks is reflected in the shape and size of the palm pads on the front feet. The pads of cats are relatively larger, and the toes appear to be arranged in a curved row in front of the main pad. Gats normally keep their claws retracted, so claw marks usually do not appear in their tracks (Murie and Elbroch 2005, 244), An example of a cat footprint can be seen on a tile fragment found in Locus 9268 (fig, 3c), The cat footprints were imprinted after the tile was marked by human fingers with two diagonal lines. This indicates that the cat walked on the tile after it was marked but before it was fired.
Fig. 3. Cat and dog footprints on Roman tiles (a-d) and amphora fragment (e) from the Roman village of 'Othnay. (a) Front-leg imprint of a medium dog or a jackal (Locus 1001). (b) Front-leg imprint of a large dog (Locus 5058). (c) Front-leg imprint of a cat; note the weak imprint of the lateral lobe of the hind heel pad below (Locus 9268). (d) Hind-leg imprint of a badger (Locus 2005). (e) Claw imprints of a front leg of a small carnivore, probably a cat (Locus 7103).
Another indicator of cat footprints is the prominent third digit left by front footprints. Close examination of such a print reveals an oval-shaped, shallow impression below the front foot. On the same tile, an additional print was made by the lateral heel pad of the cat's hind foot, appearing to the left of the clear heel pad imprint of the front foot. Together these prints make a set or track. This track encodes further refinement information on the activities of the cat at the site. As the hind foot tends to overstep the front foot, we interpret the exposed gait to represent a cat that was moving in a slow trot. Since both of the prints are quite shallow, it appears that they were imprinted while the clay was fairly stiff, with moderate moisture content. The remaining footprint on the tile from Locus 2005 appears to have been made by an animal with long and strong claws, most suitable for extensive digging (fig, 3d), Given the size of the print, the shape, and the depth of the impression caused by the claws, it seems reasonable to assume that it was made by a badger (Meles meles), a common nocturnal carnivore in northern Israel that lives in the vicinity of agricultural lands and human habitation (Mendelssohn and Yom-Tov 1999), The
footprint is relatively narrow and iticludes impressions of only four of the five toes. Therefore it seems that it was made by the hind foot when the animal was trotting. Given the depth of the print, it appears that the badger was passing on the tile while the clay was fairly fresh with low yield strength, probably during the evening when the tiles were left to dry. The last footprint found in Locus 7103 is also relatively narrow and includes an impression of only three claws pushed into the surface of the ceramic jar (fig, 3e), Given its dimensions, it appears to have been made by a cat leaning on a freshly made jar. The claw prints could have been made by the cat stretching up the drying jar while the vessel was raised on a rack, that is, not like the tiles drying on the ground. Although the origin of the jar cannot be determined, it appears that at least some of the ceramic vessels at the site were made of the same local clay used to manufacture the tiles (Shapiro, personal comtnunication). The animal footprints found in Kefar 'Othnay provide information about the ecological and domestic landscape of this village during Roman times. They vividly demonstrate that cat, dog, and also nondomestic stray carnivores roamed in the
immediate area around the site, a phenotnenon that is also chronicled in historical accounts frotii the period (Schwartz 2000, 2003; Valer 2007). As such, these animal footprints enhance our understanding ofthe known zooarchaeological temains, which are dotninated by the routine component of livestock, mainly sheep and goat, and to a lesser extent domestic fowl and cattle (Abado, Raban-Gerstel, and Bar-Oz, personal data), (Carnivores are only represented in the assemblage by a lew isolated dog and weasel {Muslela nivalis) bones. These footprints are not unique, but they are rare for the ancient Near East. While surveying the literature, we found that there are only a handful of little-known archaeological sites with recognizable animal footprints in this region. These include the Aceramic Neolithic site of Ganj Dareh (goat footprints on mud bricks; Hesse 1978); the Iron Age site of Rehov (dog footprint on mud brick; Marom, persotial communication); the Rotnan sites of Acco-Remez (cat footprint on tile; Tepper, personal data), Kabri (cat footprint on tile; Stern and Cîetzov 2006, 110), and Hippos (several dog footprints on bricks; Eisenberg, personal communication); and the Byzantine site of Shuni (dog footprint on plaster layer; Tepper, personal data). Additional animal footprints, found mostly on bricks and tiles, were reported at Roman sites in Britain located (like Kefar 'Othnay) near a Roman camp (Elliot 1991; Brodribb 1987, 125; Denison 2000; for additional archaeological examples of animal footprints in coastal deposits, see also Kinahan 1996; Roberts, Gonzalez, and Huddart 1996). We believe that there are many more animal footprints in various archaeological sites waiting to be documented and explored. However, the challenge of gathering and analyzing them is formidable, as the vast majority of animal footprints have not been reported. In the coming years, with the increased awareness and documentation of finds, we anticipate that more footprints will be discovered in various archaeological cotitexts and on different artifacts within and around sites.
Guy Bar-Oz University of Haifa Yotam Tepper Israel Antiquities Authority Acknowledgments Archaeological salvage excavations at Megiddo prison compound were carried out during the years of 2004-2008 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. We thank the IAA for their permission to publish the footprints. Thanks also to Roee Shafir for photographing the footprints, Anat Regev-Gisis for preparing fig. 3, Nimrod Getzov for his remarks, and Michael Eisenberg, Nitiirod Marotn, Reuven Yeshurun, atid Melinda
Zeder for their constructive comments on an earlier version ofthe article. The preparation of this tnanuscript was done while Bar-Oz was on sabbatical leave at the National Museum of Natural History, Stnithsonian Institution. He is grateful to Melitida Zeder and the Archaeobiology Progratn for providing the facilities needed to complete this research.
References Brodribb, G. 1987. Roman Brick and Tile. Gloucester, U.K.: Sutton. Denison, S. 2000. More Evidence of Roman POW Camp on Hadriati's Wall. British Archaeology 54. Online: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ ba54/ba54news.html. Elliot, W. 1991. Animal Footprints on Roman Bricks from New.stead. Proceedings ofthe Society of Antiquarians of Scotland 121:223-26. Hesse, B. 1978. Evidence for Husbandry frotn the Early Neolithic Site of Ganj Dareh in Western Iran. Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University. Kinahan, K. 1996. Human and Domestic Animal Tracks in an Archaeological Lagoon Deposit on the Coast of Namibia. South African Archaeological Bulletin 51:94-98. Mendelssohn, H., and Y. Yom-Tov. 1999. Fauna Pakstina: Mammalia of Israel. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Murie, O. J., and M. Elhroch. 2005. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. 3rd ed. Peterson Field Guide Series. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Roberts, G., S. Gonzalez, and D. Huddart. 1996. Intertidal Holocene Footprints and Their Archaeological Significance. Antiquity 70:647-51. Schwartz, J. 2000. Dogs and Cats iti Jewish Society in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Periods. Pp. 25*-34* in Proceedings ofthe Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, July 29-August 5, 1997: Division B, History ofthe Jewish People, ed. R. Margolin. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies. . 2003. Dogs in Ancient Rural Jewish Society Pp. 127-36 in The Rural Landscape of Ancient Israel, ed. M. Aren, S. Dar, and Z. Safrai. BAR International Series 1121. Oxford: Archaeopress. Stern, E., and N. Getzov. 2006. Aspects of Phoenician Burial Custorns in the Roman Period in Light of an Excavation near El-Kabri (Kabri).
'Atiqot5\:9\-\23. Tepper, Y 2007. The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio, Israel: Results of an Archaeological Survey and Observations on the Roman Military Presence at the Site. Pp. 57-71 in The Late Roman Army in the East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005), ed. A. S. Lewin and P. Pellegrini. BAR International Series 1717. Oxford: Archaeopress. Tepper, Y, and L. Di Segni. 2006. A Christian Prayer Hall ofthe Third Century CE at Kefar 'Othnay (Legio): Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005. Publications ofthe Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Valer, S. 2007. Attitudes in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talrnud toward Raising Cats [Hebrew]. Pp. 178-89 in Human Beings and Other Animals in Historical Perspective, ed. B. Arhel, |. Terkel, and S. Menache. Jerusalem: Carmel.
NEAR EASTERN ARCHAEOUXiY 7Î:4 (2010)
247
Book Revie\s^s of Interest Excavations at Sepphoris, Volume 1: University of South Florida Probes in the Citadel and Villa By James E. Strange, Thomas R. W. Longstaff, and Dennis E. Groh. The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 22. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Pp. xx + 172; plates, tables, maps. Hardback, $218.00, ISBN 978-90-04-12626-8.
O
nly an archaeologist could love this book—and that is all to the ^' good. The authors have pulled together the first in what is hoped to be many more detailed studies of excavations at the important Galilean city of Sepphoris. To be sure, other excavators have produced important works of particular areas at Sepphoris (notably the significant water complex and the synagogue with its marvelous zodiac mosaic). But until this study, detailed stratigraphie analysis has been sorely lacking. This has meant a dearth of data with which to address key issues such as the date of the theater or whether the Gallus revolt of 351-352 C.E. or the earthquake of 363 C.E. best explains the significant transformation ofthe site in the fourth century. Although the authors do not resolve those concerns, they provide us v«th a detailed discussion of excavation techniques and the stratigraphie context with firm contextual data from which to evaluate their conclusions. The bar has been set high for others who have excavated at the site for many years, and we eagerly await further reports. Before I address the particulars ofthe book, I must make clear my own connections with the University of South Florida (USF) excavations at Sepphoris. My first excavation experience was with the USF team at Sepphoris (beginning in 1986), where I served as a square supervisor and field director for five field seasons, although not in the areas addressed in this book. Obviously, some might see this as a conflict of interest. I have sought to evaluate this book in as unbiased a manner as possible and leave the reader to decide as to the degree of my success. As the first volume on the USF excavations, the authors present background information on previous excavations (notably that
24« Nli.AR liASTKRN AKCHAtOLOCY 7V4 (2010
by Leroy Waterman) as well as the numerous literary sources that illuminate the history and perception of Sepphoris. In addition, they provide a useful discussion ofthe area's environtnental and geological character. Less clear is the reason for mentioning the two surveys in Galilee that they conducted in 1982 and 1984. While the information is of some interest, they do not integrate it with numerous subsequent studies. Hitting close to home, for example, they discuss their survey of Khirbet Gana (Oana), a site I have excavated since 1998. Yet even though a study ofthe work there was published in 2002, this was not incorporated into the authors' discussion. The same can be said for several other sites visited. Nevertheless, it is better to have the infortnation than to let it disappear into the netherworld of unpublished tiiaterial. It also illustrates the value to all of us to publish in a timely manner. Glearly, the most important contribution ofthe book is the detailed discussion ofthe excavation around the citadel and what appears to be a villa on the acropolis ofthe site. One literally gets a blow-by-blow analysis ofthe loci uncovered (here understood to mean any three-dimensional feature). This includes detailed top plans and balk drawings as well as lists of artifactual remains (especially coins) that allow the reader to follow the excavations and analysis. The authors also add something else that makes this study especially important for specialists. For key loci, they include drawings of associated ceramic ware with the discussion ofthe loci. This is not normally done, but because the arguments for dating various layers are so significant, it seetns an impt)rtant innovation that others might consider. The authors have clearly illustrated two important features associated with the acropolis. The first is that the citadel or tower, as they call it, was founded in the Byzantine, not Grusader, period, as so many have posited. Moreover, the teatn found ample evidence for a major transition in the fourth century C.E. associated with the tower and the villa that suggested some major event took place (they believe it to be the Gallus revolt), altering the acropolis substantially. The actual cause ofthe dramatic changes oti the acropolis will continue to be debated, but the authors have made a strong case for a military conflagration. Second, the excavations reveal that the excavated building Waterman had thought was a church was instead a villa. Not many villas of this sort have been found, so this in itself is an important discovery. It illustrates the value of using carefully controlled excavation in an area partially excavated by someone else as a means to evaluate earlier claims. It calls to mind as well the admonition by many archaeologists to leave some areas unexcavated so that others with tnore refined techniques can test earlier formulations. Indeed, the authors are to be commended for doing that with the villa. The discussion of underground Sepphoris is equally engaging
[íSl[fSll]SlffSlfSíl[(^íl(S^ t '-'¡'¡ff£'
and significant. Those who have worked at Sepphoris Jcnow well the amazing underground complexes that exist there but have been little reported. The authors' detailed stratigraphie analysis not only discusses the physical layout ot cisterns and rooms associated with both the tower and villa but also makes a scientificalJy based case for the transitions that many ofthe complexes, some of which are micjvaot, underwent from the Hellenistic into the Byzantine period. One hopes that this leads to increased discussion of this important component of Sepphoris. Several factors detract from an otherwise well-argued discussion. The volume suffers from a lack of a good editor, somewhat surprising in that the cost for this modest volume is so high. Several examples should suffice. Longstaff's stint working as an area supervisor at Meiron must have been between 1978 and 1981 not "1987-1991," as recorded (p. xvii); the menfion of a coin of Nero minted in Jerusalem "(37-4 B.C.E.)" must mean Herod the Great, although the date rather than the coin's identification could be wrong; repetition almost verbatim of sentences occurs on pages 87,88, and again on 91; and the text states "CD" instead of "CE" (p. 95). No photographs were included in the book; photos of the various areas might have helped readers understand the arguments better. One can only imagine, though, what the cost ofthe book would have been had such photos been included. Perhaps a CD-ROM would be a solution? Drawings depicting key finds associated with particular loci are not included. For example, an ostracon with Greek writing was found in Cistern 217 (p. 107); since such finds are rare in Galilee and debate continues around the language fields of Roman and Byzantine Galilee, it would have been useful to have a drawing or photo. Ihe authors also mention an appended locus sheet (p. 75) that lists all artifacts found in a given locus. Such a list would have been helpful in following the detailed stratigraphie discussions. No such list, unfortunately, seems to exist. Finally, one wonders why the authors limited this first volume to the citadel and villa and did not include the one other area they excavated on the acropolis, an apparent bath complex. In that way, they would have presented all their stratigraphie work in Field I. None of these infelicities, however, impacts the force ofthe discussion, which consistently addresses the careful stratigraphie work of the team and subsequent finds. This extremely important contribution to our knowledge about the Lower Galilee in general and Sepphoris in particular will be welcomed by archaeologists who desire the data along with general conclusions. The authors are to be commended for placing before their colleagues a detailed scientific study that will be necessary reading for all interested in reconstructing the complex world of ancient Sepphoris. One can only hope that it serves as an impetus to all the excavators at this site (or any
.•.^•.••v::'-
• , . » .
Jr.i.;..•••.::Ï
- i
site) to get their data out in an equally compelling way and in a timely manner.
^Douglas R. Edwards
The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance: Archaeology and Tourism on a Greek Island By Philip Duke. Heritage, Tourism, and Community. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, 2007. Pp. 155, figures, tables. Paperback, $29.95, ISBN 978-1-59874-143-8.
'his book is the first in a new series edited by Helaine Silverman, entitled "Heritage, Tourism, and Community." The series aims to confront, through single-author case studies, specific exampJes of heritage tourist development. It focuses on the interconnected issues of heritage, tourism, and community from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives, driven by both theory and practical principles. Philip Duke's The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance is a fitting volume to inaugurate this new and exciting series. The title ofthe book is a combination ofthe title of John Urry's The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Gontemporary Societies with "the Cretans GJance," a term coined by none other than the great Cretan novelist, Nikos Kazantzakis. The cover of the book shows a detail of a drawing ofthe Minoan snake goddess—herself a heavily restored icon of Minoan Crete—wearing sunglasses that reflect a tourist taking a photograph. The goddess herself is slightly out of focus; the tourist is not. The book begins with a highly personal self-reflective introduction, which, although it provides useful background to the book and its aims, does wander from an infatuation with Greece and high school Greek and Latin on to real archaeology at Cambridge and Calgary (somewhere along the way, we find out that Duke Jost his working-class roots). Duke explains his reasoning for exposing his own biases: "As the study progressed, it
[íSl[fSll]SlffSlfSíl[(^íl(S^ t '-'¡'¡ff£'
and significant. Those who have worked at Sepphoris Jcnow well the amazing underground complexes that exist there but have been little reported. The authors' detailed stratigraphie analysis not only discusses the physical layout ot cisterns and rooms associated with both the tower and villa but also makes a scientificalJy based case for the transitions that many ofthe complexes, some of which are micjvaot, underwent from the Hellenistic into the Byzantine period. One hopes that this leads to increased discussion of this important component of Sepphoris. Several factors detract from an otherwise well-argued discussion. The volume suffers from a lack of a good editor, somewhat surprising in that the cost for this modest volume is so high. Several examples should suffice. Longstaff's stint working as an area supervisor at Meiron must have been between 1978 and 1981 not "1987-1991," as recorded (p. xvii); the menfion of a coin of Nero minted in Jerusalem "(37-4 B.C.E.)" must mean Herod the Great, although the date rather than the coin's identification could be wrong; repetition almost verbatim of sentences occurs on pages 87,88, and again on 91; and the text states "CD" instead of "CE" (p. 95). No photographs were included in the book; photos of the various areas might have helped readers understand the arguments better. One can only imagine, though, what the cost ofthe book would have been had such photos been included. Perhaps a CD-ROM would be a solution? Drawings depicting key finds associated with particular loci are not included. For example, an ostracon with Greek writing was found in Cistern 217 (p. 107); since such finds are rare in Galilee and debate continues around the language fields of Roman and Byzantine Galilee, it would have been useful to have a drawing or photo. Ihe authors also mention an appended locus sheet (p. 75) that lists all artifacts found in a given locus. Such a list would have been helpful in following the detailed stratigraphie discussions. No such list, unfortunately, seems to exist. Finally, one wonders why the authors limited this first volume to the citadel and villa and did not include the one other area they excavated on the acropolis, an apparent bath complex. In that way, they would have presented all their stratigraphie work in Field I. None of these infelicities, however, impacts the force ofthe discussion, which consistently addresses the careful stratigraphie work of the team and subsequent finds. This extremely important contribution to our knowledge about the Lower Galilee in general and Sepphoris in particular will be welcomed by archaeologists who desire the data along with general conclusions. The authors are to be commended for placing before their colleagues a detailed scientific study that will be necessary reading for all interested in reconstructing the complex world of ancient Sepphoris. One can only hope that it serves as an impetus to all the excavators at this site (or any
.•.^•.••v::'-
• , . » .
Jr.i.;..•••.::Ï
- i
site) to get their data out in an equally compelling way and in a timely manner.
^Douglas R. Edwards
The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance: Archaeology and Tourism on a Greek Island By Philip Duke. Heritage, Tourism, and Community. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Left Coast Press, 2007. Pp. 155, figures, tables. Paperback, $29.95, ISBN 978-1-59874-143-8.
'his book is the first in a new series edited by Helaine Silverman, entitled "Heritage, Tourism, and Community." The series aims to confront, through single-author case studies, specific exampJes of heritage tourist development. It focuses on the interconnected issues of heritage, tourism, and community from multi- and interdisciplinary perspectives, driven by both theory and practical principles. Philip Duke's The Tourists Gaze, the Cretans Glance is a fitting volume to inaugurate this new and exciting series. The title ofthe book is a combination ofthe title of John Urry's The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Gontemporary Societies with "the Cretans GJance," a term coined by none other than the great Cretan novelist, Nikos Kazantzakis. The cover of the book shows a detail of a drawing ofthe Minoan snake goddess—herself a heavily restored icon of Minoan Crete—wearing sunglasses that reflect a tourist taking a photograph. The goddess herself is slightly out of focus; the tourist is not. The book begins with a highly personal self-reflective introduction, which, although it provides useful background to the book and its aims, does wander from an infatuation with Greece and high school Greek and Latin on to real archaeology at Cambridge and Calgary (somewhere along the way, we find out that Duke Jost his working-class roots). Duke explains his reasoning for exposing his own biases: "As the study progressed, it
ll gradually changed from my original conception, a broadly etic Foucaultian analysis of archaeological knowledge and power, to a more experiential and personal engagement with a particular past" (p. 16), As Duke dutifully notes, such a public airing can lead to little more than a narcissistic monologue, and J am not fully convinced that reflexivity always leads to "remarkable insights on how the past is constructed and its profound influence on how the present is then understood" (p, 16), Nevertheless, I remain fascinated by the original Foucaultian concept! The structure of the book is straightforward, Ghapter 1 ("Touring the Past") brings to the fore the line of reasoning followed in the book. As with the introduction, it wanders through, among other things, several minefields, not least of which is the complex relationship between the past and present: "the past and present are indeed metaphorical Siamese twins that were never separated at birth" (p, 23), However, it does cover the issues that form the crux of the study, not only site stewardship—conservation and preservation—but also public response to sites and museums, viewing the latter as active collaborators in the present. Duke contends that the tourist or site/ museum visitor has little input into the formation of knowledge about the past, Ghapter 2 ("The Minoan Past") presents a circumscribed overview of the present state of Bronze Age archaeology on Grete, Minoan archaeologists, since Arthur Evans, have a tendency to be an insular lot, and I am unsure how they might react to this overview, but Duke has done a remarkable job in summarizing Minoan archaeology into twentysomething succinct pages, hitting all the high notes. Indeed, this short chapter would be a great place to begin for anyone wishing to get a cogent introduction to Minoan archaeology, particularly as Duke effectively notes that Minoan archaeologists—despite the recent revisionist trend—are still searching for answers to the most basic questions about Minoan society. The reason for embarking on this archaeological overview is to help consider what is and what is not offered to tourists. With chapter 3 ("Tourists and the Gonstructed Past") we begin to see the real meat of the study. The chapter looks at tourism and how tourists interact with cultures. The past, as Duke argues, is a contemporary cultural production, and he takes head-on the two issues of authenticity, on the one hand, and the value and commodification of archaeological sites and the past, on the other, Ghapter 4 ("Modern Grete, Ancient Minoans, and the Tourist Experience") begins with a delightful prayer, addressed to the Lord Jesus Ghrist, to save the Orthodox Fatherland from the scourge of tourism, a prayer recommended by the Greek Orthodox Ghurch in the 1970s. The chapter discusses the different types of information on the Bronze Age sites of Grete that are available to tourists and the different media through which the past is presented. In so many ways, the most critical part of Duke's study is
chapter 5 ("Gonstructing a Prehistory"). Indeed, the invention of the Minoans is a theme that has dominated the past half-decade of Gretan scholarship. Moving on from the fact that tourists are presented with a selective past at archaeological sites and museums. Duke looks at what is emphasized and what is silenced. This selectivity, he argues, is the product of two filters: the first involves the academic interests and ideologies of professional academics and archaeologists "who have taken it upon themselves to recreate an objective and authoritative past" (p, 93); the second fllter is that determined by those who put the past on display: government bureaucrats, site managers, tourist entrepreneurs, and guidebook writers (in that order). Duke examines a number of interrelated themes: colonialism and the rise of modernity, academic elitism, archaeological paradigms, the state control of archaeology, economics (Greece received 14,179,999 foreign tourists in 2003, and this was after the September 11 attacks that created a worldwide tourist recession), and, finally, archaeology and the local constituency. What Duke sets out to do in this chapter is to excavate "the different hegemonies that create the stratigraphie palimpsest of meaning about the Minoan past" (p. 19), The number of foreign tourists in 2003 is indeed dramatic, as the figure is higher than the population of Greece, and Duke could have made more of the fact that a greater number of people "view" Greek culture than embody it. The final chapter (6: "The Nexus of the Past") is more an epilogue than a full-fledged chapter. In three short pages (plus one figure that displays, diagrammatically, the nexus between the present and the Minoan past). Duke attempts to place his study into a more global context. On the fmal page he states that "[a]rchaeology was conceived as a middle-class enterprise" (p, 121). I am not sure I entirely agree; with "founding fathers" such as Heinrich Schliemann and Arthur Evans, who, among others, financed exploration with private wealth, archaeology was at one time much too elite to be merely bourgeois. Following chapter 6 is a full bibliography, an index, and a site gazetteer that briefly describes the main Minoan sites and provides comments taken from Duke's field notes as to what a visitor might expect by way of signage, information, and so on. All in all, this is a fabulous little book, easily accessible and easily read in a single sitting. Much of the cogency of the book lies in the fact that, for much of it, it does not use the normal sources available to archaeologists; instead, it considers personal diaries, interviews (whether ethnographic or otherwise), guidebooks available at archaeological sites, and tourist brochures. Through these. Duke lays bare the impact that sites, museums, and the constructed past have not only on the tourists' view of the Minoan past but of their own culture,
John K. Papadopoulos University of California, Los Angeles
Islamic Art and Archaeology of Palestine
local identity" (p. 10), without engaging the complex discourse surrounding Palestinian idenUty and modern politics. Hers is a decidedly phenomenoJogical approach that, whiJe admittedly not comprehensive in its use of sources or site coverage (p. 12), is meant as a synthesis of generaJ themes that have emerged from modern schoJarship by art historians and archaeoJogists By Myriam Rosen-Ayalon. Trans- on Islamic PaJestine, pulling heaviJy on the resuJts of fieldwork lated from the French by EJiezer by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Singer. WaJnut Creek, Calif.: Left In her introductory chapter (pp. 15-18), Rosen-Ayalon highCoast Press, 2006. Pp. 213, 23 fig- lights the particular importance of PaJestine for the emergence ures, 3 maps. Cloth, $29.95, ISBN and early development of canons of Islamic art, at the same time 978-1-598740964-6. revealing characteristics of a material culture that is unique to the region. As the locus of pilgrimage (for three world religions) and the Crusades, Palestine played an important role in the scholarly discipline can be said to transmission of ardsfic and architectural styles from the Middle come of its own once syn- East to Europe; several genres of minor arts (nameJy, Fatimidthetic and "state ofthe art" studies era carved bone and wood) are preserved onJy here, and, as a appear. It is in this sense that Islamic geographicaJ and cuJturaJ transitionaJ zone between Egypt and archaeology has become a recognized and established special- Syria, PaJestinian art and architecture regularJy reflect eJements ization within Near Eastern studies in the twenty-first century. of both traditions. WhiJe these themes are not new to students The publication of Timothy Insoll's The Archaeology of Islam of Islamic art, Rosen-Ayalon positions Palestine alongside Syria (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), which has become a standard text for and Iraq as an influential center of artistic production in its own undergraduate courses, was instrumental in raising awareness of right during the Early Islamic period. this discipline and acknowledging its potential for developing Rosen-Ayalon adopts a simple, chronological framework for archaeological theory and models for the later historical periods. her book, each ofthe seven chapters reflecting phases in the It was followed, in the same spirit, by another reader—Marcus larger deveJopment of Islamic art and architecture when political Milwright, An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology (Edinburgh: centers shifted from one region to another. As one ofthe leadEdinburgh University Press, 2010)—earlier this year. Since InsoJl's ing experts on Islamic art in Israel, Rosen-Ayalon writes with study, numerous regionaJJy based monographs have been pub- authority about the generaJ deveJopments of each period, citing lished; for PaJestine, the work of PaJestinian (described below) what she recognizes as the most important artistic achievements and British scholars (archaeological studies on Jerusalem and and archaeoJogicaJ sites ofthat era. She adopts a typological rural Palestine, gazetteers of sites) have brought an increasing approach throughout; her text is strongly art historical in its appreciation for and understanding ofthe local Islamic heritage analysis and presentation. through careful registration of standing monuments and studies Chapter 1 is appropriately dedicated to the Jahiliyya (preon urban and rural development. Islamic) age. Archaeological fieldwork in the Negev has produced Professor Rosen-Ayalon's recent monograph is an important compelling evidence for the roots of early Islamic culture in contribution to this growing body of scholarship as an analyti- Nabataean and Bedouin societies, complementing and forcing cal survey ofthe art and architecture of Islamic Palestine. This adjustments to images ofthat cuJture culled from excavations in work, a translation by Eliezer Singer ofthe author's original Arabia. Rosen-Ayalon, furthermore, cites data from papyri datwork published in French in 2002 under the title Art et archéol- ing to the Late Byzantine era through the early Islamic period ogie islamiques en Palestine (Paris: Presses universitaires de (512-789 c.E.) that shed light on the way Gaza and the Negev France), is a thoughtful reflection on lectures she has given over were administered and how local society functioned during this many years at the university JeveJ, much in the spirit of Oleg critical period of transition to Muslim rule. In this sense, Palestine Grabar's cJassic work Formation of Islamic Art (New Haven: may be the key to understanding more fully responses of local YaJe University Press, 1973). communities to the conquests. It is a difficult task to avoid the poJitical minefields in any Chapter 2 examines the important Uniayyad period (661-750 discussion of material culture and settlement history of histori- C.E.), when Islamic civilization can properly be said to have been cal Palestine. Rosen-Ayalon immediately addresses the issue of born. With the capital in nearby Damascus, Palestine and Jerusalem identity in her preface by highlighting a central theme ofthe in particular were the direct recipients of imperial Jargesse, with book, that the art and archaeology ofthe region "reveals a genuine numerous buiJding projects and investment in infrastructure.
A
The author reviews here familiar debates over the construction and function of particular monuments, such as the Dome of the Rock and the so-called "desert castles," while offering new insights on early urban formation, citing evidence from excavations at Ramla and Beit Shan, In her third chapter, Rosen-Ayalon identifies evidence for the ever-elusive Abbasid, Tulunid, and Fatimid periods (in Palestine essentially 750-1099 CE,). In spite of the political instability of these centuries—Palestine passed in and out of the control of multiple rival states—its cities thrived, as excavations at Ramla, Abu Ghosh, Acre, Gaesarea, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem attest. This chapter describes the local industries that weathered the political turmoil in this borderland region—sugar processing, fine metalwork and jewelry-making, and bone carving—and traces further developments of urban structures, Palestine emerges here as a "missing piece" in understanding regional economic structures and Fatimid culture, in particular, outside of the imperial capitals. Passing over the Grusader era in a few paragraphs—a topic that is beyond the scope of her work—Rosen-Ayalon moves in the following chapter to the historically important Ayyubid and Mamluk periods (1187-1516 C.E, in Palestine), She presents a wide range of architectural features (bridges, caravanserais, markets, mosques, and madrasas) and surveys the results of excavations at numerous sites (Jerusalem, Ramla, Yokneam, Lydda, Abu Gosh, Hebron, Safed, and Gaza) to demonstrate the impressive degree of investment in local urban and transportation infrastructure by the state, Palestine once again enjoys the patronage of state officials through the renovations of old structures and construction of new ones, facilitating pilgrimage, as well as reinforcing security and economic networks. It is, moreover, industrially productive in its own right, as the author's coverage of minor arts (mosaics, pottery, and glass) suggests. The final two chapters of the monograph (5 and 6) are concerned with the later historical periods: the Ottoman (1516-1917) and post-Ottoman (early twentieth century), Ottoman Palestine is described as an economically stagnant region that did not experience the urban and cultural vibrancy of earlier years. In chapter 5, Rosen-Ayalon surveys urban development in Jerusalem and more limited building projects in Tiberias and Acre, The following chapter is a useful, however brief, discourse on the Armenian ceramic tradition in Jerusalem at the turn of the twentieth century. The author then concludes with a general survey of the main arguments of her book, emphasizing that Islamic Palestinian cultural traditions reflect both "converging artistic traditions" and local ones (p, 149) and that southern Palestinian traditions were dominant in the early development of Islamic art here (p, 151), While a well-organized and insightful work, there are some notable gaps in coverage. Much important scholarship by Palestin-
ian archaeologists and architectural historians could be included. The Journal of Palestinian Archaeology, published by Birzeit University's Institute of Archaeology sporadically since 2000, has been a high-quality venue for preliminary archaeological, ceramic, and architectural reports in English and Arabic, Useful in this regard is also the joint Birzeit-University of Bergen Lower Jordan River Basin Program pubJication series, which has produced a dozen monographs in English, Another important resource is Riwaq, Established in Ramallah in 1991, Riwaq is a nongovernmental organization that oversees architectural preservation, publishing architectural monographs in English and Arabic since 2000 and maintaining a register of historical buildings in Palestine (www, riwaq,org). While many of these resources were not available at the time of the printing of Rosen-Ayalon's French edition, they have since become readily available and should have been incorporated into the English one. This new Palestinian scholarship adds important dimensions to our knowledge about the later Islamic periods in Palestine that are not addressed, or only tangentially, in this current work, such as embroideries (a valued tradition largely associated with rural and pastoral communities), local architectural traditions (domestic architecture, mosques, and shrines [p. 123]—the value of the latter being more than "typological"), local nonelite ceramic traditions, local industrial complexes (soap factories and pottery kilns, for example), and the "throne villages" (with their fortified qasrs and madafas) that have been the topic of numerous masters theses and doctoral dissertations. Without them, the survey of the Ottoman periods and "post-Ottoman" (British Mandate era), in particular, appear underdeveloped and incomplete. As Palestinian art (ceramics, pipes, textiles, glass, tiles, and frescos) and architecture developed during the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries in ways that significantly differentiate the region from its neighbors, perhaps more than any other period of Islamic history, coverage of these centuries is partictilarly important in documenting local identities. On a more stylistic note, figures should be incorporated into the text (as it is not always clear where images described in the text are located in the book) and the misspelling of "Ayubbid" on title pages in chapter 4 should be addressed; these are, of course, the responsibility of the editor, not the fault of the author. These suggestions aside, Rosen-Ayalon's work is a most welcome addition to Islamic archaeology, giving Palestine its proper due in the larger development of Islamic art. In a single, brief monograph she assembles a wide range of data from archaeological reports (old and new) and art historical studies, vetted through her extensive knowledge of both fields. It has excellent potential as a teaching tool for undergraduates and is an accessible introduction to the discipline for nonspecialists,
Bethany J. Walker Missouri State University
The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel
who marshal a lot of data to support their historical syntheses based on their reading ofthe archaeological record. For the most part, Finkelstein repeats what he wrote with Neil Asher Silberman in The Bible Unearthed (Free Press, 2001) and David and Solomon (Free Press, 2006). Nevertheless, one will find these summary essays to be well-written and engaging. Mazar's discussion, including his rebuttals of Finkelstein's views, has for the most part only appeared in scholarly literature. Although the authors position themselves between the extremes ofthe so-called "minitnalists" and "maximalists," they nevertheless By Israel Finkelstein and Amihai stand at different points along the centrist continuum. Both agree Mazar; edited by Brian B. Schmidt. that the Hebrew Bible was largely shaped in the late monarchic Society of Biblical Literature Archae- period and later and is deeply influenced by the ideology of its ology and Biblical Studies 17. editors, but they differ on the reliability ofthe historical inforAtlanta: Society of Biblical Litera- mation etnbedded there. This is mainly due to their different ture, 2007. Pp. ix + 220, maps, charts, understandings ofthe editorial process. Finkelstein believes that illustrations, photographs. Paper, the Deuteronomistic History and large portions ofthe Pentateuch $24.95, ISBN 978-1-58983-277-0. are so saturated with a seventh-century Josianic agenda that little remains of historical worth. Mazar argues that, despite their ideological stamp, the Deuteronomistic History and other relevant ost readers of NEA are well aware texts preserve earlier material rooted in the realities ofthe past, ofthe long-standing debate con- even if the passage of time has blurred their original historical cerning the historical reliability ofthe Bible. When it comes to circumstances. Despite their differing po.stures in this regard, both the contribution of archaeology to this discussion, most would scholars affirm archaeology as a valid and independent wittiess agree that Israel Finkelstein and Amihai Mazar are among the to the claitns ofthe biblical text. best equipped to address it. In October 2005, both were invited The one voice missing from this volume is that ofthe biblical by the late Rabbi Sherwin White to give a series of talks on the scholar. While it would have been beyond the scope of this volutne subject at the Sixth Biennial Golloquium ofthe International to include textual perspectives, a lot has been written over the Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in Detroit, Michigan. years from this side ofthe debate. A similar volume written by This volume, superbly edited by Brian Schmidt, is the published two leading scholars who specialize in biblical and ancient Near version of these lectures. Eastern texts would be a welcotne complement. The book is divided into six sections: part 1 surveys the backFinally, the reader should take note that some viewpoints have ground ofthe debate and a variety of methodological issues that changed since the time of these lectures. On page 121, Mazar relate to the Hebrew Bible's usefulness as a historical source; parts writes that Finkelstein's acceptance of Shishak's destruction of 2-5 examine the biblical portrayal of Israel's history and the results Arad XII in the late tenth century undermines his low chronology, of recent archaeological research according to four tnain epochs: since this phase contains similar red-slipped and burnished pot(1) patriarchs; (2) exodus, conquest, and settlement; (3) united tery attributed by him elsewhere to the ninth century. However, monarchy; and (4) divided monarchy. In part 6, Finkelstein and in a recent article in Tel Aviv (2006), Finkelstein and Alexander Mazar summarize their views and present their final arguments. Fantalkin argue for lowering the date of Arad XII and other relAt the beginning of each part, Schmidt provides a synopsis ofthe evant Iron Age sites in the Negev to a time after Shishak. Glearly, authors' tnain points. Those unfamiliar with the issues will find the debate is continuing and will not be resolved anytime soon. these sutntnaries helpful. Whether one is persuaded by Finkelstein or Mazar—or remains This book is not a survey of all scholarly opinions on the subjects. undecided—most will probably agree that the debate has been While the authors quote other authorities, the essays pritnarily a good one for Levantine archaeology. It has highlighted some reflect the learned opinions of each writer. Moreover, since the ofthe mistaken assumptions made by the previous generation volume aims for a general audience, it lacks footnotes; however, of archaeologists and has challenged modern scholars to think those wanting to do further reading will find an excellent tiine- more deeply about how their own presuppositions might affect page bibliography at the back ofthe book. There is also a brief an interpretation ofthe evidence. but helpful glossary of terms and two indexes. All in all, this archaeological tour de force is a splendid choice The stretigth ofthe book is clearly the expertise ofthe authors. for those wanting a fairly up-to-date sutnmary of the ongoing
M
\m
^ debate from an archaeological perspective. The volume's succinct presentation and readable style makes it an ideal supplement for university or seminary courses on biblical history and archaeology. As such, this book will serve as a valuable point of departure for discussions on how one arrives at historicaJ conclusions based on existing archaeological evidence.
Robert A. Mullins Azusa Pacific University
The Archaeology of Ritual Edited by EvangeJos Kyriakidis. Cotsen Advanced Seminar 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007. Pp. xii + 319, plates, maps. Cloth, ISBN 978-1-93174548-2.
A rchaeological field teams are .¿Vfamiliar with the lightheartedly dismissive cliché that, if the function of a newly discovered feature or artifact is unknown, it must be "ritual." Recent seminars and books demonstrate that there are scholars working to contravene the neglect of ritual and religion in archaeological research. This book is the product of one such seminar convened to discuss the potential for studying ritual through archaeoJogy. EvangeJos Kyriakidis, the editor, includes contributions from Jeading archaeologists such as Marcus, Hastorf, and Renfrew as well as social anthropologists, historians, philosophers, and scholars of reJigious study and the arts. In fact, less than half of the contributors to this volume are archaeologists. Such a crossdisciplinary effort to understand ancient ritual avoids the pitfalls of narrow approaches defined by region, culture, or period, leading the treatment of ancient ritual away from referencing standard sources. The volume consists of thirteen chapters, three of which are by the editor. After a brief first chapter ("In Search of Ritual") summarizing the contributions and organization of the book, Kyriakidis's second chapter ("Finding Ritual: Calibrating the Evidence") provides an overview ofthe problems faced when attempting to recognize and interpret evidence of early ritual from archaeological remains. Specific examples include the use of space for different rituals, the lack of distinction between
"TERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:4 (2010
the sacred and quotidian, and the recovery of ritual artifacts in secondary contexts. In addition, he argues that the lack of consensus on what constitutes "ritual" further prevents common scholarly ground. Studying the ritual and economic ties between the monks and laity through an examination of a Buddhist mortuary landscape in Andhra Pradesh, India, during the Early Historic period (ca. 300 B.C.E.-300 C.E.), Lars Fogelin's "History, Ethnography, and EssentiaJism: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual in South Asia" finds that textual readings and ethnographic sources are no less ambiguous or contradictory than material culture for the study of ancient ritual. He concludes that archaeologists should be wary of projecting modern motifs and practices into the past. Employing Vogt's (1965) idea of "structural replication" (ritual behaviors repJicated at different levels of society), Joyce Marcus ("Rethinking Ritual") identifies three key principles for the Aztec of Mexico: the universe is alive; the earth is divided into four quadrants; and supernatural forces are approachable by humans only when properly attired and carrying the correct implements. These principles are manifest repeatedly in buildings, shrines, sculptures, and structural organization. Moreover, she makes a similar point to Fogelin: ethnohistory and history are often biased in favor of royal and elite ritual, and the archaeological record provides data on the missing majority of nonelites. In "Archaeological Andean Rituals: Performance, Liturgy, and Meaning," Christine A. Hastorf's analysis of ceremonial activity in the ritually dense world ofthe ancient Andes focuses on inclusion and exclusion: the first maintains social cohesion through inclusive performance and participation in community ritual, while the second is created through architecture by limiting or preventing participation. Hastorf suggests that, as the Yayamama religious tradition developed at the site of Chiripa (1500-200 B.C.E.), rituaJ practice shifted from inclusive shared memories and ceremonies to more restrictive performances that would foster secretive liturgical actions within small, enclosed chambers, infrequently witnessed by large groups. A short chapter by Colin Renfrew ("The Archaeology of Ritual, of Cult, and of Religion") confronts the problem of sacred versus nonsacred ritual. Renfrew, one of the first archaeologists to call for more analytical approaches to prehistoric religion and ritual (1985, 1994), argues that ritual should not be automatically associated with religion; archaeologists should seek explanations of rituaJ practice without relying on religious explanations. Like Kyriakidis, Renfrew argues that there is no necessary separation between religious and secular practices— a rituaJ center, for exampJe, couJd invoJve both. As a historian with "promiscuous relations with archaeoJogy and anthropoJogy," Terence Ranger ("Living RituaJ and
\m
^ debate from an archaeological perspective. The volume's succinct presentation and readable style makes it an ideal supplement for university or seminary courses on biblical history and archaeology. As such, this book will serve as a valuable point of departure for discussions on how one arrives at historicaJ conclusions based on existing archaeological evidence.
Robert A. Mullins Azusa Pacific University
The Archaeology of Ritual Edited by EvangeJos Kyriakidis. Cotsen Advanced Seminar 3. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007. Pp. xii + 319, plates, maps. Cloth, ISBN 978-1-93174548-2.
A rchaeological field teams are .¿Vfamiliar with the lightheartedly dismissive cliché that, if the function of a newly discovered feature or artifact is unknown, it must be "ritual." Recent seminars and books demonstrate that there are scholars working to contravene the neglect of ritual and religion in archaeological research. This book is the product of one such seminar convened to discuss the potential for studying ritual through archaeoJogy. EvangeJos Kyriakidis, the editor, includes contributions from Jeading archaeologists such as Marcus, Hastorf, and Renfrew as well as social anthropologists, historians, philosophers, and scholars of reJigious study and the arts. In fact, less than half of the contributors to this volume are archaeologists. Such a crossdisciplinary effort to understand ancient ritual avoids the pitfalls of narrow approaches defined by region, culture, or period, leading the treatment of ancient ritual away from referencing standard sources. The volume consists of thirteen chapters, three of which are by the editor. After a brief first chapter ("In Search of Ritual") summarizing the contributions and organization of the book, Kyriakidis's second chapter ("Finding Ritual: Calibrating the Evidence") provides an overview ofthe problems faced when attempting to recognize and interpret evidence of early ritual from archaeological remains. Specific examples include the use of space for different rituals, the lack of distinction between
"TERN ARCHAEOLOGY 73:4 (2010
the sacred and quotidian, and the recovery of ritual artifacts in secondary contexts. In addition, he argues that the lack of consensus on what constitutes "ritual" further prevents common scholarly ground. Studying the ritual and economic ties between the monks and laity through an examination of a Buddhist mortuary landscape in Andhra Pradesh, India, during the Early Historic period (ca. 300 B.C.E.-300 C.E.), Lars Fogelin's "History, Ethnography, and EssentiaJism: The Archaeology of Religion and Ritual in South Asia" finds that textual readings and ethnographic sources are no less ambiguous or contradictory than material culture for the study of ancient ritual. He concludes that archaeologists should be wary of projecting modern motifs and practices into the past. Employing Vogt's (1965) idea of "structural replication" (ritual behaviors repJicated at different levels of society), Joyce Marcus ("Rethinking Ritual") identifies three key principles for the Aztec of Mexico: the universe is alive; the earth is divided into four quadrants; and supernatural forces are approachable by humans only when properly attired and carrying the correct implements. These principles are manifest repeatedly in buildings, shrines, sculptures, and structural organization. Moreover, she makes a similar point to Fogelin: ethnohistory and history are often biased in favor of royal and elite ritual, and the archaeological record provides data on the missing majority of nonelites. In "Archaeological Andean Rituals: Performance, Liturgy, and Meaning," Christine A. Hastorf's analysis of ceremonial activity in the ritually dense world ofthe ancient Andes focuses on inclusion and exclusion: the first maintains social cohesion through inclusive performance and participation in community ritual, while the second is created through architecture by limiting or preventing participation. Hastorf suggests that, as the Yayamama religious tradition developed at the site of Chiripa (1500-200 B.C.E.), rituaJ practice shifted from inclusive shared memories and ceremonies to more restrictive performances that would foster secretive liturgical actions within small, enclosed chambers, infrequently witnessed by large groups. A short chapter by Colin Renfrew ("The Archaeology of Ritual, of Cult, and of Religion") confronts the problem of sacred versus nonsacred ritual. Renfrew, one of the first archaeologists to call for more analytical approaches to prehistoric religion and ritual (1985, 1994), argues that ritual should not be automatically associated with religion; archaeologists should seek explanations of rituaJ practice without relying on religious explanations. Like Kyriakidis, Renfrew argues that there is no necessary separation between religious and secular practices— a rituaJ center, for exampJe, couJd invoJve both. As a historian with "promiscuous relations with archaeoJogy and anthropoJogy," Terence Ranger ("Living RituaJ and
Indigenous Archaeology: The Gase of Zimbabwe") offers an examination of contemporary Zimbabwe that "turns on its head" a major question of the volume: rather than attempt to identify whether an ancient site was the focus of ritual activity, he examines how modern oracular caves in the Matopos Mountains of southwestern Zimbabwe might appear archaeologically. Largely due to prohibitions against changing the natural state of the caves and their immediate surroundings, there would be little in the way of material culture preserved. Although most archaeologists probably do not need additional cautionary tales about the difficulty of identifying the locus of ancient ritual. Ranger's interesting perspective underscores the limitations of ethnography to archaeological interpretation, Odissi classical dance, considered a temple ritual performed hy a special class of women, is identified by Alessandra Lopez y Royo ("The Reinvention of Odissi Glassical Dance as a Temple Ritual") as a recently invented dance form originating during a period of artistic revival, part of Indian independence. Temple sculptures from Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain cave temples are enlisted to support and validate continuities in the modern dance form to earlier times. Archaeology, too, is used to reconstruct and re-create this dance form as a putative age-old ritual, providing a mystique such that contemporary performance is proffered as ritual reenactment. In "Ritualized Technologies in the Aegean Neolithic? The Grafts of Adornment," Marianna Nikolaidou explores craft production of beads, bracelets, and pendants from the Neolithic (sixth-early fourth millennium B,C.E,) site of Sitagroi to understand the intersection of technology, ritual, and symbolism. Gultural knowledge is encoded in these ornaments through both the manufacture and the use of artifacts, rather than mutually exclusive categories of either functional or symbolic, Nikolaidou views the body and its adornment operating as points of reference in socioeconomic networks, transmitting important knowledge about social integration and differentiation. In "Gognition, Religious Ritual, and Archaeology," Robert N. McGauley and E, Thomas Lawson revisit and summarize their 2002 hook. In their view, cognitive processes affect belief, and their theory is one that encourages an understanding of the links between participants' mental representations and their ritual practices. To them, these similarities may be explained cognitively, if factors of sensory pageantry and frequency are understood to the extent that we are able to identify factors of frequency and sensory input. Despite definition of this unified theory of religious ritual, the authors are pessimistic about the likelihood that archaeology will have sufficient data to apply ihis model. In "Sacrifice and Ritualization," Garoline Humphreys and James Laidlaw provide an ethnographic case study oí taxilag
rituals (animal sacrifice) of Inner Mongolia, a region including Buddhist and local religious traditions, the latter including local spirit cults and places of worship such as stupas, victory flag-staffs, and oboo (stone cairns). They conclude that animal slaughter lacks the attributes of ritualization, suggesting that sacrifice and ritualization are distinct. They argue that, rather than a definable category of distinctive kinds of events, ritual is a quality that an action comes to acquire, Gatherine Bell responds to the papers in "Defining the Need for a Definition" by noting that "ritual theory" has largely remained ignorant of archaeology and what archaeology needs for a theory of ritual. In her view, the paucity of archaeological data (in contrast to that available to ritual studies) contributes to the disparity between the two disciplines. Bell considers lengthy semantic debates counterproductive, Kyriakidis disagrees, in his concluding "Archaeologies of Ritual," with her dismissal of definitions, arguing that parameters are necessary for analysis of a broad concept such as "ritual," For those who seek a manual on how to identify ancient ritual in the archaeological record, this volume will not serve that purpose. Readers of NEA may find themselves frustrated by the lack of connection between material evidence and the theoretical models or ethnographic studies offered by some authors. For those who seek to grapple with the challenges of recognizing and understanding ancient ritual based on archaeological evidence, however, this volume offers engaging and diverse approaches by leading archaeologists and scholars. It also highlights the challenges of working across the disciplines, where there is little consensus on the definition of ritual or even whether such definitions are useful, Kyriakidis and the contributors are to be congratulated for tackling such a broad agenda from multiple disciplines in the ongoing effort to recognize the obstacles challenging archaeologists who wrestle with identifying ancient ritual and the meaning of those practices.
References McCauley, R. N., and E, T, Lawson. 2002. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renfrew, C. 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi. British School of Archaeology at Athens Supplementary Volume 18. London: British School of Archaeology at Athens. , 1994, The Archaeology of Religion. Pp. 47-54 in The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, ed. C Renfrew and E, B. W. Zubrow. New Directions in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vogt, E. Z. 1965. Structural and Conceptual Replication in Zinacantan Culture. American Anthropologist 67:342-53,
Yorke Rowan The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago