The Art of Hellenistic Palestine 9781407305868, 9781407335360

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
List of Figures and Credits
Preface
Introduction
II. Marble and Stone Sculpture
III. Bronze Figurines and Decorative Objects
IV. Terracotta Figurines
V. The Painted Tombs at Maresha
VI. Domestic and Palatial Ornament
VII. VARIA
VIII. Summary and Conclusions
Bibliography

Citation preview

BAR 2010 2009

The Art of Hellenistic Palestine

ERLICH

Adi Erlich

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

B A R

BAR International Series 2010 2009

The Art of Hellenistic Palestine Adi Erlich

BAR International Series 2010 2009

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2010 The Art of Hellenistic Palestine © A Erlich and the Publisher 2009 The author's moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407305868 paperback ISBN 9781407335360 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407305868 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2009. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK E MAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES AND CREDITS .......................................................................................................................................... iii PREFACE ......................................................................................................................................................................... vii I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................................1 HELLENISTIC PALESTINE: DEFINITIONS AND HISTORY OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................1 UNDERSTANDING HELLENISTIC PALESTINE THROUGH ART .................................................................................................3 GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................................................................3 TYPES AND MEDIA ........................................................................................................................................................4 STYLE AND ICONOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................................5 RELIGION AND CULTURE ................................................................................................................................................6 COMMENTS ON FUNDAMENTALS AND METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................7 II. MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE.................................................................................................................9 MARBLE SCULPTURE ...................................................................................................................................................10 A Head of Alexander from Beth-Shean................................................................................................................10 A Herm and a Standing Figure from Dor............................................................................................................11 A Male Figure from Akko ....................................................................................................................................12 A Hand from Maresha .........................................................................................................................................12 Statues from Samaria ..........................................................................................................................................12 A Muse from Ashkelon.........................................................................................................................................13 An Aphrodite from Dan .......................................................................................................................................13 SCULPTURE IN LOCAL STONE .......................................................................................................................................13 Maresha...............................................................................................................................................................14 Samaria ...............................................................................................................................................................22 Tel Dor.................................................................................................................................................................22 Tel Anafa..............................................................................................................................................................23 Tel Kotlit ..............................................................................................................................................................23 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................25 III. BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS ...............................................................................29 BRONZE FIGURINES OF EGYPTIAN AND EASTERN TYPES .................................................................................................30 Ashkelon ..............................................................................................................................................................30 Mispe-Yamim .......................................................................................................................................................31 Beersheba ............................................................................................................................................................32 Maresha...............................................................................................................................................................33 BRONZE FIGURINES OF HELLENISTIC TYPES ...................................................................................................................33 Heracles Figurines from Samaria-Sebaste, Maresha, and Ashkelon..................................................................34 Tel Anafa..............................................................................................................................................................37 Various Coastal Sites...........................................................................................................................................38 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................39 IV. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES..............................................................................................................................41 SITE-BASED DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................................42 Tel Dan ................................................................................................................................................................42 Tel Anafa..............................................................................................................................................................43 Akko .....................................................................................................................................................................43 Tell Keisan ...........................................................................................................................................................47 Beth-Yerah ...........................................................................................................................................................47 Beth-Shean...........................................................................................................................................................48 Jokneam...............................................................................................................................................................48 El-Wad Cave........................................................................................................................................................48 Tel Dor.................................................................................................................................................................48 Samaria ...............................................................................................................................................................49 Jaffa.....................................................................................................................................................................51 Yavneh-Yam .........................................................................................................................................................51 Gezer ...................................................................................................................................................................51 Ashdod .................................................................................................................................................................51 Maresha...............................................................................................................................................................51 Lachish ................................................................................................................................................................58 i

Beersheba ............................................................................................................................................................58 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................58 V. THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA.............................................................................................................61 TOMB I (THE TOMB OF APOLLOPHANES).......................................................................................................................62 The Entrance to the Main Hall............................................................................................................................63 The Rear Wall ......................................................................................................................................................64 The Side Walls .....................................................................................................................................................68 The Animal Frieze ...............................................................................................................................................69 Architecture on the Wall Paintings: Illusionary or Non-Illusionary?.................................................................75 Spatial Arrangement............................................................................................................................................77 The Date of the Paintings....................................................................................................................................77 TOMB II (THE TOMB OF THE MUSICIANS) .....................................................................................................................77 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................80 THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANIMALS ON THE FRIEZE OF THE TOMB OF APOLLOPHANES AT MARESHA ...............................82 VI. DOMESTIC AND PALATIAL ORNAMENT ...................................................................................................87 MOSAICS ....................................................................................................................................................................87 Mosaic Fragments from Tel Dor .........................................................................................................................88 Mosaic from Tel Anafa.........................................................................................................................................88 Mosaic from Jericho............................................................................................................................................90 WALL ORNAMENT .......................................................................................................................................................90 The Hasmonean Palaces at Jericho ....................................................................................................................91 Tel Anafa..............................................................................................................................................................91 Tel Kedesh ...........................................................................................................................................................93 Mount Gerizim.....................................................................................................................................................93 Yavneh-Yam .........................................................................................................................................................93 Miscellaneous Fresco Fragments........................................................................................................................93 SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................................................93 VII. VARIA ..................................................................................................................................................................95 COINS ........................................................................................................................................................................95 City Coins............................................................................................................................................................95 Hasmonean Coins ...............................................................................................................................................96 BULLAE ......................................................................................................................................................................97 Pagan Bullae .......................................................................................................................................................97 Hasmonean Bullae ..............................................................................................................................................98 GLASS ........................................................................................................................................................................98 FAIENCE .....................................................................................................................................................................99 BONE .......................................................................................................................................................................100 METAL .....................................................................................................................................................................100 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................102 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................105 STYLE, ICONOGRAPHY, AND MEDIUM ..........................................................................................................................105 FUNCTION AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT ...............................................................................................................107 CHRONOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................................................108 REGIONAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES .........................................................................................................................110 RELIGIOUS ICONOGRAPHY AND CULT ..........................................................................................................................112 Gods of Fertility and Fecundity ........................................................................................................................114 Lesser Gods and Heroes....................................................................................................................................114 Savior Gods .......................................................................................................................................................114 Greek Gods with Local Features or Syncretic Potential...................................................................................115 Gods Appearing in Pairs and Triads.................................................................................................................115 Absence of Well-Defined Eastern Iconography.................................................................................................115 Syncretism Reconsidered...................................................................................................................................116 Cult and Ceremony............................................................................................................................................117 THE HELLENISTIC ZEITGEIST ......................................................................................................................................117 PALESTINE AS HELLENISTIC PERIPHERY .......................................................................................................................117 ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................121 BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................................................................123 COLOUR PLATES ........................................................................................................................................................137

ii

List of Figures and Credits Black and white figures Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11. Fig. 12. Fig. 13. Fig. 14. Fig. 15. Fig. 16. Fig. 17. Fig. 18. Fig. 19. Fig. 20. Fig. 21. Fig. 22. Fig. 23. Fig. 24. Fig. 25. Fig. 26. Fig. 27. Fig. 28. Fig. 29. Fig. 30. Fig. 31. Fig. 32.

Map of Hellenistic Palestine with sites under discussion, prepared by Silvia Krapiwko. Marble head of Alexander the Great from Beth-Shean, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Marble Herm from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Marble statuette from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Marble male figure from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Chalk relief of Heracles from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk bust from Subterranean Complex No. 84 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk bust from Subterranean Complex No. 86 at Maresha , courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit Limestone head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk figurine from Area 100 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk figurine from Subterranean Complex No. 84 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk relief from Subterranean Complex No. 1 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk Herm from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Chalk foot from Subterranean Complex No. 70 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Chalk phalli from various areas at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs and Clara Amit. Measuring table from Area 100 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Finkielsztejn 1999: Figs. 1–2. Limestone pipe from Subterranean Complex No. 90 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs. Relief of a figure from Subterranean Complex No. 89 at Maresha, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Dr. Ian Stern. Herm relief in Subterranean Complex No. 51 at Maresha, photographed by the author. Pilos relief from Samaria, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Nike statuette from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project; after Stewart and Martin 2003: Fig. 5. Chalk figurine from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg 1970:138. Animal statuettes from Tel Kotlit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Peled 1976: Pl. IX. Bronze figurines from Ashkelon, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Bronze figurine of Apis bull from Mispe-Yamim, courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997:50. Bronze figurine of a ram from Mispe-Yamim, courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997: back cover. Bronze figurine of a lion cub from Mispe-Yamim, courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997: back cover. Bronze figurine of Osiris from Mispe-Yamim, courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997:51. iii

Fig. 33. Fig. 34. Fig. 35. Fig. 36. Fig. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. Fig. 40. Fig. 41. Fig. 42. Fig. 43. Fig. 44. Fig. 45. Fig. 46. Fig. 47. Fig. 48. Fig. 49. Fig. 50. Fig. 51. Fig. 52. Fig. 53. Fig. 54. Fig. 55. Fig. 56. Fig. 57. Fig. 58. Fig. 59. Fig. 60. Fig. 61. Fig. 62. Fig. 63. Fig. 64. Fig. 65. Fig. 66. Fig. 67. Fig. 68. Fig. 69. Fig. 70.

Bronze figurines from Beersheba, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; after Giveon 1973: Pls. 22–23. Bronze figurine of Horus-Harpocrates from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Samaria; after Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 77. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Samaria, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Ashkelon, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Galilee, Sharvit and Dahari 2001: Fig. 12. Bronze fulcrum from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1981: Pl. 18c. Bronze figurine of a panther from Tel Ashdod, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. LXXII, no. 7. Terracotta mask from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg: 1973: Pl. 30C. Terracotta mask from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Terracotta figurine of a male head from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Terracotta figurine of a camel from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Terracotta figurine of “Isis-Aphrodite” from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Messika 1997:122, Fig. 1. Terracotta figurine of Bes from Akko, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Messika 1997:124, Fig. 2. Terracotta figurines of female heads from Akko, courtesy of the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa; after Dothan 1976: Figs. 33, 34. Terracotta head of a girl from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta protome from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of Eros from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of a boy feeding a hare from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of an actor from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Terracotta figurine of an athlete from Samaria, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Terracotta figurines of female heads from Samaria, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Terracotta figurine of a trigonon player from Yavneh-Yam, courtesy of Prof. Moshe Fischer; after Fischer 2002:7. Terracotta figurine of Eros from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Eros riding a horse from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of lovers from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Heracles from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of the Dioskouroi from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of a camel rider from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of a bearded god from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Harpocrates from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of a pillar figurine from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Kourotrophos from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Kourotrophos from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta protome from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Athena from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. iv

Fig. 71. Fig. 72. Fig. 73. Fig. 74. Fig. 75. Fig. 76. Fig. 77. Fig. 78. Fig. 79. Fig. 80. Fig. 81. Fig. 82. Fig. 83. Fig. 84. Fig. 85. Fig. 86. Fig. 87. Fig. 88. Fig. 89. Fig. 90. Fig. 91. Fig. 92. Fig. 93. Fig. 94. Fig. 95. Fig. 96. Fig. 97. Fig. 98. Fig. 99. Fig. 100. Fig. 101. Fig. 102. Fig. 103. Fig. 104.

Terracotta figurine of “Isis-Aphrodite” from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of Artemis from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of an Amazon from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurines of trigonon players from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta arula from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Plaster mold of a pupil from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of a boy wearing a kausia from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurines of an actor and mask from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Magenta ware from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Sandaled foot askos from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta lid with Eros recumbent in a flower from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta horse rhyton from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta Athena rhyton from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit. Terracotta figurine of two enthroned goddesses from Beersheba, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; after Derfler 1984: Pl. 43. Typical plan of a burial cave from Maresha (Cave 500), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Kloner 2003:27. Entrance to Tomb I (Cave 501) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben-Ghedalia. Tomb I (Cave 501) in the 1920s, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Kloner 1996:35. Drawing of the painting in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha, courtesy of Dr. Silvia Rozenberg; after Rozenberg 1999:29 (drawn by Pnina Arad after Peters and Thiersch 1905). Drawing of the animal friezes in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha, courtesy of Dr. Silvia Rozenberg; after Rozenberg 1999:31–32, 36*–37* (drawn by Pnina Arad after Peters and Thiersch 1905). Illustration of hunting scenes in graves at Maresha (right) and Alexandrovo, Bulgaria (left); prepared by Silvia Krapiwko after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. VI and Kitov 2001:22, Fig. 8. Illustration of animal friezes from the Shatby mosaic (Alexandria) and Maresha; prepared by Silvia Krapiwko after Rozenberg 1999:33 and Daszewski 1985: Pl. 10. Black-and-white mosaic from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994: Pl. 38. Black-and-white mosaic from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994: Pl. 40. Reconstruction of Room 10 at Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994:68, Fig. 2.14. Bullae from Tel Kedesh depicting Greek deities, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Herbert and Berlin 2003:51, Fig. 26. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting Tyche, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:74, Fig. 7. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting an agricultural motif, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:73, Fig. 6. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting Tanit symbol, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:63, Fig. 1. Glass pendant from Yavneh-Yam, courtesy of Prof. Moshe Fischer; after Fischer 2002: front cover. Ivory plaque from Jerusalem, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; after Ariel 1990:138, Fig. 18. Bone figurine from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Lead figurines from Maresha; after Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 85. Lead plaque from Tel Ashdod, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. XXI, no. 1. Lead slingshots from Akko, courtesy of the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa; after Dothan 1993:24. v

Fig. 105. Fig. 106. Fig. 107. Fig. 108.

Lead weight from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Gold earring from Za‘akuka, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Gold button from Za‘akuka, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Gold earring from Tel Ashdod, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. XXI, no. 2. Color figures

Fig. 1. Fig. 2. Fig. 3. Fig. 4. Fig. 5. Fig. 6. Fig. 7. Fig. 8. Fig. 9. Fig. 10. Fig. 11.

Kerberos from Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha, after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. IV. The rear wall of Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Frontispiece. The hunting scene in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. VI. Reconstruction of animal frieze in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben Ghedalia. Detail of animal frieze in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. XV. Reconstruction of paintings in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben Ghedalia. Musicians in Tomb II (Cave 552) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. XVI. Mosaic fragments from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Mosaic from the Hasmonean palace at Jericho, courtesy of Prof. Ehud Netzer; after Netzer 2001: Pl. VII. Wall paintings from the Hasmonean palace at Jericho, courtesy of Prof. Ehud Netzer; after Netzer 2001: Pl. IV. Stucco fragments from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg 1970: Pl. 4, top.

vi

Preface The prelude for this monograph lies in the early days of my M.A. studies, back in 1993, when I first started my work at the Maresha expedition as an area supervisor. The head of the project and my supervisor, Prof. Amos Kloner, asked me if I would be interested in studying the many Hellenistic terracotta figurines unearthed at the site. Ever since, I have been involved in the research of the plastic art of the Hellenistic age in Israel, an area of study originating from a provincial region and one that had been neglected over the years, but a topic that opened up a fascinating world to me. After completing my M.A. degree, I have studied terracotta, bronze, and stone figurines, and mosaics and wall paintings of the Hellenistic and Roman periods from throughout Israel, with a special focus on the rich findings from Tel Maresha. I finished my Ph.D. dissertation on Hellenistic art from the Land of Israel in 2004. In it I tried to characterize the cultural environment of a peripheral area as it is reflected in its art. This monograph is an expanded and updated version of my dissertation. The target audience of the monograph is diverse: I hope it will be of interest to students, archaeologists, historians, and art historians, academics and non-academics alike. Therefore I tried to be clear to all readers, and to explain terms and ideas that might seem to some elementary. Also, at the beginning of each chapter there is a short explanation of the medium to be discussed therein. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, teacher, colleague and friend, Prof. Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University and formerly of the Israel Antiquities Authority (henceforth IAA). He has been a source of encouragement throughout my graduate studies to present, and urged me to publish my research as a monograph. His assistance, guidance, and support are very dear to me. I would like to extend my gratitude to my many archaeologist colleagues in the IAA who shared information with me and helped me access unpublished material or objects in the national repositories of the IAA. Special thanks are due to Dr. Uzi Dahari, the deputy director for archaeology, who gave me permission to use photos of objects courtesy of the IAA; and to Yael Barshack, who scanned old photos for me. I am also thankful to the many professionals at the IAA: photographers (mainly Clara Amit), restorers, curators, and library staff. I am indebted to the members of the Maresha expedition, the area supervisors, assistants and other professionals studying all aspects of Maresha. Special thanks are due to Dr. Ian Stern and Bernie Alpert of Archaeological Seminars, who have been excavating Maresha since 2001. I extend my appreciation to the many archaeologists who have kindly shared with me unpublished material. Prof. Ephraim Stern has generously entrusted me with all the Hellenistic and Roman figurines from Tel Dor for publication, and permitted me to mention unpublished material in this monograph. Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin allowed me to study and publish some findings from Tel Anafa and Tel Kedesh in Upper Galilee. The aforementioned Ph.D. dissertation was submitted to the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar Ilan Univesity. It was supported by The Rothenshtreich Scholarship for Ph.D. students in the Humanities, scholarship committee for doctoral studies at Bar Ilan University, and the Krauthammer chair at Bar Ilan University. I extend my gratitude to all at Bar Ilan University who were of assistance in bringing my dissertation to fruition. I am thankful to my colleagues in the department of Art History at the University of Haifa, and especially to Dr. Sonia Klinger for her encouragement. The research authority of the University of Haifa has generously supported the editing of this publication. I extend my gratitude to Wolfson College and the Institute of Archaeology at Oxford University, where I conducted my post-doctoral studies, and especially to my friends at the Oriental Institute—Prof. Fergus Millar and Pricilla Lange—for their kindheartedness. Also I am grateful to the Rothschild Fellowship, which supported my stay at Oxford University. Many colleagues and institutions have given their permission to publish figures from their publications; all are mentioned in the list of figures. My dear friend Silvia Krapiwko prepared the photographs and drawings for the figures and the map of sites. I am indebted to Ben Gordon for preparing the English version and editing the text so adeptly and faithfully. I thank David Davison of the BAR international series for his patience. Lastly, I would like to mention my family. I am thankful to my dear parents Rachel and Daniel Ben Ghedalia, to whom I vii

owe my love for impractical yet inspiring things; and to my brothers, sister, parents-in-law, and brothers-in-law. Above all I am much obliged to my dearest husband, Amitai, for his support and assistance, and to my three beloved young children, who mercifully kept their interference to a minimum so as not to bring the publication to a standstill. Though Tolstoy has claimed otherwise, apparently even happy families are not all alike; some seem to be happier, and I am grateful to belong to such a family. For all of this and more, I am most thankful to God.

viii

The Poet’s History By Meleager of Gadara (ca. 100 BCE) A foster child of Tyre’s fair isle; The land that gave me birth Was where the suns of Syria smile On Gadara’s Attic earth. From Eucrates there was I bred, And when the Muse I tried The graces of Menippus led My first steps by their side. A Syrian? Yes. What if I be: You need not Wondering stand. Children of Chaos all are we, The world our fatherland. Old was I when I wrote this page, And soon to pass beneath; For he who lives next door to Age Is drawing near to Death. An old man I, but full of song; So give me greeting, friend: May you, like Meleager, strong, Come singing to your end. The Greek Anthology, VII 417 Translated from Greek by F.A. Wright

ix

Introduction

The art of the Hellenistic age in Palestine demonstrates the extent to which a province could be integrated into the rich, established culture of the Hellenistic world. Its study here examines the art itself, and specifically the themes, types, iconography, and style of local productions. The study can be instructive on the ethnic texture of Palestine, its regional differences, its widely practiced religion and cults, and its culture in general. Likewise, it may supplement both historical research on the period, which appears to have reached a dead end of sorts, and archaeological inquiry, the results of which have been partial or insufficient. It can help address whether the art was incorporated into the Hellenistic koine, the manner in which it utilized local and foreign elements, and the question of how the culture of the period left a mark so profound that it can be traced until the end of the Byzantine period.

be viewed as Jewish-Hellenistic rulers, and therefore their period should not be excluded from the Hellenistic Age and culture. As for art, the most appropriate timeframe is reflected in the title of P. Green’s work, Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age (1990): from the beginning of the Hellenistic age to the dawn of the Imperial period. These parameters in Palestine indicate a period dating from Alexander to the rise of Herod, or from 332 to 37 BCE. The term Hellenistic has two distinct meanings. It refers to both a time period and a culture. The presence of the latter long outlived the limits of the former. For example, Roman art of Palestine is in many ways Hellenistic, and its absence in this work is felt. This is particularly true for the Early Roman period, in which Roman influence is to a large extent undetectable, save for specific ornamentations that we may associate with Herod himself (Foerster 1995:151– 158; Rozenberg 1996; 2008:333–399). Even later works of the Imperial period such as sculpture and mosaics largely adhere to Hellenistic tradition, and differ from Western works. Yet here I will not deal with Roman art. This study does not aim to capture the spirit of Hellenistic art; it aims to ascertain the art of the Hellenistic age itself. By doing so, we may isolate the formative period that influenced later art, as that of the Herodian period. Thus the term Hellenistic is understood here as an age that gave birth to a culture, and not as a cultural term in a wider sense. Consequently, with the exception of a few general associations and parallels, the art of the Roman period will not receive treatment here.

Hellenistic Palestine: Definitions and History of Research This study focuses on a period both tumultuous and critical to the history of Palestine—one in which the ruling authorities in the region, and in western Asia in general, were for the first time Greek rather than Eastern. It is defined as beginning with the arrival of Alexander the Great to the region in 332 BCE and ending with the advent of Roman rule upon Pompey’s conquest in 63 BCE. These turning points are relevant to the political history of the region, while a study of a subject clearly cultural in focus, such as art, has less rigid chronological limits. Sporadic examples of Greek art are present in the East and in Palestine before Alexander, both via imports and immigrants (Hengel 1981:12–13; Fuks 1983:7–12; Colledge 1987:134–138; Stern 1989). Alexander’s conquest did not alter the cultural map in the East in one fell swoop; change was certainly gradual. Nevertheless, the political revolution that took place in Palestine in 332 BCE marks both the formal and practical beginnings of the Hellenization of the region.

The three hundred years of the age form a concrete foundation to the subsequent and better-known Roman and Byzantine periods. They are formative years for the language (Greek), culture, architecture, and art of the East. The very fact that Roman rule—at once organized, powerful, and long-lasting—did not fully imprint the Latin language and culture on the region is evidence enough of the influence and might with which Hellenism had already overtaken the East. With this in mind, the minimal historical and archaeological data that we possess on the Hellenistic age in Palestine is striking; finds discovered previous to the past two decades are particularly small in number. This absence has led scholars to adopt varied approaches in dealing with the period. Many have been satisfied by a study of merely its major events, as based on historical, epigraphical, and numismatic sources. These sources may be instructive on more literary and lofty aspects, such as language, education, and thought (Hengel 1981:58–106), but they teach little about religion, art, and

The endpoint of the period is also indefinite for matters of culture and art. It appears that the next major turning point in Palestine, as reflected in art and archaeology, began not with Pompey’s conquest or the law of Gabinius, but with the monumental building works of Herod. He was the first in the region to build on such a grand scale, and he employed both Hellenistic and Roman elements in his works (Fittschen and Foerster 1996; Turnheim 1998). Tal, in his recent book on the Hellenistic period in Palestine (2006), concentrated on the periods of Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, claiming that the Hasmonean reign represents a separate phenomenon. However, the Hasmoneans should 1

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE daily life. Regarding cults, the dearth of evidence has led to wide chronological parameters, which treat as one the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman periods (Teixidor 1977); or to anachronistic conclusions regarding cultic practice of the Hellenistic period, as based on evidence of the Roman period (Kasher 1990:29–48).

is not geographically peripheral (despite the fact that its role was marginal in international political affairs; Mendels 2003). It serves as a link between the two great powers of the region, closer to their capital cities of Alexandria and Antioch than are other areas of the East, and in possession of an extensive Mediterranean shoreline. Yet it still has been abandoned in research. Its treatment reflects a mindset in which its importance, if not also its geographical location, is considered secondary.

Another issue involves space rather than time. There is a tendency to document better known areas of the Levant. This creates a geographic arc of sorts, extending from Phoenicia through Syria and occasionally up to Nabatea, and avoiding the lesser-understood areas in the middle (e.g. Teixidor 1977; Lightfoot 2004). Scholars of Ptolemaic Egypt deal solely with Egypt, while those of the Seleucid dynasty take interest in a widespread geographic area extending from Phoenicia to Bactria, Gandhara, and India, with Palestine and Syria falling through the cracks (Colledge 1987). Those who have dealt with the problem have struggled to present a coherent picture of the region. This is evident in F. Millar’s seminal article, “The Problem of Hellenistic Syria” (1987; see also 2006:3–31), which basically pinpoints problems of the scholars of Hellenistic Syria. He concludes that construction and development was minimal in war-torn Syria, and consequently one struggles to define the culture of the region (Millar 2006:28–30). R. Smith offered another solution, which states that from a cultural perspective the Persian period continued until the third century BCE, a particularly problematic century regarding data (1990). Tal (2006) supports this view, claiming that in the Hellenistic period in Palestine the former tradition was largely maintained.

Despite this, it is noted that in the past two decades a change has taken place in the overall approach to the Hellenistic East, with a completely new vision emerging regarding Hellenism as a culture (Kuhrt and Sherwin-White 1987; Green 1993; Bilde et al. 1993). Until the 1980s, most scholars adopted an approach both Hellenocentric and Eurocentric, which emphasized evidence of Greek influence in non-Greek areas of the Hellenistic world. A region was defined as neglected if no Greek activity was evident there. The “Orient” was lumped together into one voiceless, gloomy mass. But with the change in approach, the East was presented as a legitimate, distinct component of Hellenistic culture, neither subordinate nor inferior to it, and richly diverse on its own. This turning point came as a result of a number of trends. One was the discovery or publication of Eastern sites, such as Ai Khanum in Afghanistan (MacDowall and Taddei 1978:218–232; Pollitt 1986:284–289; Colledge 1987; Smith 1991:224–225), Failaka in Kuwait (Mathiesen 1982; Connelly 1989), or sites previously under Soviet rule and insufficiently known to scholars of the West. Another was an overall conceptual change in relation to the East (or “Orientalism”), specifically a post-modern approach, in tune with cultural diversity and seeking to strip the Hellenic narrative of its hegemony. There may be a third trend— one more prosaic—by which the study of Hellenistic centers was simply exhausted, leaving scholars looking elsewhere. Recent research has sought to understand the varied components of the Hellenistic East, adding much to the lexicon of which “Greek” and “East” were once the sole entries; words like “absorption,” “modification,” “borrowing,” “mixture,” “blend,” “mingling,” “hybrid,” and the inevitable “reaction” saturate literature on the subject.

On art of the southern Levant during the Hellenistic age, researchers have almost completely turned a blind eye to Palestine, save for a few articles on individual items. Such is evident in M. Colledge’s general article on the art of the Near East and Central Asia, in which, of our area only Sidon receives periodic mention (1987); or in the chapter on the Seleucids and the East in R.R.R. Smith’s book on Hellenistic sculpture, where all of southern Syria is discussed in one paragraph (1991:224). The art of Hellenistic Phoenicia is slightly better known as a result of the excavation and publication of archaeological sites, mostly sanctuaries and temples (Chéhab 1951–1954; Dunand and Duru 1962; Stucky 1993). The overall state of affairs is reflected in the words of M. Robertson, in his article on Hellenistic art (1993; emphasis added): “How far the social and political isolation of non-Greek from Greek, so marked there [in the art of Ptolemaic Egypt], applied also in Seleucid Syria, is something which I find I simply do not know.”

It appears also that the phoenix of the study of Palestine’s Hellenistic culture is beginning to rise from its ashes. In the area of material culture and architecture, the works of R. Arav (1989), H.P. Kuhnen (1990:21–87), and O. Tal’s recent book (2006) are noteworthy. Articles such as that of S. Herbert, which examine the limits of Hellenization at Tel Anafa (1993), or of A. Berlin, on Palestine in the Hellenistic age (1997a; 1997b), have contributed recently to older studies on the subject. Excavations in the past few decades at sites such as Dor, Akko, Beth-Shean, Anafa, Kedesh, and Maresha have added important archaeological data and shed new light on the period. In turn, it has now become possible to reexamine different aspects of Hellenistic culture, including its art. Pieces of art from Hellenistic Palestine have never been gathered or studied

This deficiency would be easier to accept if it were also present on the distant margins of the Hellenistic world. But on these far-off places—Hindu-Kush, Mesopotamia, the Persian Gulf, Africa—studies are being conducted and new findings come to light. The art and architecture of Ai Khanum in Afghanistan, the Mesopotamian cities, Hellenistic Arabia, and the Egyptian fringe territories have all found expression recently. Palestine, on the other hand, 2

INTRODUCTION per se, aside from in the work of R. Wenning on Hellenistic sculpture of Palestine, which is appended with a partial list of non-sculptural pieces (1983). Artistic finds are scattered over various publications, mostly excavation reports, general articles on Hellenistic sites, and occasionally in articles focusing on individual works. Noteworthy among the latter are the book of the Sidonian tomb paintings of Maresha (Peters and Thiersch 1905), to which Jacobson’s recent work (2007) is added; a doctoral study by Gordon on wall decoration at Tel Anafa (1979); an M.A. thesis on terracottas from Akko (Messika 1996); an overview of Hellenistic wall paintings (Rozenberg 2008:298-310); and a publication of the Hellenistic terracotta figurines from Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008). Some of the finds are either entirely unpublished or have received only partial treatment. Thus, the collection and analysis of the Hellenistic art of Palestine here can be enlightening on the culture of the region in this obscure period.

did not sufficiently ripen in Hellenistic Palestine to the point of permeating architecture, perhaps because of the nature of local tradition, neglect from the rulers, or economic factors. But the Hellenistic koine did arrive in finer points: language, abstract thought, and small items transported between lands. Here is where art comes into play as a means, more effective than architecture, by which Hellenistic culture may be understood. The artistic finds of Hellenistic Palestine described below are mostly minor art of simple materials, affordable to nearly all. These items, apart from being portable, were found in ordinary houses and not in the dwellings of rulers or rich patrons. In this sense they reflect society and culture more accurately than a monumental building constructed at a ruler’s will, and they offer a look into the cultural and religious choice of their patrons. Consequently, they can be quite instructive on the Hellenistic culture of Palestine. Many see Hellenistic art as a mirror for the temperament of the age, or its Zeitgeist. J. Pollitt outlined five ideas reflected in it: an obsession with fortune or Tyche, a theatrical mentality, a scholarly mentality, individualism, and a cosmopolitan outlook (1986:1–16). Others point to the close relationship between art, philosophy and Hellenistic literature (Onias 1979). Regarding Palestine, it is doubtful that such a close reciprocity existed, even though intellectuals took part in the arts (Geiger 1985). Yet even if art was not founded upon a firm worldview as in the Hellenistic centers, it did not develop in a vacuum, and as such represents the temperament of the locale in which it was practiced, perhaps even influencing it. Since the body of art in Palestine has increased of recent, it can be instructive on the spirit of the age and may help us understand the variant of Hellenism in Palestine.

Understanding Hellenistic Palestine through Art The Hellenistic age is characterized by the unified culture of its rulers—the Greek koine—which melded with or lived alongside local cultures of the Hellenistic world. Historical sources generally reflect the lives of the upper class, which tended in one way or another to take a part in this culture. In archaeology, the koine is most examinable in monumental architecture, a measure indicating that in Palestine its diffusion was unsuccessful (Tal 2006). In all of the excavations conducted in Palestine, not a single distinctly Hellenistic building or institution has been uncovered dating to before Herod: not one theater, stadion, bouleuterion, Greek temple, or even well-defined agora (even though the existence of or familiarity with some of these institutions is known from secondary evidence, such as inscriptions of agoranomoi, depictions of theater masks, and more). Parts of structures constructed in Greek orders have been found—these structures would have functioned as either temples, public buildings, or tombs—but they are scarce and mostly incomplete (Fischer and Tal 2003; Stewart and Martin 2003; Fischer, Roll and Tal 2008:119127). Most of the architectural remains are of residences, and these too demonstrate minimal Hellenism (Arav 1989:166– 167). Also, the Hippodamic urban planning of the period previously thought to have been the norm is now in question (Horowitz 1980; Arav 1989:150; Stern 2000:157–164; Tal 2006:95–107). The only examples of monumental Greek architecture in Hellenistic Palestine are fortifications (Arav 1989:151–160), but it seems as though their construction came out of shear necessity, and does not reflect a cultural disposition of one sort or another. Compare this to cities in the East, albeit few in number, which contain unmistakable Greek institutions—places like Dura Europos, Seleucia on the Tigris, and Ai Khanum. This has led many scholars to devalue the influence of Hellenization in Palestine, as discussed above.

Geographic Boundaries The limits of the region under discussion require explanation. The Jewish term “Land of Israel” and the European or Christian term “Palestine” are both anachronistic and imprecise for the Hellenistic period. The term “Coele-Syria” is more appropriate. I have deferred to tradition and will employ the much-used Palestine here. The study will focus on the region between the Mediterranean, Transjordan, the Negev (not inhabited by sedentary groups in this period), and Phoenicia (Fig. 1). Cities of Phoenicia directly influenced the inland (Millar 2006:37–38). The Palestinian cities were populated to some extent by Phoenicians, who ruled coastal cities in the Persian period, and whose cities were surely included in the Ptolemaic-ruled territory of the third century. Nevertheless, there remains a clear difference between the ancient cities of Phoenicia proper, which were of purely Phoenician tradition and of which Tyre and Sidon are a part, and those founded anew in the Hellenistic period (e.g., Akko-Ptolemais) or merely under Phoenician rule (e.g., Dor). Therefore, southern Phoenicia, such as AkkoPtolemais, is included in the study, while Tyre and Sidon receive only general mention. Hellenistic finds from sites in Lebanon and Jordan will be referenced as comparative material but are not discussed in detail.

Yet even though the Hellenistic koine finds only minimal expression in the monumental architecture of Palestine, one cannot assume that it was absent from the region. Greek culture 3

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Jews and Samaritans—two groups limited to non-figurative representations, and who produced minimal art during the period. Incidentally, the Nabateans also appear to have refrained from figurative art (Patrich 1990), although this prohibition was not strictly kept during the Roman period. The pagan religions varying from region to region likely influenced type and theme in art. Of these, the Phoenicians—perpetual cultural agents and middlemen—were the first to introduce fashions from overseas and neighboring lands; the Hellenistic culture they brought was not pure in form, but had been filtered through their culture. Greek immigrants and soldiers were generally not propagators of Hellenic culture, since they came from the lower classes (Tcherikover 1961:26–27). Coastal cities were more open to new influences, even though those of the inland and Transjordan were also exposed to Hellenistic art. Generally, it can be said that art stayed in the realm of urbanites, and was virtually absent from the rural sector. While regional (and cultural) differences should be sought, practically speaking not all of the regions are represented in the finds and no region can offer a complete picture. The finds are fragmentary and regional boundaries can be arbitrary. For this reason the artistic finds of Palestine presented here are divided by type and medium, not by region. Types and Media The art of the Hellenistic age includes a wide range of types: from monumental works of major art to small items of minor art; from decorative, to symbolic and representational, to functional art; from high art to popular art; from freely sculpted to molded art; and from twodimensional mosaics or painted art, to reliefs, to freestanding sculptural art. It also demonstrates variety of material, with items manufactured from imported stone, local stone, terracotta, bone, metal, and more. The variety in kind and medium paints a colorful picture attesting to the multi-layered nature of the culture and society. Since medium (sculpture, painting, etc.) offers the clearest and most immediate division, it was adopted here. Divisions by other criteria such as style, chronology, or region are less relevant for finds from Palestine, given both the lack of stylistic homogeneity and their infrequency over time and space. Only for the conclusions at the end of the volume will the finds be grouped into these other categories. Otherwise, the study presents finds by medium, examining each medium’s characteristics and influences.

Fig. 1. Map of Hellenistic Palestine with sites under discussion, prepared by Silvia Krapiwko.

Though Palestine or the Land of Israel may appear to be a geographically arbitrary choice stemming from convenience and modern political borders, there is logic and historical relevance to the decision to treat it as a unit here. It was a cohesive region on a number of fronts. It was not divided between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, but remained one complete entity as it changed hands after the battle at Banias. And it shares traits and common threads. These include ancient cities, whether large coastal cities or inland centers that would later become part of the Decapolis, whose longstanding traditions were Hellenized in many ways (Tcherikover 1961:71–94). Another is a Phoenician presence in most of the region, as part of the hegemony of the Phoenician cities (Millar 2006:32–50). And a third is Jewish rule in large parts of the region over the course of the second and first centuries. It is noteworthy that historians have often tried to understand the region in the context of a Jewish ethnos (Tcherikover 1961; Hengel 1981; Kasher 1988; 1990), but the importance of other peoples, even though they left fewer historical documents, cannot be overlooked.

It will open with stone and marble sculpture, a known marker of Greek art and of Hellenistic art in particular (Bieber 1961; Ridgway 1990; 2000). Stone reliefs and carvings will be presented together with them. Hellenistic marble sculptural pieces in Palestine are relatively few in number; those of stone are not much more common. These finds come mostly from unclear contexts within large Hellenistic cities. Other sculpted pieces to be considered are bronze figurines, which are all distinctive, independent works despite having been molded; they come from cities or small temples in the countryside. Not one large bronze sculpture has been found in Palestine to date, a fact not surprising given the overall rarity of bronzes

Yet even with its coherence as a region, perhaps what unifies Palestine is overshadowed by what divides it. It is composed of various sub-regions populated by several peoples, each to be treated separately, particularly when dealing with culture. The peoples of the period under discussion are not easily defined, and they form a cultural mosaic relevant to the discussion of art. The central hill-country was home to the 4

INTRODUCTION among archaeological finds, primarily due to the fact that they would have been melted down as scrap. The third sculptural medium to be discussed is terracotta, which is different from the previous two in its having been massproduced in molds, with frequently recurring types. The production technique of terracottas allowed them to be cheaper, more common, and more varied than items of all other media. Thus they constitute the medium richest in number, types and provenances represented, out of all the artistic finds of Hellenistic Palestine. The terracottas may be of inferior artistic value, but they form a critical mass that can allow for a level of analysis simply unattainable from sporadic examples of pieces of other media, such as marble sculpture.

is certain, but whose Hellenistic archaeological context is characterized as being highly probable. But items that came to light only through the shady antiquities market are not treated here at all. Quite often have sculptures or objects from unknown or poorly understood archaeological contexts been dated to the Hellenistic period on the basis of artistic considerations. Such judgments are particularly problematic given the abundance of Roman copies and imitations, which often captured well the style of the original work. The problem is obvious in marble sculpture, as in bronze figurines discovered in underwater excavations. As a rule, I much prefer dates based on archaeological considerations over those based on stylistic ones, particularly so long as the style of the art of Hellenistic Palestine has not been fully ascertained. Thus of special importance are those archaeological sites where items have been excavated in clear stratigraphy; these include primarily Samaria, Dor, Akko, Anafa, and Maresha.

Present also are mosaics and wall paintings, the latter of which includes plastic ornamentations on stucco. But both are represented by only a few examples each. The wall paintings in the burial caves of Maresha, the oldest example of an artistic piece in the study, receive particular attention here given their rich and complex iconography and unique style. They are not representative of a wider phenomenon and are exceptional in nature, but still offer an important record for Hellenistic art in Palestine.

The artistic finds of Hellenistic Palestine are relatively small in number and are further characterized by a paucity of major art. In this manner a correlation exists between the period’s art and its architecture, which is also neither outstanding in its quantity nor monumentality as compared to other periods. It can also be said that the Early Roman period lacks sculptural or other similar finds, and that the majority of Greco-Roman finds from Palestine date to the second and third centuries CE (for sculpture) and the Byzantine period (for mosaics). Their scarcity reflects the impoverishment of Hellenistic Palestine, although at least in part it may be explained by the small number of excavations and the general lack of information on the period. We are reminded of Alexandria, the most important metropolis in the East, and a city which surely reached its cultural, artistic, and architectural floruit in the Ptolemaic period. Yet so little of the city has been excavated and its Hellenistic finds come primarily from tombs. Its ancient monumental architecture is mostly Roman, as is its major art.

In addition to the basic media of sculpture and painting, there are many other artistic objects or pseudo-artistic works, such as decorated functional objects, amulets, jewelry, and graffiti. In this category we have coins, bullae, jewelry of glass or gold, accessories, small lead figurines, and faience or bone figurines and amulets. Some are veritable minor art, while others are not artistic works per se, but bear some form of iconography or artistic connection, as with coin designs. Items of all of these types will be discussed in one chapter entitled “Varia.” Decorations on ceramic objects such as braziers, moldmade Hellenistic lamps, “Megarian” bowls, Attic ware, and terra sigillata fall somewhere between the categories of art and ceramics. Given their standardized production, I have chosen to leave them with ceramics and not consider them here. They do not reflect the art of Palestine and are more suited to a discussion on pottery. Similarly, architectural ornamentation is deemed to be beyond the scope of this work. Architectural pieces and built façades of Greek orders have been found in Palestine (Avigad 1954; Rahmani 1964; Stewart and Martin 2003; Fischer and Tal 2003), but no pieces categorized strictly as art—such as decorated friezes or acroteria—have been found, save for one statue from Dor that appears to have functioned as an acroterium and will be discussed together with sculpture (Stewart and Martin 2003). Architectural pieces belong in a discussion on architecture, not art, at least until entire ornamented buildings or parts of architectural ornamentation less standard than columns and capitals are found.

Style and Iconography This study will examine artistic elements such as iconography, style, and composition, and will attempt to clarify where the Hellenistic art of Palestine stands in regard to three influences: Greek, Eastern, and local. The first consists of the Greek element of Hellenistic culture, which in itself is a culture of fusion; the second is that which generally characterizes the Eastern traditions of the Hellenistic world; and the third is that which is common to the region and sub-regions of Palestine. In addition, the different peoples who inhabited the region each influenced the art, as did those of neighboring lands. In light of these many influences, we must ask: did the art of Palestine reflect one influence above all others? Did the influences blend, or were they kept separate? Influences can be reflected in iconography and style, and blending can be of both iconography and style or of the iconography of one culture expressed in the style of another (Colledge 1987).

Regarding the provenance of the material dealt with here, a preference has been given to items that come from excavations, preferably a clear archaeological context. Included also in the discussion are items whose provenance 5

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Another question is how the provinciality of Palestine, as reflected in Hellenistic architecture, is manifested in art. Expressions of this provinciality may be evident in an inferior, substandard technique; in relatively large numbers of imitations versus a scarcity of original pieces; in imprecise copies, attesting to unfamiliarity with the original; in local variations on a Greek theme; and in the choice of conservative types over innovation in the spirit of the period. Trends as these are perceivable in provincial areas as in other peripheral regions, where the greater Hellenistic culture was clumsily imitated.

Religion and Culture Art in antiquity often served rulers or religions, or sometimes both simultaneously. Hellenistic art is the first phase of a Greek art in which the cult of the ruler is represented, starting with that of Alexander the Great. This trend is witnessed only somewhat in Palestine, in a portrait of Alexander from Beth-Shean and in Hellenistic coins of royal mints. Religion, on the other hand, is represented in abundance. Much of the art depicts gods or mythological scenes and many objects were used in sanctuaries or domestic cults. The art can be a direct and versatile means by which pagan gods and popular cults of Palestine can be examined. Until now such a study had been carried out from the perspective of history, epigraphy, and numismatics only (Flusser 1976; Teixidor 1977; Kasher 1990:29–48; Millar 1987; 2006:3–31). Since most of the finds from Palestine are minor art of inexpensive materials, they can reflect the widely practiced folk religions more effectively than can inscriptions, which were in the possession of the literate only. Sculpture and major art mostly represent the formal religion of the ruling classes and priesthood. Figurines can offer a look into formal religion, domestic cults, and popular religion. Funerary art may represent beliefs common in connection to the afterlife.

The art of the East in the subsequent Early and Late Roman periods has been researched by various scholars and is well known (Perkins 1973; Colledge 1976; 1977). The Eastern-Roman art of Palestine and its vicinity has also been examined (Avi-Yonah 1981), and is defined as fitting into the artistic realm of the East, with features evident such as stylization, frontality, hieratic depiction, disproportionality, optic modeling, analytic representation, linearity, and conceptuality. On the other hand, pagan art on the coast and in the large cities of Palestine tended to utilize the lingua franca of Greco-Roman art, the likes of which can be found in Greece, Asia Minor, and even Rome. It is worthwhile considering whether Hellenistic art in Palestine necessarily established one of these two Roman trends, or if they developed in the context of a political, economic, and cultural reality distinct to the Roman period.

As stated, the cults of Hellenistic Palestine are known primarily from inscriptions and coins. We will examine how art can supplement this knowledge of the Hellenistic pantheon, and whether it meshes with the relevant historical, epigraphical, and numismatic evidence. Also to be considered is what characterizes the gods of Palestine as they are mirrored in art, and to what extent, if at all, they reflect the syncretism often said to be a leading feature of the period. Likewise, questions of the identity of gods as based on iconography will arise, whether regarding name or attributes, and even in cases where name and attributes seem relatively straightforward. The nature and use of syncretism has not been sufficiently clarified, and one wonders if there was ever a clear and established system of syncretism in antiquity. Questions as these are raised, sharpened, and perhaps even answered to some extent through a study of art. Furthermore, art can shed light beyond the pantheon of Palestine in its reflection of cult and ceremony, and as such serve as vital testimony to the religious rituals practiced in the period.

The chronology and stylistic development of Hellenistic art in Palestine is problematic. Regarding Hellenistic art in general, artistic schools and styles have long been defined, with the artistic developments that took place in the period understood vis-à-vis preceding and subsequent periods (Bieber 1961; Pollitt 1986:265–271; Ridgway 1990; 2000). In establishing a chronology for Hellenistic sculpture, one must divide between categories, although there is not always a clear line of development for each (Smith 1991:269–272). The chronology of the sculpture was arrived at by an analysis of a wide historical and cultural context that primarily included Greek areas of the Hellenistic world. But the trends of centers of art such as Pergamon, Rhodes, and Athens are only tangentially important to provincial areas such as Palestine and its vicinity. A good example is the matter of crude or substandard technique. In the Hellenistic centers, execution of this sort is considered a chronological indicator (Late Hellenistic), while in the Levant it is a mark of provinciality. In other words, it indicates geography rather than chronology. Likewise, Early Hellenistic types and styles continued to be produced later in the period in the Levant, while local imitations are often later than the original by decades or even centuries. Regarding the beginning of the period, it is likely that Persian elements were employed; for the end, we are reminded that the Hellenistic style continued until the Byzantine period. Given these difficulties, a general definition of Hellenistic art is preferred, while chronology should be considered only in the context of individual works dated to particular periods, without the stylistic analysis of the entire corpus of finds as they relate to chronology.

Hellenistic art broke through the boundaries of religion and athletic games, which formed the main themes of Classical art, and found a place for secular, everyday themes. It also gave attention to the individual—the simple members of society. These themes reflect culture and society, and in turn Hellenistic art can provide insight into matters such as fashions of dress and hairstyle widespread in Palestine, at least among those segments of society that participated in the koine. Yet it is important not to draw unfound conclusions on the basis of artistic finds. Just as statues of Greek gods do not necessarily attest to the presence of a standard Greek sanctuary to that god, so also are theater masks not necessarily evidence of the presence of a standard Hellenistic theater in Palestine; nor does a figurine of a 6

INTRODUCTION pupil necessarily suggest that a gymnasion was located in the city in which it was found. The Hellenistic koine is evasive in such cases. Nevertheless, art can be instructive on the spirit of the age, whether through iconography or style.

same importance as an influential population center, this work appears to fit well into the wave of post-modernism that emerged toward the end of the twentieth century and has only recently subsided. However such was not my intention at all. There is no attempt here to undermine the hegemony of the Hellenic narrative while asserting an alternative, local narrative (both trends in thought— hegemony and its subversion—are equally problematic). I did my very best not to apply the fashionable attitudes of my generation to ancient times. And it seems to me that, although there were various streams of Hellenistic culture, the most influential over a period of a millennium in cultural affairs—language, art, entertainment, dress, etc.—is the Hellenistic koine, perhaps precisely because it was associated with the rulers and wealthy class. The Hellenistic culture is a litmus test by which the local art is to be examined; this does not stem from a Eurocentric approach, but from the realization that such an examination is the most methodically accurate for the period under discussion. It does not contradict the need to find expression for other currents in society, or the attempt to understand the complexity of the term “Hellenistic,” which is indeed quite different from the terms “Hellenic” or “Greek.”

Comments on Fundamentals and Methodology 1. All dates provided in the work are Before the Common Era (BCE) unless otherwise noted. 2. The finds to be discussed here have either been published or were consulted by me for this work. The large corpus of artistic finds from Maresha was made accessible to me by A. Kloner, director of the Maresha excavations and advisor to my Ph.D. dissertation upon which this book is based; and in my capacity as a participant in the Maresha excavations and as head of the study of its artistic finds. The finds from Dor were entrusted to me for publication by E. Stern. Regarding finds from other sites, only material that has been previously published, even only preliminarily, is discussed. 3. Art speaks only of those who created or acquired it. In antiquity these groups were primarily urbanites of the elite or middle classes. Therefore members of the lowest socio-economic classes or inhabitants of rural settlements will not be reflected in this work. Likewise, peoples that used art to a lesser extent in this period are not sufficiently represented. Thus local art is a narrow prism for the culture of Hellenistic Palestine, but remains nonetheless an important record of its past.

5. As a continuation of the previous two points, we may sometimes try to isolate Hellenic culture not out of a blind assumption of its hegemony, but from ignorance of the “other,” local culture—that is, the Eastern. In contrast to Mesopotamia and Egypt, where elaborate material cultures survive, in Palestine it seems that the local culture is known mostly from literature, with surviving material evidence mainly Jewish creations. Thus a discussion of culture as reflected in art is inherently selective.

4. In its giving a remote region in an obscure period the

7

8

II Marble and Stone Sculpture Monumental and miniature sculpture is of preeminent importance in Classical art, and its history is a good reflection of the development of the entire art. The principal materials used in Classical sculpture were bronze and marble, with marble surviving more often than bronze, which was often melted down in later periods.1 Sculpture is also the most important branch of art of the Hellenistic age, for the period saw a decline in the painting of vessels, as opposed to the Classical period, and a shift of emphasis to mosaic work and murals, the remains of which are minimal as compared to those of sculpture. Over the period sculpture diversified and developed to a great extent, with the large cities of the Hellenistic world adorned with statues erected in public spaces, temples, squares, agorai, streets, theaters, and more. In contrast to murals and mosaics, which decorated enclosed spaces mostly in the private realm, sculpture was bequeathed to all, or at least to residents of Hellenistic cities. As a vital aspect of the culture and spirit of the age, Hellenistic sculpture is among the truest representatives of the period’s art.

a humanistic, individualistic, cosmopolitan spirit, and was set apart primarily in its diversity of subject and style, and in the scattering of its artists throughout the vast Hellenistic world left by Alexander the Great (Smith 1991:7). A major problem in the study of Hellenistic sculpture, or in all of Classical sculpture, is the scarcity of original works and the prevalence of Roman copies (Smith 1991:14). Mediocre pieces are the ones that generally remain from the period, while masterpieces such as Aphrodite from Knidos or Tyche from Antioch, described by ancient historians, survive only in later copies. Nevertheless, original sculptures from the Hellenistic period are commoner than those from the Classical, and their discovery in well-dated archaeological contexts aids to the study of the topic. Statues dated on technical and stylistic considerations can lead to great uncertainties and misgivings. The seminal work by Bieber on Hellenistic sculpture, for example, confuses Roman and Hellenistic works (1961). Ridgway, however, was more careful in her later volumes to distinguish between originals and later copies (1990; 2000:268–301). Problems of dating in instances where archaeological context is unknown are also present in the study of Hellenistic sculpture from Palestine.

The sculpture is heir to the works of the great fourth century sculptors, primarily Skopas, Praxiteles, and Lysippos, who altered the style of Classical art (Bieber 1961:15–57; Robertson 1981:131–182). It can be generally said that the sculptors of the fourth century added to sculpture an element of softness and humanity, a trend taken to an extreme in the Hellenistic repertoire. Some scholars see great innovation in the repertoire, others recognize a development from the previous period, but all see it as differing unmistakably from the Classical sculpture that preceded it (Robertson 1993). Hellenistic sculpture is characterized by its geographically scattered artistic centers (Palagia and Coulson 1998), with scholars typically dividing it into a few schools: neoclassical Athens, Rhodes, the Attalid capital of Pergamon, and the Ptolemaic capital of Alexandria (Bieber 1961). Others reject such a strict breakdown, and rather point to the mobility of artists and their lack of commitment to a binding school of art (Smith 1991:17). Hellenistic sculpture is marked by a number of styles, each correlating somewhat to schools: the traditional classicistic (Bieber 1961:157–166), the highly emotional and dramatic baroque (Robertson 1981:191– 199; Pollitt 1986:79–126), the realistic style so staunch in its execution that it borders on grotesque, and the decorative, pleasant rococo style (Bieber 1961:136–156; Pollitt 1986:127–149). The sculpture was endowed with

The diversity in type and style in Hellenistic sculpture is a direct outcome of artistic choice, one which in most cases was endorsed by the ruling authorities (Seleucid, Ptolemaic, Attalid, Commagene, etc.), and which, as stated, reflected the Zeitgeist of the Hellenistic age. However, in regard to monumental sculpture, more prosaic factors had their influence on the formation of schools and styles. The largest constraint on the sculpting of marble is not political, cultural, or economic, but first and foremost a matter of the availability of the raw material. Marble quarries and nearby artists workshops were a sine qua non for the establishment of a school or distinct style. One may consider Delos in the Aegean Sea as an example; its marble quarries supplied raw material for architectural decoration, but its marble was not sufficiently high in quality for sculpture. This is one reason for the fact that this rich and cosmopolitan island never became home to an original school for Hellenistic sculpture (Jockey 1998). An additional factor affecting the prevalence of marble sculpture is the extent to which marble was traded by land or sea. The international marble trade of the Hellenistic period turns out to have been only a fraction of what it would become in the Roman period, in the second and third centuries CE. In this way local materials became an important replacement for marble—or at times were used simply in continuing local sculptural traditions—such as the use of granite in Ptolemaic Egypt or limestone in Cyprus.

1

Marble was also used secondarily, as in lime furnaces, but it remained a material less expensive than bronze, and thus more of it survives today.

9

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Marble Sculpture Since marble was not widely traded in the Hellenistic period, it was not pervasive in Hellenistic Palestine (Fischer 1998:35; Fischer and Tal 2003: n. 8). This stands in contrast to Phoenicia of the fifth century and onward, with its marble sarcophagi and statues. Local architectural ornament of the period was entirely produced from local limestone, chalk, and sandstone (Fischer 1990:435; 1998:35–37; Fischer and Tal 2003:29–31). The Hellenistic marble statues from Palestine are quite few, with the date of some in doubt (Fischer and Tal 2003:32–33).2 Two statues can be attributed with very high likelihood to the Hellenistic period: a head of Alexander from Beth-Shean and a Herm from Dor (Fischer 1998:38). Another statue fragment from Dor is likely Hellenistic or Early Roman (Stewart 1995:457–459). At Akko a marble statue has been unearthed in a Hellenistic dump. An additional statue fragment depicting a hand was found at Maresha and can be attributed to the Hellenistic period on the basis of its general archaeological context. The Harvard archaeological expedition at Samaria published a number of fragments attributed by them to the Hellenistic period, but such an association remains dubious, and most of the photographs of the objects are not sufficiently clear (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:383–384, Pls. 76aa–bb, 79g). Marble statues found at known sites but not in archaeological excavations include a muse from Ashkelon and an Aphrodite found near Kibbutz Dan (Wenning 1983:111–113). In both cases the dates of the statues are uncertain. Additional pieces located today in collections, having traveled through questionable channels in making their way there, do not merit discussion in this context (Wenning 1983:114–117). Nevertheless, only four of these statues can be certainly identified as Hellenistic, and none are complete (a body, two heads, and a hand). Statues whose Hellenistic date is in doubt will also be considered here. Similar problems of dating and definition occur also in Hellenistic sculpture from Cyprus (Vermeule 1976:45–46).

Fig. 2. Marble head of Alexander the Great from Beth-Shean, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

character’s expressiveness and tension—to the years 170– 150 (1983:110). Although it is difficult to establish the date of the statue, which was not unearthed in a sealed context, its style along with historical considerations (see below) indicate a date sometime in the second century, prior to the Hasmonean take-over. The statue contains the necessary components of an Alexander portrait, as developed by his court sculptor Lysippos, described by Plutarch (Alexander 4.1; De Alexandri Magni Fortuna aut Virtute 2.2.3), and established for many generations to come: a tilted head on a strong neck; sunken eyes with a lustrous, upturned gaze; a stout, slightly prominent chin, nose, and forehead; full, open lips; and, most importantly, an anastolé coiffure, marked by long, flowing curls parted in the middle, above the forehead (Bieber 1964:29–38; L’orange 1982:19–27; Pollitt 1986:20–21; Nielsen 1987:152; Killerich 1993:85). The figure combined the appearance of the heroic, the authoritative and the divine; and more than it reflected the true personality of Alexander, it captured his symbolic significance and apotheosis (Pollitt 1986:20–26; Nielsen 1987:151–152; Killerich 1993).3 Since those living in the Hellenistic world did not know what Alexander looked like, it was not crucial to depict him exactly as he appeared, but according to his public, outward image as illustrated on coins and statues, so that he would be identifiable by

A Head of Alexander from Beth-Shean In 1925, a head of a colossal marble statue was found at Tel Beth-Shean, in a reservoir south of the sanctuary on top of the tell. It was described by the excavator as a Dionysos from the third century (Fig. 2; Rowe 1930:44–45, Pl. 55). The head’s chin and nose had been broken off. A few arm and leg fragments of a colossal statue were also found (Rowe 1930: Pl. 45, no. 4). Five years after the publication of the statue head, Watzinger identified it as a second century fusion of Dionysos, Alexander the Great, and Antiochus IV (1935:21). The accepted identification of the statue today is of Alexander, perhaps assimilated with Dionysos (Vermeule and Anderson 1981:8; Wenning 1983:108–111; Fischer 1998:38). It can be dated from the third century onward (Vermeule and Anderson 1981:8). Wenning dates it on the basis of its baroque treatment—articulated in the 2

Hellenistic marble statues from Palestine are quite minimal in comparison to those made from local stone and by local artists, as concluded by Fischer and Tal on the basis of the finds known to them; see Fischer and Tal 2003:29, 33.

3

Most scholars agree that Alexander portraits combine his physiognomic and idealistic appearance in achieving certain goals.

10

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE

Fig. 3. Marble Herm from Tel Dor (14.8 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

the general populace. This image had been adopted after his death by Hellenistic rulers who wished to be associated with him, and his portraits continued to appear until late antiquity (Pollitt 1986:31–36; Killerich 1993:90–91). The Beth-Shean statue resembles other heads of Alexander from the period after his death, which emphasize his ideal and divine attributes (Smith 1991:22). The long hair— considered to be the mark of a hero, representative of the legendary Alexander—recalls the hair of the Alexander statue from Pella (Pollitt 1986:21) and of other Alexander figures from Ptolemaic Egypt (Smith 1991: Figs. 9, 249). A similar head is exhibited in a museum in Copenhagen but originates also from Alexandria (Bieber 1964: Pl. XXVIII; Vermuele and Anderson 1981:8; Nielsen 1987:156–157, Fig. 2).

A Herm and a Standing Figure from Dor Discovered at Tel Dor was a statue head, 14.8 cm tall, integrated into a wall and later removed (Front cover; Fig. 3; Stern 2000: Pl. VII, no. 1; Stewart 1995:457). The original use of the sculpture, which certainly predates the wall, and its style attest to a possible date in the second century, most likely its second half (Wenning 1983:107; Stewart 1995:457). It depicts the head of a bearded Herm in the archaic style with a band on his head and two protrusions, which were not fully preserved, rising from the band. A Herm is a quadrangular stone pillar surmounted by a bearded head, and with an erect phallus and short arms. Beginning in the Archaic period, it was used as a semianthropomorphic depiction of Hermes, but afterwards it began to be used in depictions of various gods and even mortals (Devambez 1968; Wrede 1985:2; Siebert 1990:374–375). Herm statues were placed in public and private spaces in Greek cities: agorai, streets, gymnasia, houses, and more (Wrede 1985). Wenning suggests that the Dor statue is a Dionysos Herm on the basis of the protrusions in the hair band, identified by him as ivy leaves (1983:107). Dionysos was indeed commonly depicted on Herm statues (Goldman 1942). Stewart, on the other hand, claims that the broken protrusions above the hair band do not resemble ivy leaves, but were perhaps Hermes’wings or lotus buds, the last suggestion leading to the identification of an Egyptian Hermes-Thoth (1995:457). Herm statues were widespread in the Hellenistic period, and even became more diversified than they had been in previous periods. Sites that yielded particularly large numbers of Herm statues and figurines are Delos, in various contexts (Marcadé 1953:500–528; Laumonier 1956:124–125), and the Athenian agora (Harrison 1965:108–176). Stern attributes the Dor Herm to a private house (2000:247– 248), which finds support in the small size of the object. It

Wenning finds a historical context for the erecting of the statue. He suggests that in Beth-Shean of the second century, a period of Ptolemaic-Seleucid power struggles, the Seleucid rulers of the city needed to assert and legitimize their rule, which the placement of the Alexander statue helped facilitate (1983:111). By such, they linked their rule and divine status with the incontestable status of Alexander. The raising of an Alexander statue in a sanctuary or in some other public context was a clear statement by the residents or rulers of Beth-Shean (Nysa-Scythopolis) of their political identity and intended associations. It would have served as an expression of participation in the Hellenistic koine, a prominent feature of which was the deification of a ruler in sculpture. Another form of participation, if not by choice, is related to the suggested circumstances by which the statue went out of use. If indeed its defacing and disposal are related to the Hasmonean take-over, then it shared the fate of other Hellenistic statues and statuettes in Palestine. 11

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 4. Marble statuette from Tel Dor (19 cm long), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

appears that the discovery of a marble Herm in Palestine has ramifications beyond that of the regular koine, as the issue is repeated in stone sculpture as well (see below). Another marble statuette found at Dor consists of a base surmounted by two feet (Fig. 4), found in a robber trench in Area C1. It was studied by Stewart (1995:457–459), who proposed a number of options as for the identity of the scene, most probably Eros or Harpocrates standing on a boat. Stewart maintained that the boat bears many unfinished sculptor’s marks and that the statuette was discarded before being finished. If so, it is an important indication that a marble sculptor worked at Dor (Stewart 1995:459). However, the identification of both the type and the technique is in doubt. The fragment could have been part of a sculptural group of figures standing on a flat surface. The parts both on the top and at the front of the base, beside the standing figure, are broken, where another figure could have been placed. The unfinished marks might be an intended rough finishing. Another problem lies in the date of the statuette, which may range from the Hellenistic to the Early Roman period, as observed by Stewart.

Fig. 5. Marble male figure from Akko (1.1 m high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

marble, a material with which a high level of sculpture can be achieved, this statue bears a closer resemblance to works of local limestone, such as known examples from Syria and Phoenicia (Dunand and Duru 1962: Pl. LXV, nos. 4–5; Moscati 1988:304; Stucky 1993: Pl. 12, no. 46) and Cyprus (Hermary 1989:271–273; Karageorghis 2003:257–258). The excavator posits that the figure’s arms were forward stretched and held an object, and that the refuse dump functioned as a favissa (Stern 1989–1990:104). The statue likely depicted a worshipper or priest bringing an offering to a god, and was later broken and hidden in the favissa of a nearby temple (Aviam 2004:38).

A Male Figure from Akko Excavations on Ben-Ami Street at Akko revealed a pit full of Hellenistic finds and identified by the excavator as a refuse dump. Prominent among the finds is a Hellenistic marble statue, 1.15 m high (Fig. 5; Stern 1989–1990; Aviam 2004: 36-40) depicting a standing male figure, armless and headless, standing on a rectangular pedestal. The figure stands contrapposto atop a low base, barefoot, and donning a chiton reaching below the knees. The chiton has only a small number of folds, some deep and others only hinted at. The marble surface is not smoothed, and the statue seems almost unfinished. The back is hardly worked. Although it may be a less impressive piece than those discussed above, its importance is great: while the head of Alexander from Beth-Shean and the Herm from Dor were apparently sculpted where their marble was quarried or in a workshop specializing in marble sculpture, the Akko statue’s minimal crafting, appearing unfinished, attests to a local or regional place of production. The object likely arrived to southern Phoenicia in the form of a marble block, and was then sculpted by a local, insufficiently experienced artisan (Aviam 2004:40). While it is made of

A Hand from Maresha Maresha yielded stone sculptures (see below) but very few marble sculptural fragments. The most significant find is a fragment of a hand, the mere mention of which will suffice here, given its preservation. Overall, the Maresha finds date to the end of the second century, and there is no reason to attribute this item to a later date. Statues from Samaria The American archaeological expedition at Samaria published a few marble sculptures claimed to be Hellenistic, as based on the objects’ archaeological context. However, 12

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE descriptions of the sculptures are insufficient, their photographs are too small and unclear, and their dating is uncertain. Scholars who have dealt with marble sculpture from Palestine have largely ignored this corpus of finds, as is evidenced in the summaries of Vermuele and Anderson (1981) and Fischer (1998:38). Wenning mentions them only in brief lists: he includes one in the category of architectural ornament, and others in that of (non-marble) stone sculpture, despite the excavators’ claim that they are of marble (1983:116k, 118f). Given these problems, I will describe with certain reservations the statues attributed by the excavators to the Hellenistic period (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:383–384).

Additional statues said by the excavators to be of marble and Hellenistic are the lower portion of a female figure wearing a peplos and standing atop a base (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:383, no. 2, Pl. 76bb), and a robed woman holding to her left a child, perhaps Kourotrophos, similar to the terracotta type (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:383, no. 3, Pl. 76aa). Smaller fragments, the archaeological contexts of which were not detailed and the photographs of which were not published, include a single hand grasping a lute, and an arm of a figure (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:384). The joint expedition that excavated at Samaria did not attribute with certainty a single marble statue to the Hellenistic period.

One marble statue laid face-down in the corner of a room dated to the Hellenistic period. Once lifted, it was clearly seen to be a painted marble relief, some of the paint of which remained stuck to the earth below. The statue (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 79g) portrays a naked god or young man standing contrapposto, apparently in a chiastic stance. A chlamys is tied to his left shoulder and covers his back and left side. His right arm, partially preserved, suggests that his right hand was raised. Behind his back is a crudely smoothed tablet with a lead hook for attaching the figure to the surface it adorned. Its drapery also has drilled holes used for the same purpose. The statue is 57 cm tall, having reached more or less 70 cm once the missing head and feet are added, a height appropriate for a large frieze or a sarcophagus, the former option preferred by the excavators (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:383, no. 1). Wenning suggests a date for the relief in the first century BCE (1983:116k).

A Muse from Ashkelon Displayed at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem is a statuette found by chance at Ashkelon, its archaeological context unknown (Merker 1973; Wenning 1983:111–112; Fischer 1998:138). The piece depicts the torso of a muse, a replica of a prototype of the third (Merker 1973:180) or second centuries (Wenning 1983:111). The torso is probably of the muse Klio, similar to the relief sculpted by Archelaus of Priene (Merker 1973:179). The statuette might be related to Alexandria, Rhodes (Merker 1973:180), or Delos (Wenning 1983:111). The main problem related to the object is its date: it has been dated on the basis of its style and similar replicas to the end of the second century (Merker 1973:180; Wenning 1983:112), but Merker notes that most of the replicas of the type are Roman (1973:179), and Fischer observes that scientific analysis of the piece’s marble indicates that it comes from Carrara, the quarrying at which began only in the Augustan period (1998:138). It thus appears as though the statuette is very likely a Roman replica of a Hellenistic type and not a Hellenistic piece.

The character and date of the statue are problematic. If it decorated a sarcophagus, then it is Roman, and not at all Hellenistic. If it adorned a large structure, then a date in the first century CE prior to Roman rule does not at all suit the history of the city, as Samaria was destroyed by the Hasmoneans at the end of the second century (Kasher 1990:125–128) and later restored and modestly rebuilt during the governorship of Gabinius (57 BCE; Kasher 1990:176–177), which did not include the raising of prominent structures, aside perhaps from fortifications and sanctified buildings destroyed by Hyrcanus.4 In fact, when King Herod chose Samaria and Straton’s Tower as cities to be dedicated to his benefactor Augustus, he earmarked neglected cities—albeit ones with great potential—that he could beautify. Thus it can be said that until the reign of Herod, or at least until the governorship of Gabinius, Samaria did not have an edifice adorned in Hellenistic relief depicting the gods. The relief under discussion should then be dated to either before the Hasmonean invasion, during which it could have been discarded into the room where it was found, or more likely during the Roman period, in which case it might have been part of a sarcophagus.

An Aphrodite from Dan The torso of an Aphrodite-Pudica type, similar to the Aphrodite-Medici type, was found near Kibbutz Snir, adjacent to Tel Dan (Avida 1978:64, no. 14; Rahmani 1976:186, no. 239; Wenning 1983). The goddess stands naked, her arms concealing her genitalia. Wenning prefers a date for the statue in the Late Hellenistic period (1983:113). Others identify it as a Roman copy (Avida 1978:64, no. 14; Rahmani 1976:186, no. 239). Sculpture in Local Stone Since marble was not an available raw material in the Hellenistic East and was traded to only a limited extent in the period, the sculpting of local stone was widespread in the Hellenistic East. As mentioned, the phenomenon was prominent in Cyprus and Egypt, as well as in Phoenicia and Mesopotamian cities. The sculpting of local stone yielded mixed results, ranging from a strict adherence to local iconography and style to an overtly Hellenistic style carried out in local stone, with some cases exhibiting a fusion of the two. The granite and porphyry statues of Ptolemaic Egypt, for example, depicted Egyptian, GrecoEgyptian, or Hellenistic figures (Petit Palais 1998). Cypriot sculpture in the Hellenistic period continued

4

Magness suggests that the Temple of Isis and Serapis, which in her opinion stood at the site, should be associated with the governorship of Gabinius. Such a supposition remains merely theoretical, however, as there is no evidence for the existence of the sanctuary or its date; see Magness 2001.

13

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE period and perhaps slightly earlier. Some of the statuettes are unmistakably Hellenistic in their iconography and style. Others are unique to the site and bear no identifiable trait, aside from their unique manufacturing technique, a direct consequence of the raw material—chalk—from which they were made (see above). The date of this group cannot be established, but they do appear to be Hellenistic and no earlier, similar to the other quite abundant and rich finds from the period. The overt anthropomorphism of some of them, the intricacy of their features, and the considerable effort spent in arriving at a naturalistic depiction are all characteristic of the Hellenistic period and not of earlier periods in the region. Therefore they are described here as Hellenistic, with certain reservations.

age-old traditions of the sculpting of local stone there while combining local influences with Hellenistic ones (Connelly 1988:1; Brönner 2001:31). In Phoenicia also one can find marble works alongside productions of local stone in various styles; one such example are the Greek statues of marble alongside limestone statues, exhibiting a range of styles, found at the Temple of Ashmun at Sidon, dated from the sixth century to the Roman period (Stucky 1993:20ff). The royal marble sarcophagi at Sidon, from the fourth century, are mainly Greek in character (Parrot, Chéhab and Moscati 1975:112–115), while the reliefs of local stone at the Hellenistic temple at Umm el-Amed are more oriental, although they reflect a slight Hellenistic influence (Dunand and Duru 1962; Parrot, Chéhab and Moscati 1975:116–118). The coexistence of marble sculpture alongside that of local stone, and of Hellenistic sculpture alongside that styled in local tradition, is present also in Hellenistic Palestine, even if the finds are somewhat limited.

Nearly all of the sculpted finds from Maresha are made of the typical local chalk (kirton). Only a few fragments are of marble (see above), and one head is of a hard stone, likely limestone (see below). Chalk is not ideal for sculpting, as it is extremely soft and easily worn. These features have ramifications on both the extent to which it is preserved and appropriately cleaned or treated after excavations. It requires a sculpting technique different from that used with hard stone. While marble and limestone are truly sculpted, chalk undergoes a process more akin to carving, similar to that used in working wood. The carving technique employed on a soft material gave birth to distinctive styles, as witnessed, for example, with the influence of chip carving on the decorative style of ossuaries (Figueras 1983:24–35; Rahmani 1994:7). In our case, the stylistic result is typically marked by smooth surfaces, a schematic body, a triangular face, a prominent nose and forehead above flat cheeks, and stylized hair resembling a wig or a large skullcap. In instances where human heads were depicted, faces are shaped in a manner almost resembling an owl, given the carving of the deep, flat cheek surface under the brow. In other cases the facial features are marked by holes or incisions only. A few of the statuettes were crafted with great effort, and they display a clear, distinctive style, reflecting more than just the outcome of technique. The statuettes are all small in size, ranging from less than 10 cm up to roughly dozens of centimeters.5 The smooth white chalk offers a surface quite suitable for painting, and some of the statuettes bear remains of paint. Most of the objects depict human figures or lions’ heads. Iconographically, only two figures among the Maresha figurines can be identified with some certainty; these are Heracles and a Herm. All of the other figures are anonymous and bear no identifiable attributes.

Sites in Palestine that have yielded examples of Hellenistic statues and statuettes produced from local materials include Maresha, Samaria (dubious), Dor, Tel Anafa, and Tel Kotlit near Kibbutz Shear Yishuv. Despite the fact that the materials from which these objects were made were not expensive, and—as opposed to bronze and marble— would not be melted down or put into secondary use in later periods, the sculpted finds of this category are quite small in number. The statues constitute to some degree a continuation of the local stone sculpting traditions, as is witnessed at other sites in the East. Found in repository pits or favissae of sanctuaries in Palestine were stone statuettes of a Cypriot tradition together with terracottas, as at Tel Machmish (Avigad 1960), Tel Safi (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 75), Tel Sippor (Negbi 1966: Pls. XV–XVI), and Tel ‘Erani (Ciasca 1963: Pls. XXI–XXII). The sculpting of stone continued to a lesser extent in the Hellenistic period, but with a style different than the Cypriot style characteristic of the Persian period. Maresha Maresha yielded the largest number of stone statuettes, reliefs and figurines, in addition to the many stone vessels and altars found at the site (Peshin 2001). Nearly all of the statuettes from the site are made of the local chalk (kirton). They are dealt with here for the first time. The main problem concerning the Maresha statuettes is their date: the site has a clear terminus ad quem at the end of the second century (Kloner 2003:5–6), but the fills of the subterranean complexes that contained most of the statues included finds dating from the eighth to the second century. Of these, the Hellenistic finds are more abundant than the Persian, and the Persian are more abundant than those of the Iron Age. The relative proportions of these categories are exemplified, for example, in the terracotta figurines. The large number of Hellenistic finds reflect the flourishing of the city during that period and the extensive excavations that took place in the lower part of the city, which spread out below the tell primarily in the Hellenistic

The statuette of the divine hero Heracles is in relief on a rectangular stone tablet, with the upper half of the hero surviving (Fig. 6; roughly 12 cm high). He is naked and muscular, his right hand resting at the side of his body and his left raised in a seemingly violent motion. It probably held a club, which is not preserved. Draped over his left shoulder is a lion’s skin, depicted by the carving of deep, parallel linear folds. His head is embellished with a beard 5

14

Dimensions are estimations based on limited preservation.

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE and bangs made of straight, stylized incised lines. His lips are full. His nose has been broken. His eyes are unusual in their modeling—they are particularly large, and framed by a thin projecting band for the eyelids, which slant down on their outer side, so that the eyes appear to be almost drooping. The figure can be identified with Heracles based on the muscularity of the chest, the cloth/fur over the shoulder, and the bearded face. The figure exudes power and might, characteristics also of the god. Heracles is the most popular god in the iconography of Maresha, appearing once again in bronze and in many instances in terracotta. The statuette is unusual in its adoption of a typical oriental style largely unseen in the Hellenistic period in the region. The powerful yet stiff motionless body, the frontal stance, the stylized lion’s fur, and the static linearity are all prominent features of Eastern art, particularly of the Roman period (Avi-Yonah 1981:65ff; Colledge 1976:126ff; Karvonen-Kannas 1995:115–117). The head boasts this style even more than the body, with the flat, stylized hair, and primarily the large eyes, similar to those of the reliefs from the Nabatean site of Khirbet Tannur (Glueck 1965:49, Pl. 25). The Khirbet Tannur statues are Early Roman in date. Heracles is typically depicted in statuary of the Roman East with features similar to the Maresha statuette, aside from the down-turned eyes (Downey 1969: Pl. V, passim). In Mesopotamia Heracles appears with these features in the Hellenistic period also, with examples found on Ikaros Island (Failaka) in Kuwait, which was under Hellenistic rule for a period (Connelly 1989). On the stone statuettes from Ikaros, Heracles is depicted with similar hair and beard, and almond-shaped eyes in the traditional Parthian style (Karvonen-Kannas 1995:116), but upturned, unlike the Heracles from Maresha. The Maresha Heracles represents a precursor to an Eastern style that would characterize much of the art of Palestine in the subsequent Roman period, a style widespread already in the Hellenistic period in lands farther inland and eastward. The oriental styling at Maresha is not merely a factor of stone type, but of a clear stylistic choice rooted in the East.

Fig. 6. Chalk relief of Heracles from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Regarding its use, the provenance of the object is worthy of note: as opposed to the majority of the sculpted objects from Maresha that were found in fills of subterranean chambers, this relief was discovered atop the upper floor level in one of the rooms of the main house (Residence B) in Area 61, together with pottery and finds typical of the last occupational layer of Maresha in the late second century BCE (Kloner et al. 1998). This allows the object to be associated with private use, likely a domestic cult. A number of heads made of chalk were also found at Maresha, probably originally connected to bodies or busts. A human male or female head was found in Subterranean Complex No. 1 (Front cover; 12 cm high). The face is triangular and pointed. The hair resembles a hat or a skullcap, surrounding the head and lacking surface detail for the hair; the forehead is prominent above the eyes, the cheeks are flat and sunken, the eyes small and schematic, the nose straight and long, and the chin slightly protruding. These facial features are characteristic of the “owl-like” facial depiction on chalk described above. The face has been painted in red, while the facial features—the eyes, nostrils, and mouth—are designated by black paint and were not sculpted. The one remaining eye is not particularly large; the eyeball is denoted at its bottom, as if the figure glances downward. The mouth is marked by a small narrow line, and the nostrils by two small black lines. This head is the most original and impressive creation from chalk found at the site, and it attests to a technical ability and local style that, as stated above, are to be seen as directly stemming from the nature of the sculpted material.

Yet the oriental style of the Maresha statue also highlights the problem of its identification. If in most cases where he appears at Maresha in a Greek form and style we can identify him as Heracles, are we permitted to do the same in this case, or given his Eastern style, is there evidence of a syncretic or Eastern identification for the figure? Heracles, after all, is identified with various Eastern gods, the most suitable from our area being the Tyrian god Melqart (Teixidor 1983; Bonnet 1988). This problem is also a common one with the many statues, figurines, and references to this popular god in the Roman East, and there is no certain way to ascertain which god is portrayed in those cases (Kaizer 2000). Nevertheless, it is tempting to suggest that the oriental styling of the god reflects more a local rather than Greek character, or at least attests to a local iconographic and stylistic interpretation, even if such had no bearing on its subject matter.

Another head from Maresha, also painted, was found in Subterranean Complex No. 169 (Fig. 7). The head (6 cm 15

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 7. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha (6 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Fig. 8. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Fig. 9. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha (8 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Fig. 10. Chalk head from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha (7.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 11. Chalk bust from Subterranean Complex No. 84 at Maresha (6 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 12. Chalk bust from Subterranean Complex No. 86 at Maresha (9.2 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit

16

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE high) is likely of a woman, with an oval face. Here also the facial features are owl-like, with its eyes and flat sunken cheeks below the brow. There appears to be an earring depicted on one of the ears, an aid in identifying the gender of the figure. The large eyes are incised and the eyeballs are painted in black. The nose is flat and long, the nostrils pierced at its bottom. The mouth is a fine horizontal groove painted in pink, under which is a particularly long chin. The top of the head is broken, so that the hairstyle is unknown. The large eyes are characteristic of Eastern art, as was described above in the discussion on the Heracles relief. The face modeling, however, is characteristic of chalk sculpture at Maresha. Fig. 13. Limestone head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 at Maresha (7.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

An additional head from Subterranean Complex No. 169 depicts a figure, perhaps a male (Fig. 8; 5 cm high). The hair appears as a large skullcap above the forehead, long incised lines marking the bangs. The face is triangular, similar to the head from Complex No. 1. The eyes are sunken and narrow, the nose straight, the ears incised, the mouth a horizontal incision, and the cheeks more rounded than in previous examples. The head bears no remains of paint.

Subterranean Complex No. 84 yielded a simple, schematic bust (Fig. 11; 6 cm high), the facial features of which are indicated by holes and a small groove. The head is squared with schematic grooved eyes, nose and mouth, and a neck pierced with holes perhaps meant to represent beads of a necklace. This simple modeling is reminiscent of the incised, schematic facial features of the Nabatean “eye idols” from Petra (Glueck 1965:441, Pl. 199; Bienkowski 1991:47–48). These two last statuettes described here are not the work of a skilled artist, and one might compare them to graffiti.

The modeling of the above-described heads is extant in the East in the first millennium BCE, primarily toward the end of the millennium. Examples include an undated stele from Tyre with a triangular head (Sader 1991:102–105), and steles from Bahrain from the end of the first millennium (Crawford and Rice 2000:197). Similar heads on busts were discovered in Roman burials from a cemetery at Abila in Jordan (Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1994: Fig. 22).

An additional bust, lacking arms, was found in Subterranean Complex No. 86 (Fig. 12). The figurine is quite worn, its eyes, nose and mouth only barely discernable. Its general form recalls the figurines from the Roman burials at Abila (Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1994: Fig. 21), and its lack of arms is reminiscent of Phoenician and Punic bottle idols (Moscati and Uberti 1981:298–299, Pls. CIX ff; Moscati 1987:45–47).6 These last three figurines are the most stylized and schematic, a patterning witnessed in the local stone sculpture of various cultures in the Hellenistic period or its chronological equivalent, such as in the Arabian peninsula, Jordan, and southern Syria (Bienkowski 1991:49; Kalos 1999:785, Fig. 793), the Punic world (Moscati 1988:320), and even Cyprus, which had a developed tradition of sculpting local materials (Karageorghis, Vassilika and Wilson 1999:102). Apart of Cyprus, these areas were all on the margins or outside of the Hellenistic world.

Found in Subterranean Complex No. 147 were two additional heads, sculpted quite differently from the three mentioned above and also from one another. One shows considerable surface detail (Fig. 9; ca. 4 cm high), and is fashioned in a manner reminiscent of the Heracles discussed above. Here also the face is somewhat owl-like, although its features are more intricate, having been fully carved and not just incised or painted on, as in the above examples. The hair above the forehead was incised in short wavy incisions, and despite the fact that it is flat, it appears more realistic than the linear incisions or lack of detail in the above examples. The eyebrows are incised, the eyes are framed by particularly thick eyelids, in a technique similar to that used in Heracles’ eyes. The small ears have also been carved. The bottom of the head does not survive, but a visible depression there was likely for affixing it to something. The portrayal of the eyes recalls Parthian or Eastern sculpture, such as the Roman funerary steles from Abila (Barbet and Vibert-Guigue 1994: Fig. 25). The other head from this underground complex at Maresha (Fig. 10; 7.5 cm high) has been completely worn. It depicts a lengthened, almost egg-shaped face, the front of which is completely flat aside from its long, straight prominent nose. The neck is also long and straight. Assuming that the other features of the face were painted and have been erased, its modeling was quite minimal as compared to the detailed depiction on the other head from this complex.

All of the abovementioned Maresha examples are heads modeled in the local chalk in an Eastern or provincial design. In stark contrast to these examples is the statuette from Subterranean Complex No. 169, sculpted not from the local stone but apparently from a hard limestone (Fig. 13). Only the head (7.5 cm high) survives from the statuette, the style and hairdo of which betray it to be of a typical Hellenistic woman. The figure was meticulously sculpted. 6

A small portable stele depicting a bottle idol was found at Achziv and is dated to the fourth or third century; see Prausnitz 1965: Pl. XXVIIIb.

17

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 14. Chalk figurine from Area 100 at Maresha (7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 17. Chalk Herm from Subterranean Complex No. 147 at Maresha (8.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 15. Chalk figurine from Subterranean Complex No. 84 at Maresha (9 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 18. Chalk foot from Subterranean Complex No. 70 at Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Fig. 16. Chalk relief from Subterranean Complex No. 1 at Maresha (13 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

Fig. 19. Chalk phalli from various areas at Maresha (7.5 to 8.8 cm long), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs and Clara Amit.

18

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE The hair is pulled back in a Knidian coiffure; above the nape there is a flat stylized knot marked by deep incisions. The sculptor continued the parting of the hair over the knot, obviously in error. The hair is adorned in a ribbon encircling the head. The forehead is low, the eyes almondshaped and slightly assymetrical, the nose straight, the lips pursed, and the chin sharpened and sinking toward the neck, with its “Venus rings.” The ears are relatively small and not at precisely the same level. A bit of red and black paint survives, mostly on the eyes and mouth. The statuette is similar to terracotta female figurines that were quite common in the Hellenistic period. The Knidian coiffure and the ribbon tied around it are particularly characteristic of Hellenistic figurines (Thompson 1963:36, 44; Higgins 1987:123). The facial modeling suggests a Late Hellenistic date, considering the low forehead, the widely opened eyes with accentuated eyelids, and the sinking chin line (Thompson 1963:28–30).

or intricacy. The feet are distinguishable below the drapery, standing on top of a broken base. The right hand appears to be raised, and his left grasps a scroll-like object or the edges of the drapery. Despite its stylization and schematic nature, the statuette appears to imitate a Hellenistic model, or at least is clearly not local in character. Another worn statuette from Subterranean Complex No. 84 (Fig. 15; 9 cm high) depicts a small standing figure, its hands pressed to the sides of the body and its legs spread. No facial features survive or perhaps were ever illustrated on the worn head. A small relief from Complex No. 1 (Fig. 16; 13 cm high) portrays a schematic, frontal figure standing beside an object. It was carved in sunken relief. The sculpting technique once again resulted in the owl-like appearance common at Maresha. The head is round and without neck, the eyes are incised and pierced, the body rectangular and schematic. The modeling recalls figures on Punic steles (Bondi 1972: Pl. IV, nos. 7, 8; Moscati and Uberti 1981: Pls. CXXXV, CXXXVII). The object on which the figure has placed its three-fingered hand seems to be an altar, shaped like an hour-glass, perhaps used for libations. The execution of the entire piece is sloppy and does not reflect great workmanship.

While the overall modeling of the statuette from Subterranean Complex No. 169 is Hellenistic in its naturalism, proportions, and style, the details of the work attest to a provincial artist of limestone, with flaws and inaccuracies deviating from the canon of Hellenistic sculpture. The flat hair knot, the part that erroneously divides the knot into two, and the deep grooves which create severe shading are all atypical of naturalistic, plastic Hellenistic modeling. There is asymmetry in the eyes and ears. The execution of the mouth is flawed. All of these imperfections attest to a sculptor of only moderate skill. And the feature most problematic from a Hellenistic perspective is the facial expression of the statuette. A dominant feature of the Hellenistic period in the depiction of human beings is their humanity: they are shown to be emotive and expressive (in Hellenistic baroque), relaxed and tranquil (in rococo), or idealistic and serene (in classicism). Female heads in miniature sculpture, as in figurines and Tanagra figurines imitating them, reflect an overtly Hellenistic treatment of the heads (Thompson 1963: Pls. XXXVIII–LV; Higgins 1987). The female figure from Maresha has a facial expression austere and stern, her pursed lips relaying a feeling akin to antipathy. These features are not characteristic of Hellenistic but of Roman figurines (Thompson 1963:30). Yet the figurine must predate the abandonment of Maresha in the late second century; specifically it can be dated to the second half or end of that century. Its severe expression, sharp incisions, and technical errors are all consequences of style, the limited artistic ability of its sculptor, and the nature of its raw material (limestone, not marble, bronze, or terracotta). In summary, the head is a provincial Hellenistic creation. It was likely not produced at Maresha, but perhaps at a site closer to an artistic center, where hard limestone would have been common.

A small, schematic figurine from Area 147 (Fig. 17; 8.5 cm high) depicts a rectangular body on a wide rectangular base. Facial features are incised on the head of the figure and include pierced eyes, eyebrows, a nose, and a mouth. The schematic rendering of the face is reminiscent of the Nabatean eye idols mentioned above in the discussion of the protome (Glueck 1965:441, Pl. 199). The figurine seems to be a small Herm. This is of course not the same archaic Greek Herm similar to the marble statue from Tel Dor (see above), but a more abstract depiction of the same idea. At Maresha a mantle Herm of terracotta was found (Erlich and Kloner 2008:61, Pl. 36, no. 195), and Herms are portrayed on reliefs of the walls of subterranean chambers at the site and in its vicinity (see below). Also found at Maresha were a few body fragments, which likely were never part of a complete sculpture, given their size and the nature of the chalky stone that likely did not allow for the sculpting of a complete statue in the round. Subterranean Complex No. 70 yielded a foot (Fig. 18; 9 cm high) with carved grooves and the partial rendering of toes. If this worn foot is not to be associated with a large statue, then it must represent a separate limb, perhaps dedicated to Asclepius, the god of medicine, who received dedications in the form of sculpted limbs or organs in exchange for the curing of ills (Roebuck 1951:114–117; Bruneau 1970:371). Most of these offerings are in terracotta, but some have been sculpted in stone, as at Cyprus (Caubet, Hermary and Karageorghis 1992:159). The three erect nearly life-sized phalli (Fig. 19) uncovered in Area 940 and in other subterranean complexes were not used in the healing cult, for phallus figurines used as offerings were not depicted erect (Roebuck 1951: Pls. 36–37). Phalli and phallic symbols were common at Delos, both in major and miniature sculpture. They are related to the Dionysian cult and have an apotropaic value (Deonna 1938:347–360, Pl.

As for figurines of bodies, they are relatively few in number and quite schematic. In a mixed fill in Area 100 was unearthed the lower part of a chalk statuette (Fig. 14; 7 cm high). The object is a standing figure, perhaps male, wearing a long chiton depicted schematically, lacking folds 19

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 20. Measuring table from Area 100 at Maresha (70.8 cm long), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Finkielsztejn 1999: Figs. 1–2.

in the art of the Hellenistic East, as in Palestine and its vicinity. Five lion heads decorate a measuring table from Area 100 at Maresha (Fig. 20; Finkielsztejn 1999). The measuring table is standard, but its decoration is unusual, appearing only on the Maresha table (Finkielsztejn 1999:54). The poured liquid was not emitted from the lions’ mouths, despite their similarity to lion heads on fountains. The heads are flat, the surface modeling stylized and linear, the hair portrayed by wavy parallel lines rendering a geometric pattern more than the feeling of a live animal. Finkielsztejn notes that their appearance recalls the lion with a human face in the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha (1999:55). This similarity results from the flattening of the heads of the lions on the measuring table, and in both cases the artist expressed the fur and mane by wavy parallel lines. The lions’ eyes are relatively large, which affords them a certain expressiveness and emotion. Their faces are symmetrical and unified. The patterning of the fur, the linearity, and the symmetry and size of the eyes are all features of Eastern art. The soft chalky stone contributed to the gentleness of the facial modeling, and allowed for the crowdedness of the waves, so that the lions appear to be furrowed in wrinkles. The lions display a combination of traits associated with the carving of the soft, smooth chalk with the Eastern style of the local artist.

Fig. 21. Limestone pipe from Subterranean Complex No. 90 at Maresha (Diameter of head at front 15.5 cm), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Dr. Paul Jacobs.

XCVIII; Laumonier 1956: Pl. XXIII, nos. 1214–1215). The phallus from Area 940 is pierced in a few places, including its tip. That from Complex No. 128 is pierced with a drilled hole close to its base, used for the hanging of the figurine or its affixing on a base. These phalli are likely related in some way to Herm statues, as the phallus was an important component of the Herm pillar and represents, among others, its Dionysian or magical aspects (Goldman 1942; Devambez 1968:148; Siebert 1990:376). A fragment of an eagle statue bearing a dedicatory inscription was discovered in the Bliss and Macalister excavations on the tell (Bliss and Macalister 1902:70, Fig. 33). Unfortunately, only the leg of the eagle survives. But the most common animal in the stone sculpture repertoire of Maresha is not surprisingly the lion, the king of animals. Animals from the feline families assume a prominent role

Subterranean Complex No. 90 yielded a fountain or the end of a pipe of limestone, the mouth of which was formed as a lion’s head (Fig. 21). While its carving reflects a certain stylization, it is more realistic than the lions on 20

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE the measuring table. The head is not flat but rounded and plastic. The fur does not occupy the entire face but is limited to the nose area and the mane. The eyes are large, the mane grooved in linear furrows, not entirely unified, but made of waves in which lines were grooved. The ears are large and prominent, the mouth a simple round hole through which the water spout forth. The large eyes and the stylized depiction of the fur are Eastern features, but overall the lion is more naturalistic than those on the measuring table and reflects good stone workmanship by its sculptor. And both instances in which lions appear—the pipe and the measuring table—are associated with the spouting of liquids. To be mentioned in this context are two panthers on the base of the building at Iraq el-Amir in Jordan, their full bodies shown in profile. Their mouths are also open, likely used as water spouts (Will and Larché 1991: Pls. C1–C2). Another fountain in the form of a lion was found at a Hellenistic sanctuary at Gadera (Hoffman 1999:825, abb. 12). The Maresha measuring table is from the second century (143/2 BCE as based on the inscription), as are the panthers from Iraq el-Amir. It is reasonable to assume that the other lion from Maresha is of a similar date. Another phenomenon witnessed at Maresha and vicinity is sculpture in relief on the stone walls of the many underground chambers hewn in the area. Bliss and Macalister described a figure cut in stone next to the entrance to a chamber (1902:242, Fig. 90), schematically represented with minimal facial features, reminiscent of the figure standing next to the altar described above. Peters and Thiersch tell of statue fragments in relief, later destroyed by locals, in the Tomb of Apollophanes (1905:18–19). The relief included a protome draped in the painted folds of a garment and donning an Egyptian wig. It is impossible to know what it looked like, and the object is likely the portrait of one of the deceased. In Subterranean Complex No. 89 is engraved a figure, the head of which is surrounded by a depression similar in appearance to an Egyptian wig (Fig. 22).7 A similar protome with a masked head and a depression similar to an Egyptian wig was cut into the wall of a Punic burial cave in Malta, likely dated to the second half of the fourth century (Sagona 2002:1076– 1078, Fig. 218). Figures more schematic in nature and engraved on the walls of chambers were found in other subterranean complexes at Maresha, as in Complex No. 162 under Area 940.

Fig. 22. Relief of a figure from Subterranean Complex No. 89 at Maresha, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Dr. Ian Stern.

can be interpreted as schematic Herms, including both the pillar and the arms, but without a detailing of the face. The Herm from north of Maresha perhaps originally included facial features, while the depression was used perhaps for affixing a phallus, as was common for Herms. These Herms would then join the small chalk Herm (see above), the terracotta Herm, and additional finds that attest to the popularity of the type. As stated above, a marble Herm was found at Dor, and a Hellenistic Herm of limestone was found in the Temple of Ashmun at Sidon (Stucky 1993:20, Pl. 14, No. 56). A schematic figure on a cruciform stele was also uncovered at this temple (Stucky 1993:23, Pl. 14, no. 53). Figures in the shape of schematic crosses appear on Punic steles (Muscati and Uberti 1981: Pl. CXXV, no. 791, Pl. CLVIII, no. 894; Moscati 1988:322), some of which are abstract representations of a Tanit symbol (Bartoloni 1976: Fig. 27). The Tanit symbol itself appears in Palestine in the first millennium, including the Hellenistic period (Linder 1973; Stern 2001:108–110; Dothan 1974).

Among the reliefs on the walls of the underground chambers of Maresha are cruciform figures. In Subterranean Complex No. 51 is carved a large cross with short branches within a square depression (Fig. 23; Kloner 1991:73). Its head carries a schematic nose between two shallow depressions representing eyes and cheeks. In an underground complex located roughly three kilometers north of Maresha was found an additional cross, bearing a head and with a depression at the base of the vertical branch. These crosses

It seems as though the Maresha Herms are not related in content to the semi-anthropomorphic Herms in its various Greek forms, or to the Punic-Phoenician Tanit symbol. They are connected by the idea of the abstraction and minimizing of the anthropomorphic element, a trend characteristic of the region. A similar phenomenon widespread among the Nabateans is seen in their betyls and stele gods. They also display a preference (if not an exclusive one) for the annulment or diminishing of the anthropomorphic element of the god figure (Patrich 1990). Given the proximity and known relations between Nabateans and Idumeans (Kasher 1988:10), such a similarity is not surprising. The inhabitants of Maresha and Idumea chose a form

7

My thanks go to Yair Zoran for showing me this relief for the first time, as well as other graffiti in the Maresha caves. Subterranean Complex No. 89 is currently being excavated by I. Stern on behalf of Archaeological Seminars.

21

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 23. Herm relief in Subterranean Complex No. 51 at Maresha, photographed by the author.

the Dioskouroi found integrated into the Temple of Kore in the city (Fig. 24; Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:66, Pl. LX, no. 2; Ilan 1999:80–81). The reliefs depict the high hat or pilos, wreathed and starred, the main attribute of the Dioskouroi (Hermary 1986:592). Narkiss claimed that the tablets are Hellenistic in date, and associates the introduction of the cult to the city with Antiochus IV (1932). Similar statues of piloi from the Hellenistic period were found at Delos (Marcadé 1969:437, Pl. XXXII). The second century indeed marks the floruit of the cult of the Dioskouroi in Palestine, and their presence is felt in figurines from Maresha (see below), coins from Akko (Kadman 1961:51, Pl. 2), and perhaps in an inscription from Beth-Shean (Ovadiah 1975).8 This pilos is similar to that depicted on a ram from the Hellenistic period found near the Atlit beach; the hat also appears on Phoenician and Cypriot city coins (Murray 1991:54). Nevertheless, other scholars have claimed that the reliefs are later in date, and should be dated to the Herodian or Roman period (Vincent 1936; Magness 2001:167; Ilan 1999:80).

Fig. 24. Pilos relief from Samaria (48 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

originally Greek, but not typical of the Greek iconographic system. They chose it not for its content nor for the god it represents, although the flexibility with which the Herms could be used in representing various identities certainly aided in their popularity. Just as the Greek Herm limits the anthropomorphism of the god in order to distance it from mortals (Siebert 1990:376), the Maresha Herm aims for a similar goal, although at Maresha and vicinity the gods were never depicted in human form, as its entire art had never been anthropocentric.

Tel Dor In the excavations in 2000 at Tel Dor a Nike statuette was found (Fig. 25; 60 cm high) together with Doric capitals and additional architectural items in a pit in Area D1, adjacent to the structure referred to as the “Persian Palace” (Stewart and Martin 2003:121–132). The pit was sealed by a Late Hellenistic or Early Roman wall, and contained finds from the fourth to the second centuries. The capital and column drums are made of local sandstone or limestone, while the Nike statuette is of limestone. Stewart suggests that all of the items were associated with one of the monumental buildings—a temple or propylaeon— from the third or beginning of the second century, with Nike having stood as the acroterion (Stewart and Martin

Samaria At Samaria a limestone foot was found, associated by the excavators of the joint expedition to the Hellenistic period, and published by them only partially, without a photograph of the object (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:384, no. 6). Finds of greater significance, albeit of controversial date, are two tablets bearing reliefs with the symbols of

8

The Beth-Shean inscription mentions the savior gods and not directly the Dioskouroi; the correct reconstruction of the inscription is also in doubt.

22

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE

Fig. 25. Nike statuette from Tel Dor (60 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project; after Stewart and Martin 2003: Fig. 5.

Fig. 26. Chalk figurine from Tel Anafa (14 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg 1970:138.

2003:127–130). The statuette is of Nike draped in a peplos and apoptygma, with a high belt under the breasts. The goddess is depicted landing from flight, as with the wellknown Nike from Samothrace (Pollitt 1986:111, Fig. 117) and many Nike statues from the fourth to the second centuries (Stewart and Martin 2003:130, n. 11). There are also many examples in terracotta from the Hellenistic period, mainly the second century (Mollard-Besques 1963: Pls. 84–87; Töpperwein-Hoffmann 1976:42–43, Pl. 24). Her head, hands, wings, and feet are missing. The stone surface is unfinished, heavily worn, and rough. The place of production could be Cyprus, but the sloppy execution suggests a more provincial workshop (Stewart and Martin 2003:130). The symmetrical, archaic-like drapery folds have reminded some scholars of Roman examples (Stewart and Martin 2003:131) but are a direct outcome of the schematic, stylized treatment. It should be remembered that if the statuette functioned as an acroterion on a gable, it would have stood at a great height, far from the eyes of its viewers. Therefore, its schematic modeling would have been less visible to the naked eye than on a statue standing at ground level. The Nike from Dor is another example of sculpture employing typical Hellenistic style and iconography but implemented in a provincial manner.

appearance. The outer garment is meant to be delicate with a V-shaped collar. However, it is depicted as heavy drapery with a rounded, flat collar enveloping a regrettably thick neck. The folds are few in number and diagonal. The arm is thick and clumsy, as are the fingers. Although the head is missing, it is clear that the body is dwarfish, awkward, and disproportioned. The stone surface is rough. A Hellenistic limestone statue similar in pose, frontal stance, and dwarfishness of the body was found in Cyprus (Hermary 1989:375, no. 761), but its modeling is more intricate and plastic than the Tel Anafa piece. Weinberg has suggested that the statue is of Demeter (1970:138), a particularly problematic identification. It is true that figurines depicting a woman offering some kind of object or an animal held close to her body can often be associated with the cult of Demeter. Hellenistic terracotta figurines of a similarly posed woman holding a ball have been revealed at the Temple of Demeter and Kore at Acrocorinth (Merker 2000:125–126, Pl. 26). However, there is no proof that statuettes of this type represent the goddess, a priestess, or a worshipper (Connelly 1988:5; Merker 2000:327–328). Stone statues from the Hellenistic period in Cyprus depict a variety of figures—women, men, and children—that assume the stance of a worshipper bringing an offering (Connelly 1988). At Umm el-Amed, next to Sidon, a statue of a standing woman with flat, linear garment folds was found (Dunand and Duru 1962: Pl. XXXIII, no. 1). Worshippers offer prayers to various gods, not necessarily Demeter. This statuette depicts a figure in prayer, or perhaps a goddess, in traditional Greek iconography but in a style both provincial and quite inelegant.

Tel Anafa In excavations at the Hellenistic site of Tel Anafa a figurine of soft limestone was found (Fig. 26; 14 cm high; Weinberg 1970:138; 1975:67). The figurine depicts a standing female, robed, her head and part of her left arm missing. She assumes a frontal, hieratic stance on a low base and wears a chiton and a red-painted himation.9 Her left arm is pressed along her body, her right resting on her chest and holding some object, perhaps a flower or a small bird. The ends of her hair fall on her right shoulder. The statue was carelessly made, resulting in a somewhat ungainly 9

Tel Kotlit Tel Kotlit in the Upper Galilee (near Kibbutz Shear Yishuv) yielded two broken limestone statuettes, of a lioness and a boar. A similar statue of a lion has also been attributed to

My thanks to Andrea Berlin for allowing me to see the item.

23

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 27. Animal statuettes from Tel Kotlit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Peled 1976: Pl. IX.

the site, although its provenance is not certain (Fig. 27; Peled 1976). The lioness (35 cm high) is depicted in a two-sided high relief, while its head—now missing—was apparently sculpted in the round. The animal is crouched, and has been identified as a lioness because of the absence of a mane (Peled 1976:51). However, it appears as though the statue is of a different kind of feline. The statue is

schematic and stiff; on the body are incised five straight lines meant to represent the ribs. The closest parallel to the item was found at Umm el-Amed in Lebanon (Dunand and Duru 1962: Pl. XXXIV). The boar (40 cm high) was executed in a similar manner, and is missing its head also. It too displays an inelegant treatment and a stiffness of the body, and was sculpted in relief (Peled 1976:52–53). The 24

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE lion, only the front part of which survives (60 cm high), reflects better workmanship. It is depicted sitting in a defensive stance. Its mane is of locks of curly hair, while the surface details of the fur itself are linear and stylized. The ribs are indicated by linear incisions, a manner similar to that used for the ribs of the lioness. Parallels to the lion have been found throughout the Hellenistic East (Peled 1976:52).

Graeve 1970; Fleischer 1983; Stucky 1993: Pls. 17ff). Sarcophagi are reflections of royalty, while marble statues in temples reflect the worshippers and to some extent rulers also. The prevalence of marble in Phoenicia cannot be attributed to the culturally insignificant importation of marble to a specific area, as some of the marble items found there are extraordinary in their importance, originality, and uniqueness in the Classical and Hellenistic worlds. One example is the well-known Alexander sarcophagus from Sidon, which, in addition to its overtly Greek character, incorporates local Phoenician components (Houser 1998). Houser also notes that the very fact that sarcophagi were used in Sidon even before the middle of the fourth century suggests a Phoenician influence on the Greek world (1998:288–289). Moreover, the use of sculpture in Phoenicia is an expression of Phoenicia’s integration into the koine, and even its contribution to it. On the other side of Palestine, Egypt as well was witness to the development of a prominent school of sculpture in marble and other materials. Thus Palestine’s neighbors, also without marble quarries, created original works in marble, which assume starring roles in every textbook on Hellenistic sculpture.

Reflected among the three animals and on each individual animal are three different levels of execution. These range from the linear and schematic modeling of the ribs; to the sculpting of a stiff, stylized relief for the bodies of the lioness and boar; to the more intricate, plastic depiction of the lion’s mane. The finds have not been dated on the basis of archaeological context, and a dating based on style is problematic. Nevertheless, when considering their provenance—in the heart of an area rich in Hellenistic finds—and the ubiquity of similar types (primarily felines) in the Hellenistic East, a Hellenistic date seems reasonable.10 Peled suggests that the items adorned a funerary monument (1976:53). Lions were employed in such a context in Greek art (Queyrel 1991:231), but their original use here cannot be known.

These neighboring lands too have sculptures of local stone alongside those of marble. This is particularly evident in Egypt, but also in Phoenicia, as in the Temple of Ashmun in Sidon and the nearby Umm el-Amed temple (Dunand and Duru 1962; Stucky 1993), and Cyprus, the local limestone sculptures of which are the product of a longstanding tradition characteristic of the island (Vermeule 1976:51–56; Connelly 1988; Brönner 2001). Palestine in the Hellenistic period is prominent in neither its marble nor local stone sculpture, the finds of which are generally limited, even at sites methodically and thoroughly excavated. Maresha offers the richest repertoire of stone sculpture, but it too contained relatively few statuettes as compared to other groups of finds from the site, including terracottas. Sculptures are also largely absent from sanctuaries, a natural depository for stone sculpture. Although this state of affairs may merely stem from the poor preservation of the objects, it more likely reflects a reality of the time. Sculpture, a vital element in the Hellenistic art, is simply quite scarce in Palestine, as it is in Transjordan.

Summary As noted in the beginning of this chapter, sculpture is a vital component of Hellenistic art, having been more numerous, varied, and public than it was in earlier periods in Greece. Upon study of the sculpted finds from the Hellenistic period in Palestine, a picture emerges that is different from that seen in the typical cities of the Hellenistic world. First, the number of marble statues is noticeably small. The trade of marble and its products (architectural items and sculpture) was not sufficiently widespread, as it would come to be in the Late Roman period, and this reduced its appearance in the Levant. Herod is a case in point: although he was an exceptionally prolific builder who utilized a HellenisticRoman style (Foerster 1997a; Turnheim 1998), he did not incorporate marble into his works, except for opus sectile floors (Fischer 1998:36–37). And although many of the wall decorations in his palaces imitate marble (Foerster 1997b; Rozenberg 2008), they do not make use of the material itself. While other materials such as Roman cement were brought into the country, he appears to have refrained from importing marble. It did not become common in Palestine until approximately the reign of Hadrian, a fact shown to be an outcome of economic and commercial factors rather than cultural ones.

The marble items are so few in number that little can be gleaned from them as a repertoire. Only three statues of significant proportions can be said to be Hellenistic with a reasonable measure of certainty: Alexander from BethShean, the Herm from Dor, and the male figure from Akko. These sporadic finds cannot possibly be used as the basis of a discussion on Hellenistic “schools” or “styles.” None of them are archetypal to the schools or styles known elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. Nevertheless, one can distinguish certain trends in them. The two canonical pieces—Alexander and the Herm—reflect perhaps an Alexandrian influence. The Alexander statue imitates a Rhodian style common also at Alexandria and similar to the Alexander portraits from that city (Vermuele and Anderson 1981:8). If the Herm depicts Hermes-Thoth, as Stewart suggests (1995:457), then it also exhibits an Alexandrian

For example, in lands adjacent to Palestine also lacking marble quarries, marble sculpture is prevalent alongside works of local stone. A clear example is Phoenicia, where marble statues, steles, and sarcophagi were present from the Classical period onward, including the Hellenistic period (Kleemann 1958; Mendel 1966:256–257; Von 10

Similar statues have also been found in relation to Roman funerary contexts, e.g., a lion statue from a mausoleum in Ramot Menashe; see Paz and Paz 2006:74–76, Figs. 10–11.

25

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE influence. A similar picture of Alexandrian influence emerges at Hellenistic Cyprus (Vermeule 1976:58–60). The dating of the sculptures to a period of Seleucid rather than Ptolemaic rule in the region (in the second century) is not to be seen as a bearer of artistic-stylistic significance, as it is politically important. The admiration of Alexander, expressed so prominently in Hellenistic art, is wellrepresented in the Alexander statue (Pollitt 1986:19–31). It is the most canonical work in the Hellenistic repertoire of Palestine, and, in its type, size, and style, it reflects the koine better than any other. The marble statue from Akko, likely a local or regional production, proves the notion that the dichotomy between Greek marble statues and local Eastern stone sculptures is not always precise, even if it holds true for the majority of the repertoire. The Akko piece was produced sloppily, in a manner similar to the local stone sculptures of the Levant. Likewise, some local stone sculptures were carried out in a Greek style.

of the anthropomorphic element. The site’s link to the Punic world can be sought through the Phoenicians, who according to most were present at Maresha in an organized community (Fuks 1983:29–34; Kasher 1990:24–25). But it is the Idumean element which is dominant in the Maresha corpus, in its reflection of a certain affinity to the east and south, quite different from statues of Phoenicia proper. Maresha in Idumea is related to a different cultural milieu than that of the Phoenician Dor or Akko. The art of the Roman East is marked by a unique style, discussed at length in research. It includes traits such as spirituality, linearity, stylization, disproportionality, and analytical treatment (Avi-Yonah 1981:65ff; Colledge 1976:126ff). These traits stand out also in sculpture of local stone in Roman Syria and Palestine. The style had appeared alongside the Greek style in the Hellenistic East, as in Mesopotamia and Arabia (Connelly 1989; KarvonenKannas 1995:115–117), and its first blossoming, before it would sweep through a East a century later, is evident in Hellenistic Palestine also. In the corpus presented here, it is reflected in the enlarged head in relation to the body, enlarged eyes, frontal stance, stylization, and linearity. However the corpus’ Greek-styled statuettes, such as the Nike from Dor and the woman’s head from Maresha, are more naturalistic than similar depictions from the Roman period. Even the animals from Tel Kotlit are more lifelike and plastic than similar Roman works. Thus, stylistically, three factors can be said to have come together in the modeling of statuettes in Hellenistic Palestine: Hellenistic style, Eastern style, and primarily, the sloppiness and technical incompetence of the artists.

The sculptures of local stone in the Palestinian repertoire differ from one another. Some are made in a Greek style, such as the Nike from Dor or the woman’s head from Maresha. Others are of a local style, such as most of the Maresha statuettes. Others intermingle Hellenistic, Eastern, and provincial elements, such as the animals from Tel Kotlit and the woman from Anafa. Common to all of the stone statuettes is a low technical ability and varying degrees of sloppiness reflected in their production. While in Cyprus, for example, the stone statues are well-made and continue a longstanding tradition, those from Palestine are evidence of poorly skilled artists, most likely local. It is tempting to associate the sculpted works of northern sites (Dor, Akko, Anafa) with Phoenician artists, as has been suggested for Iraq el-Amir (Queyrel 1991:240). Phoenicia proper also has poorly executed stone pieces, but alongside them are more scrupulous works (Stucky 1993: Pls. 12–14). But in contrast to Phoenicia, Palestine lacks examples attesting to a distinct, consistent style, similar to the stylistically unified Umm el-Amed reliefs (Dunand and Duru 1962).

Regarding iconography, a surprising conclusion is that the sculptors refrained from portraying god figures, heroes, or identifiable figures. The only figures identified by name on Hellenistic sculpture from Palestine are Alexander the Great, Herms, Heracles, and Nike. As for the remainder of the depicted or hinted at figures—a muse, Aphrodite, and the Dioskouroi—their Hellenistic date is doubtful. Most of the Maresha statuettes, a marble statue from Akko, and a limestone statue from Anafa depict unidentified figures, either gods or mortals, some recognizable as worshippers in a cult. The anonymity of most of the sculpted figures joins the list of other traits typical of local sculpture, including the sculptors’ technical and stylistic incompetence and the fact that they did not feel indebted to the Greek tradition, with all its legendary figures and myths.

It is for this reason that the Maresha sculpture is so atypical. The site contained a relatively large collection of statuettes, with a consistent, formulated style of some sort identifiable among them. In most cases the style can be attributed to material and technique. The owl-like faces and the chalk carving technique are features unique to the Maresha sculptures, and both stem from the nature of the sculpted material. The Maresha corpus is the clearest example of the local character of the sculpture of Hellenistic Palestine, a character echoed in the sculpture of peripheral areas of the Hellenistic world in the period, such as Arabia, Syria, and the Punic world.11 Maresha also displays a trend common to the same regions and their peoples (the Nabateans, Arabs, and inhabitants of the Punic world) of the minimization

Animals are also portrayed in the statuettes, and nearly all of them are of the feline family (aside from the boar from Tel Kotlit). In this regard Palestine fits well into its environs. Artistic representations of lions, lionesses, panthers, and leopards were popular in the Hellenistic period in general, and in Hellenistic Syria and Phoenicia in particular (Queyrel 1991:215–216; Weber 1993:55– 58). In Jordan, lions and panthers are present on reliefs at Iraq el-Amir (Queyrel 1991:211–241), and on a statue from Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1992:117– 118, Pl. 83; Weber 1993:54–60, Pls. 4–5). In Phoenicia,

11

The similarity between Hellenistic Palestine and other areas on the margins of the Hellenistic world repeats itself in other categories of finds as well, even though one should not look for direct connections between these regions, but for similar phenomena or models apparent in them as a result of the nature of existence on the periphery. See, for example, the issue of architectural ornament in Palestine: Fischer and Tal 2003:30.

26

MARBLE AND STONE SCULPTURE lions and panthers were found at the Temples of Ashmun and Milk‘ashtart near Sidon (Dunand and Duru 1962: Pl. XXXI, 2; Stucky 1993: Pl. 13). The lion and panther are prominent in the hunting scene on the Alexander sarcophagus from Sidon. It seems that in sculpture, as in other media, the great felines were given preference over other animals. From this it can be concluded that their representation was mostly symbolic, for while lions and panthers lived in the Levant in the period, they were certainly not as widespread and accessible to humans as were other animals. In ornament on architecture, fountains, and daily objects they were both decorative elements and symbols of royalty.12 In other cases they are associated with sanctuaries and funerary art (Peled 1976:53; McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1992:118; Weber 1993:58–60).

use of space (Pollitt 1986:48–49; Nielsen 1987:153) and the statues became more three-dimensional, their limbs in motion, their appearance changing when studied from different angles. Three notable examples from three capital cities are the bronze dancer from Alexandria (Thompson 1950), the original and copies of Tyche from Antioch (Pollitt 1986:3, Fig. 1), and the baroque statue of Laocoon and his sons, associated with Rhodes (Pollitt 1986:121, Fig. 124). The effect of the size and overt three-dimensionality and torsion of these works is sensed by all who see them on display in museums, where they dominate and shape public space. The statues certainly had the same effect on Hellenistic cities, the appearance and spirit of which they helped fashion. The statues of Hellenistic Palestine are completely opposite. Aside from the colossal statue of Alexander the Great from Beth-Shean, all the works are small statues or statuettes, not to mention the large number of small figurines. Their height ranges from a few centimeters to a meter. It can be assumed that they were not erected on the floors of public spaces, but in sanctuaries, burials, and the private realm. Moreover, the statuettes exhibit restraint and a frontal stance, and do not captivate the viewer as do the Hellenistic masterpieces. Even if some of the works are made in a Greek style or in imitation of Greek types, they are not good representatives of sculpture from the Hellenistic urban centers, and do not reflect the influence the sculpture had on the appearance of cities and the temperament of the period. Based on sculpted finds, the cities of Hellenistic Palestine appear to be quite different than the principal cities of the Hellenistic world in Alexandria, Asia Minor, and Greece proper. They are also unlike the cities of Roman Palestine in the second and third centuries CE, which were very much at home with the koine of the period, and were adorned with the many marble statues found in them, as was every other city of the Roman East. In this regard, Hellenization as it is reflected in Hellenistic sculpture in Palestine was quite limited indeed.

At the beginning of this summary, it was claimed that Palestine includes a meager collection of Hellenistic sculpture, a component so vital to Hellenistic art in general. In this regard the region differs from the main Hellenistic world. Its sculpture can also be distinguished by other traits, separate from the absence of specific styles or schools, as was discussed above, but getting at matters even deeper and more meaningful. While the style or school may be relevant in a discussion on a specific piece, they are less meaningful in a discussion on the assemblage. Two features of the art which stand out in their absence from Hellenistic sculpture of Palestine are monumentality and threedimensionality. Hellenistic sculptures were usually large, either life-size or greater, and dominated public spaces of the Hellenistic city. Anyone who walked through these places would have seen the statues set on sanctuaries, public squares, streets, agorai, theaters, and even in the private sphere, so that their uses were quite varied, and not necessarily limited to the aesthetic (Smith 1991:9–10). A good illustration of the point is found at Delos, where monumental statues stand to this day. Beginning from the time of Lysippos, sculptors became more audacious in the

12

At Iraq el-Amir, for example, they could have symbolized the rule of Hyrcanus and been used as protective elements; see Queyrel 1991:214-215, 230-231, 234. In their embellishing of the measuring table from Maresha, they could have reinforced the legal/administrative standing of the agoranomos.

27

28

III Bronze Figurines and Decorative Objects Bronze served as the preferred material for sculpture in ancient cultures, particularly Egypt, where its use was developed and its prominent casting techniques, such as sandbox, piece-mold, and lost-wax casting, were invented.13 The lost-wax technique continued to be used afterwards, and became the widespread technique employed in Greek bronze sculpture (Mattusch 1994:15– 22), along with hammering, used primarily for flat vessels and objects. Greek sculptors appreciated the quality and color of bronze, and a few of the sculpted masterpieces recorded in historical sources were made of this material, even if only their copies survive. The widespread use of bronze continued in the Hellenistic period for ornamented vessels, pieces of furniture, armor, jewelry, daily objects, and more (Rolley 1986:21). However, the most impressive use of bronze is in sculpture, whether in monumental works or small figurines. The wealth of bronze statues in Hellenistic cities is described in historical sources (Rolley 1986:31). Since the material can be used secondarily once melted, many bronze statues have been lost, with those known coming primarily from shipwrecks and underwater excavations (Gelsdorf 1994). The abundance of Late Hellenistic period shipwrecks is noteworthy, such as that at Mahdia in Tunis (Fuchs 1963; Hellenkemper-Salies et al. 1994) and at Antikythera in Greece (Bol 1972).

bear decorations of non-religious character. Bronze coins are not included in this discussion. Bronze figurines of the Hellenistic period are primarily copies of monumental sculptures, even though as a group they are more numerous and variegated, perhaps because their preservation is better than that of the large sculptures. They also share common features with objects of other media, such as terracotta figurines (Lamb 1929:220–221; Barr-Sharrar 1990). In the East, where many of the bronzes have been found, Hellenistic figurines are not easily distinguished from Roman ones (Charbonneaux 1958:121– 122).15 The many bronze figurines from Egypt and Syria, such as in the Clercq and Fouquet collections (De Ridder 1904; Perdrizet 1911), cannot be grouped chronologically with certainty into Hellenistic and Roman. This also holds true for Palestinian figurines found in unclear contexts, or those having come to light in collections and museums and thus being of unclear provenance, rendering it impossible to classify them as Hellenistic. Since Hellenistic artistic finds are less prevalent in Palestine than are the Roman, a fact true also for bronze figurines, it is more reasonable statistically that a figurine of uncertain provenance will be Roman rather than Hellenistic. This suspicion limits the figurines and objects to be discussed here to only those found in clear contexts and of undoubtedly Hellenistic character.

It is true that not a single monumental Hellenistic bronze statue has been found in Palestine.14 Yet other bronze objects have come to light, whether in excavations on land or underwater adjacent to the coast of Israel. The finds can be grouped into bronze figurines, the majority of which depict gods and whose iconography is of prime importance, the material being merely a means of expression; and other bronze items and implements, where the material is of prime importance and the ornamentation is only secondary (Hayes 1984:1). Most of the objects of the latter category

Regarding Palestine, its richness in bronze figurines in previous periods is worthy of mention. As in all of the Levant, Palestine yielded many Canaanite bronze figurines from the second millennium. These figurines are both of males and females, armed and unarmed, and have been found elsewhere throughout the region, in Transjordan, Phoenicia, Syria, and Mesopotamia (Negbi 1976; Seeden 1980). This tradition continued into the first millennium, although by then the figurines had decreased in both quantity and quality (Erlich 2004; Falsone 1988). Most of the Persian period bronzes are of an Egyptian type, but there are some of a Canaanite type (Stern 1982:177). The Egyptian figurines are characteristic of the Saitic and Persian periods in Egypt, at which point they reached their height of production as temple votive offerings (Daressy 1906:III; Roeder 1933:242; Steindorff 1946:100–101). Their abundance is also reflected in Persian favissae in Palestine, where they were found together with faience objects also originating from Egypt. In sum, two traditions of bronze figurine manufacture were extant in Palestine

13 In sandbox casting, the molten metal is poured into a cavity formed in a sandbox by a model or pattern. In piece-mold casting, the mold is partitioned so that it can be assembled and disassembled for the easy removal of the statue. Lost-wax (or cire perdue) casting saves material and allows for the molding of lighter objects. This method consists of the sculpting of a clay model, which is then covered with wax and once again with clay, with small openings pierced and small chaplets inserted into the core of the clay. When fired, the wax will melt and leave a hollow cavity, which is then filled with the molten metal. The clay covering is broken, and if possible, the clay model is retained for future use. This technique and techniques similar to it are used in working bronze today; see Roeder 1933; Charbonneaux 1958:24–30; Steinberg 1968:9–11; Rolley 1986:23–27. 14

Bronze statues are also rare in Palestine in the Roman period. The statue of Hadrian found near Tel Shalem is worthy of note; see Foerster 1985.

15

Differentiating Hellenistic and Roman bronzes is a known problem among researchers; see Braemer 1979; Boucher 1979.

29

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE prior to the Hellenistic period: scanty remains of the rich Canaanite tradition from the previous millennium, and characteristic representatives of contemporary Egyptian art. In the Hellenistic period, bronze figurines from Palestine can be divided into two groups: Egyptian figurines similar to those just described, some from shrine favissae, and occasionally from provenances where continuity from the Persian period is evident; and Greek figurines, not one of which was found in a temple context. Bronze Figurines of Egyptian and Eastern Types Two sites, both with evidence of continuity from the Persian to the Hellenistic period, have yielded groups of bronzes and other finds of Egyptian and Eastern types: Ashkelon (Iliffe 1936) and the shrine at Mispe-Yamim in the Galilee (Frankel and Ventura 1998). Another group of Egyptian bronzes was found in Beersheba, at a Hellenistic shrine lacking evidence of cultic activity from a previous period (Giveon 1973; Derfler 1984:103–106). These finds join solitary Egyptian figurines dating from the end of the Iron Age and the Persian period and whose use did not continue into the Hellenistic period. These include figurines from Dan, Kedesh, Jezreel, Deir Alla, Gibeon, Ashkelon, and Maresha (Kalmah 1999; abb. 4; Keel 2001: XI–XII; Stern 2001:497–501).

Fig. 28. Bronze figurines from Ashkelon, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Ashkelon The largest group of bronzes, forty items large, was revealed in Ashkelon, and includes objects from an excavation of a quadrangular room and from the collection of an antiquities dealer (Fig. 28; Iliffe 1936). The excavator of the room, Ory, described the space as a smith’s workshop, and classified the figurines as local Palestinian productions (Iliffe 1936:61; Ilan 1999:66–67). Roeder, however, claimed that the room was merely a shop rather than a workshop, and that the items found there were manufactured in Egypt. He based his argument on their heterogeneity both in type and stylistic treatment (Roeder 1956:545). Some of the bronzes came to light through an antiquities dealer, although most were excavated by Ory. They had been deposited together with pottery from the fifth to second centuries, including imports. Rowe dated the bronzes from the Thirtieth Dynasty (beginning in 380) to the beginning of Ptolemaic rule, preferring the later part of this range; the excavator also dated them to the fourth century (Iliffe 1936:61). During excavations conducted in Ashkelon in the 1990s, two statuettes of Osiris were found, one identical to a figurine in the discussed group and dated with certainty to the seventh century, before the Assyrian invasion of 604. On the basis of this find, the excavator, Stager, proposed re-dating the Ashkelon cache to the end of the Iron Age (Stager 1996:68*–69*; Ilan 1999:67). Stern has claimed that, even if some of the figurines (such as that of Osiris) date to the seventh century, the assemblage as a whole should be attributed to the Persian period (2001:498). These different dates given for the hoard, ranging from the seventh century to the beginning of the

Hellenistic period, have to do with the manufacturing of its figurines. But regarding their use, as Iliffe noted, the pottery from the room reaches the second century.16 Thus the figurines continued in use into the Hellenistic period, a century to several centuries after they were produced. The figurines were originally gilded, and remains of gold survive on the Isis figurine. They include elements of the typical Egyptian pantheon from the Late period, including Horus, Osiris, the Apis bull, Isis, Anubis, Bastet, Ra, Ibis, a priest, various animals, and weights. The first four types are the most prevalent among Egyptian metal figurines, three of them—Osiris, Isis, and Horus—being a holy family. Aside from the Egyptian figures, two figures in a degenerate Canaanite style were also found (Iliffe 1936: Pl. XXXIV:1–2). The figures would have been set upright, affixed, or hung. One bears an inscribed dedicatory inscription. Even if they had been gathered in the room where they were found for use as scrap metal (Ilan 1999:66), it is reasonable to assume that they originally functioned as votive offerings, similar to bronze groups from other sites. The presence of weights in the hoard has no bearing on its function, as weights have been present in other favissae; in such a context the weights would have served as votives and not merely as weights. As for the figurines, 16 Iliffe’s article on the bronze hoard does not include a publication of the diagnostic pottery sherds from the room. Only solitary sherds, primarily of Attic bowls, remain in the repositories of the Israel Antiquities Authority. I would like to thank Alegre Savariego for locating this pottery.

30

BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS

Fig. 29. Bronze figurine of Apis bull from Mispe-Yamim (7.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997:50.

Fig. 30. Bronze figurine of a ram from Mispe-Yamim (4.6 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997: back cover.

Fig. 31. Bronze figurine of a lion cub from Mispe-Yamim (4.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997: back cover.

it can be assumed that they come from a favissa from an Ashkelonian sanctuary (?), having been manufactured in the Persian period or earlier, and continuing in use as votives until the Hellenistic period.

Fig. 32. Bronze figurine of Osiris from Mispe-Yamim (9.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Rafael Frankel; after Frenkel 1997:51.

Mispe-Yamim

structure and the cult practiced therein were apparently the same in both phases (Frenkel 1997). This continuity is also expressed in the bronze figurines: those dated to the Persian period continued in use in the sanctuary as votive offerings until its destruction by the Hasmoneans in the late second century (Frankel and Ventura 1998:53–54). In this regard the Mispe-Yamim sanctuary reflects continuity in both cultic and artistic tradition, one shown to have been completely indifferent to changes in the ruling authorities and cultures.

A picture similar to that seen in Ashkelon emerges from the bronze figurine group from Mispe-Yamim, although there the group is much smaller in size. Four objects came to light even before the start of excavations; they include a situla, an Apis bull, a ram that seems to have functioned as a weight, and a lion cub that was apparently the handle of a vessel (Figs. 29–31; Frankel and Ventura 1998). In addition, the excavations uncovered a typical bronze Osiris figure (Fig. 32) and a faience statuette depicting Osiris, Isis, and Horus (Frenkel 1997:51). Despite the variety in their original functions, all of the objects were ultimately used as votive offerings in the small sanctuary that stood on the site. As opposed to the Ashkelon finds, the archaeological context of these finds is clear both in regard to chronology and the use of the room in which they were found. The sanctuary had two phases of use, one in the Persian and one in the Hellenistic period, but the overall plan of the

Incised on the situla from Mispe-Yamim are typical Egyptian scenes, and under the rim of the object is a Phoenician inscription telling of ‘kbw the son of bd ’šmn and his making of an inscription for Astarte (Frankel and Ventura 1998:46–49). All of the features of the inscription—its language, the name of the benefactor, the goddess mentioned—are unmistakably Phoenician. Some 31

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE shrine in Beersheba (Fig. 33). It differs from the previous two in that the figurines are of Egyptian types, appearing to be of the Persian period, but dedicated and found in favissae of a Hellenistic temple used for perhaps a syncretic cult from the third and second centuries (Derfler 1984:91, 188–193). The cultic practice in the temple shows no signs that it was continued from a previous period. One must remember that bronze figurines with an Egyptian style and iconography kept being produced in the Ptolemaic era, although in degenerate forms and incorporating Hellenistic features (Roeder 1956:540, 731§). However, the Beersheba assemblage contains no evidence of Hellenistic influence (Giveon 1973; Derfler 1984:103–106). The goddess Neith and the Ba bird, a human-headed female bird symbolizing the soul, both of which were found at the site, are characteristic of the Saitic and Persian periods. The goddess Neith, for example, achieved prominence during the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (663–525 BCE), during which the city Sait, with which she is identified, gained in importance (Giveon 1973:54). The double crown found unattached to the figure that wore it is not sufficiently indicative, being datable to different periods. The Apis bull from Beersheba has been associated by Derfler with the Hellenistic Serapis, and not the Egyptian Apis (1984:103– 105), although this identification is unfounded. This Apis is no different than the Persian bulls in the Ashkelon hoard and the finds from Mispe-Yamim, and its discovery in a second century temple is not sufficient in attributing it to the new syncretic cult, the presence of which in Hellenistic Palestine was limited.18 Therefore, it can be concluded that either votive offerings over two hundred years old were offered at this Hellenistic temple, or that there was continuity in the activity of the cult in Beersheba from an earlier period, only that the earlier location of its temple has not been found.19

Fig. 33. Bronze figurines from Beersheba, courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; after Giveon 1973: Pls. 22–23.

of the figurines also display characteristic local traits: the Apis bull was modeled sloppily, with peculiar incisions for its wings and an asymmetrical ornamentation (Frankel and Ventura 1998:49–50); and the lion cub is both in type and style a unique production, one which scholars have suggested is entirely local in character, having been fashioned not on the basis of a model but upon observation of nature (Frankel and Ventura 1998:51–52). The bronze figurine of Osiris and the faience statuette are standard Egyptian productions. The duality of the assemblage is apparent: while their types are Egyptian or generally Eastern,17 the cult and all of its components (the sanctuary, the goddess, the priest, and its entire geographic region) are Phoenician. The Egyptian figurines thus served as only the medium for the transmission of different subject matter. Frankel and Ventura note that the Apis bull had likely a pedestal, which it can be assumed bore an inscription not dedicated to Apis himself, as many figurines of this sort were found in contexts unrelated to Apis. In this regard the Apis bull functioned as a token, essentially no different than the situla (Frankel and Ventura 1998:51). Stern also has claimed that Egyptian figurines from Palestine are not evidence of an Egyptian cult, but of an adoption of Egyptian motifs and symbols by a local cult. He notes that in all of the Persian sites that have yielded Egyptian figurines, the name of not a single Egyptian god has been mentioned (Stern 2001:500).

An unusual figurine from this favissa is a winged dolphin (Aharoni 1973: Pl. 72D), which Derfler attributes to the Nabatean god Delphinios, guardian of travel over sea and land (1984:105–106). The dolphin is indeed a prominent figure in Nabatean art, and according to one opinion even functioned within the Nabatean cult (Glueck 1965:315– 353), but does not appear in the Nabatean realm before the first century CE. There is even doubt as to whether there was really a Nabatean god of this sort, as Glueck’s theory has received wide criticism. Dolphins have been attributed to Greek gods, such as Apollo, Poseidon, and Aphrodite, bearers of a range of attributes (Rosenthal 1975; Gersht 1999:27–28). Bronze figurines of dolphins were common in the Roman period, with two examples 18

Evidence of a cult to Serapis in Palestine of the Hellenistic period includes an inscription from Samaria-Sebaste dedicated to Isis and Serapis and other evidence of a possible cult at Jaffa; see Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:37, no. 13; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989.

Beersheba

19 Ash pits containing many finds from the fourth century, including Aramaic ostraca, have been found in the vicinity of Tel Beersheba. These finds likely were associated with an occupational phase of the site (a Persian fortress?), to which the production of the bronze figurines can also be attributed; see Herzog 1993:172–173. Derfler claims that the Hellenistic settlement at the site followed a Persian settlement; see Derfler 1984:91.

The third assemblage of bronze figurines comes from the 17

Osiris, the situla, and the Apis bull are Egyptian types; the recumbent ram assumes a Mesopotamian stance; and the lion, while unique, perhaps reflects an Iranian influence.

32

BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS coming from Caesarea (Gersht 1999:27–28). The small ring affixed to the dolphin from Beersheba, enabling it to be hung, indicates that the object was originally an ornament, and not necessarily a visual representation of a god. The dolphin could also have functioned as a handle, such as those among the Roman bronzes in the Mildenberg collection (Kozloff, Mitten and Sguaitamatti 1986:48, no. 100) and the Royal Ontario Museum (Hayes 1984:85). Of course, in its final use it had sacred significance, proof of which lies in the very fact that it was found in a sanctuary favissa. Even plain ornaments could have been brought as votive offerings to temples, as in the case of the weights from Mispe-Yamim. Maresha In addition to these three assemblages, a figurine from Maresha of a striding Horus-Harpocrates in Egyptian style is worthy of mention (Fig. 34; Kloner 1996:7; Erlich forthcoming a). The figurine was found in Subterranean Complex No. 75, at the entrance to one of the chambers. This underground complex yielded a variety of finds dating from the eighth to the second centuries, with the style of the figurine seemingly Persian. Nevertheless, one might infer that the figurine was in use until the end of the second century, the point at which the underground complex was filled with earth and the lower city of Maresha abandoned (Kloner 2003:5–6). The inference is based on the fact that the object survived intact throughout the period and was never melted as scrap, having been discarded or having fallen into the cave probably at the end of the Hellenistic period, together with the many other finds from the cave. If this understanding is correct, then we have here yet another instance of a Persian figurine or of a figurine in Persian style continuing in use in the subsequent period.

Fig. 34. Bronze figurine of Horus-Harpocrates from Maresha (16 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

The nature of the sites at which these assemblages were found is important. Ashkelon was a large important city in the Hellenistic period, and its local cultic tradition continued there for a long time afterwards, through to the Roman period. Of all the cities of ancient Palestine, Ashkelon is foremost in the uniqueness of its local cults, such as that to Phanebalos (panei Baal), Astarte, Atargatis, and Derketo, which reflect unmistakable Phoenician and Egyptian influence (Fuks 2001:97–109, 121). The small sanctuary at Mispe-Yamim indicates clear PhoenicianTyrian influence, similar to other Galilean sites such as Tel Kedesh and Anafa. The temple in Beersheba, accompanying a fortress, is a small structure that, similar to the Solar Shrine at Lachish, preserved an Eastern-local plan and character (Derfler 1984:88–92). None of these sites were a new polis, colony, or of significant influence in the Hellenistic world. The continued use of Eastern bronze figurines at them is but one expression of their traditionalism.

All of the Egyptian or Eastern bronze figurines attest to continuity in tradition from the Persian period and to conservatism in cultic practice. The sanctuary buildings at Mispe-Yamim and Beersheba are also of local Eastern character and traditional in plan. None of the assemblages discussed above included bronze figurines of Hellenistic type and style. To be sure, at Ashkelon were found “Canaanite” figurines; at Mispe-Yamim an Egyptian faience statuette; and at Beersheba Hellenistic-type terracotta figurines in a favissa. But bronzes of Hellenistic character were not found at these sites. In this regard, all of these assemblages are homogenous in their traditional-Eastern character, having given no heed to the innovations of the Hellenistic period and its bronze art. Despite the substantial Egyptian presence in these figurines, it cannot be concluded that a pure Egyptian cult was practiced at any given site where they were found. Rather Egyptian models and forms were applied to a local cult, together with the use of suitable motifs from the Egyptian cult. Syncretism, a prominent feature of the period, is also apparent in these assemblages, although not expressed in its “true” form, in the sense of local elements merging with Greek, but in the form of a local element merging with an Egyptian/Mesopotamian/Eastern one, a vestige from the Persian period.

Bronze Figurines of Hellenistic Types In addition to the Egyptian and Eastern figurines, a small number of bronze figurines of Hellenistic types have been discovered in Palestine. These figurines have been found alone, and not as part of assemblages of votive offerings in a sanctuary or of a smith’s workshop, as in the cases of the assemblages discussed above. And while the Egyptian figurines are characterized by their conservatism, continuity of tradition, and even stylistic and technical degeneration,20 the Hellenistic bronze figurines reflect a noted innovation in type, iconography, and primarily their adoption of a naturalistic style. Yet still distinguishable among these figurines are local and Eastern elements, whether in style, technique, or choice of type. 20

The Egyptian bronze figurines from the end of the Late period and Ptolemaic era reflect the influence of early Egyptian art on these periods; see Roeder 1956:540, 731§.

33

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 35. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Samaria (35.8 cm high); after Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 77.

Fig. 36. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Samaria (23 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Heracles Figurines from Samaria-Sebaste, Maresha, and Ashkelon

one by the American expedition (Fig. 35; Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:384, Pls. 77–78) and the other by the joint expedition (Fig. 36; Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:71–72, Pl. VI). Both had been deposited in fill layers below Herodian structures, and both are dated by archaeological and stylistic factors to the Hellenistic period. Both are armless, the second even bearing signs of having been intentionally defaced. For this reason Iliffe has suggested attributing their being put into disuse to the Hasmonean invasion of John Hyrcanus, and dating them to the second century (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:71).23 The two depict Heracles in a similar manner, while one is larger than the other. The missing arms make an identification of the type difficult, but on the basis of the style of the heads and the body position of both it can be said that they were fashioned in a clearly Hellenistic style, in the spirit of the fourth century artists Skopas and Lysippos, who improved upon the image of the hero. Another possible origin of the type is fifth century Greece. Both items have small pegs under the feet for the purpose of affixing them into a soft material or onto some other object. The figurines are patent examples of threedimensional Hellenistic creations, seen differently from various vantage points (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:72).

The most popular figure depicted on Hellenistic bronze figurines from Palestine is the hero Heracles. He appears four times: twice at Samaria-Sebaste, once at Maresha, and once (perhaps) near the Ashkelon coast. Heracles’ popularity in Hellenistic art increased for several reasons. First, Alexander the Great was identified as his successor and was even depicted on coins with his attributes (Uhlenbrock 1986:12; Pollitt 1986:25–26). Second, two important sculptors of the fourth century—Skopas and Lysippos—developed popular new types for the hero (Vermeule 1975; Boardman and Palagia 1988:792–793; Uhlenbrock 1986:11). Third, Heracles was especially loved in the Hellenistic East, and identified with various local gods (Downey 1969:1–2; Uhlenbrock 1986:16). And finally, the abounding myths and personality traits associated with the hero allowed for greatly admired depictions of him in Hellenistic art as a figure with human, emotional, and even comic aspects (Uhlenbrock 1986:11– 12). Heracles is prominent in various media, such as coins, sculpture, and painting, as well as on bronze figurines. Nevertheless, Heracles’ depiction on four of a small group of Hellenistic bronzes from Palestine is worthy of examination. Comparatively speaking, the most popular goddess on bronze figurines, primarily in the East, is Aphrodite (Charbonneaux 1958:122), who is not depicted on a single bronze statuette from the Hellenistic period found in Palestine.21

The first figurine, uncovered by the American expedition, is relatively large (Fig. 35; height 35.8 cm), the largest Hellenistic bronze figurine found to date in Palestine. The hero stands in contrapposto, his weight resting on his picting a robed woman leaning upon a square pillar. The excavators have catalogued it among the Hellenistic sculpture, but its textual description is too brief and its picture too small to allow for a discussion of the object; see Reisner 1924:384, no. 9, Pl. 76z.

At Samaria-Sebaste two Heracles figurines were found,22 21

Bronze figurines of Aphrodite Anadyomene from the Roman period were found at Tell el-Wasiyat in the north of modern-day Israel. 22

23

Iliffe’s comments are quoted in Crowfoot’s discussion on the statuette from Samaria; see Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:71.

Found at Samaria-Sebaste was one other small bronze figurine, de-

34

BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS characteristics, the figurines differ from one another. The second depicts Heracles in severe contrapposto, leaning upon his right leg, his upper body tilted backward at an exaggerated angle. This stance is similar to the somewhat distorted stance of satyrs. His body is muscular and powerful, his two arms are missing. He most likely held a club, a fur, and perhaps another attribute; his gesture indicates that in this case the type is clearly not Heracles Farnese, as has been suggested in the past (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:71–72; Ilan 1999:80). His Lysippean head bears a facial expression similar to that described in the above example and is adorned in a wreath tied with a ribbon. The head is turned upward and to the right. The distorted stance of the figure and the triangular pegs under the feet suggest that this Heracles was an appliqué on furniture (Ilan 1999:78–80) or a vessel. Another Heracles type, first appearing in the second century, depicts the hero drunk and wavering, his upper body also slanting significantly backward (Boardman and Palagia 1988: Pl. 504, nos. 879–882; Mertens 1985:55, no. 36). In this type the hero holds a wine kantharos and is wreathed like the figurines from Samaria-Sebaste. Figurines employing this type have been understood as appliqués on large bronze kraters with voluted handles, such as one from Dherveni in Macedonia (Nicholls 1982; Robertson 1975:482–484, Pl. 141b).25 Similar to the lion cub from Mispe-Yamim discussed above, which was used as a handle on a vessel but was found in a shrine, perhaps this Heracles also was originally produced as an appliqué and later assumed a religious function like that of the other bronze statuette from Samaria-Sebaste.

right leg, his body conveying strength and muscularity. His head is down-turned to the right and he is wrapped in the fur of the lion of Nemea, hunted by him in one of his labors (Uhlenbrock 1986:1–4). The fur envelopes his head, covers his shoulders, and is knotted above his chest, as in an example from Alexandria (Von Sieglin 1923: Pl. 27.2). A bronze comparable to this item, with a fur similarly wrapped around the head, is a figurine from the beginning of the Hellenistic period from Doris, today at the Louvre (Boardman and Palagia 1988: Pl. 489, no. 662). Most types and statues have the lion’s fur draped over Heracles’arm, so that its placement here is less common. As mentioned, the missing arms makes an identification of the type difficult, but it can be assumed that the figure held his attributes, such as a club made from the olive tree he uprooted or apples from the garden of the Hesperides that he seized in one of his labors (Uhlenbrock 1986:1–4). A possible parallel with a similarly posed head is a Roman bronze figurine from Stuttgart, although the fur on that object is draped over the arm (Boardman and Palagia 1988: Pl. 478, no. 497). Another potential type for the item, primarily seen in Roman bronze figurines, has Heracles holding his club upright in his left hand, a drinking bowl in his right, with a body position and direction of glance similar to the Samaria-Sebaste bronze (Boardman and Palagia 1988: Pls. 499–500). At first glance, there appears to be a conflict between the appearance of the hero on the Samaria-Sebaste figurine and the specific type employed by the artisan. The thick body, the down-turned head, and the fatigued expression conjure up associations with one of the most famous of Lysippos’ types—weary Heracles, also known as Heracles Farnese (Vermeule 1975; Moreno 1982). Yet in that type the hero always glances wearily downward to the left and leans upon his club, also to the left (Boehringer 1966:411, Fig. 22; Uhlenbrock 1986: Pl. 42); our hero’s head is downturned to the right. Depicted here, rather, is a Heracles in a more traditional stance, standing and grasping various attributes, while his expression and the overall sense of the piece are characteristically Hellenistic. The hero’s face suits the period well, and stands firmly within the Skopaic and Lysippean tradition, with the sunken eyes of Skopas, the long nose, and the thick prominent beard (De Visscher 1962:21–25; Pollitt 1986:51; Boardman 1990:184). As opposed to the Lysippean tradition, by which the head, at an eighth to a ninth of the body size, is small in comparison to the Polykleitan canon (Bieber 1961:31–32), the head here appears to be less than a seventh of the body.24

This figurine is smaller and lighter than that discussed above, and the facial expression of the god-hero affords him a more heroic look. And while the above Heracles figurine imparts a sense of gravitas, strength, and even contemplation, this Heracles communicates a certain dynamism, light-heartedness, and glory. His head is also proportionally less than a seventh of the body, thus in both cases there is a distancing from the tall Lysippean proportions, a phenomenon perhaps to be associated with the chronological gap between Lysippos of the fourth century and small imitations such as these from the second century.26 The shortening of the body of Heracles in relation to his head emphasizes the figure’s strength and sturdiness. In the case of the Maresha Heracles (see below), of even more extreme proportions, a different explanation is to be sought. In 1991 a complete bronze figurine of Heracles was found in Subterranean Complex No. 90 at Maresha (Fig. 37; Kloner 1996:6; Erlich forthcoming a). The chamber in which the

The second Heracles figurine from Samaria-Sebaste (Fig. 36), found in the 1930s by the joint expedition, is roughly two-thirds the size of the first. Iliffe suggested that the two bronzes originated in the same workshop, and were even produced by the same artisan (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:72), but aside from their shared Hellenistic

25

Nicholls claims that while the hero is somewhat drunk, the extremely slanted body stance is not a result of the figure’s unsteadiness, but to balance the figure as he descends a “slope”—the shoulder of the vessel (1982:322-326). Even if the Samaria-Sebaste Heracles is of a different type, his distorted stance can be explained along similar lines, i.e., his position on a vessel.

24 It was not possible to precisely measure the figurine, and this data is not presented in the excavation report. However, since the excavators published six separate photographs of the object, from various angles, the proportions given here can be relied upon.

26 Heracles figurines of the first century BCE have an even larger head in relation to the body; see for example Uhlenbrock 1986:42.

35

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Heracles is young. Second, the hero’s arms are somewhat distant from his body, a feature more suited to Heracles Farnese. Third, his abdominal muscles are closely packed and protruding, similar to the Heracles Epitrapezios type by Lysippos, which portrays the hero sitting atop a table (De Visscher 1962). The head is typical for the hero, but a more emphatic treatment was given to the facial features than in the Samaria-Sebaste examples: the eyes are more sunken, the nose is pronouncedly curved, and the beard protrudes significantly. Such an expressive face reflects a baroque treatment typical of the second century. The Maresha figurine represents a certain departure from the Hellenistic canon, not only in its mixing of types but also in its style and technique. The club is not held properly, the lion’s fur falls somewhat too stiffly to the side, as if not completely succumbing to gravity. The proportions of head and body are even farther removed from the Lysippean model than are those of the figurines mentioned above—the head in this case is nearly a sixth of the body, and the thick beard makes the head seem even larger. The muscular body appears squat and compact in relation to the head, a modeling that confers on the hero the look of a wrestler (Mitten and Doeringer 1968:132–133). Such proportions are among the characteristics of Eastern art in the Early Roman period, and detectable here are the first hints at such an approach. Comparable proportions are evident in a Roman bronze figurine from Hatra (Downey 1969: Pl. XVIII.2). In regard to technique as well there is evidence here of a certain departure from typically Hellenistic meticulousness and quality: a metallurgical analysis on the object has shown that it was not heated sufficiently,27 the left side of the head is distorted and lacks detail, the top of the spine does not terminate in the middle of the neck, and the hair is shown by schematic, sloppy incisions. All of these features support the notion that the figurine was produced in a provincial workshop in the southern Levant and not imported from overseas. It is an example of Hellenistic art following Hellenistic models, but executed in a local style and exhibiting sloppiness, provinciality, and a certain mixing of types.

Fig. 37. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Maresha (13.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

figurine was found was quarried for use as an olive press, of a kind typical at Maresha, but the press apparently was never put into use. No signs of wear were evident on the press installations, and the charcoal markings of the rockcutters used in the hewing process remain until today. Found shattered in the corner of the press was a rock-cut altar. The chamber contained an earth fill with finds typical of the subterranean complexes at Maresha and dating primarily to the third and second centuries. It is reasonable to assume that the cave was put into ruins, abandoned, and filled with earth with the Hasmonean invasion of the site at the end of the second century, at which point the Heracles statuette would have been discarded into it. This figurine, however, was not intentionally defaced. Its original location, whether it was used in the cave itself, in the residences above, or in some other context, cannot be known. The figurine depicts the hero in a contrapposto stance, his weight upon his left leg, his upper body slanted backwards in a manner similar to the second SamariaSebaste figurine. He is particularly muscular; in his right hand is a club, held down and to the back, and in his left probably Hesperidian apples. A lion’s fur is also draped over his left arm. His head is bearded and adorned with a ribbon. The basic type presented here follows the type of Heracles Lenbach, by which the god leans upon his club and grasps the abovementioned attributes (Boardman and Palagia 1988:747). However, this figurine does reflect some modification to the type. The addition of a beard to this type is standard in the Hellenistic period, but other details attest to a mixing of features of various types. First, the Maresha Heracles does not rest upon his club, but holds it in the air, and in an unusual manner. A similar depiction is on an Early Roman bronze statuette from Byblos (Birchall and Corbett 1974: Fig. 40). A statuette from the Borowski collection, dated to the Late Hellenistic period, also portrays Heracles holding the club rather than leaning on it (Leipen 1984:44, no. 41). In both of these examples

The last Heracles figurine is most likely an import, as it was pulled from the sea at the Ashkelon coast, likely originally having been aboard a ship that was wrecked on a sandbank roughly half a kilometer offshore (Fig. 38; Galili, Sharvit and Dahari 2000; 2001:20–21, Fig. 12). The figurine, roughly 20 cm high, was excavated underwater together with an assemblage of Hellenistic period items including a box cover and decorated bronze handles. Its style indeed appears to be Hellenistic, at least to the extent that it can be discerned, given the fact that the figurine is quite badly worn. Similarly, the Heracles identification cannot be fully ascertained given its poor state of preservation. One immediately recognizable feature is the perfect Lysippean proportions of the figurine, in contrast to the figurines described above. The head is very small (between an eighth 27

Segal.

36

The metallurgical analysis was carried out by E. Altmark and A.

BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS

Fig. 38. Bronze figurine of Heracles from Ashkelon (20 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Galilee, Sharvit and Dahari 2001: Fig. 12.

Fig. 39. Bronze fulcrum from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1981: Pl. 18c.

to a ninth of the body size), the body is tall, and the legs are particularly long. The hero stands in contrapposto, his weight on his right leg. A chlamys-like lion’s fur is draped over his shoulders, his right arm is held forward and holds something (apples?), his right placed behind his back as in the Heracles Farnese type (Boehringer 1966:441, abb. 22; Uhlenbrock 1986: Pl. 41). In a bronze figurine from Greece used as a vessel ornament, Heracles Farnese is depicted with his left hand, extended forward as in the case of the Ashkelon figurine, and resting upon a club (Boardman and Palagia 1988: Pl. 494, no. 725). The Ashkelon figurine, however, bears no remains of the club.

at Delos (Rolley 1986:193, Fig. 167). Pan protomes are not limited to furniture fulcra. A similar Pan protome, albeit not bearded, adorns a Hellenistic bronze vessel from the Fleischman collection (Herrmann 2000); and satyr protomes decorated vessel handles, as on two examples from Egypt (Edgar 1904: Pl. IX, no. 27.750; Perdrizet 1911: Pl. XIII). Pan is also depicted on bronze figurines, examples of which are known from the Classical to the Roman periods (Hill 1949: Pl. 19; Boehringer 1966:442, Figs. 23–24; Muscarella 1974: Nos. 25, 25 bis; Kozloff and Mitten 1988:142–145). The presence at Anafa of Pan, the Peloponnesian god of the flock, might be surprising to some had the site not been so close to the regional center of the Pan cult at Banias, a cult site founded already in the Hellenistic period (Ma‘oz 1998:18–19). One of the Pan figurines in the Walters Art Gallery said to be from Beirut was also apparently an appliqué on an object (Hill 1949:39, no. 78). Even though in our case it is tempting to associate the figurine with the Pan cult so unique to Banias and its environs, two points are not to be forgotten: one, the identification of the figure as Pan is not certain, and it still could be of a satyr; and two, the object is a protome used as a furniture appliqué and not as a cult statue. Since it was not found in a ritual context, it likely functioned for merely decorative purposes, with the kline it adorned probably bearing other figures as well.

Tel Anafa Two bronze figurines were found at Tel Anafa in the Hula Valley. The first is a furniture ornament depicting the god Pan (Fig. 39; Herbert 1981:107, Pl. 18c). An object of this sort, referred to as a fulcrum, served as an appliqué on a couch (kline).28 It depicts a protome of a bearded face with strong, thick features and unkempt, spiked hair. There are straps on his shoulder, evidently alluding to the animal skin worn by him. Such a portrayal is suitable to both Pan and a satyr, which share many features in their respective iconographies (Boardman 1997:940). It is true that without his characteristic pan-flute (syrinx), it is difficult to distinguish Pan from a satyr, even though the bearded face is more typical of Pan. A similar fulcrum with a protome of a satyr, also dated to the end of the second and beginning of the first century, was found in the Mahdia hoard (Fuchs 1963:31–32, no. 68, Pls. 46–47; Faust 1994:578–579). Another fulcrum in the image of a satyr and from the same period was discovered

The second figurine is a fragment of drapery from a garmented (male?) figure (Weinberg 1971:105, Pl. 19c). The himation is wrapped around the body of the figure, its folds pulled upward and to the left, at which point they fall downward. It can be assumed that the arm enveloped by the garment was raised, resulting in this fashioning of the folds. The state of preservation does not allow for a precise identification of the figurine.

28

Pieces of a Hellenistic kline have been restored in the Mahdia collection; see Hellenkemper-Salies et al. 1994, vol. I: Pl. 28.

37

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE were used as representations of ownership, and they are similar to those employed by the authorities on coins, seal impressions, and weapons (Murray 1991:51–54). Murray remarks on a few points regarding the symbols (1991:54– 60): the bird’s head is similar to eagles on Ptolemaic coins, which symbolize Zeus’ eagle. The pilos of the Dioskouroi twins appears in an atypical manner here, as a single hat rather than a pair. The hat is common on Hellenistic coins from the second century in Cypriot, Phoenician, and Syrian cities. The caduceus also appears on coins, while Murray identifies the trident as the thunderbolt typically found on Ptolemaic coins, and usually surmounted by an eagle. His conclusion is that these four symbols together are characteristic of one particular coin issue—that minted under the Ptolemaic king Epiphanes (204–181 BCE) in the cities of Cyprus. Based on this interpretation, Murray concludes that the battering ram was produced for use on a Ptolemaic warship, usually ported at Salamis, Kition, or Paphos, and wrecked opposite the Atlit coast in the first half of the second century (Murray 1991:61–66). Since the ram was not made in Palestine or for its cities, its relevance to this discussion is in question.

Various bronze vessels, such as a jug, a strainer, and a ladle, were also found at the site (Weinberg 1971: Figs. 7–8, Pl. 19a–b). The ladle is decorated on its bottom with a rosette and acanthus leaves, and its curved handle ends in a duck head. The handle recalls a ladle handle shaped into a horned animal’s head, pulled from the sea near Tel Megadim (see below; Misch-Brandl 1985:12–13), and of similar ladles found in burial caves of the Late Hellenistic period at Ein Gedi (Hadas 1994:31–32, 53) and from the Hellenistic Mount Gerizim (Magen 2000:110). Deep ladles with duck-shaped handles were common in the Late Hellenistic period, similar to the examples at the Royal Ontario Museum (Hayes 1984:40–46, 59–61). The Anafa remains attest to the widespread use of bronze figurines and bronze vessels at the site at the end of the second and beginning of the first century. Various Coastal Sites Aside from the hoard and Heracles figurine from Ashkelon, coastal sites have not yielded many bronze figurines, perhaps because of the limited extent to which the Hellenistic period is represented at them. Most finds come from the sea and not from the archaeological sites themselves. A bronze figurine of a woman garbed in a chiton, with a himation draped over both the chiton and head, was found underwater not far from Shiqmona (Elgavish 1993:1376). Her arms are completely enfolded by the himation. Such a depiction is characteristic of terracotta figurines from the period, most of which portray standing dressed females (Tanagra figurines and their imitations), not divinities or other known figures, and of an unclear function (Higgins 1987:65, 117ff). Here the connection between clay and bronze figurines is apparent, and it has been suggested that they imitated each other (Barr-Sharrar 1990). Retrieved underwater near the Megadim coast was a broken amphora containing some 100 kg of bronze items, broken and tightly packed, intended for use as scrap metal. The finds include monumental statues, bracelets, a wreath, among others (Misch-Brandl 1985). However, these objects are not to be included in the discussion here, because when they arrived to the Palestinian coast they were already quite distanced from their original use, whether chronologically, geographically, or functionally.29 Some of the objects date to the Early Hellenistic period, none originate in Palestine, and none were brought to the region as art, but as scrap metal.

Another find from the Atlit coast is a bronze leg of a Hellenistic table, likely a tripod.30 The leg is fashioned in the form of a hoofed goat’s leg with three acanthus leaves at its top (Merhav 1996). The closest parallels to this leg are made of different materials: wood and stone (Merhav 1996:428–430). The finds from the southern coast are even fewer in number, if we exclude the Ashkelon hoard, the items of which were produced before the Hellenistic period, and the Heracles figurine discussed above. Found at Tel Ashdod was a small feline figurine, either a lioness or a panther (Fig. 40; Dothan 1971:145, Pl. LXXII, no. 7), perhaps having functioned as the handle on a bronze vessel. The animal’s tail wraps around her hind legs, her right foreleg raised in a manner quite popular during this period in the region, a noteworthy example of which are the panthers at Iraq elAmir (Will and Larché 1991: Pls. C1–C2). Similar bronze figurines are a lioness, probably Roman, at the Walters Art Gallery (Hill 1949: Pl. 52, no. 266), and a pantheress from Egypt (Edgar 1904: Pl. VI, no. 27.723). The Mildenberg collection has two bronzes of felines, similar to our item but in a squatting position. One is Late Hellenistic or Early Roman and is stiffer than the Ashdod item (Kozloff 1981:187, no. 173). The other is a bronze panther with silver inlays, dating to the third century and very similar to our item in the molding of its face and body (Rimon and Shchori 1999:69). Another figurine similar to the Ashdod bronze is one from the Early Hellenistic period depicting a pantheress with her forepaws placed upon her prey (Mitten and Doeringer 1968:139, no. 142). All of these parallel figurines are from collections and are dated by stylistic criteria rather than archaeological context. Given both the style and archaeological context of the Ashdod figurine,

A few bronze objects from the Hellenistic period were found on the Atlit coast, although no figurines from there have been published. The most impressive item of this group is a battering ram of a warship, found some 200 m from the Atlit coast, made of bronze with traces of wood (Linder and Ramon 1981). The three-bladed ram is decorated in cast relief on both sides. The decoration includes a trident with an elaborate ornamental handle, a starred and wreathed hat (or pilos) of the Dioskouroi, the head of a bird of prey, and a caduceus. These symbols 29

30

The hoard was sunk at the end of the second or the beginning of the first century BCE; see Misch-Brandl 1985:12–13.

On Hellenistic tripod tables, see the discussion below on the wall paintings in the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha.

38

BRONZE FIGURINES AND DECORATIVE OBJECTS a third or second century date, preferably the latter, is suitable. Its body is well fashioned, albeit somewhat stiff, particularly in its hind parts. Ashdod was destroyed by the Hasmoneans toward the end of the second century (ca. 114 BCE) (Dothan 1971:22, 63–64), at which point the small bronze figurine would have been put into disuse. Another Hellenistic figurine depicting a man donned in Isiac garb was acquired in Jerusalem and said to have originated in Gaza (Seyrig 1955). It indeed appears to be Hellenistic, but since its provenance and date are in doubt, it will not be discussed here. Summary The Hellenistic bronzes from Palestine are varied both in nature and function. Some appear to be cult figurines depicting gods, while others are ornaments for luxury items or other decorative pieces. This division into these two functions may at times be artificial, as it is recalled that objects such as weights, a vessel handle, and decorative appliqués were found in the collections at Ashkelon, Mispe-Yamim, and Beersheba. But it can generally be said that all of the Egyptian-Eastern bronzes were used in cultic practice, as were perhaps some of the Heracles figurines. As for the other objects, most are indisputably decorative, while the original use of others cannot be ascertained. It has already been mentioned that the Egyptian-Eastern figurines are the only to have been found in homogenous contexts, with two of the sites having been sanctuaries (Mispe-Yamim and Beersheba). As stated, the use of these figurines is evidence of continuity in ritual practice and the local cult. None of the Hellenistic-type figurines come from a homogenous or ritual context, even if some without a doubt functioned in the latter capacity. The EgyptianEastern figurines are thus of a religious, hieratic character, while the Hellenistic ones tend to be more secular and decorative in nature. The latter trait is particularly conspicuous in Hellenistic art, specifically minor art, which underwent a process of secularization and evolution in type and iconography (Merker 2000:130–131). A good example of the process is the variety of Heracles types, which show a progression towards a more humanized figure—one shown, for example, as languid, fatigued, and drunk.

Fig. 40. Bronze figurine of a panther from Tel Ashdod (4 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. LXXII, no. 7.

influence is the item from Maresha. But that figurine’s proportions, style, and sloppy technical execution bear witness to provinciality rather than artistic syncretism. In regard to the recognizable figures represented by the figurines, their variety is not great. The Egyptian groups include standard, popular types on Saitic and Persian bronze figurines: primarily Apis, Osiris, Isis, Horus, and various animals. As stated above, the use of Egyptian iconography is a medium and not an end in itself, and cannot necessarily serve as an indication of Egyptian cultic practice. Among the Hellenistic group, Heracles is most common. At SamariaSebaste, a Macedonian colony heavily influenced by Greek culture, the Heracles figurines are typically Hellenistic; while at Maresha, of a more local character, Eastern and provincial influences are more evident. Heracles is also prominent on other media, such as terracotta figurines and stone statuettes, at some Hellenistic sites in Palestine. Aside from the one appearance of Pan (which is perhaps a satyr), there are no characteristic depictions of well-known gods or goddess, even of figures particularly common on Hellenistic bronzes in the East, such as Aphrodite, Athena, Artemis, Hermes, and Egyptian-Ptolemaic gods.31 It is likely that figurines of these gods simply have not been preserved, although it is still surprising that the surviving ones reflect such a small group of figures. Another popular group among Hellenistic bronzes—even one of the hallmarks of the period—is genre sculpture, which sought to illustrate everyday life (Bažant 1979). It thus appears that the Eastern figurines were more traditional, limited to religious themes or used as decoration with no realistic depictions of the day to day.

The Hellenistic bronze figurines from Palestine do not attest to syncretism between Egyptian-Eastern and Greek-Hellenistic cultures. The two remained separate from one another. This contrasts other areas of the East, where artistic syncretism is clearly evident; for example, a Hellenistic bronze female figurine incorporating overtly Greek and Mesopotamian iconographic elements was found in Southern Arabia (Van Beek and Jamme 1976), and a Roman Heracles figurine with Greek attributes together with an Eastern style and iconography was recovered at Hatra (Downey 1969: Pl. XVIII, no. 1). The Egyptian figurines from Palestine have a purely Egyptian style, and were even produced before the Hellenistic period; while the Greek figurines are Hellenistic and associated with the koine. The only figurine reflecting any sort of Eastern

One matter common to all of these objects, despite their being so varied, is the circumstances of their disposal. In most cases the Hasmonean conquest at the end of the second century marked their end, as it did for the occupational phases left on archaeological record to which 31 The dominance of these types in the Hellenistic and Roman East is readily evident upon a perusal of the catalogues of the Fouquet collection of Egyptian bronzes and the Clercq collection of Syrian bronzes; see Perdrizet 1911; De Ridder 1904.

39

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE the objects are associated. That conquest is responsible for the discarding of bronzes from the following sites: Mispe-Yamim, Samaria-Sebaste, Ashdod, Maresha, and Beersheba. In turn it can establish a terminus ante quem for the figurines. At these sites the Hasmonean takeover put an end to the culture of bronze figurines, which would

be revived only in the Roman period. Some of the other objects were cargo on sunken ships. Except for the Anafa finds, no bronze figurine continued to be used after the second century, a fact that emphasizes the gap in artistic production between this and the subsequent period.

40

IV Terracotta Figurines Clay figurines, also known as terracottas, were very common in ancient cultures. In contrast to monumental sculpture, terracottas were inexpensive objects, given their material and mass production, and thus were affordable to all. They were used in all segments of society, and for various purposes—as votives in sanctuaries and domestic shrines, funeral offerings, ornaments, and toys (Higgins 1967:XLIX–L; 1987:65; Moorey 2001:6–10; Downey 2003:8). In Greek culture the terracotta artisan was referred to as a coroplast (κοροπλαστής), and was typically afforded less respect than were other artists (Higgins 1967:XLIX; Uhlenbrock 1990). Originally terracottas were handmade as individual works, but from the second millennium onward mass-produced mold-made terracottas became common. The Levantine female plaques of the Late Bronze Age are one such example (Tadmor 1982). This technique was predominant in the East through the first millennium, and became exclusive in the Greek cultural milieu in the Classical period (Higgins 1967:66). Production in molds was the reason behind the secondary status of the terracotta artisan, as the creative process in the manufacture of terracottas was now limited to only a few phases and a small group of coroplasts. Terracotta production thus stands at the crossroads of art and craft (Erlich 2002).32

Despite the mass production of these figurines, which has led of course to the existence of many identical objects, the number and variety of Hellenistic types is astounding, a contrast to the traditionalism and repetition evident in the repertoire of the Classical period.33 Another trait of the Hellenistic figurines reflects the spirit of Hellenistic art in general, namely the prevalence of both genre and secular types alongside an assortment of religious types, and an intermingling of the two (Merker 2000:130–131; Burn and Higgins 2001:20–21). Hellenistic terracottas have become a focus of interest of late, both of scholars and antiquities enthusiasts alike. Many terracottas were looted from tombs in the nineteenth century, a good example being the group from Tanagra, in Boeotia in Greece (Higgins 1987:30). These small objects have been so adored that a well-developed industry of forgeries has arisen around them (Higgins 1987:162–178). The figurines were dispersed to museums and collections, and their study commenced already in the nineteenth century.34 Prominent studies are those on the Tanagra figurines (Kleiner 1984; Higgins 1987), vast collections at museums such as the Louvre (Mollard-Besques 1963; Besques 1971–1972; 1986; 1992) and the British Museum (Burn and Higgins 2001), and private collections. Not to diminish the significance of these collections, the most reliable finds come from clear archaeological contexts. Such contexts can be divided into tombs, such as those in the necropolis of Alexandria; and archaeological sites whose stratification is clearer and more easily understood. Published examples of terracottas from contexts fitting into the latter category come from sites dispersed throughout the Hellenistic world, including the Athenian agora (Thompson and Thompson 1987), Acrocorinth (Merker 2000), Delos (Laumonier 1956), Morgantina in Sicily (Bell 1981), and Troy and Pergamon in Asia Minor (Thompson 1963; Töpperwein-Hoffman 1976).35

The production technique for Hellenistic figurines was fairly universal, and included a number of phases (Higgins 1987:66–69; Uhlenbrock 1990; Muller 1996:29–47). The origins of any given figurine lie in its archetype, an object crafted or sculpted from a variety of materials. Naturally only a very few archetypes have been discovered; furthermore, most figurines were copies of other figurines—production in “generations,” as it is referred to—and not of original archetypes (Burn and Higgins 2001:19). Thin layers of wet clay were pressed against the archetype, then removed and fired, thus creating the mold. For figurine production, the opposite was employed: wet clay was placed into the mold, or into a number of molds for the chest, back, head, and limbs. Once the figurine was removed from the mold and hardened, the appendages would have been applied and the object retouched with a modeling tool to correct distortions and sharpen details. Immediately preceding firing, or, as recently suggested, just afterwards, the figurine was coated in a white wash or slip that served as a base for paint (Middleton 2001). The object was fired, and often painted.

This ubiquity of studies on Hellenistic terracottas from Magna Graecia in the West to Seleucia in the East is far from paralleled in the Levant. The Levant’s southern neighbor, Egypt, has merited in-depth analyses on figures from Alexandria and vicinity (Adriani 1940; 1952; Breccia 33

The sheer number of types is readily apparent in the large catalogue published by Winter at the beginning of the twentieth century; see Winter 1903, Vol. II. 34

See for example the first such publication, on the terracottas from Myrina (Pottier and Reinach 1888).

32

Although bronze figurines are also mold-made, molds were not reused before the Roman period, so that two figurines are never truly identical. The lost-wax technique for bronze production was utilized for the manufacture of the figurine itself, and was not intended for mass production; see Rolley 1986:27.

35

Such listings of publications of collections and excavations do not presume to be exhaustive; rather, they seek to give only representative examples from prominent areas of the Hellenistic world.

41

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE 1912; 1930; 1934). To its east, figurines from cities such as Ikaros, Seleucia, Babylon and Jebel Kahlid have been extensively researched (Mathiesen 1982; Van Ingen 1939; Karvonen-Kannas 1995; Jackson 2006). To its west, the Amathus figurines have been published (Queyrel 1988). Yet only a few Hellenistic terracottas from Coele-Syria have been found or studied. An exception is the favissa from the Kharayeb sanctuary near Sidon (Chéhab 1951– 1954). In Israel, there are hardly any studies at all, although terracottas from the Persian period have been treated at length, with sites such as Tel Makmish (Avigad 1960), Tel Dor (Stern 1995), and Tel Sippor (Negbi 1966) having been published. The Hellenistic period objects from Akko (Messika 1996) have been studied in an M.A. thesis. A recent publication covers some of the Maresha terracottas (Erlich and Kloner 2008). Objects from other sites have been partially or inadequately published.

Samaria: some 40 figurines, published by two expeditions, most as poor, out-of-focus photographs accompanied by minimal textual explanations (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pls. 75–76; Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: Pl. XIII).

The following is a summary of the finds and publications on Hellenistic terracottas from sites in Israel, from north to south:

Ashkelon: a few figurines, not yet published.38

Jaffa: a few figurines from tombs, unpublished. Yavneh-Yam: a few figurines retrieved as surface finds and one figurine from the excavation, their photographs published (Fischer and Dashti 1991:48–49; Fischer 2003). Gezer: one figurine, published in a photograph (Macalister 1903:304, Fig. 3). Ashdod: one figurine, published (Dothan 1971: Pl. LXXII.6)

Maresha: over 700 figurines. Nearly 300 are published in the final excavation reports on Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008). The remaining, as well as others revealed in the ongoing excavations of the site, will be published later.

Tel Dan: a few figurines, partially published (Biran 1992: cover; 1994: Figs. 174–175). Tel Anafa: some 40 figurines, only a few of which have been published to date36 (Weinberg 1971: Pl. 19d–e; 1973: Pl. 30).

Lachish: one figurine, from the Solar Shrine (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 18). Beersheba: a few figurines, partially published (Derfler 1981; 1984:159–160, Pl. 43).

Akko: nearly 150 figurines, from various archaeological contexts. They were found on Tel Akko, in tombs, and in excavations in the city. At least two groups (from excavations along Ben-Ami street and at the post office site) are sanctuary favissae. They were published as part of N. Messika’s M.A. thesis (1996; 1997; Ariel and Messika 2007).

No Hellenistic terracottas have been recorded from Transjordan, except for an oriental figurine from Pella (McNicoll, Smith and Hennessy 1982:27). Of the large group of Nabatean figurines that has been gathered and analyzed recently, only one is attributed to the Hellenistic period, and it was imported (El Khouri 2002:40). Aside from the Kharayeb sanctuary near Sidon, only a comparatively few terracottas have been found in Phoenicia, as in the few objects from Umm el-’Amed (Dunand and Duru 1962: Pls. LXIX–LXX). Hellenistic occupational layers at prominent sites such as Tel Istaba (at Beth-Shean), Shiqmona, and Tel Michal did not yield terracottas. Likewise, these objects were also not found in the regions of Judea and Samaria (with an exception being the city of Samaria itself). The main Levantine sites where Hellenistic terracottas have been found, from north to south, are Kharayeb near Sidon (more than 1000), Maresha (over 700), Akko (about 150), Dor (about 100), Samaria (about 50), and Anafa (about 40). The other sites yielded no more than a few items.

Tell Keisan: a few figurines, mostly published as drawings only (Paraire 1980:348, Pls. 102–106, 138). Beth-Yerah: a few figurines, (Vinogradov 1992:238).

partially

published

Beth-Shean: a few figurines from a Hellenistic context on Tel Beth-Shean (Erlich 2006a). Jokneam: one figurine, published (Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1996:65). El-Wad Cave (“Cave of the Valley”): one figurine, published (Iliffe 1934). Dor: more than 100 figurines,37 only a small portion of which have been published, primarily the better preserved specimens (Stern 2000:244–255; 2002; Erlich 2003; Rosenthal-Heginbottom 1995).

Site-Based Discussion Tel Dan Two terracotta figurines have been published from Tel Dan39: one is the head of a woman, styled in typical Hellenistic fashion; and the other the god Bes, of the

36 The Anafa figurines are presently being studied by me. My thanks go out to S. Herbert and A. Berlin.

38

37

39

These figurines are being studied by me. My thanks go to E. Stern for entrusting them to me for study.

My thanks to R. Voss for showing me the Ashkelon figurines.

Tel Dan also yielded a few other figurines, yet unpublished. My thanks to M. Hershkovitz for this information.

42

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES Early Hellenistic period (Biran 1994: Figs. 174–175). The Bes figurine is comparable to terracottas and faience pendants of the Persian period, such as those from Dor (Stern 2000:174–179) and Akko (see below). Bes was not commonly depicted on terracottas in the Hellenistic period in Palestine, yet is widespread in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt (Dunand 1990:38–49; Fjeldhagen 1995:78–85; Török 1995:32–33). If the Tel Dan Bes is indeed from the Early Hellenistic period, then it attests to a continuation of a Persian tradition. Another fourth-century figurine— attributable to the Persian or Early Hellenistic period—is of a “temple boy” of a Cypriot type (Biran 1994: Figs. 174– 175). A similar figurine was found at Tel Dor (see below). Two traditions are evident in the Hellenistic figurines from Tel Dan: the female head, in its iconography, fashioning, and style, represents the typical Hellenistic koine; and Bes reflects an Eastern tradition carried over from an earlier period. In this context it might be worthwhile to note the bilingual Hellenistic inscription—in Greek and Aramic—from Tel Dan, which reads: “To the god who is in Dan” (Biran 1994:221, 224, Fig. 182). This duality is also present in the scanty terracotta finds that have been published from the site.

Fig. 41. Terracotta mask from Tel Anafa (3 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg: 1973: Pl. 30C.

depict the role of a slave in plays, as indicated by the hairdo, beard, and one raised eyebrow, as outlined in Pollux’s catalogue of masks (Wiles 1991:165). Theatrical masks could have been used in a variety of ways: as souvenirs from the theater, a reflection of the thriving theatergoing culture of the Hellenistic age; as votives, usually to Dionysos; as burial offerings, also usually related to Dionysos; and even as household items or ornaments, for instance as appliqués on vessel handles (Wiles 1991:80–81; Romano 1995:46– 47; Merker 2000:195; Bernabó-Brea 2001:275–278; Burn and Higgins 2001:21). A few good examples of such masks in addition to the Anafa item have come to light in Israel (see below). At Anafa, however, nothing can be said on its use and its precise context. Iconographically and stylistically, it is of a widespread koine type, in contrast to the schematic figurine with the bound hands, which is of local character. Additional unpublished figurines from the site are a mixed bag of typical Hellenistic terracottas: standing figures, animals (including the Apis bull), masks, altars, and more.

Tel Anafa A small group of Hellenistic terracottas was unearthed at Tel Anafa in the Hula Valley. The settlement at the site has been described as an isolated settlement for Hellenized Phoenicians, and its finds include imported and local ceramics, and glass and metal vessels (Herbert 1993; 1994:14–19; Berlin 1997a:26–27). The sculpted finds are limited in number. One should not expect the wealth of terracottas common at favissae sites, such as Kharayeb and Akko. If we compare the quantity of terracottas at Anafa to Maresha, where in both cases the objects come from domestic contexts, it becomes apparent that the average domicile at Maresha did not yield more figurines than did the villa at Anafa. Although at Maresha the masses of figurines were found in the fills of subterranean complexes under houses, it is commonly held that they originated from the houses above. The few terracottas from Anafa probably had domestic uses, either in cult ritual or as ornaments.

Akko The most impressive collection of Hellenistic terracottas from northern Israel has been found at Akko, with nearly 150 items having been retrieved from various parts of the Hellenistic city (Ptolemais). As mentioned, they have been published within the framework of the M.A. thesis of N. Messika (1996). A group from excavations at the site of the new courthouse were published in an article (Messika 1997); three others were published in another article (Ariel and Messika 2007) and a group from the post office site is being studied by the author and will be published in the future.40 In the last couple of years a few more figurines have been unearthed in excavations in the city. In sum, figurines have

Three Anafa terracottas have been published. One depicts a crude, schematic figure with a bird-like head, its hands tied behinds its back. It is a local production, handmade and rudimentary. Weinberg suggests that it was used as a curse figure, similar to the lead figurines from Maresha and Samaria (1971:105–106, Pl. 19D–E). Another figurine is of a bearded head donning a Persian cap (Weinberg 1973: Pl. 30D). If the figurine is indeed Hellenistic, as the excavator claims, then it reflects influence from the previous period. Iconographically, the item is similar to figured heads from the fifth–fourth centuries, such as those found in favissae at Tel Dor (Stern 2000:170). Heads of the sort are found in Seleucid and Parthian layers at sites in the East, such as Seleucia on the Tigris (Van Ingen 1939: Pl. LVXI). Another figurine is of a theatrical mask, apparently of the New Comedy (Fig. 41; Weinberg 1973: Pl. 30C). It seems to

40 The figurines from the post office site were examined in 1995 on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority. They are also included in Messika’s study. I would like to extend my thanks to N. Messika for her willing cooperation and readiness to help.

43

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Aside from the corpus’ large size, another unique feature of the Akko figurines as they compare to those from other sites in Israel is that they include two groups that seem to have been votives deposited in favissae. These are the group from the post office site and the Ben-Ami street site. The former site was apparently a shrine from the second century situated adjacent to a military camp (Applebaum 1986); also found at the site was a dedicatory inscription to Zeus the Savior and Antiochos VII Sidetes (Landau 1961). The 17 figurines from the site seem to have been part of the shrine’s favissa. The items (Messika 1996: Pl. 13) include figures of religious connotations such as Aphrodite (?), two Isis-Aphrodite figurines,41 a protome identified by most as related to the cult of Demeter or her daughter Kore/ Persephone (Bell 1981:85–86; Muller 1996:496–497; Güntner 1997: Pl. 642, nos. 27–30), a kneeling figure, and two small altars (arulae). Theatrical types include a comic mask, a tragic mask (Fig. 42), a head of a satyr or Silenus, and a realistically styled head (Fig. 43). Other figurines include a head of a camel (Fig. 44)—a rare type in the Hellenistic repertoire (see below)—a boukranion, and various other unidentified figures. The production technique of all the figurines at the post office site attests to local manufacture, specifically in their ware, their superficial and schematic fashioning of details, and the absence on most of a white wash, with paint having been applied directly on the clay itself. An Egyptian—specifically Alexandrian—influence is evident on some, such as the Isis-Aphrodite and the camel figurine42 (Messika 1996:94). The grotesques and the protome also have parallels from Alexandria, albeit elsewhere as well. It should be said that the attribution of these figurines to a shrine favissa is not based solely on their types—the assortment of which is common in the Hellenistic period, displaying a typological divide between sacred and everyday themes—but also on their archaeological context, namely within a small structure identifiable as a shrine. Assuming that the group is indeed associated with a favissa, then as such it is quite heterogeneous, and very different from the favissa group described below. It rather recalls the Kharayeb corpus, which is also composed of a relatively wide range of types (Chèhab 1951–1954).

Fig. 42. Terracotta mask from Akko (4.5 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Fig. 43. Terracotta figurine of a male head from Akko (3.2 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The second group presumably associated with a sanctuary favissa was discovered in Area L, on Ben-Ami street within the city. In that area a large public building was excavated, which, on the basis of the figurines retrieved within it, has been identified as part of a sanctuary temenos (Dothan 1993:24). Furthermore, the nature of the figurine group, 86 in number, leaves little room for doubt on the matter (Messika 1996: Pls. 8–11). Most (about 60) of the figurines are recurrences of a few homogenous types, with only a remaining few standing alone in their type and attesting 41

Fig. 44. Terracotta figurine of a camel from Akko (2.4 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

The goddess referred to by many as Isis-Aphrodite is an Egyptian type, depicting a robust, naked goddess with an intricate head covering, standing with legs together and arms pressed against her sides; see Fischer 1994:75–78; Török 1995:138–139; Fjeldhagen 1995:13.

been found on Tel Akko, and in the city below—at the post office site, Ben-Ami street, the courthouse site, the fortress, and other spots (Messika 1996:62–65).

42

Camel figurines are indeed rare in Ptolemaic Egypt, and mainly appear in the Roman period. Nevertheless, camel terracottas appear primarily in Egypt, Cyrenaica, Transjordan, and Syria; see Nachtergael 1989.

44

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES to variety within the corpus. Likewise, the vast majority of the types (nearly 80 figurines) represent cult figures, primarily votaries, priests, or gods. The large homogenous groups recall favissae with similar recurring types such as those at the sanctuaries of Amathus (Queyrel 1988), Thasos (Muller 1996), and Corinth (Merker 2000). Thus the identification of the building in Area L as a sanctuary seems quite reasonable. Its terracotta group is, as of yet, the only found in Israel whose types are characteristic of a favissa.43

and Maresha, below), as well as in Cyprus and Phoenicia. Five figurines are of dancing women scarfed in their garments (Messika 1996: Pl. 8), often understood as ceremonial dancers (Thompson 1963:102–103). Their dance can be connected to the cults of various divinities (Muller 1996:495). The type is prevalent in the Kharayeb sanctuary near Sidon, where it is associated with mystery cults (Chéhab 1951–1954: Pls. XXXVI–XLVI). Also attributable to the dancers group are a female musician playing a small triangular harp (trigonon) and a woman holding a vessel (a situla?), perhaps priestesses or votaries (Messika 1996: Pl. 10, nos. 66, 69).

The largest type among the Area L corpus is of hydrophoroi—women carrying water jugs on their heads. The jugs carried are of various types, one variation is even in the form of a basket (Messika 1996:66). Hydrophoroi are widespread in the Classical period, but they continue to be found into the Hellenistic period, such as at Knidos (Burn and Higgins 2001: Pls. 85–88). They are also commonly found in Hellenistic Cyprus (at Paphos: Karageorghis 1970:217, no. 49; and at Kourion: Burn and Higgins 2001: Pl. 146, no. 2901), Egypt (Graindor 1939: Pl. XXII, no. 56; Pingiatoglou 1993:92, nos. 121–122; Fischer 1994: Pl. 10, no. 62), and even in Phoenicia (Chéhab 1951–1954: Pl. XCVIII, nos. 3, 4), so that their appearance at Akko is not surprising. The large number of items of the type here recalls its prevalence at the Amathus favissa in Cyprus (Queyrel 1988: Pls. 34–35). The hydrophoroi are associated with the cult of Demeter and Kore, but also to those of other gods; they likely represent votaries during a cultic ceremony (Queyrel 1988:111; Muller 1996:486– 487; Merker 2000:324; Burn and Higgins 2001:175, 180).

The assortment of gods depicted is smaller. There are three Kourotrophoi. The type is of a woman with a child in her arms; the woman is identified perhaps as a deity in itself, bearing fertility and chthonic connotations. If it did represent a divinity, the kourotrophos was of a relatively low status, yet she was powerful and played an important role in folk religion (Price 1978:199–202). Other schoars perceive her as a votary displaying her supplications to a divinity. Lipinski (2003) considers the Persian period kourotrophos as a woman, either invoking the divinity’s assistance in fertility or thanking her for the newborn child. Eros, and Eros with Psyche also appear (Messika 1996: Pl. 11, nos. 88–90); a leg fragment is likely of Baubo, considered to be an apotropaic figure (Messika 1996: Pl. 11, p. 78).45 Two naked, full-bodied female figures were understood by Messika as fertility goddesses (1996:68, Pl. 11, nos. 75–76). One of these, however, with a figure alongside a goose, is of the well-known slumbering child, a common depiction of children with animals on Hellenistic terracottas. The other figure, which holds an object identified by Messika as ears of corn, more likely holds a torch or some other object. In addition to the deities, there are also standing female figurines, a type akin to the Tanagra group, and fragments of horsemen and animals (Messika 1996: Pls. 10–11).

Other groups of terracottas are also of believers involved in cult ritual. Afew figurines44 depict young women, donning a peplos and in hieratic pose, their arms pressed against their sides (Messika 1996: Pl. 9). Similar figurines have been found in Ptolemaic Egypt (Pingiatouglou 1993:92, no. 123; Fischer 1994:130, Pl. 8, no. 51). At the Temple of Demeter and Kore in Acrocorinth, they have been interpreted as offerings connected with marriage ceremonies (Merker 1990). Six figurines are of boys wearing Macedonian caps (kausia) (Messika 1996: Pl. 11). This type was very popular in the Hellenistic world, and apparently reflects a fashion trend that originated among Macedonian soldiers (Thompson 1963:53–55; Kingsley 1981; 1991). However, in the context of a sanctuary, the youth can be identified as young votaries or attributed some other cultic significance, even though the Akko youths do not lift their cloaks so as to cover their mouths, as evidenced in other temple youths dressed in this manner (Thompson 1963:84–86). Since the type is more common in tombs (see the Akko tomb below), they have been attributed to sanctuaries of chthonic gods (Dusenbery 1998:845). Youths wearing kausia are relatively abundant in sites in Israel (see Samaria, Jaffa,

Therefore, it appears that the corpus, likely connected to a sanctuary, includes more figures of participants in the cult (votaries and priests) than of the gods to whom the cult was directed. It is difficult to establish which god was worshiped at the Akko sanctuary, but the types suggest a female deity related to two overlapping spheres among a few gods: fertility and the chthonic world. The two likeliest goddesses are Demeter and her daughter Kore/Persephone, the cult of which can be linked to most of the figurines of the corpus. Nevertheless, a syncretic deity or some Eastern equivalent should also be considered. Chéhab suggested that at the Kharayeb sanctuary, the contents of the favissa of which are similar to those at Akko, a mystery cult to Demeter and Dionysos was practiced (1951–1954:143– 152). However, this interpretation is somewhat vague in regard to the mysteries themselves, although one must

43 According to Messika, two sanctuaries with two favissae were found on Ben-Ami street; see Messika 1997:126. 44 Some of the figurines are undoubtedly of the type discussed here, while others are body fragments only. On the basis of their dress and pose, they can be attributed to this type or to the hydrophoros type described above.

45

On Baubo figures and their function, see discussion below on Samaria. The Akko figurine is too fragmentary to allow for a certain identification of its type. Although the Baubo identification is quite likely, it could also be a realistic depiction of an elderly woman.

45

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 45. Terracotta figurine of “Isis-Aphrodite” from Akko (6 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Messika 1997:122, Fig. 1.

Fig. 46. Terracotta figurine of Bes from Akko (4.5 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Messika 1997:124, Fig. 2.

agree with Chéhab that the principle motif at Kharayeb, as in the Area L favissa, is fertility.

productions, and the finest technically of all the terracottas from Akko (Messika 1997:126).

Another site at Akko where figurines were uncovered, in this case in a private context, is the courthouse site (Messika 1997). At this site were found a few god figurines, including a finely modeled head of Isis-Aphrodite (Fig. 45; Messika 1997:122, Fig. 1), a torso and perhaps head of Heracles, and a head and perhaps torso of the Egyptian Bes (Fig. 46; Messika 1997:124, Fig. 2). A miniature head with polos cap was identified by Messika as Kybele, but Kybele figures are typically larger; an identification of the object as Kore or a Kore worshiper, as seen at Corinth (Merker 2000:328), is more likely. The Phrygian cap found at the site (Messika 1997:125, Fig. 3.15) can indeed be associated with Attis. It is noteworthy that in the excavation of this dwelling area a wider variety of god types was revealed than in the corpora associated with sanctuaries described above. This only emphasizes the extent to which any division into religious and genre types is arbitrary,46 while showing that cult and religious life was not limited to temple offerings, but was also practiced in the private sphere.47 Other Hellenistic figurines found at the courthouse site include heads and body fragments of boys and women, a theatrical mask, and some kind of animal. The figurines from the site are local

Tel Akko also yielded a few Hellenistic figures (Dothan 1976: Figs. 33, 34; Messika 1996: Pl. 7). As opposed to the previous sites, many Persian period figurines were found at Tel Akko, while some of the Hellenistic period figurines from the tell reflect traditional, relatively early types (Messika 1996:92, 94). The others are standard Hellenistic types. A protome of a woman holding a flower, a hydrophoros, and a mold of the head of Helios48 can be numbered among those figurines with a religious connotation. Also found were body and head fragments of women (Fig. 47), a kneeling figure, a bald head of a grotesque figure, a theatrical mask, and an appliqué and mold for decorating vessels. Also here, the majority of the figurines come from dwellings (Dothan 1976:31; 1992:22–23). Other figurines from the Akko excavations were retrieved in a refuse pit and include a fragment of a woman’s garment, a dove, and a horse-and-rider (Ariel and Messika 2007: Fig. 1). Messika associates the dove to the cult of Aphrodite (Ariel and Messika 2007:17). Found during excavations at the Akko citadel were figurines of Eros and Psyche, a naked Egyptian figure, boys, and various animals (Messika 1996: Pl. 14, nos. 142–145). The Egyptian figure is understood by Messika as Isis-Aphrodite or Harpocrates, the latter seeming more likely (1996:69). A figurine of a Macedonian youth wearing a kausia was found in a Hellenistic tomb at the site (Messika 1996: Pl. 14, no. 143). A similar specimen was unearthed in a tomb at

46

The division of Hellenistic terracottas into subject and type usually involves a major division into religious and genre types, although in many cases the two are intermixed, and the uses of the objects did not adhere to such definitions. 47 Messika is also indecisive on the matter, and suggests that the group was originally part of a favissa, the contents of which were dispersed among the ruins of the city, while two items found sealed in Hellenistic occupational layers were used in a domestic cult. However, the typical breakage of the figurines is unlike finds of a favissa, and the variety in religious type does not necessitate use in a favissa; see Messika 1996:94; 1997:126.

48

Dothan proposed that the mold is of Helios, while Messika suggested Dionysos (Messika 1996:67). Similar Helios heads on small thirdcentury shields were found in a tomb from Eretria and are on exhibit at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. It is likely that the Tel Akko mold was used for the production of a shield of this type.

46

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES in the East and elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. These include Eros and Psyche, Aphrodite, Demeter and Kore, Kourotrophos, and Heracles. Attis and Kybele, if their identification is correct, are exceptional cases, being Asian in origin. The koine types are also seen in the figurines such as the animals and horsemen. The repertoire is variegated in type, influences, and style, and thus attests to the cosmopolitanism of Hellenistic Akko (Messika 1996:95). Yet it is also not pan-Hellenistic, but grounded in the sphere of the Hellenistic East, specifically Phoenicia, with types quite characteristic of the Levant, Egypt, Cyprus, and Mesopotamia. The Akko terracotta group can thus be said to be cosmopolitan yet unmistakably local.

Fig. 47. Terracotta figurines of female heads from Akko, courtesy of the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa; after Dothan 1976: Figs. 33, 34.

Tell Keisan The excavation report of Tell Keisan, a site located southeast of Akko, presents ten Hellenistic figurines (Paraire 1980:348, Pls. 102–106, 138).49 Two are female heads of the characteristic Hellenistic koine type. The heads are slightly tilted, both with typical Knidian coiffure; one of the figures drapes the fringes of the himation over her head, the other wears a thick wreath, schematically portrayed (Paraire 1980: Pl. 103, nos. 20–21, Pl. 138, no. 103.20). Nearly every report on Hellenistic terracottas includes dozens, even hundreds, of similar heads. Another figurine depicts what appears to be the bottom of a mask of an unclear type (Paraire 1980: Pl. 103, no. 26). Another is the leg of a galloping horse, similar to the legs found at Samaria and Maresha (see below; Paraire 1980: Pl. 104, no. 36). These four are characteristically Hellenistic.

Jaffa (see below), and it seems the type was a common funeral offering, likely in children’s burials. They are particularly common in burials at Samothrace (Dusenbery 1998:845, 851–854, 866–876). Another Macedonian boy and the head of a woman, likely provenanced at Akko, are in antiquities collections (Messika 1996: Pl. 14, nos. 144–145). The Akko figurines reflect diverse stylistic influences— general Hellenistic, Baroque, and Alexandrian (Messika 1996:84–88). Although most display provincial attributes of the East (Messika 1996:88-89), the term “style” per se is perhaps not appropriate to describe them, as they are more an outcome of rudimentary or poor technique, commonly seen in the area (Erlich 2002). Messika claims that some of the figurines characterized by this provinciality suggest a local “Akko” style, marked by an eclectic iconography and refined modeling (1996:91, 95). Yet there is considerable similarity between the Akko corpus and that from Kharayeb near Sidon, both in type and style, even if the Akko terracottas are finer and less stylistically homogenous. The influences attested to on the pieces—from Alexandrian Egypt on the one hand and Asia Minor on the other—are typical of the material culture of Phoenicia (Chéhab 1951– 1954:79ff). The Egyptian types are abundant at Akko: the Isis-Aphrodite figurines, the unidentified Egyptian figures, Baubo, Bes, and the camel. The abundance of theatrical and realistic types is also suggestive of an Alexandrian influence (Connelly 1990), if not also one from Asia Minor. The appearance of such an Egyptian influence in second-century Palestine, a period of Seleucid rule in the region, need not be unexpected (Messika 1996:103). Alexandria had become a provincial center for art by that century, when terracotta types of a more local character replaced the overtly Greek types seen in the third century (Fjeldhagen 1995:7–9; Török 1995:19–22).

In addition, Eastern-type figurines were found, such as a votive boat (Paraire 1980: Pl. 106-60, 61). Boats of this sort were found in Seleucid and Parthian strata of sites in the East, such as Seleucia, Babylon, and Ikaros, as well as one example at Dor (Mathiesen 1982:25–28; Van Ingen 1939: Pl. LXXXII, no. 608; Karvonen-Kannas 1995:113–114). Another figurine depicts the Egyptian crown of Hathor, which likely should be seen as part of an Isis figure (Paraire 1980: Pls. 102–109; 138, no. 102–109). The male figurines from the site, which have been dated to the Hellenistic period and are paralleled by figurines at Tel Sippor, seem to be earlier (Paraire 1980:348, Pl. 102, nos. 11–13). Beth-Yerah Only one of the figurines found at Beth-Yerah has been published. It was a chance surface find not retrieved during the excavations (Vinogradov 1992:238).50 The figurine depicts the goddess Isis in her characteristic hairdo and dress. What is unusual is the styling of her face, with its oblique almond-shaped eyes, bulbous nose, and archaic depiction of the smile. The fashioning suggests an earlier period, although this Isis type was uncommon on terracottas before the Hellenistic period, at which point the Isis cult

The Egyptian gods, the grotesques, and the theatrical figures of the Akko corpus are far outweighed by the worshipers’ group, mostly votaries, such as the hydrophoroi, the female dancers, and the boys donning Macedonian garb. The group is well represented in Hellenistic figurines of the East, as in Cyprus, Phoenicia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. The gods depicted at Akko, as well as the abovementioned Egyptian ones, are typical of the Hellenistic period, both

49

The Tell Keisan figurines were published as drawings and insufficiently clear photographs. Therefore details such as type and date cannot be established for certainty on some. 50

47

My thanks to Z. Vinogradov for this information.

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 48. Terracotta head of a girl from Tel Dor (2.6 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

Fig. 49. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Tel Dor (4.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

should be associated with domestic cult and adornment. A portion of them are from Areas A and C, a residential quarter next to the eastern city wall. Of the published items, two date to the end of the fourth century, one of a temple prostitute and the other of the child-god Harpocrates or of a temple boy (Stern 2000:173). From the third century, a Heracles figurine was found; from the second, the head of a woman with a Knidian coiffure and a broad wreath, the head of a girl with a melon-like coiffure (Fig. 48), and the mask of a slave of the New Comedy (RosenthalHeginbottom 1995). Figurines from other areas, whose dates and contexts are not yet established, include a few of the Asian mother-goddess Kybele (Figs. 49–50; Stern 2000:245; 2006; Ehrlich 2003), protome’s heads (Fig. 51; Stern 2000:287), women’s heads, a child Eros playing a triangular lyre (trigonon) and amused by a swan (Fig. 52; Stern 2000:244–245), and a boy feeding a hare (Fig. 53; Stern 2000:372). Also found were brazier handles adorned in satyr heads and other ornaments (RosenthalHeginbottom 1981). Other unpublished types include standing draped women, boys and youths (one of them donning a kausia), an actor (Fig. 54), masks, and others.

spread throughout the Mediterranean basin. Beth-Shean Some twenty figurine fragments were uncovered at Tel Beth-Shean (Erlich 2006a). They include female heads with typical koine-type “melon” coiffures, pedestals, a striding animal, and two local productions. Their context appears to be domestic. Jokneam A solitary Hellenistic figurine, of a standard Hellenistic koine type, has been found and published from Tel Jokneam. It is the head of a young woman, with an untied Knidian coiffure. The himation covers the head. RosenthalHeginbottom notes that the object is locally produced and of high quality (1996:65, no. 3). El-Wad Cave The el-Wad cave along Nahal Me‘arot yielded one large Hellenistic terracotta of naked Aphrodite leaning on a pillar (Iliffe 1934). The artisan’s signature is on her back. It was found in an earth layer containing mixed finds from the Bronze Age to modern times. Iliffe dated the object to the Early Hellenistic period, and attributed it to one of the followers of Praxiteles. However, the figurine should be assigned a later date, likely the first century BCE (Avida 1978:59). It is similar to later Hellenistic terracottas from Asia Minor; and its type, style, and signature hint at possible origins in Myrina (Burr 1934; Mollard-Besques 1963; Kassab 1988).51 Stern suggests that the figurine is associated with nearby Dor (2000:247, Fig. 165).

The geographical location of Dor within southern Phoenicia finds expression in its terracotta repertoire. It seems that the influences on the items came primarily from the north—Phoenicia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Cyprus. The temple boy is of Cypriot influence (Beer 1994). Kybele is an Asian goddess, her cult not widespread outside of Asia in the Hellenistic period (Erlich 2003 and 2009). Terracottas of Kybele generally appear in Asia Minor, but also at Delos. The remainder of the items—Eros, masks, women and children—are Hellenistic koine types. The local Cypriot-Phoenician influence is represented in a solitary boat model from a Hellenistic context. Strong Hellenistic influence on the Dor figurines need not be a surprise, considering both the Greek influences evident on the site’s figurines already in the Persian period and other evidence for the settlement of Greeks at Dor even before the Hellenistic period (Stern 1985; 1989; 2001; 2002).

Tel Dor Many fragments of Hellenistic figurines were found at Tel Dor, and a number have been published. As in the cases of Anafa and Maresha, most originate in dwellings, and thus 51

An article on this figurine will be published shortly by S. Klinger, who proposes linking the object with Myrina. My thanks to her for her assistance.

48

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES

Fig. 51. Terracotta protome from Tel Dor (7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

Fig. 50. Terracotta figurine of Kybele from Tel Dor (16 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

Fig. 53. Terracotta figurine of a boy feeding a hare from Tel Dor (9 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Fig. 52. Terracotta figurine of Eros from Tel Dor (6.8 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

Nevertheless, the generally Greek nature of the assemblage is still punctuated by a clear northern influence at work in this city on the southern fringes of Phoenicia. Samaria The monotheistic beliefs of the Samaritans combined with their refrain from figurative imagery meant that they avoided using figurines. This apparently explains the absence of figurines from the Hellenistic stratum at Mount Gerizim (Magen 2000). The city of Samaria was emptied of its Samaritan inhabitants after their revolt against Alexander the Great, and resettled by Macedonian soldiers at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. It became a Macedonian colony that would develop into a city explicitly Greek in character (Fuks 1983:14–15; Kasher 1990:19–20; Stern 1993:61–62). During the excavations

Fig. 54. Terracotta figurine of an actor from Tel Dor (5.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

49

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 56. Terracotta figurines of female heads from Samaria, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

coiffure, and girls with round face and a melon coiffure (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924; Pl. 76a–f, i–k, o, p); men and boys, including a standing man, a boy playing a trigonon, and a boy wearing a Macedonian kausia (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pls. 75u; 76g, q); animals and horsemen, including a boar, horse heads, a horse leg, a horse-and-rider, and a goose next to a missing figure (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pls. 74o, p, r, s, v; 76r); and appliqués on vessels in the form of slave masks of the New Comedy, a horned animal, and a satyr on a brazier (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 76t, v, w). The joint expedition, which excavated in the 1930s, found a few more figurines, including a large figurine depicting an athlete (Fig. 55), the head of a woman wearing a scarf, the head of a woman with a melon coiffure, the head of a girl (Fig. 56), the head of an old man, a Serapis head (apparently from a later period), a fragment of a dancer, and a handle molded as the head of a horse (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: Pl. XIII).

Fig. 55. Terracotta figurine of an athlete from Samaria (29 cm high), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

of two expeditions at the site, the American expedition and the joint expedition, some forty Hellenistic terracottas were found. As in the cases of Anafa, Dor, and Maresha, most originate in domestic contexts.

The nature of the finds points to a Hellenistic city with Greek or Hellenized inhabitants and no prominent local traditions. The cult of Kore-Persephone, well known at the subsequent Roman city at the site, Samaria-Sebaste (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:48, 62–66), already finds expression in the Hellenistic period terracottas. The Egyptian figurines of Baubo and Serapis should likely be dated to the Roman period. Egyptian gods, however, are documented at Samaria already in the Hellenistic period, as attests a Hellenistic dedicatory inscription to Isis and Serapis found at the site (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:37, no. 13).53 Rather than merely local Egyptian gods, Isis and Serapis are Hellenistic gods whose cults flourished outside of Egypt as well. All of the terracottas from Samaria are thus typical Hellenistic pieces that reflect the koine and lack all Eastern or even regional attributes.

The Harvard expedition, which excavated at Samaria at the beginning of the twentieth century, published a few dozen terracottas, however their photographs are not sufficiently clear, and the finds themselves are currently not stored in Israel. Therefore, only obvious types that can be identified among the published photographs will be discussed here. Of these, there is a variety (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:23, Pls. 75, 76). Among those items of a religious subject matter are a bust (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 76h), which may be identified as Persephone; young women in a hieratic pose and carrying some kind of offering (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pls. 75v, 76l), most attributed to the cult of Demeter or Aphrodite (Merker 2000:117–126); and an Egyptian AphroditeBaubo type, linked to fertility, protection during birth, and perhaps mystery cults (Török 1995:132).52 Genre types also appear at Samaria. These include the torso and heads of women and girls with wreath, stephane, and Knidian

53

Some have suggested that the Kore cult at Roman Samaria is a syncretic cult of Isis and Helius, with the majority of the Hellenistic city’s inhabitants having come from Egypt; see Kasher 1990:43.

52

In the final report, the Baubo figurine is assigned to the Roman period; see Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924:23.

50

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES Ashdod One terracotta of the head of a man has been published from Tel Ashdod (Dothan 1971: Pl. LXXII). Maresha The largest collection of terracottas found to date in Israel comes from the Hellenistic site of Maresha. A few were unearthed and published by Bliss and Macalister at the beginning of the twentieth century (Bliss and Macalister 1902: Fig. 14, Pl. 70), while a few others have been recovered from looters at the site. The vast majority of them, however, were found during the Israel Antiquities Authority excavations under the direction of A. Kloner, beginning from the end of the 1980s and continuing to 2001. From 2002 till present the excavations are being carried out by I. Stern and B. Alpert of Archaeological Seminars. The collection consists of over 700 Hellenistic figurines or fragments thereof, not including back fragments. The site also yielded older figurines, and it appears that some of the Persian period types were in use in the Hellenistic period as well (Erlich 2006b).56 The figurines were primarily found in the earth fills of the numerous subterranean complexes at the site, while others were found in aboveground excavation areas, mostly in domestic contexts or shops. Those from the subterranean complexes also appear to have been associated with a residential neighborhood above. The date of the items corresponds with that of all of the finds from the Hellenistic city, namely the third and second centuries (Kloner 2003:5–6). The provenances of those solitary figurines found at the beginning of the twentieth century or in the hands of looters are not known. Only a few figurines were found in a burial cave, and they are sarcophagus ornaments. The overwhelming majority of the terracottas was manufactured in the city or its vicinity, as based on the appearance of the clay, petrographic analyses, and the discovery on site of molds and sets of figurines made in the same molds (Erlich and Kloner 2008:113–114). The technique used to manufacture the items was the widespread method put to use in the Hellenistic period, although the finds attest to a provincial workshop that did not employ some of the stages of the production process, used worn-out molds, and fashioned details in a crude manner (Erlich 2002).

Fig. 57. Terracotta figurine of a trigonon player from YavnehYam (7.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Moshe Fischer; after Fischer 2002:7.

Jaffa A number of terracottas were found in the necropolis of Jaffa. They include a youth in Macedonian dress, a Gorgon mask, and a boukranion.54 As described above in the discussion on the Akko tomb figurine, figurines of boys wearing kausia were a common funeral offering in the Hellenistic period. The Gorgon and the boukranion were used as appliqués on a wooden chest or as ornaments of some sort on a tomb, and are widely found in Hellenistic tombs, primarily in Egypt (Watzinger 1905; Breccia 1912: Pl. LXXIX) and around the Black Sea (Rusiaeva 1982:136; Summerer 1999: Pl. 31 A III 1; Burn and Higgins 2001: Pl. 39, no. 2214). Unpublished figurines from Kaplan’s excavations include two Aphrodite figurines, standing draped females, animals, and a phallus, among others.55 Yavneh-Yam A few terracotta figurines were found at Yavneh-Yam. Some were retrieved by chance, the Hellenistic items of which are Hermaphrodite and a leg fragment on a pedestal (Fischer and Dashti 1991). During the excavations of the tell, a woman playing a trigonon was discovered (Fig. 57; Fischer 2003), similar in style to the trigonon-playing Eros from Dor. The portrayal of these two examples of Hellenistic types is marked by spirit and vivacity, in contrast to the stiff, hieratic trigonon players from Maresha (see below).

Some 300 figurines of the early seasons have been published recently (Erlich and Kloner 2008). The rest of the figurines, found from 1997 to date, have not been published but will be summarized here. The corpus will not be discussed here at length, but only the representative types at the site—as they are divided into religious and genre subjects—will be detailed, and the repertoire will be characterized along general lines only, as has been done for corpora from other sites. There is a more in-depth study of the types uncovered up to 1996, as well as the related bibliography, in Erlich and Kloner 2008. Quantities provided here are mere estimates and not up to date, as the excavations continue and some items are, at the time of

Gezer One figurine, depicting Kourotrophos, was found at Tel Gezer (Macalister 1903:304, Fig. 3). It is of high quality and likely an import.

54

These figurines have not been published, and are presently being studied by R. Avner. I would like to thank her for showing me the items and allowing me to mention them.

56

55 I wish to thank O. Tzuf, who entrusted me with these items for a future publication.

below.

51

The archaeological context of these items is of no assistance; see

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 58. Terracotta figurine of Eros from Maresha (4 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 59. Terracotta figurine of Eros riding a horse from Maresha (8 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 60. Terracotta figurine of lovers from Maresha (8.5 cm), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 61. Terracotta figurine of Heracles from Maresha (11 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

the publication of this manuscript, still yet to be properly examined and catalogued.

only three terracottas have been identified as Eros with certainty (Fig. 58). The other cases are two series of horseand-riders, on one series of which the rider wears a kausia (Fig. 59), and on the backs of both of which is depicted a wing, fashioned so schematically that its identification as a wing is uncertain. In addition to these, seven terracottas are of lovers, which, despite the absence of wings, can be identified as Eros and Psyche (Fig. 60). If we do not accept the above riders as Eros par excellence, then the most common god figure would be the god-hero Heracles, who appears nearly fifteen times (Fig. 61). After him are the twin Dioskouroi, who appear close to ten times (Fig. 62). A number of figurines are of armed camel riders, which are likely protectors of the caravan, similar to Syrian gods (Fig. 63). Two bearded gods lacking attributes were found, and are likely of Zeus (Fig. 64). Solitary instances of god figures include one of the Egyptian god Harpocrates (Fig. 65); Priapus, protector of gardens; and a Herm, likely also a representation of Heracles.

A large variety of gods, heroes, and religious figures appear at Maresha. Some have been identified as gods on interpretative grounds only, and admittedly, gods can be often confused with their worshipers or priests (Merker 2000:327–328). But conversely, a fair number of god figurines have likely been left off of this list as well, because the poor preservation of some of the fragments has allowed only for the categorizing of many items as simply men, women, or children. For example, the majority of male figurines at Maresha are naked and standing, which increases the chance that they are mythological figurines or deities. Therefore, the number of god figurines at Maresha is likely larger than what has been estimated, while in some instances identifications of gods among the items of the corpus are probably mistaken. It appears that the most common male god at Maresha is Eros. He appears more than twenty times, although

Regarding the goddesses, the most popular type is distinct 52

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES

Fig. 63. Terracotta figurine of a camel rider from Maresha (11.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 62. Terracotta figurine of the Dioskouroi from Maresha (16 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 65. Terracotta figurine of Harpocrates from Maresha (4.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 64. Terracotta figurine of a bearded god from Maresha (12 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

to Maresha and its vicinity, and is interpreted as a goddess or some other religious figure. The types are “pillar goddesses,” over fifteen in number. They are rod-shaped clay items with the head of a woman, and sometimes two heads, one above the other (Fig. 66). Some have a base, allowing them to stand upright. In one case, the coroplast used the head of Dionysos in the mold, then added breasts by hand (Erlich and Kloner 2008:Pl. 24, no. 130). Another figure, also not certainly a goddess, is Kourotrophos, appearing at Maresha more than ten times, as both a nursing mother (Fig. 67) and as a mother carrying her child (Fig. 68). Over ten protomes possibly attributed to the Kore cult have been found at the site (Fig. 69). Six

Fig. 66. Terracotta figurine of a pillar figurine from Maresha (15.3 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

53

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 67. Terracotta figurine of Kourotrophos from Maresha (10.9 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 68. Terracotta figurine of Kourotrophos from Maresha (11 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 69. Terracotta protome from Maresha (11.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 70. Terracotta figurine of Athena from Maresha (9.3 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Athena figurines were found (Fig. 70), two of which are rhytons with an Athena protome. Six figurines of Isis and her priestesses were discovered, as well as five of the IsisAphrodite type (Fig. 71) described above in the discussion on Akko. Artemis appears four times (Fig. 72). Aphrodite seems to be appear four times, with only one figurine an unmistakable depiction of her. There are two instances of an old Baubo riding on a boar.57 Solitary figurines are of a woman wearing a polos cap (Kore or Isis), an Amazon (Fig. 73), and two types of enthroned Kybele. Altogether, a variety of gods and religious figures are represented at Maresha. There are also other figures associated with cult and ceremony. A number of terracottas are of votaries in a hieratic stance, musicians, mostly trigonon players (Fig.

74), some dancers, and few hydrophoroi (the cultic role of which was described above, in the discussion on Akko). Also found were about ten small arulae for incense (Fig. 75), which join the large body of stone altar finds from the site (Peshin 2001). Of the genre types, the most widespread is the group of standing figures, a common type in the Hellenistic period. Some twenty standing men, most naked, were also discovered at Maresha, and it is reasonable that many are gods,58 although this cannot be absolutely determined because they were found incomplete and lacking identifiable attributes. Nearly ten boys were found, including a mold of 58 As is standard in Greek art, nakedness is indicative of a hero, god, or mythological figure, while mortals and figures on portraits are clothed. An exception with Hellenistic figurines are athletes, which are depicted naked, although not one of the Maresha figurines seem to be an athlete.

57

In addition to the Baubo figurines from Samaria and Akko described above, the old woman on a boar is a variant of the type; see Török 1995:132.

54

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES

Fig. 71. Terracotta figurine of “Isis-Aphrodite” from Maresha (4.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 72. Terracotta figurine of Artemis from Maresha (17.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 73. Terracotta figurine of an Amazon from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

a pupil (Fig. 76). Also retrieved were five child figurines in Macedonian dress (Fig. 77), a type detailed above in the discussion on Akko. The most common type of all among Hellenistic figurines is the standing woman, originating from the Tanagra type (Higgins 1987:117ff). Maresha also yielded a sizeable group of over forty dressed standing women in various poses,59 but with only a few boasting the style and elegance of the Tanagra group. A number of the figurines are women’s heads, usually relatively well executed, and some are of girls’ heads. Almost ten women are seated, most of the thinker or lamenter type. A few of the figurines are of pairs, but not lovers as above. Many are fragments of figures whose gender or exact type cannot be identified.

Fig. 74. Terracotta figurines of trigonon players from Maresha (10-12 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

A large number of animal riders were found at Maresha. Aside from the abovementioned Eros riders, represented on many examples but not yet identified with certainty, there are more than twenty other horseback riders of various Fig. 75. Terracotta arula from Maresha (5.2 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

59

Some of these figurines are but small fragments of drapery folds, and it is not clear if they are in fact of this type of standing woman or of other types.

55

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 76. Plaster mold of a pupil from Maresha (13 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 77. Terracotta figurine of a boy wearing a kausia from Maresha (10 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 78. Terracotta figurines of an actor and mask from Maresha, courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 79. Magenta ware from Maresha (14.5 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

types. Nearly all are represented in relief or in profile. Some ride on wild boars and others on camels; this latter group, it is recalled, is understood as deities. Animals of all sorts appear some twenty-five times, with most objects being broken-off legs, schematically fashioned. Another common Hellenistic group represented at Maresha is the one encompassing theatrical and realistic subjects; nearly ten masks, most theatrical (Fig. 78), and six actors or realistic figures were found at the site. Also uncovered were four body parts including limbs and a phallus, eighteen palmette appliqués for sarcophagi, boukrania, Gorgons, and others.

world (Michaelides 1997). At least two original vessels of magenta ware were found at Maresha (Fig. 79), as were a few other local imitations of the type (e.g., sandaled foot askos, Fig. 80), some sloppily executed. Also discovered were a few vessels of gray ware and a black slip, with double loop handles, appearing in various shapes (such as human heads, grotesques, and a rider). Such vessels are considered to be third-century precursors to magenta ware (Erlich and Kloner 2008:68–70). Other black-slipped vessels are gutti with strainers, molded into various figurines, the most prevalent being Eros recumbent in a flower (Fig. 81). An unusual vessel is a small flask fashioned as a child feeding a duck. Five of the zoomorphic terracottas were used as handles or appliqués on vessels. Five of the figurine vessel group are of various types but crudely made by hand. The last type in the category are the rhyta, with more than fifty vessels or fragments of which having been recovered at Maresha, even though most of the specimens are body fragments or animal legs (Erlich and Kloner 2008:73–78; Erlich forthcoming b). Fifteen of

A separate group at Maresha is of plastic or figurine vases (Erlich and Kloner 2007).60 The site yielded a group of plastic vases from the second century, referred to as magenta ware (Erlich and Kloner 2008:65–68; Higgins 1976). The vessels appear to have originated in southern Italy, but were imitated at various places in the Hellenistic 60

On the term “figurine vases,” see Williams 1978.

56

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES

Fig. 80. Sandaled foot askos from Maresha (8 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 81. Terracotta lid with Eros recumbent in a flower from Maresha (9.5 cm diameter), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 82. Terracotta horse rhyton from Maresha (29 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

Fig. 83. Terracotta Athena rhyton from Maresha (23 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Amos Kloner, Maresha Project, the Israel Antiquities Authority; photographed by Clara Amit.

these are obvious rhyta. Most have a long horn and the head of a horse or some kind of horned animal (Fig. 82). One rhyton is a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a horse with a drinking horn on its back. Two, mentioned above, end in the protome of Athena (Fig. 83). These rhyta follow an Achaemenid tradition, although they should be dated to the Hellenistic period based on their types, the legs of the horses,61 and the provenance of their most complete example in a sealed Hellenistic collapse layer.

Hellenistic but cannot be absolutely proven as such. These latter examples are expressions of a local artistic tradition, while the majority of the corpus is a Maresha-type variation of a Hellenistic koine tradition. The sources of influence on the objects were many, as they range from Greek koine types, to types typical of the Hellenistic East (Cyprus, Egypt, Phoenicia, and Mesopotamia), to types local to Maresha or its vicinity in Idumea. Fashions attested to in dress and accessories are characteristically Hellenistic. Style and technique, however, are more provincial and rudimentary, and it appears as though the coroplasts or owners of the terracottas were not aware of the aesthetic potential of the medium (Erlich 2002).

It is emphasized that the above discussion lists all of the types identified with certainty as Hellenistic, whether on the basis of type, style, or context. But also found were a few very crude handmade figurines that are most likely

The spheres of influence are also reflected in types employed, such as the pantheon that emerges from the corpus. Most of the gods are Greek, but many of these (such as Heracles, the Dioskouroi, Aphrodite, and others) have

61

Horses on Achaemenid rhytons are shown crouching, while on Hellenistic rhytons they gallop, as on the Maresha figurines; see Fol and Marazov 1977:80.

57

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE other. One is an imported lion-shaped magenta ware vessel, refined and naturalistic (Fig. 79); the other is a horse-shaped rhyton, the protome crudely and perhaps ineptly fashioned by hand (Fig. 82). The rest of the Maresha repertoire lies somewhere between these two extremes, even if its types are primarily Hellenistic. Lachish At the Solar Shine at Lachish was found one Hellenistic figurine of the pillar goddess type known at Maresha (Aharoni 1975: Pl. 18, no. 2). It likely originated at Maresha, as it was produced using the same mold as was the abovementioned object with Dionysos’ head and breasts.62 Beersheba A few terracottas were found at the Hellenistic temple on Tel Beersheba, together with other finds from a favissa. The figurines include two koine-type heads of women (Derfler 1984:159–160, Pl. 43), and an unusual specimen showing two seated goddesses, identified by Derfler as Demeter and Persephone (Fig. 84; Derfler 1981). This type is common in Cyprus in the Hellenistic period (Derfler 1981; Karageorghis 2001:120–121). Two figurines of women in a hieratic stance and dressed in a peplos were also found, and are identical to the Maresha type.63

Fig. 84. Terracotta figurine of two enthroned goddesses from Beersheba (14 cm high), courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University; after Derfler 1984: Pl. 43.

clear affinities to the East and were quite popular in the Hellenistic East. Egyptian-Hellenistic gods, primarily Isis and Isis-Aphrodite, are also present in significant numbers. The pillar goddesses and the camelback riders are local types, representing perhaps local deities. Unfortunately, nothing could be added to the ongoing questions involving the classic Idumean gods, primarily Qos, who does not appear in any ritual context at the site. There are also types both more common in the East (like Kourotrophoi and musicians) and even unique to the region, such as the Dioskouroi standing beside each other, the likes of which have been found only at Amathus in Cyprus (Queyrel 1988: Pls. 25–26); and the Eros and Psyche holding a mask, paralleled only at Kharayeb in Phoenicia (Chéhab 1951– 1954: Pl. XIV, no. 3). The Maresha figurines are generally speaking more similar to those from the periphery of the Hellenistic world than from its center. For example, a clear similarity to areas such as Magna Graecia, Thrace, the Black Sea, and the East is evident here, much more so than to Greece itself and Asia Minor. Some of the figurines are Hellenistic in their iconography and style, but in subject matter and theme are heirs to the figurines of the previous period (Erlich 2006b). The horse-and-rider group, for example, follow in the footsteps of the Persian horseman group common at Maresha from the previous period but in a fashioning that is both more expressive and elegant. The mother-holding-child type of the Persian period was also utilized by the Hellenistic coroplast. The traditionalism is further expressed in the near-complete absence of overtly secular connotations, such as figurines of the Tanagra group or grotesque heads.

Summary An examination of the terracottas from Hellenistic Palestine has shown there to have been general similarities among them, with some variation and diversity also evident. From a technical standpoint, the objects were primarily manufactured using molds, as was standard in the period. It does seem however that in many cases the production process was not carried out in its entirety. Molds were often created using other figurines (some imported), and not from original archetypes fashioned by hand or using a sculpting tool. A similar picture has emerged at other sites in the East, such as Babylon (Karvonen-Kannas 1995:23). Worn-out molds were sometimes used, or figurines were created in “generations” (from figurine to mold to figurine, etc.), which led to the diminishing and blurring of details. In many cases the items were not finely polished after removal from the mold, and occasionally the white slip used as a base for paint was never applied. The figurines from coastal cities and Macedonian colonies are generally more impressive from a technical standpoint, while those from sites more inland, such as Maresha, attest to rudimentary technique only (Erlich 2002:2–8). Coroplasts who manufactured terracottas might also have created lamps or other objects in molds, and thus are perhaps more aptly defined as craftsmen rather than artists (Erlich 2002; Erlich and Kloner 2008:113). Stylistically, the Palestinian 62 It can also be suggested, of course, that both figurines originated at Lachish or at sites in the Shephelah. An origin at Maresha seems more likely, however, given that site’s rich assemblage of figurines, including many pillar goddesses.

The plastic vases and the rhyta are excellent examples of the duality of the Maresha figurines. Two vessels, for example, were found in the 112–111 BCE destruction layer of the city in two houses on the same slope of the same neighborhood, some one hundred meters from each

63 I would like to thank Y. Beit-Arieh for showing me these figurines and allowing me to mention them.

58

TERRACOTTA FIGURINES repertoire is also not homogenous. Various sites display an assortment of stylistic influences from various Hellenistic schools, whether Alexandrian (at most sites), Asian (Akko and Dor), or Greek (Samaria). But most reflect no specific style, and are best defined as provincial or Eastern creations, or ones lacking any kind of definable style. Merker has noted regarding terracottas how technique forms style (2000:18). For most of the Palestinian figurines, the rudimentary technique, the mass production over generations, and the imitative production technique that did not include the use of original archetypes all contributed much to the creation of the figurines’ style. It seems as though most of the items should not be categorized into known groups such as “Asian baroque” or “Alexandrian rococo,” and attempts to apply such foundations to these small terracottas is ineffectual.

(Thompson 1963:84–85). Women carrying or nursing their babies (Kourotrophoi), which were retrieved at Akko, Gezer, and Maresha, are more widespread in the East, in areas listed above (Erlich and Kloner 2008:18–21). They also appear in other peripheral areas, such as Magna Graecia and the Black Sea area, but it seems that their prominent appearance in Palestine should be attributed to an Eastern tradition. Other types characteristic of the East are the musicians, such as those found at Akko, Samaria, Dor, Yavneh-Yam, and Maresha. Musicians are very commonly depicted on Eastern terracottas, and even their musical instruments—the trigonon and the lute—originate in the East (Maas and Mcintosh-Snyder 1989:150, 185; Braun 2002:244–249). The busts from Akko, Samaria, and Maresha are primarily seen in Magna Graecia, Asia Minor, the Black Sea area, and Alexandria (Erlich and Kloner 2008:21–22). A strong Ptolemaic influence is also evident on the Palestinian figurines, with Egyptian figures such as Isis, Isis-Aphrodite, Harpocrates, Bes, and Baubo discovered at Dan, Akko, Keisan, Beth-Yerah, Samaria, and Maresha. It seems that Egyptian influences, which had long been felt in Phoenician and Levantine art, were not diminished or any less substantial than Syrian ones.

The most important subject matter relating to the terracotta repertoire involves type, character, sources of influence, and the local-Eastern context of the pieces. Generally speaking, the repertoire can be described as standing firmly in its surroundings. It shares much with the terracottas from Phoenicia to the north, Cyprus to the west, Ptolemaic Egypt to the south, and Mesopotamia to the east. Aside from Mesopotamia,64 these areas were interrelated in regard to politics, power struggles between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms, and the passing of territories among parties as a result of those struggles. Ruling parties did not directly affect the nature of the figurines over any given period of time, with Ptolemaic influence peeking through during periods of Seleucid rule, for example, and vice versa. The Palestinian repertoire, with its homogeneity, is no doubt punctuated by difference. One can see the manner in which certain sites were pulled into varying spheres of influence. Akko and Dor are located within the cultural milieu of Phoenicia, and influences on them came primarily from Asia Minor and Phoenicia—but also Greece in the case of Dor, and Egypt in the case of Akko. Another example is Hellenistic Samaria, which on the basis of its terracotta repertoire clearly emerges as a Hellenistic colony under obvious Greek influence. Maresha is marked by local, Eastern, Ptolemaic-Egyptian influences, and a rarity of traits imported from Asia Minor. A picture similar to this is seen in Cyprus, where each city is distinguished from the next by the influences at work in them, whether Attic, Egyptian, or Levantine (Connelly 1990:94).

The koine or Eastern-Hellenistic types fall within a spectrum. At one end are the many standard koine types, commonly found at any Hellenistic site, whether at the heart of the Hellenistic world or on its margins. These include women’s heads, found at Dan, Akko, Keisan, Beth-Shean, Jokneam, Dor, Samaria, Maresha, and Beersheba; and standing women, also found at many sites. Female dancers, animals, and some of the gods also attest to the integration of standard Hellenistic iconography. At the other end of the spectrum are figurines of local or Eastern types displaying no Hellenistic influence; these include the captive from Anafa, the boats from Keisan and Dor, and many examples from Maresha. A trait of other Eastern figurines is their traditionalism and adherence to ancient types. Examples are the Kourotrophoi, the musicians and dancers, women in a hieratic stance, and the horse-and-riders. Noticeable is the scarcity of Tanagra figurines—those finely molded women, children, and men which reflect the daily life and represent most faithfully the secularization of subject matter evident in Hellenistic figurines. The realistic figures and grotesques among the repertoire under discussion are also somewhat limited in number, having been found primarily at Akko. This degree of conservatism is connected to the sanctity that was still afforded the figurines in the East, and a reluctance to use this medium to convey more frivolous, everyday ideas (Mathiesen 1982:74).65 It is recalled that the majority of Palestinian figurines come from a domestic context, with only a minority retrieved from sanctuary favissae. Only a few items were found in tombs, in sharp contrast to the large collections of terracottas from Greece, Asia Minor,

Examples of koine or Eastern-Hellenistic types can be isolated. Such types are generally found in the Hellenistic East, but also in other areas of the Hellenistic periphery. Boys depicted in Macedonian dress, found at Akko, Samaria, Jaffa, and Maresha, are common throughout the Hellenistic world, but are more typical of the East 64 Some Mesopotamian types are similar to Palestinian ones, but generally speaking the region stands apart from the Hellenistic East par excellence (Egypt, Syria, and Cyprus). In cities of the East such as Jebel Kahlid, Susa, Babylon, Seleucia on the Tigris, and Ikaros in Kuwait, the Mesopotamian-Eastern influence is much stronger both in style and types (Van Buren 1930; Van Ingen 1939; Mathiesen 1982; Karvonen-Kannas 1995; Martinez-Sève 1998; Jackson 2006).

65 It should be noted that traditional figurines do not only appear in the East. Other factors could also have been at work in the use of traditional types. The phenomenon is also seen in Greece, as at Corinth; see Merker 2000.

59

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE and Alexandria (Merker 2000:322; Burn and Higgins 2001:20–21). The Palestinian terracottas can thus primarily be linked with the cult of the house and individual, other domestic usages such as toys, and the giving of offerings in shrines. Of course, other uses are also possible at some of the sites; a portion of the plastic vessels, for example, leave no room for a religious interpretation.

place under discussion. In other words, given that locally produced terracottas were copies of known Hellenistic types—both in the sense of their being artistic imitations but also in having been literally copied from molds—how well do they reflect the Zeitgeist of Hellenistic Palestine? The question is best illustrated when considering the mask and actor figurines. Representing primarily the genre of New Comedy, but also that of Old Comedy and tragedy, masks and actors were found at many sites in the area: Anafa, Akko, Keisan, Dor, Samaria, and Maresha. Yet not a single stone-built theater predating Herod the Great has been found in Israel or elsewhere in the Levant (Frézouls 1959; Millar 2006: 13). Given the theater’s status as one of the mainstays of the Hellenistic age, to what do the theatrical terracottas attest, when theaters themselves are absent? Granted, theatrical terracottas are quite prominent in Alexandria as well, and no Hellenistic theater has been found there. But in that case the explanation is one of limits on archaeological inquiry in the city, as historical sources do speak of theaters there. A more extreme example comes from Lipari Island next to Sicily, where more than a thousand terracotta masks were found in tombs and votive pits, but no theater has been uncovered (Bernabó-Brea 2001:277). Perhaps in the Levant, where the elite were well versed in the world of Hellenistic theater, performances could have been put on outdoors on hillsides and in public squares of cities, maybe by traveling ensembles. The elite were raised in gymnasia and knew well Greek mythology and thought, and were thus able to correctly understand the Greek iconography on most of the terracottas in Palestine. The picture is far less clear regarding other sectors in society and the manner in which they interpreted these terracottas.

The gods represented on the items offer no surprises, as they are the major figures of the pantheon of the Hellenistic East. They include Eros and his partner Psyche, Kourotrophos, Heracles, Kore and Demeter, Aphrodite, Pan, Tyche, Kybele, Attis, and the Egyptian gods Isis, Isis-Aphrodite, Harpocrates, and Bes. As is common on Hellenistic figurines, these are not necessarily gods of Olympus, but of fertility, the underworld, the mystery cult, and popular religion (Dunand 1979; MillerAmmerman 1990; Merker 2000:328). Dionysos does not appear, but theatrical characters, satyrs, and depictions of Silenus that can be indirectly associated with him do. Local gods were also probably portrayed, but are difficult to identify. The figurines cannot be instructive on syncretism, as the gods are only depicted according to their known Greek iconographies. The Heracles figures, for example, do nothing to contribute to our understanding of the syncretism between that god and Melqart. Most of the figurines attest not to cultural assimilation but to coexistence, along parallel rather than intersecting lines, and to Greek iconographic hegemony. Since most of the figurines are typical Hellenistic or Eastern-Hellenistic creations, the question arises of how faithfully they reflect the cultural reality of the time and

60

V The Painted Tombs at Maresha In the summer of 1902, two years after the first excavations at Maresha, looters came upon painted tombs at the site. After their discovery, a number of the figures painted within were defaced by local religious fanatics. The scholars H. Peters and J.P. Thiersch were brought to the site by a local guide and found paintings in two tombs. Shortly thereafter, the two documented the paintings by means of black-and-white photographs taken by a photographer from Jerusalem; afterwards the Dominican Fathers of Jerusalem made water-color sketches (Peters and Thiersch 1905; Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1992:1018– 1020; Kloner 1993:954–955; 1997:34–35; 2003:21–25; Jacobson 2007:5-9). Lithographs based on the sketches and photographs were published in their 1905 book, but most unfortunately—and in contrast to the wishes of Peters and Thiersch themselves—these drawings contained coloration and reconstruction of the tomb paintings that are not entirely true to the original works, as Jacobson has recently shown (2004; 2007). Nevertheless, the unusual significance of the 1905 publication, even slightly flawed, cannot be overstated. The painted tombs of Maresha are a unique record of Hellenistic art in the region, and join other groups of Hellenistic tomb paintings, such as those in Alexandria, Macedonia, Thrace, the Black Sea region, and Italy. Simply put, they are the only surviving evidence in Israel of true Hellenistic paintings, in a funerary context or otherwise. But in regards to the funerary, it is noteworthy that no Hellenistic painted steles, so widespread in Phoenicia and Alexandria, have been discovered in Israel (Rostovtzeff 1941:747, Pl. LVII; Mendel 1966:258– 270; Parlasca 1981: Pl. 2; Brown 1957). A stele either never painted or whose paint faded beyond recognition was retrieved at Akko (Dothan 1976:38, Fig. 42). The distinctiveness of the Maresha paintings as to date the only surviving examples of Hellenistic wall painting in Israel merit them extensive discussion here.

One unpillaged, excavated tomb yielded evidence of ossilegium, or the gathering up of bones for secondary burial (Kloner 1991:74–76). The loculi were usually sealed by a construction of chalky stone. A tomb at the adjacent site of Za‘akuka offers evidence of the possibility that deceased were also buried in wooden sarcophagi (Kloner, Regev, and Rappaport 1992:28*).67 Some see loculi tombs as having originated in Alexandria (Oren and Rappaport 1984:150; Venit 2002:15–16; Kloner and Zissu 2007:78), others suggest a Phoenician derivation (Tal 2003; Berlin 2002:139–141). Even if the latter is true, there is a patent resemblance between the Maresha tombs and some at Alexandria (Peters and Thiersch 1905:12; Oren and Rappaport 1984:150; Kloner 1999:230; Venit 2002:175– 176). It is true that the open-air forecourt of the Alexandrian tombs, also accessed by a descending flight of stairs, is replaced at Maresha by the subterranean antechamber. But the arrangement of burial chambers around a forecourt or antechamber and the use of loculi are similar in the tombs of both cities (Venit 2002:15). It is noted, despite this resemblance, that the Alexandrian tombs are quite varied. Those at Shatby may be taken as an example, as they themselves display varied and even strange tomb designs (Venit 2002:24). The loculi tomb most like those at Maresha is Hypogeum A at Shatby, dating to the beginning of the third century,68 although its overall plan and decorative program differ from the Maresha group. Similarity is most evident in Chamber g, specifically its gabled loculi and klinai, or beds for the deceased (Venit 2002:27–30). Tombs arranged along an axis, such as those at Maresha, are seen at Mafrousa and Sidi Gabr, dating from the third and second centuries (Venit 2002:176; McKenzie 1990: Pls. 183, 186). An abundance of loculi along tomb walls appear in the Gabbari cemetery from the second century (McKenzie 1990: Pls. 188, 189). While other elements are present at both Maresha and in other Alexandrian tombs, such as engaged pilasters between loculi, rock-cut klinai, altars, and naiskos-type doorways, the tomb plans are generally only moderately similar to each other. At Maresha, as mentioned, the tombs are relatively unified in plan and

The Maresha tombs surround the ancient city from all directions (Kloner 2003:21–30). They are of a type unique to Maresha, with a stepped dromos leading into an antechamber, from which one or three long subterranean chambers of the tomb are accessed. Along the walls of the chambers are rock-cut benches, gabled loculi (kochim), and access to other burial chambers (Fig. 85).66

67 Maresha also yielded evidence of burial in wooden sarcophagi. Terracotta palmettes, pierced on their underside to be hung on wooden sarcophagi, were retrieved in two tombs (510, 560). Terracottas of different types but of similar function were also found at Za‘akuka; see Kloner, Regev, and Rappoport 1992:36*, Fig. 14, n. 1 on p. 48*. The loculi at Za‘akuka are wider than those at Maresha, and not gabled. Their width allows for the placement of a sarcophagus.

66

Only some of the Maresha burial tombs contain three burial chambers, which radiate from the antechamber; and not all of the loculi are gabled. Nevertheless, all of the tombs appear to be of the same general type, despite variations in plan, such as two-story loculi, pillars and artistic ornament. The similarities outweigh the differences. Likeness in plan is readily apparent upon a perusal of those published by Oren and Rappaport (1984; see also Kloner 1991:73–76).

68 For various views on the dating of Hypogeum A at Shatby, see McKenzie 1990:63–64; Venit 2002:30–32.

61

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 85. Typical plan of a burial cave from Maresha (Cave Fig. 500), courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Kloner 2003:27.

vary only in their details. They also seem more orderly and symmetrical. The deftness and precision with which the rock was cut at Maresha is due not in small part to the soft, relatively malleable chalky (kirton) local bedrock of the site, but also to the artisans of Maresha who were so expert in working it.69 The Maresha tombs’ homogeneity stands out in comparison to those of necropoleis of its neighbors in Egypt and elsewhere in the Hellenistic Levant, where uniform groups of sepulchral architecture are uncommon. In the Alexandrian tombs, funerary practice was diversified as well. Inhumation burials were deposited alongside cremated remains, as well as mummified remains (Venit 2002:16); while at Maresha, burial was by inhumation only, within the loculi or in wooden coffins, with the ossilegium having been practiced as well. Thus, despite the great similarity to Alexandria with respect to tomb plan and paintings (see below), the Maresha necropolis ultimately reflects an indigenous tradition, characteristic of the city and its hinterland, and quite standardized. I propose viewing the Maresha tombs as a product under Alexandrian burial influence, but also bearing Phoenician marks, as Tal has suggested. (Although, unlike Tal’s view, this practice is evidently new in Palestine; see Tal 2003; 2006:331–332.) This confluence of cultures, characteristic of Idumea in the Hellenistic period, will later be adopted and suited to Judean art of the Early Roman period.70

Fig. 86. Entrance to Tomb I (Cave Fig. 501) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben-Ghedalia.

directly onto the bedrock surface, while those of Tomb II are on plaster. They have mostly faded away since their discovery, and large parts of them were reconstructed in 1994 on the basis of Peters and Thiersch’s book. It should be noted that Peters and Thiersch did not publish pictures of all the paintings, and some have been described only in words, primarily those of Tomb II. Thorough iconographic analysis was carried out by them (1905:18–35), as well as by Meyboom on Tomb I in his discussion of the Palestrina mosaic (Meyboom 1995:44–49, notes on pp. 281–287), by Rozenberg (2001) and by Michaeli (2006). Jacobson’s recent study has also shed light on the paintings (2007). Tomb I (The Tomb of Apollophanes) Peters and Thiersch’s Tomb I (Cave No. 551 of the new numbering system) is also known as the Sidonian tomb or the Tomb of Apollophanes (Fig. 86). Both names stem from the appearance over the doorway to one of the principal burial chambers in the tomb of an inscription mentioning Apollophanes, head (archon) of the Sidonian colony at Maresha (Peters and Thiersch 1905:36–40, Fig. 7).71 There were other inscriptions as well, both incorporated into the paintings and along its loculi. Only the main hall of the tomb housed paintings and inscriptions. Paint was applied directly on the kirton bedrock wall of the tomb, as opposed to the more widespread practice of painting on a plaster

Tombs I and II, found by Peters and Thiersch, are extraordinary among the Maresha tombs, in part due to their elaborate plans, but primarily because of their wall paintings. The paintings of Tomb I were applied 69

Subterranean chambers used for other purposes were also precisely hewn and reflect a keen aesthetic sense, despite the industrial use of the hewn space. Noteworthy are the large columbarium in Subterranean Complex No. 21 and the olive-oil press of Complex No. 44; see Kloner and Sagiv 1993:131; Kloner 1997:30. 70

On Maresha loculi tombs as a prototype for Judean burials, see Oren and Rappaport 1984:150; Kloner and Zissu 2007:78–79. Early Roman tombs are present in the necropolis of Tel Goded, just to the north of Maresha; some resemble Maresha’s loculi tombs and others are closer to Judean tombs, and even contain ossuaries. This necropolis is a demonstration of the possible link between the two types, even if its tombs were hewn some time before the latest use of them; see Sagiv, Zissu, and Avni 1998.

71 This inscription was innovative in two ways: first, in confirming the identification of Tel Sandahanna with the Maresha known from biblical and Greek times; and in showing the existence of an organized Sidonian element in the city; see Kasher 1988:26–27.

62

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA but could be reconstructed by Peters and Thiersch. It is a recurring element in the necropolis of Alexandria, as in the Shatby and Moustapha Pasha cemeteries (Venit 2002:27; McKenzie 1990: Pls. 174, 176). The altar is placed in the forecourt of Alexandrian tombs; while at Maresha it is in the antechamber, from which the burial chambers radiated. As stated above, this antechamber reflects an identical architectural conception to the open forecourt of the similarly designed Alexandrian tombs. The altar was used for religious ceremonies related to death, specifically sacrificial and memorial rites in honor of the deceased (Miller 1993a:40; 1993b:117). Altars also appear in various depictions in Hellenistic tombs, such as the tomb of Lyson and Kallikles in Macedonia (Miller 1993a: Pls. Va, 11c). The altar in Tomb I was apparently used as such, even though it was located in a subterranean space (near the entrance). Its upper surface was flat. It was likely used for burning incense, not sacrifices; the painted depictions of incense burners on the walls are worthy of note here (see below). Incised adjacent to the altar was a graffito showing an altar with a bowl from which smoke or a flame rolled upward, perhaps another hint that the altar was used for burning incense (Peters and Thiersch 1905:60, Pl. III). The graffito likely postdates the period in which the tomb was carved and painted, but it is good evidence of the continued use of the tomb and altar over the years. Altars of stone and terracotta have been recovered at Maresha (Peshin 2001; Erlich and Kloner 2008:59–60), and a rock-cut altar was found, having been shattered in antiquity, in the olive-oil press within Subterranean Complex No. 90.

Fig. 87. Tomb I (Cave Fig. 501) in the 1920s, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Kloner 1996:35.

surface, as in Tomb II (The Tomb of the Musicians).72 It can be assumed that the even and soft nature of the kirton bedrock allowed it to be effectively painted on directly. The paintings all faded away over the course of the twentieth century (Fig. 87).

Above the incised altar is a head in profile, and to its right, an eagle over a deer (Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. III),75 and the bow of a ship over a few pentagrams and hexagrams (Peters and Thiersch 1905:18, 19, 60, Fig. 3). As stated, the graffiti should not be attributed to the painting phase. Some of it is known from funerary iconography, specifically from Hellenistic Palestine. A deer and ship are depicted in charcoal drawings on Jason’s Tomb of the Late Hellenistic period in Jerusalem (Rahmani 1964:7–10; Rozenberg 1999:31). The ship is a known motif from funerary art; other examples from Maresha are seen on graffiti in Cave III from Oren’s excavations (Oren and Rappaport 1984:121, Fig. 4), and in Burial Cave No. 550, with its two stories of loculi. Graffiti of heads in profile and a ship appear in a burial cave at the adjacent site of Za‘akuka (Kloner, Regev, and Rappaport 1992:29*–31*). In a Jewish burial cave from the first–second centuries CE at Horvat Eitun south of Maresha, an incised graffito of what is suggested to be a sail boat was found (Kloner 1985). A similar combination of graffiti of a ship, the head of a person in profile, and other objects is seen in Tomb 1 at Moustapha Pasha in Alexandria (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 177b). On the right doorjamb are a few other incised

The Entrance to the Main Hall Two elements were sculpted in high relief on either side of the doorway to the main burial hall: a square altar to the left and a female bust on a square base to the right.73 The bust had been shattered, her identification uncertain. The discoverers of the tomb noted fragments of painted drapery folds and an Egyptian hairdo (Peters and Thiersch 1905:18–19); some of the terracotta figurines from Maresha depicting Isis and figures in her entourage have an Egyptian hairdo or wig.74 The altar was also shattered, 72 Painting directly on a tomb wall is rare. Examples are seen in the Haghios Athanasios tomb in Macedonia, and in the Sveshtary tomb in Thrace; see Miller 1999:88, n. 57; Foll 1986:110–111; Valeva 1997:421, Fig. 1. 73

Their only record survives on plan and in section (Peters and Thiersch 1905: Figs. 1–2). 74

Given the strong funerary associations of the figures on the doorposts of the tomb—the cock and the Kerberos—and the ritual use of the altar to the left, a religious-funerary figure can be presumed to have been depicted to the right, and not some portrait, for example. Based on the assumption that the figure boasted an Egyptian hairdo, Isis is a good candidate. That goddess conjures up clear funerary associations, given the story of her tragically widowed after Osiris’ death and her returning of his body. Egyptian influence is evident throughout the tomb and its paintings. On the popularity of the Isis cult in Egypt and elsewhere, see Dunand 1973; 1979.

75 Peters notes that this is probably a hunting scene, with the deer preyed upon by the eagle. Yet eagles do not attack deer, and hunting scenes typically portray a lion, not an eagle, preying upon a bull or antelope; see, for example, Beth-Shearim, Avigad 1976: Pls. XL–XLI. In a burial, a deer likely symbolized peace in the afterlife; see Michaeli 1997:264.

63

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE graffiti, including the head of a bearded man in profile, the full-face portrayal of the head of a long-haired woman, a phallic object over a Kerberos (see below), and fingers grasping some object (Peters and Thiersch 1905:60, Fig. 20). On the lintel is a geometric design composed of a rectangle superimposed by two triangles (Peters and Thiersch 1905:20, Fig. 4). Perhaps this decorative element represents the pyramidal nefesh, or memorial monument, similar to another depiction within a burial tomb at Za‘akuka, which is suggested to be a nefesh (Kloner, Regev, and Rappoport 1992:29*–31*, Fig. 8). 76 Similar representations of a nefesh, albeit with only one pyramid, have been incised on Jewish ossuaries from the Early Roman period (Rahmani 1994:31) and in Jewish burial tombs from the Shephelah region (Zissu 1997; 1999). It seems that the graffiti are of common funerary motifs in the Hellenistic and Early Roman worlds, some related to belief in the afterlife (Rozenberg 2001:315).

at Anfoushi and Mafrousa in Alexandria (McKenzie 1990:98). Underneath the Kerberos is inscribed a short erotic poem, also apparently coeval with the paintings (Peters and Thiersch 1905:57–59, Fig. 19). The Rear Wall Upon entering the tomb, one’s attention is drawn to two main decorative zones: the above-described entranceway,77 and the rear wall, in which a doorway leads into three rear burial chambers (Color Fig. 2; Peters and Thiersch 1905: frontispiece, Pl. V). Since the altar is evidence that part of a ceremonial rite took place in the antechamber, while another part was conducted perhaps on the kline, the burial bed along the rear wall (see below), it can be surmised that the front and back walls were the focal point of the decorative program. The centrality of the two short walls on either side of the entrance to the main hall of the tomb is readily apparent in the west–east cross-section published by Peters and Thiersch (1905:17). The main hall leads into three additional burial chambers beyond its rear wall. These chambers are exceptional in the tomb due to their form, as they are without loculi; their placement, behind a gabled niche over a kline; and in the import of those buried within them, as implied by the Apollophanes inscription appearing over the opening to the right chamber. The thrust of the main hall toward its rear wall and the positioning of the painted ornament above and to either side of the kline underscore the supremacy of these rear burial chambers in the architectural and decorative program of the tomb.

The doorjambs have also been adorned with paintings of animals. On the outer side of the jambs, above the altar and bust, are two parallel cocks leaning away from the doorway, their heads turned back toward to it. The left bird appears in the picture published by Peters and Thiersch, who note that the garland it stands upon was added in a later phase, that of the adjacent inscription (1905:18, Pl. IV). Its feathers are conveyed by linear strokes of red and black, somewhat in disarray. A similar treatment is seen on the other animals within the tomb, but closest to it is the fashioning of the adjacent Kerberos and other cocks. The cock is generally an erotic symbol, but one that in Greek art can also be understood in a chthonic sense—given the cock’s role as herald of the morning sun, namely victor over night or death—and thus is associated with a number of funerary gods, such as Hermes, Demeter, Persephone and Asclepius (Michaeli 2006:363; Rozenberg 2001:313– 314; Jacobson 2007:23). Cocks, an altar, and various patterns embellish a Punic tomb of the fourth–third centuries, also somewhat shoddily executed and painted directly on bedrock (Moscati 1988:448–449). On the face of the right doorjamb is Kerberos, the three-headed canine guard of the underworld (Color Fig. 1; Peters and Thiersch 1905:20, Pl. IV). The creature moves forward, on its neck a collar, two of its heads looking backward. It displays a certain similarity to the hounds appearing in the neighboring hunting scene. The Kerberos is perhaps the most blatant funerary symbol in the tomb; depictions of it appear elsewhere in Hellenistic tomb art (Rozenberg 2001:313, n. 4). A similar Kerberos is portrayed in a burial cave of the fourth century from Canossa (Pontrandolfo 1996:470) and in a relief on an Early Hellenistic kline from Cerveteri (Steingräber 1986: Pl. 1) in Italy. As the watchdog over the underworld, its positioning at the entrance to the burial chambers implies a connection to the journey into the afterlife. Animal guards painted at the entrances to chambers appear on the doorjambs of tombs

The kline was cut out of the kirton bedrock. Three rock steps lead up to it. Two carved legs imitate supports for its upper prominent rim. In Greek funerary ritual, the kline was used for prothesis, the showing of the deceased, and ekphora, the transport of the deceased (Venit 2002:18–19; Guimer-Sorbets and Nenna 2003:550). Many tombs are found to have been fitted with klinai, either stone built or rock cut. Some were merely used for showing the dead during the burial ceremony, while inhumation itself took place in another spot, such as within a cell or loculus. Others, however, were used as a kline-type sarcophagus, for the actual interring of the deceased (Venit 2002:18–19, 228, n. 172; Guimer-Sorbets and Nenna 2003:559–564). In addition to its use as a burial furnishing, the kline also came to symbolize the burial world, funeral ceremonies, and the status of the departed (Guimer-Sorbets and Nenna 2003:561). In the Hellenistic world, it was embellished and painted, either with the depiction of linens or with various funerary motifs; at Alexandria, the tops of pillows were chiseled from stone on klinai (Venit 2002:19; Miller 1982:153; Andronikos 1984:122, Fig. 75; Charatzopoulou 2001: Pl. VII-1; Guimer-Sorbets and Nenna 2003:536– 77 The paintings on the sides of the doorjambs (the Kerberos and the poem) are also visible to one standing in the antechamber, as the doorjambs are slanted outward slightly. They block the long sidewalls of the main hall, and thus direct attention toward the façade of the entrance, the Kerberos at its side, and the back wall. Such an observation, as well as others (see below), was possible only after the paintings in the tomb were reconstructed. The right cock, for example, was not reconstructed.

76

The other suggestion of those authors is that a nilometer is depicted, which seems unlikely given the lack of resemblance to a nilometer and the inappropriate context.

64

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA 549).78 At Maresha, the kline is only hinted at by the nature in which the bedrock was carved; it is not painted, no pillows are suggested. It is differentiated from the bench surrounding the main hall essentially by its width and its legs and cornice.79 Some have claimed that the benches were also used as part of the burial ceremony (Venit 2002:19). The prominence of the kline in the Tomb of Apollophanes, however, shows that the benches there were used for the participants in the burial rite and not for the deceased. As far as its lack of adornment is concerned, real pillows and linens rather than painted ones could have been placed on it. One might assume that while the corpse lay on the kline during the ceremony, it was prepared for burial using various paraphernalia such as those suggested in the paintings flanking the kline and behind it.

On the left table stands a white incense burner or thymiaterion, perhaps made of silver and also with three-legs, but of griffin busts. The vessel itself has a leaf ornament in relief protruding from its center and flames emanating in zigzags from it (Peters and Thiersch 1905:21). Similar incense burners, only not high footed, are extant in Hellenistic Asian sites and ascribed to the type of burner generally dated to the first millennium in the East (Invernizzi 1997:250–251). The leaf decoration is common on incense burners in antiquity in the East (Invernizzi 1997: passim). A burner with griffins or other animals as its tripod legs is rare both as a material find or a visual description; one with creatures for legs was retrieved from Taxila in India, in layers dating from the Greek to Parthian periods at the site (Invernizzi 1997: Fig. 28, no. 249). A bronze vessel on a tripod from Pompeii also has griffin heads at the top of the legs (Winter 1925: Pl. IV). The artist likely sought an analogue for the tripod table with its feline legs. In the Late Hellenistic and Roman periods, other sculpted elements were added to the upper part of the leg on round tripod tables, a widespread one being the griffin, of Achaemenid derivation (Mols 1999:45, 50–51, Pls. 94, 95). Yet on the Maresha table, which predates the appearance of the griffin element on tables, no animal head appears; rather, it is the incense table—of clear Eastern influence—where the griffins are present, perhaps as emphasis of the funerary nature of the burner. Hellenistic incense burners can be depicted in other ways, such as vessels of various forms superimposed over busts. Peters and Thiersch wonder whether the vessel at Maresha was indeed an incense burner, as the blazing fire it contains is uncharacteristic of such burners (1905:87). They suggest that what is depicted is a fire offering, as influenced by Persian customs, which—they note—heavily influenced Phoenician culture. The griffins, as well as the use of the vessel, imply that it is indeed Persian.

A gable was carved out over the kline. Paintings filled the spaces left between the edges of the gable and the corners of the rear and side walls. At the bottom of these spaces were red podium-like features, or dados. The two sides are roughly symmetrical (on the imperfect symmetry of the tomb, see below), but the left (or northern) was better preserved and will thus be discussed. Upon the red dado rests a round tripod table, painted yellow, with feline legs (Peters and Thiersch 1905:21). Tables of this type appear in the Levant from the twelfth century, and some have claimed they derive from Phoenicia, later spreading to north Syria and Cyprus (Gubel 1987:251–259, Figs. 51, 52, 55, Pl. 1.1; Merhav 1996:430). Round tripod tables appear in the Greek milieu from the middle of the fourth century, apparently a result of Eastern influences, and became popular alongside rectangular tables (Richter 1926:87; Merhav 1996:429; Mols 1999:49–50). Gubel sees the Maresha tripod as more evidence of Phoenician influence in the region throughout the first millennium, with its yellow color attesting to it having been cast in gold or chryselephantine (1987:260). Despite its similarity to Phoenician tables, it must be stressed that in the third century the round tripod table had already been adopted into the Hellenistic koine, and its depiction can be found in both funerary contexts and elsewhere at Hellenistic sites far from Phoenicia (Miller 1999:77, Fig. 1; Rozenberg 2001:318, n. 9). Regarding the material from which it was made, the yellow could be for gold or gilded marble, as Peters and Thiersch point out (1905:21), although the intention was probably for bronze. Bronze tables were rarer than marble or wooden ones, and used in more formal contexts (Mols 1999:51). A gilded or bronze table would have been appropriate for a funerary use, whether it was actually used or merely depicted visually. No trace is left of a table on the other side of the gable.80

Painted above the incense burners is a garland that encircles the entire tomb (Peters and Thiersch 1905:17, Fig. 2; Rozenberg 2001:313, Fig. 1). The garland was carved out of the wall itself; its carving continues into the unpainted chambers to the right and left of the antechamber. Only in the main hall is it also painted, draping as it does above the animal frieze. The garland is a cherished motif in Hellenistic wall paintings (Rozenberg 2001:314), the likes of which are found in Macedonia (Miller 1993a:46–48, Pls. 7–10), Italy (Sestieri 1956–1957:74; Bertocchi 1964:71 –91, 98; Moretti 1974: Fig. 90; Steingräber 1986:61, 276, 303, Pl. 67; 1988:27–28), and Alexandria (Venit 2002:34, 43, 98, Figs. 27, 79; McKenzie 1990: Pl. 185). Discovered in Macedonia were holes in walls for the placement of nails used to hang real garlands (Miller 1993a:48), and unfurled wreaths in terracotta were found at Shatby in Alexandria (Breccia 1912: Pl. LXXVI). As symbols of victory garlands can carry funerary significance, namely, victory over death. They would continue to be popular on tomb paintings in Roman Palestine (Michaeli 1997:260). The Maresha garland, however, is but a shadow of the

78

Klinai are quite commonly found in Alexandrian tombs; see Guimer-Sorbets and Nenna 2003:536–549; and see there a survey of funerary klinai in the Greek world outside of Alexandria, pp. 552–559. 79 A Late Roman burial cave from Horvat ‘Itri, about 10 km northeast of Maresha, contains a hewn sarcophagus with decorations of a kline, amphora and discs on its front; see Zissu and Ganor 2002:27. 80

If the incense burner to the right is indeed different from that to the left, as Peters and Thiersch write, then it is of the one-legged tall type, as those depicted in Tomb II. In such a case, it would have been free-stand-

ing on the podium and no table would have been necessary underneath; see the discussion on Tomb II.

65

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE elaborate vegetative representations mentioned just above. Its portrayal is far from naturalistic, with its staunch wavy line and colored dots, and no hint of the leaves, flowers, or ribbons that are seen on the garlands of other Hellenistic paintings.81 It appears as merely a continuous decorative element, void of symbolic significance. In its decorative role, it physically links separate compositions on each wall, as well as the three main burial spaces; the carving of the garland in the two side chambers suggests that they too were planned originally to be painted. The functionality, rather than the symbolism, of the underground spaces of the tomb is thus emphasized. Yet it is true that the garland changes form when it arrives to the rear gable, over the two painted incense burners. It is no longer a wavy streamerlike element, and added to it here are diagonal spikes, perhaps meant to intimate leaves. The eagles above it also help bring it to life here. No longer the purely schematic garland that encircles the tomb, its treatment on the rear wall is yet further testimony to the manner in which that wall was given special significance.

turned glance, toward one another, accentuates their hieratic nature while undermining the naturalism of the depiction. The eagles’ placement on either side of the rock-cut gable and above the kline affords them great prominence and leaves no doubt as to their symbolic weight. The red podium, tables, incense burners, garland, and eagles are together part of an outer frame for a recessed painted surface, namely the back of the gabled alcove. In its center is the doorway to the central rear chamber.83 The doorway is fashioned as a Doric naiskos and embellished with both relief work and paint (Peters and Thiersch 1905:22, Pl. V). It is the earliest known recorded use of the Doric order in Israel. At its base is a low stair, functioning as a kind of stylobate. Overlying it are pillar bases underneath engaged pillars, carved in relief, and painted—their lower twothirds in red, under a wide white band, a thin red band, another wide white band inhabited by a disk containing crossing lines, and at the top another red band bordered by two black lines and suggesting an echinus for the capital. The capital consists of a simple white abacus. The painted bands and the capitals are reminiscent of pilasters and capitals at the entrances to burial chambers in Alexandria, at Moustapha Pasha and Anfoushi (McKenzie 1990:67, Pls. 177b, 191c; Fischer and Tal 2003:28). Carved in relief above the pilasters is an architrave, painted red, and above it a Doric frieze. The frieze is composed of triglyphs, wide metopes, a taenia, guttae, but no regula. The omitting of elements in the Doric order is also seen in the Shatby and Moustapha Pasha tombs in Alexandria, where the guttae are absent (Breccia 1912: Pl. XIX.21; McKenzie 1990: Pl. 181), and on a stele from Alexandria, where the regulae are also absent, similar to the discussed painting (Pagenstecher 1919:77, abb. 53). The regulae are also missing from the Haliakmon Dam and Pydna tombs in Macedonia (Miller 1982:160, 162, Fig. 15). The guttae appear in groups of three, rather than six, underneath the triglyphs; they are also not positioned correctly (Gordon 1977:263). A similar arrangement of three guttae without a regula appears on the B’nei Hazir Tomb of the Late Hellenistic period in Jerusalem; Avigad makes note of that tomb façade’s similarity to the façade in the Maresha tomb (Avigad 1954:54–55). These deviations from the Doric canon are typical of the Hellenistic period, in which alterations to and fusion of orders were commonplace. Nevertheless, the imprecise location of the guttae under the triglyphs attests more to the carelessness of the artist than to the purposeful adaptation of a traditional order. Peters and Thiersch make note of faint remains of blue paint on the triglyphs. Blue was commonly used to paint triglyphs at other sites, as on Macedonian tomb façades (Ginouvès 1994:144, 180, Figs. 128, 151).

Two eagles stand heraldically above the garland, their wings unfolded, their bodies facing the sides of the tomb, their heads turned backward as they glance at each other. The same stance is assumed by the two cocks at the entrance to the tomb, and parallelism in the composition of the two animal pairs is readily apparent. Peters and Thiersch discuss at length the chthonic symbolism of the eagle, specifically its role as representing the soul fluttering forth from the deceased body and the bird dedicated to Zeus, an analogy for the human soul. They associate the eagle with the Greek phoenix, citing the Maresha eagle’s red color and the flame emanating from the incense burner (1905:88–90). The eagle is no doubt a common symbol in funerary iconography, representing both the ascent to heaven and victory over death (Rozenberg 2001:314; Michaeli 2006:364). Those depicted here follow a Ptolemaic tradition, their wings spread, similar to those on Ptolemaic coins but considerably different from the Syrian-Seleucid eagle (Rozenberg 2001:314). The spread eagle would become quite common in reliefs of the eastern provinces of Rome, with examples seen in the region on synagogue and temple lintels and on the façades of tombs and sarcophagi.82 The outstretched wings in Roman and Byzantine examples are reminiscent of the so-called expressionistic-analytic depictions of the body in Eastern Roman art, by which the artist distorts some natural pose by isolating more expressive or substantive elements of the stance (Colledge 1976:130). The wings of the Maresha eagles, however, are not spread to convey some heightened sense of expression, but rather simply because the birds are preparing for flight. On the other hand, their backward-

83

In this chamber was buried, as indicated by the inscription, Antagoras, a descendant of Apollophanes. One cannot help but wonder why Apollophanes himself was not buried there. Perhaps the builder of the tomb (Apollophanes’ son?) originally intended for Apollophanes to be buried there. Sesmaios, the father of Apollophanes, is also mentioned, but in the context of familial ties and not as one interred in the tomb. Thus this central room was likely not intended originally for the burial of Sesmaois the Sidonian, progenitor (?) of the family. For the location of members of the family within the tomb, see Peters and Thiersch 1905:62–63.

81

An example of a supple, naturalistic garland revealed in Israel is in wall paintings in the Upper City of Jerusalem dated to the first century CE; see Avigad 1983:157, Figs. 166–167. 82

For synagogues, see Hachlili 1988:208. For Roman and Nabatean temples, see Ovadiah, Fischer, and Roll 1993:220–221, 225; Glueck 1965:68. For sarcophagi, see Avigad 1976: Pls. XLI–XLIV. The resemblance to Nabatean tomb façades is prominent; see McKenzie 1990: Pls. 3–4, 63, 86.

66

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA Overlying the Doric frieze is a two-banded slanting cornice under the pediment. The cornice is painted in red and ends in oblique upward protrusions, meant to suggest acroteria. Sloping acroteria such as these are not typically seen in Greek and Roman architecture, but are characteristic of the East, as at Alexandria and Petra (McKenzie 1990:97; Pagenstecher 1919:34–38, abb. 19–23). One example appears over doorways in a tomb at Moustapha Pasha in Alexandria (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 178). The more common acroterium ornament in Greek architecture is the palmette, which in the case of the Maresha painting moved into the center of the pediment. Vine sprigs and flowers stem from the palmetto. Its stiffness led Peters and Thiersch to compare it to one on a stele from Carthage (1905:88). On a tomb at Mafrousa in Alexandria is a painted palmette within a lunette over a kline, flanked by griffins (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 186d). The vine sprigs on both sides of the palmette at Maresha recall tomb façades in Second Temple period Jerusalem, such as the Tomb of the Bunch of Grapes and the Sanhedrin Tombs (Avigad 1956:336, Fig. 13). A similar vegetative decoration fills the gable painted on a fourth-century tomb at Canossa (Pontrandolfo 1996:470) and appears on steles from Paestum (Sestieri 1956–1957:71–72, Pl. II) and on painted Hellenistic steles from Sidon (Mendel 1966:265–267; Parlasca 1981: Pl. 2.2). The insistence on filling the gabled space is a clear manifestation of horror vacui, a prominent trait of Eastern art. While the Doric pilasters and entablature are borrowed from Greek architecture, the pediment contains Eastern motifs seen at Alexandria and elsewhere. Yet the naiskos as a whole, together with the amphorae portrayed flanking it, remain fundamentally Greek.

third century (see below). Alexandrian tombs are similar in the positioning of the naiskos within the chamber, in the presence of a transitional space before the burial chambers, and in the features appearing on the pediment. In a general sense, however, the Alexandrian tombs are unlike the Maresha naiskos, for a few reasons. One, the use of the Doric order in the Alexandrian naiskoi is rare.85 Two, the Alexandria naiskoi are usually in front of the chamber containing the kline rather than behind it, as at Maresha. Three, Egyptianizing elements are common on the Alexandrian naiskoi, but do not appear at Maresha. And four, in some of the Alexandrian tombs the walls before the naiskos are painted so as to imitate marble and alabaster masonry construction, while linens are painted on the kline. These elements underscore the internal nature of the entrance into the kline chamber, which is to say, its positioning well within the tomb structure. At Maresha, on the other hand, what appears in all respects to be the external façade of a temple was simply transferred to the internal space of the chamber. Furthermore, the oversized amphorae juxtaposed next to the naiskos do little to convey a harmonic or realistic sense of two vessels flanking a doorway. These Panathenaic amphorae, with attached ribbons fluttering in the wind, stand atop a red podium (Peters and Thiersch 1905:22, 86). Avi-Yonah made note of their similarity to urns (Avi-Yonah and Kloner 1992:1018). Panathenaic amphorae had already been associated with burials in the fourth century, when many marble loutrophoroi-type amphorae were placed over tombs at Kerameikos in Athens. Some see these vessels as deriving from vessels used in marriage rites, and as having been placed in tombs of the unmarried (Kloner 1999:231). Real amphorae have been recovered from Macedonian tombs, where they were used for washing and purifying the corpse and for extinguishing funeral pyres (Miller 1993a:39, n. 20). There are those, however, who see amphorae depictions in tombs not as references to the burial rite but as a symbolic motif representing victory over death, given that amphorae were awarded to the victorious athlete (Barbet and Valeva 2001:236). Water can be symbolically linked to the life force, while immersion into water can represent death and rebirth (Michaeli 1997:268). Jacobson associates the amphorae more specifically to wine and the cult of Dionysos (2004:30; 2007:23). Painted amphorae are not very common in Hellenistic tombs; there are examples in Bulgaria and the Black Sea region (Barbet and Valeva 2001:237, n. 11, Pl. XLV.2). A water basin may also appear in paintings (Miller 1993a:38, Pl. 11b). In Early Roman period tombs in Judea and Nabatea, the amphorae would become a familiar funerary symbol used on both memorial monuments and ossuaries. Its occurrence within ethnic groups not practicing cremation attests to it having been seen as a mere burial symbol rather than an urn

It can thus be said, based on the parallels given above, that the naiskos stood within the Macedonian-Alexandrian sphere of the Hellenistic period (the third–second centuries). Similar entrances to tombs are seen in Macedonia, although not in the ornate tombs at Vergina and Lefkadia. The Doric order, which was not so common in Alexandria, was also widely used there. Two noted differences between the Maresha naiskos and Macedonian tombs are that at Maresha the façade is not external as in Macedonia but on an internal chamber;84 and in Macedonia the entablature and pediment usually occupy the entire façade rather than bordering merely the doorway. Yet despite these differences, the overall similarity between the Maresha naiskos and the façade of many Macedonian tombs is unmistakable (Miller 1982: Figs. 10–14, 19–21). The Haliakmon Dam and Kinch tombs in Macedonia are the most similar to the Maresha naiskos in that they both have pilasters that flank the doorway and bear a Doric entablature, although both are without pediment (Miller 1982:157–158, Figs. 12, 13, 15, 16). They date from the third to the beginning of the second century and are thus contemporary to the Maresha tomb, which is from the

85

The Doric order at Moustapha Pasha was not at all employed for depictions of pedimented naiskoi. A naiskos similar to the one in the Maresha tomb is seen at Mafrousa; see McKenzie 1990: Pls. 178–186c. A similar Doric stele was recovered in Alexandria; see Pagenstecher 1919:77, abb. 53.

84

The most elaborate façades on the Macedonian tombs were covered over with dirt after the burial, and thus were not seen by passersby. In this way, their being outside the tomb took away from the façade’s impact; see Valeva 1993:121.

67

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 88. Drawing of the painting in Tomb I (Cave Fig. 551) at Maresha, courtesy of Dr. Silvia Rozenberg; after Rozenberg 1999:29; drawn by Pnina Arad after Peters and Thiersch 1905.

(Kloner 1999:231–234). On the Maresha examples, the colorfulness of the vessels and the ribbons hanging from them lend them a certain festive feeling. Their symmetry is broken by their differing coloration, the left amphora with a central band and lid in red and ribbons in white, the right amphora with a central band and lid in white and ribbons in red. Perhaps they were painted differently merely for variation’s sake, a tendency seen throughout the rear wall (see below). At the level of the shoulders of the amphorae, two horizontal bands—one in red and one in pink—run along the wall, at roughly the same height as the dotted frieze underlining the animal frieze on the side walls, although the two elements are unrelated. The purpose of the bands is unclear. The amphorae were at least in part painted after the bands, as the white ribbons of the left vessel partly overlie the bands.

it in general terms, then the two short walls of the main burial chamber can be seen as expressing the two latter categories, namely the afterlife and the funeral rite. As has been claimed, these walls are the decorative focal point of the tomb, and thus it is fitting that they should bear the brunt of its symbolic program. The Side Walls The side walls of the main hall leading back to the kline and naiskos are painted, some with depictions unique to this tomb (Fig. 88; Peters and Thiersch 1905:16–18, Fig. 2). A bench has been left along the bottom of these walls, a feature seen in other tombs at the site. Above it are the gabled loculi, six to the north and seven to the south (Color Fig. 6).87 Gables are generally not common in loculi tombs. They appear in a limited number of tombs in Alexandria, mostly at Shatby (Breccia 1912: Pl. XV.10; Callot and Nenna 2001:123, 158; Delaporte 2003:77). However, they are present in all of the Maresha tombs (Oren and Rappaport 1984: Figs. 2–11; Kloner 1991:75). The relatively tall loculi of the Maresha burial chambers, at over one meter high, are one of the unique features of the site’s necropolis. The gable likely alludes to the naiskos, thus conferring a sacred form to the loculus (Michaeli 2006:367). In our tomb, a cornice and architrave are outlined above each

The amphorae join the neighboring table and incense burners as representations of implements used in the funeral rite. Together with the eagles and garland, these objects form a repertoire of chthonic-funerary symbols. It appears as though the two short walls—that at the entranceway with the sculpted bust and the rock-cut altar, cocks, and Kerberos, along with the rear wall described now—are loaded with deep symbolic meaning. Miller makes note of three kinds of paintings in tombs: those referring to life in this world, those depicting the world to come, and those having to do with funerary customs (1993b:115). This division is perhaps somewhat contrived,86 but if we accept

wall paintings; see Pallottino 1986:13. Tal suggests that the duality of the two types of paintings attests to a link between the underworld and earth, and to belief in an afterlife; see 2003:304. 87

Two of the loculi on the southern side were broken through and joined together during some later phase; for this reason there are only six on that side.

86

Miller herself discussed the blurring of symbols of death with depictions of life; see 1993b:117. Such aspects are also evident in Etruscan

68

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA

Fig. 89. Drawing of the animal friezes in Tomb I (Cave Fig. 551) at Maresha, courtesy of Dr. Silvia Rozenberg; after Rozenberg 1999:31–32, 36*–37* (drawn by Pnina Arad after Peters and Thiersch 1905).

loculus (Peters and Thiersch 1905:17–18, Fig. 2). This sense is further conveyed by the stumpy Ionic pilasters depicted between each loculus, their capitals reaching the bottom of the gable. The pilasters thus appear as posts for a gabled structure, much like the pilasters carved in the rear wall. The Ionic pilasters do not come into contact with the freize above the loculi; whereas at Shatby, the painted pilasters do extend above the gabled loculus (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 175).88 They are positioned outside the frame of the loculus and support not the gable but wreaths shown above them. This portrayal diminishes somewhat the sense that a naiskos is depicted on each loculus.

residences of Maresha, for example, also includes a carved rosette, placed in the very same spot above the volutes (Kloner 1991:82). Above the volutes in the tomb are wreaths tied with ribbons, which, along with the garlands, represent another object from the funerary milieu, namely wreaths that were placed on the tomb of the deceased (Michaeli 1997:260; Miller 1993b:117; Rouveret 1989: Pl. XIII1). They are meant to appear to be hanging, but their positioning directly above the abacus leaves the false impression that they were laid over the pilaster capitals and lean against the wall. A squat Ionic pilaster with a ribbon (apparently not tied to a wreath) was painted on a fourth-century tomb at Paestum (Sestieri 1956–1957: Pl. I; Pedley 1990:106–107); there the Ionic pilasters frame the loculi and work to divide it from the scenes on the frieze, which is not the case at Maresha. Above the pinnacle of the gable and the wreaths runs a narrow protruding band filled with colored dots. It seems to denote a flat straight garland, an analogue to the abovementioned wavy garland running at the top of the walls. While the straight garland is in low relief, the wavy one is recessed into the wall. Between these two vegetative elements on both side walls is the animal frieze.

The pilasters stand on a three-stepped base, their fluting represented by red painted lines. The volutes of the Ionic capital are alluded to by one spiraling black line. The dip between the two volutes is filled by a wagon-wheel-type element consisting of two concentric circles containing a few crossing lines and mounted by an abacus. This element recalls the circle underlying the Doric columns of the same tomb. Both elements are likely geometric rosettes, attributable to the repertoire of burial symbols in the tomb.89 The pilasters, on the other hand, can be seen as mere architectural representations, unrelated to the symbolic realm; an engaged Ionic capital in one of the

The Animal Frieze The frieze, which portrays animals, humans, and vegetation, has attracted the most attention of all the paintings in the tomb, given its uniqueness (Figs. 88, 89; Color Figs. 3–6; Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pls. VI–XV). Some of the animals depicted are seen here for the first time in Greek painting. To date, it remains a distinctive,

88

On painted pilasters and the illusion of engaged architectural elements, see below. 89 The rosette and wheel are both symbols of continuity, apotropaic in nature, etc. They were quite commonly used in the ancient and Roman East, and are particularly widespread in sepulchral art; see Avi-Yonah 1981:104–112; Figueras 1983:36–41; Rahmani 1994:39–41.

69

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE solitary testimony from the third century, even if the idea it conveys does appear in historical works of that period. The order in which the frieze has been described by most scholars, including its discoverers, begins at the entrance and continues along the southern (or right) wall inward, then back out again along the northern (or left) wall. Only Meyboom has discussed the details of the frieze on both walls together, beginning from the entrance and moving to the rear of the hall (1995:44–46). The 1994 reconstruction of the paintings of the tomb leaves the impression that, if there is any sequence to the placement of the figures on the frieze, the majority of scholars have been correct in their understanding of it (Meyboom 1995:101). Given the narrow proportions of the tomb, it was never possible to view the entire frieze on each wall as one continuous unit; rather it was necessary to observe its individual components separately90 while walking along the walls of the chamber. Upon entering the tomb, the viewer automatically takes notice first of the Kerberos and love poem on the right side of the entrance, while naturally overlooking the left, unpainted side of that entrance. The balance of the two sides of the decorative program has thus already been thrown off, and the eyes of the viewer will naturally be drawn to the right, or southern side of the tomb, where the frieze paintings begin immediately from the doorway, even prior to the first loculus (Peters and Thiersch 1905:17, Fig. 2). Most of the creatures depicted on this southern frieze face to the left side of the viewer, toward the rear of the tomb. They almost all seem to move in this direction as well, compelling the viewer to progress in a similar manner. Conversely, on the northern wall the animals are generally drawn facing the exit from the tomb, as if to lead the viewer out again. The last animal on that wall is at some distance from the lintel of the entrance; it was placed over the final loculus there, distanced somewhat from the entranceway to leave space for long loculi in the adjacent chamber, Hall B (Peters and Thiersch 1905:17, Figs. 2, 20). The overall flow of the frieze is interrupted by the rear wall, with its kline and naiskos, but otherwise the figures on the frieze have been arranged in an almost narrative fashion. It is interesting to note that its right-to-left progression reflects a Semitic conception, as Semitic languages are written from right to left; while the inscriptions of the frieze are written in Greek, from left to right.

this chapter. The table also correlates the frieze with two important contemporary records, one a historical text on the grand procession by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, and the other the Palestrina mosaic. The following discussion will also refer to these records, while considering elements in the frieze’s iconography, composition, and interpretation. The frieze opens with a chase scene—the hunting of a leopardess (Color Fig. 3; Peters and Thiersch 1905:23–24, Pl. VI). A wreathed trumpeter is shown to the right, donning a short white chiton, a red mantle, and white sandals, and blowing into a long instrument. In the center is the hunter, with his short chiton, breeches, mantle, and chlamys flapping in the wind. He holds a broken spear and rides a horse, which stands on its hind legs. Under the horse is a hound, also on hind legs. To the left, facing the horse, is the wounded leopardess, again on hind legs. The spear has pierced her breast, and the wound bleeds. Another hound attacks her from behind. The scene conveys a sense of drama and commotion. Aside from the trumpeter, no figure stands with all legs on the ground. Above the rider is an inscription either identifying him as Libanus, the cavalry commander, or referring to the rider’s “horse of Lebanon” (see table). The heads of the figures were defaced as a result of orders of a local sheikh. The armed horseback rider is a common motif in funerary art, and can be associated with a warrior or hunter. These are generic images conveying a sense of heroism and applicable as a comment on heroism over death, the heroic life of the deceased, or an actual battle in which the deceased may have fought (Miller 1993b:115; Valeva 1997). Riders appear on Hellenistic tomb paintings, klinai, and steles in the Hellenistic world, as in Macedonia (Von Graeve 1970: Pls. 76.2, 77.3; Andronikos 1984:102–103; Ginouvès 1994:180, Fig. 151; Miller 1993a: Pl. 8a), Thrace (Micoff 1954: Pl. 3; Valeva 1997:421, Fig. 1; Kitov 2001; 2002), and Alexandria (Harari 2001; Venit 2002:57–58; Brown 1957: Pl. XI).91 Two motifs related to the armed rider—the battle and the hunt—appear on either side of the “Alexander sarcophagus” of Abdalonymos, king of Sidon at the end of the fourth century (Von Graeve 1970: Pl. 25; Houser 1998). On the sarcophagus are Alexander the Great and his escorts during the hunting of a lion, deer, and panther. Various details of this scene, and of other hunting scenes on Sidonian sarcophagi, are used by Peters and Thiersch for comparison to the Maresha frieze (1905:90).92 A similar scene appears on a painted frieze in a tomb at Vergina identified as the burial spot of Phillip

The northern and southern friezes differ in respect to other details as well. The southern frieze both opens and closes with a scene incorporating animals and humans; while the northern portrays animals only, as solitary figures or in pairs. The southern is also of higher quality and suggestive of more thorough pre-planning than the northern, which contains unidentifiable or unclear creatures. Since the animal frieze has been extensively studied by scholars, it is not my intention to return to the question of the identification of the creatures. Their description, accompanying inscriptions, identification by various scholars, and assignment to various fauna are summarized in the table at the end of

91

Riders also appear on funerary paintings in Italy, although dating slightly prior to the Hellenistic period, as on a stele from Paestum; see Pedley 1990:103. 92

Two royal sarcophagi from Sidon from the fourth century, predating the “Alexander sarcophagus,” bear hunting scenes. At the base of the “Sarcophagus of the Mourning Women” is a long frieze with a hunting scene composed of hunters, horses, hounds, and various animals; see Fleischer 1983: Pls. 12–15. On the “Sarcophagus of the Satrap” is a more condensed scene on one of the long sides of the coffin. In the middle a leopard is hunted; see Kleemann 1958: Pl. 2.

90

Such a view is possible in the sketches of the tomb paintings appearing in Rozenberg’s article; see 1999: Figs. 61–62.

70

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA II of Macedon,93 on which a number of figures taking part in the hunting of deer, a boar, a lion, and a bear are depicted (Andronikos 1984:101–116; Reilly 1993). Rather than generic depictions, both portray a particular aspect of Alexander’s life, namely the hunting of wild animals, a sport he learned from the Persian kings (Robertson 1965:80–81; Miller 1993b:115; Palagia 1998:25).94 The lion hunt was recurring royal motif in the ancient Near East, particularly in Mesopotamia (Pollitt 1986:38). Both scenes contain many hunters and hounds, with no particular focus on the king or the majestic hunted animal, the lion. A different kind of hunting event is illustrated by two other lion hunting scenes with Alexander: the monument to Craterus at Delphi, described by Plutarch (Plutarch's lives, Alexander, XL); and the Messene relief at the Louvre (Nielsen 1987:164–166; Stewart 1993:270–275, 390–391; Moreno 1993). In these works the emphasis is on Craterus, who according to one account saved Alexander from a lion, then killed the wild animal. Unlike the intricate compositions of hunters and animals seen on the Vergina frieze and Alexander’s sarcophagus, the scene in these two pieces is limited to two hunters and the hunted beast.95 In a mosaic from Pella, which depicts a similar scene, the field is even narrower still, as the horse is absent (Ginouvès 1994:126–127).

the rider refers to his horse of Lebanon. While Peters and Thiersch understood the rider as having been Sesmaios or his son Apollophanes (1905:90–91), another reading of the inscription renders “The horse of Libanus, the cavalry commander,” evidence that the figure portrayed is not an archon from Lebanon but some cavalry commander. Its prototype may indeed be related to royalty and Sidon, but the scene at Maresha was suited to its context and changed into a variant of that type. It includes only a single hunter and a trumpeter rather than a few hunters. The hunter is not presented mythically—naked or partially dressed in royal garb—as is the case in the examples depicting Alexander himself (Nielsen 1987:168). Another difference is that the central character of the composition is the hunter, while in the Messene relief and Pella mosaic the hunters surround the lion, positioned in the middle of the composition. One last difference is that the hunted animal is neither the majestic lion nor the boar, which is common in the Macedonian hunt, but an even more exotic feline—the leopard. The lion appearing on the frieze hides behind a tree and is not part of the hunting scene; the inscription above it is even erroneous. The leopard/ panther97 was hunted for sport in the Persian Empire, scenes of which appear on three sarcophagi in Sidon (Queyrel 1991:214). The artist imparts a realistic sense to the scene rather than one mythical or symbolic, as shown by the details of the garments, the choice of a leopardess over the majestic lion, and the effort expended at noting the gender of the animal. Had the intention been to show the typical royal hunting scene, the artist would have made no point in showing a female animal with teats.98 It seems that the hunted leopardess connects the scene with the remainder of the frieze and its plethora of animals, and thus forms the opening scene of one continuous narrative. If such is indeed the case, then the setting of the hunt also reflects a departure from its prototype. The hunt in Asia took place in special parks for gaming (Palagia 1998:26– 27); in Macedonia it was in forests. The Maresha scene, however, seems to portray hunting parties of the Ptolemies in the Upper Nile and its tributaries. It is an adaptation of a heroic-royal prototype into a realistic depiction of an honored figure. This understanding, it should be said, need not lessen the symbolic force of the scene and its message of heroism in the face of death.

The Maresha hunting scene is based on the iconographic prototype of the royal hunt. Both of its funerary parallels, at Sidon and Vergina, appear in royal tombs. As at Messene and Vergina, the scene captures the pivotal moment in which the charging beast is speared to death (Nielsen 1987:165; Stewart 1993:275). Perhaps the Maresha artist sought to bestow a royal appearance on the hunter. He may have been Apollophanes, the archon of the Sidonian colony at Maresha mentioned in the tomb inscription and the first of the family line to be buried in the tomb. An affinity to Sidon is evident in the scene (Peters and Thiersch 1905:90) on a number of fronts. Abdalonymos, king of Sidon, portrayed himself hunting with Alexander, and the garb worn by the figures, with trousers underneath a chiton, suits well the Eastern dress of some of the hunters on the Alexander sarcophagus.96 The inscription above 93

Andronikos, the excavator, identifies the tomb as being of Alexander’s father, Phillip II. Others however claim the tomb to be of Phillip III, who died in 317 BCE, thus dating the tomb and frieze to after Alexander. The dating of the tomb has ramifications regarding the first appearance of this motif among the Greeks. If the frieze is associated with Phillip II, then the hunting scene it depicts is no way connected to Alexander’s hunting endeavors in the East; see Palagia 1998:26.

A recently discovered tomb in Thrace offers a good parallel to the Maresha hunt. The structure is a tumulus in Alexandrovo, Bulgaria. Its chambers were painted, with the innermost room containing a hunting scene on a frieze, curving with the interior wall of the tumulus (Kitov 2001; 2002). The scene recalls Phillip’s tomb with respect to its many hunters, its hounds, its hunted animals (boars and deer), and the use of axes as weapons rather than spears. Stylistically, the work is reminiscent of other Thracian

94 Others suggest another interpretation for the Vergina frieze, that it attests to the love of hunting in Macedonia and the initiation rite for Macedonian youth that included hunting; see Miller 1993b:117. 95

Other figures originally appeared on the Messene relief, but the surviving part shows only Craterus and Alexander on either side of the lion in an isolated scene; other participants in the hunt in other scenes were surely present on the original; see Nielsen 1987:166; Palagia 1998:27. 96 Greeks rode on horses while wearing short tunics. Barbarians, as the Greeks referred to them, wore trousers, as is shown here under the short tunic; see Piggott 1992:92–95. In the Hellenistic period, this dress appears on monuments to individuals from the East or to barbarians. Pollitt claims that this depiction was used to indicate a Sidonian; see Pollitt 1986:38.

97

Leopards and panthers were often confused in antiquity; see Queyrel 1991:212–213; Weber 1993:55; Meyboom 1995:122–124. 98

Leopardesses and female panthers with sculpted teats appear in relief on a Hellenistic building at Iraq el-Amir in Transjordan; see Will and Larché 1991: Pls. C6, C8.

71

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 90. Illustration of hunting scenes in graves at Maresha (right) and Alexandrovo, Bulgaria (left); prepared by Silvia Krapiwko after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. VI and Kitov 2001:22, Fig. 8.

wall paintings, such as the tomb painting at Kazanlak, with its accentuated contours and dull coloration, as at Maresha (Micoff 1954; Barbet 1985:18–19). The similarity to the Maresha hunt is also apparent in other aspects of the scene: the pose of one of the hunters, the manner in which he holds up the spear, his dress, the posture of the horse as it raises its front legs, the position of the hound underneath the horse, the hound’s form and posture, and the ornamented saddles of the other riders’ horses (Fig. 90; Kitov 2001:21– 24, Figs. 8, 11, 14; 2002:43). There are indeed differences in the details of its composition, proportions, and style, but the similarity between the two is indeed striking. Apparently similar models were used by the painters. A somewhat earlier example, from the fourth century, is a burial cave at Paestum with many painted depictions of horseback riders, warriors, and hunters. In one of the paintings a hunter and hound set upon a deer (Sestieri 1956–1957:83–84). A stele from Shatby in Alexandria depicts a rider reminiscent of that at Maresha, with respect to his dress, spear, fluttering chiton, and the posture of the horse he rides (Brown 1957: Pl. XI; Petit Palais 1998:107). On the stele, however, an armor-bearer rather than a trumpeter follows the hunter. Musicians appear in hunting scenes in Assyrian iconography, where they took part in the post-hunt libation and cult rituals (Braun 2002:205). In Hellenistic paintings, the musicians accompany the riders in battle (Valeva 1997:296–297). Trumpeters are depicted on a painted frieze on a tomb at Kazanlak (Micoff 1954: Pl. XIV), and another is shown on a tomb at Paestum (Zevi 1990:253). The musician at Maresha holds in one hand the long trumpet, which resembles the Roman tuba (Braun 2002:207). As was noted with respect to the Doric naiskos, the sphere in which the scene was created is that of Macedonia, Thrace, and Alexandria, where heroic riders

were particularly revered (Harari 2001). Maresha is but another example of the fusion of these spheres of art. The hunt is the most dramatic, vibrant scene on the frieze. From this point onwards, the frieze continues on with animals alone or in pairs, and usually walking forward, but none interacting with each other. They are not correctly proportioned to one another, and only a few trees are interspersed between them. Only at the end of the southern frieze does another scene appear—two figures leading a saddled elephant, an allegory for the triumph of civilization. No humans are depicted in the space between the hunt and this scene, as well as in the entire northern frieze. Now is the time to examine the given interpretation of the frieze, that it depicts exploration expeditions to Africa organized by the Ptolemaic kings in the third century, which supplied wild animals to the zoo at Alexandria. (Peters and Thiersch 1905:91; Meyboom 1995:102–103). Such hunting parties have been recorded by Hellenistic authors, the prominent of them being Agatharchides of Knidos (Meyboom 1995:47, 97, 225, n. 13). The take of one of these hunts, from sometime in 279–270 BCE, was presented in the grand procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, as related by Kallixeinos of Rhodes in an account preserved by Athenaios (V, 196a–203b; Rice 1983:87–99; Meyboom 1995:47–48; Rozenberg 2001:318, n. 18). An intricate hunting scene shown as a bird’s eye panorama is preserved in the upper part of the Palestrina mosaic, dated to the end of the second century, ca. 120 BCE according to Meyboom (1995: passim, Figs. 6–14). The scene presents a real hunt in the Nubian desert. The animals in the Maresha frieze, however, are static and the hunters are absent, save for the opening scene, leaving the impression that one is viewing something more akin to an illustrated scroll rather than a genuine hunting scene, as on the Palestrina mosaic or 72

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA here at the end of the frieze, but it seems more likely that the lion is painted in this manner merely to show the viewer that it has a human head, which would not have been apparent in profile.102

Vergina frieze. The labels written near some of the animals only contribute to this feeling.99 Meyboom suggests that the frieze imitates paintings on buildings that existed in that time, specifically an unpreserved grand Ptolemaic hall (Meyboom 1995:101–102, 374, n. 25).100

The linearity of the animal frieze derives from Egyptian tomb paintings of the New Kingdom, which followed in the tradition of their ancient Egyptian forebears (Peters and Thiersch 1905:92; Erman 1971:238–244; Rozenberg 2001:314). Animals both hunted and not hunted commonly appear on Egyptian paintings throughout all periods (Osborn and Osbornová 1998:1–17, passim); with respect to the Hellenistic period, a few examples closely parallel the Maresha frieze, albeit without the depiction of African exotica. One is the feline frieze on the secondstory relief at Iraq el-Amir (Will and Larché 1991: Pls. A5, A16.2). Another astonishingly similar parallel, both iconographically and stylistically, is the painted animal frieze in the Tomba François from the second half of the fourth century103 in Vulci, Italy (Skira 1952:115–123; Steingräber 1986:377–380; Meyboom 1995:282, n. 5). The animals on it are a horse, lion, panther, boar, bull, deer, hyena, wolf, snake, griffin, and Kerberos. Every one of these animals, or approximations of them, appears on the Maresha frieze. Other strikingly similar elements are the fight between the snake and panther, the blood dripping from the horse, and the overall linearity of the depictions. Main differences are that at Vulci, the animals are all running or hunted, imparting it a less stiff feeling than that of the Maresha frieze; and of course, clearly African fauna are absent. Yet the Vulci frieze, in all its animated frenzy, and the Maresha frieze, which is more stilted, could both be realizations of the same iconographic-conceptual model. Animal friezes and other faunal groups are quite common in Italian tombs of the second half of the fourth century, as at Paestum, Tarquinia, Cerveteri, and Tarentum (Napoli 1973:63; Steingräber 1986:61, 264, 323–324; 1988:29; Rozenberg 2001:318, n. 16). At Paestum, a female panther with four teats battles a griffin (Zevi 1990:250–251). Although the panther’s proportions differ from those of the leopardess at Maresha, the animals are alike in their overall execution, shape, and use of jumbled dots for the fur. The Paestum griffin also recalls that at Maresha, except for its ears and wing.104 The connection to Early Hellenistic friezes from Italy, even slightly predating the Maresha painting, is no less surprising than it is intriguing.

It is likely that the artist attempted, somewhat awkwardly, to convert an illustrated scroll—which was likely, in my opinion, the basis for the patternbook from which he worked—into narrative format, thus bringing the scroll to life by using it to tell the story of a past event. The artist achieved this on the southern frieze, which begins with the dynamic hunt scene then continues on with a procession of animals identified by name, perhaps game for the hunt, clearly copied from a scrolled patternbook, but lacking all other elements of a hunt, including people. And at the end of the frieze, the outcome of the hunt: a tame, even saddled, elephant obediently walking after his masters. The inscription above he who leads the elephant, which reads “Ethiopia,” emphasizes the setting of the event and provides it with a geographical framework. Lone trees were painted schematically in various places on the frieze, in an attempt to impart a sense of topography to the scene, as is evident in the landscape on the Palestrina mosaic or the Vergina frieze, but the effort was a futile one given the sketchiness and paucity of the trees.101 The interpretation lends the southern frieze a narrative form, with events occurring along a certain timeline. It leaves the northern frieze, the execution of which was poorer, as a sort of afterthought to the story, with a group of animals not hunted and at times unidentifiable. The northern frieze also lacks the ground lines and the trees that function as partitions to the scenes in the southern. The only element that works as a frame in the northern frieze is the last lion, which is followed by a single tree. The lion depicted is an imaginary creature with a humanlike face, the only fullface figure on the frieze. One might try to ascribe some kind of importance to the appearance of a frontal figure 99

Meyboom claims that Maresha depicts a hunt in every respect, others prefer seeing only the first scene as the hunt, and some see the frieze as based on an illustrated scroll; see Meyboom 1995:101, 373, n. 23; Venit 2002:178. On the origin of the frieze in patternbooks, see Rozenberg 2001:316. 100

Similar to the opinion that sees sepulchral art as deriving first and foremost from the burial act, and the tomb as essentially a functional structure, I propose that the Maresha frieze originated in the world of funerary art, rather than imitating a similar frieze that adorned a palace or chamber of some sort. Friezes with animals spaced out appear in Egyptian and Hellenistic tombs, which, rather than some free-standing reception hall or residence, are the context in which the Maresha tomb originated. There is no contradiction in the fact that the same subject matter can be depicted on the nympheum mosaic of the Temple of Fortuna at Palestrina, for example, and on a burial frieze; the iconographic similarity does not necessitate similar meaning or significance for any given scene. Tal claims that these paintings imitated decorative programs in houses, but this supposition lacks proof, given that wall paintings in Hellenistic residences are typically non-figural and include a relatively limited spectrum of symbols, and ones different from those on burial art; see Tal 2003:302; 2006:266. For the view that sees burial art and architecture as standing firmly within the world of the burial rite, see Rahmani 1994:27–41; Venit 2002:36.

Animals in heraldic arrangement, as well as smaller and stiffer animal groups, appear on klinai paintings in 102

Meyboom claims that the animal is a lion in every respect, and that lions in front view can appear in this manner. However it seems that the very fact that the artist has the animal looking towards the viewer rather than in profile, as in the case of the lion on the opposite frieze, suggests an attempt to give it a different kind of face; see Meyboom 1995:285, n. 19; Clarke 2001: Pl. XVII.1. 103 Another less well-received view dates the tomb to the second or first century; see Skira 1952:123. For a rebuttal of this dating, see Steingräber 1986:378. 104

The wing of the griffin at Maresha resembles those of other winged animals in the tomb, namely the eagles and cocks. Its feathers appear plucked and in disarray, as if wet.

101

Trees and palms appear on one of the Anfoushi tombs in Alexandria; see Venit 2002:87, 90, Figs. 72, 75.

73

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 91. Illustration of animal friezes from the Shatby mosaic (Alexandria) and Maresha; prepared by Silvia Krapiwko after Rozenberg 1999:33 and Daszewski 1985: Pl. 10.

Macedonia, where animals from the metamorphoses of Dionysos assume a starring role (Miller 1993b:117; Charatzopoulou 2001:44, Pl. VII1). Despite the fact that a far greater selection of animals is depicted at Maresha, where the emphasis is clearly on displaying the exotica of the Upper Nile, the frieze likely echoes ideas much deeper in meaning, such as animal struggles in the symbolic realm and chthonic, Dionysian concepts.105 The abovementioned account of the grand procession of exotic animals of Ptolemy II Philadelphus is also Dionysian, even though the selection of animals is copious and includes many Asian and African fauna. Nevertheless, the supposition that the Maresha frieze should be associated with the cult of Dionysos, as Jacobson has suggested (2004:35–37; 2007:46–49), is not convincing. The mythical or symbolic in the frieze is, in my mind, overpowered by the realistic and clearly African context it portrays, almost as narrative.

mosaic is important to our discussion. Upon discovery, it was placed within the first centuries BCE and CE; however, Daszewski has moved its date back considerably, as based on its style and composition, and primarily its use of tesserae together with pebbles and lead strips. These features are characteristic of a transitional period in mosaic technique dated to the beginning of the third century (Daszewski 1985:106–109; Guimer-Sorbets 1999:91; Dunbabin 1999:23–25). Its emblema, depicting three Erotes hunting a deer, is surrounded by a frame inhabited by griffins, lions, a bull, a boar, a deer, an ibex, a ram, leopards, and a hyena. Schematic trees appear in two places on the frame. The mosaic follows a common model in the post-Classical and Early Hellenistic periods, as seen in mosaics at Olynthos, Pella, and Alexandria (Robertson 1965: Pls. XVIII, XX, XXII; 1967: Pl. XXII; Daszewski 1985:101–103, 108, Pls. 1–3). Similarities to the Maresha frieze are evident in the animals depicted (aside for the lack of African fauna), the intermingling of mythical (the griffin) and real animals, the sporadic trees meant to give a sense of place, the disproportionality among the animals, the isolation of each animal despite their intended connectedness, and the near frontal view of the lion, which recalls the last lion on the northern frieze at Maresha. There is a strong connection between the organization of the Shatby mosaic as a whole and that of the Maresha frieze. The deer hunt in the emblema of the mosaic is analogous to the leopardess hunt, which is the first and most prominent of the scenes on the frieze, separated from the other scenes by a tree. The frame of the

Another noteworthy parallel to the Maresha frieze, albeit also without African fauna, is the Hellenistic mosaic from Shatby in Alexandria (Fig. 91; Daszewski 1978:128–134; 1985:103–109, Pls. 4–12; Rozenberg 2001:314, 318, n. 17; Jacobson 2004:35; 2007:42-44). The dating of the 105

Rozenberg proposes that the meaning of the frieze is symbolic, as it includes within it both real and mythical animals; see Rozenberg 2001:318, n. 17. Michaeli (2006) gives the frieze chtonic, symbolic meaning for the same reason. However, Meyboom proves that in regard to some of the mythical animals, there was a belief in antiquity that they actually existed; see Meyboom 1995:283, nn. 9, 12. The frieze need not carry a single meaning; it clearly contains symbolic elements, yet fundamentally remains a realistic faunal depiction.

74

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA mosaic is comparable to the continuation of the Maresha frieze—the concentric arrangement of the mosaic, similar in concept to other Early Hellenistic mosaics, being thereby unfurled in a sense, and translated into the horizontal frieze of the Maresha painting. The final form differs, but the main components remain the same. A likeness of this sort is evident between Greek pebble mosaics of the fourth century and contemporary animal friezes in Italian tombs, for which Steingräber proposes Eastern influences imported to the West via Tarentum (1986:61). The sources of influence, however, were likely multidirectional. The continuous horizontal frieze at Maresha affords it a more narrative sense, while the tessellated outer frame at Shatby is more decorative in nature and clearly subservient to the emblema.106

the artist was not acquainted with some of the animals, the confusion among them, and the incorrect labeling of some attests that the artist worked from a patternbook rather than observation of nature (Rozenberg 2001:316). Steingräber sees a variety of separate models as having been the basis for the Vulci frieze (1986:61), which is similar to that at Maresha. Finally, other influences appear to have come from friezes depicting animals fighting each other, such as the Italian examples; or from Hellenistic mosaics, where the animals form part of the frame surrounding the emblema. The depiction, whether narrative or symbolic, seems to lack uniformity or clear guidelines, with the southern hunt executed much more proficiently than the northern. The hybrid nature of the frieze is only accentuated by its linear, freeform, and somewhat crude style (Roll 1985:265).

The animal frieze at Maresha reflects several additional layers of influence. In terms of its cultural atmosphere, it was born into a society that had recently, at the beginning of the Hellenistic period, taken an interest in the African continent. Perhaps the painting depicts an actual hunt, in which one of the tomb’s inhumed individuals took part, similar to that shown at Palestrina.107 Yet it is more likely that the family who built the tomb simply had an affinity for exotic animals, perhaps those on display at the Alexandrian zoological garden. If we are to accept the mid-third century date proposed here for the tomb (see below), then the Maresha frieze would have been completed very shortly after that zoo was first housed with African fauna, leaving virtually no time for such a motif to be conventionalized in art. It is more apt to think of the work as reflecting some particular event or preference rather than standardized artistic motifs of the time. The fact remains that no other Hellenistic tomb known to date was decorated with this exotic animal motif. Yet in terms of its symbolic weight, it contained funerary symbols widely used in art of the period, including the hunt scene, the depiction of certain animals, and Dionysian allusions.108 The hunt scene follows a royal model, so that perhaps what we have here is akin to apotheosis—not the deification of a king, but the crowning of a simple man. In terms of models on which it was based, an illustrated scroll converted to a popular patternbook is a reasonable option. The labels over the animals and the stiffness of the frieze suggest a scroll, while the fact that

Architecture on the Wall Paintings: Illusionary or NonIllusionary? One of the main features of Early Hellenistic wall painting is the use of paint and relief to create the illusion of architecture, thus transforming building façades and architectural elements from functional components of a structure to decoration. It reflects a distancing from a Classical model, one based on function and logic, toward a model more baroque and ornamental in character. Its artists were masters of trompe-l’oeil, the rendering of threedimensional architectural elements using paint and stucco to create an illusion of depth and fictional space (Miller 1982:157–158; Rouveret 1989:170–171; Valeva 1993). Many see Hellenistic tomb decoration as the precursor to the second style of Pompeian wall painting, dating to the first century BCE, in which three-dimensional architecture and perspective are expressed on a two-dimensional painting (Miller 1982:162–164; Tybout 1989:109ff; McKenzie 1990:62; Miller 1993a:98–100).109 The illusion in painted depictions of architecture is primarily evident in Macedonian and Alexandrian tombs, as on the false façades of the Vergina Tomb of Phillip or the Tomb of Judgment at Lefkadia (Miller 1982:155–156; Rouveret 1989:174– 177; Ginouvés 1994:177), or the false entranceways or engaged and freestanding columns in the Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles, the Great Tomb at Lefkadia, and the Tomb of Eurydice at Vergina (Miller 1982:153–155; Rouveret 1989:185–189; Miller 1993a:42–43, Pl. 9; Ginouvès 1994: frontispiece, 137, Fig. 22, 154–161; Charatzopoulou 2001:44). In the Alexandria tombs, depictions of doors, freestanding or engaged columns, and entablatures are common, as at Shatby, Moustapha Pasha, Sidi Gabr, Gabbari, and Anfoushi (Rouveret 1989:199–200; GuimierSorbets, Nenna, and Seif el-Din 2001; Venit 2002:28ff).110

106

In both cases the composition is not focal. In most Hellenistic mosaics, particularly the later ones, the frame around the emblema is geometric, leaving the attention of the viewer to focus on the scene at the center of the piece. While in the Shatby mosaic and the Alexandrian mosaic representing a warrior, like the earlier Olynthos carpets, the frame is given more prominence and even includes animals that capture the attention of the viewer. The mosaic must be circumnavigated in order to be fully enjoyed, and as such its focalization is lessened; see GuimierSorbets 1999:89. At Maresha as well it was necessary for the viewer to proceed along the length of the frieze to fully ascertain the range of animals depicted.

109

107 The discoverers of the tomb suggest that one of the inhumed was a merchant who collected exotic animals for his patrons; see Peters and Thiersch 1905:92, 95.

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the sources of the second style of Italian wall painting, and not all agree on the extent that Macedonian or Alexandrian architecture and wall painting, or both, influenced the style. Valeva (1993:125) notes an interesting distinction: while the earlier Macedonian and Alexandrian paintings work at expressing the volume of the architectural elements, the later Italian artists were more interested in enlarging the space or room in which the elements were painted.

108

110

The chthonic connotation is emphasized by Michaeli (2006), however many of the motifs she describes are common to both funerary and non-funerary art.

Gordon claims that at Alexandria a flattening of the painting is evident and the illusion has a limited effect, while in Macedonia the illusion is much more effectively expressed; see Gordon 1977:273–274.

75

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE The illusion creates a certain sense of baroque, adding to the theatrical feel of some of the tombs. Tybout has dealt with this subject of architectural illusion and included the Tomb of Apollophanes in this group, noting primarily the Ionic pilasters painted between the loculi. He suggests that tombs of southern Italy, Kazanlak, and Maresha were the prototypes for wall paintings where painted columns divide the wall space (1989:135–139). Meyboom also has proposed that the engaged pilasters painted at Maresha imitate similar freestanding or engaged columns carrying a frieze in a hall (1995:101–102).

recalls tomb façades of the third century and the beginning of the second century in Macedonia (Miller 1982:153– 162). There also the artist combined relief, stucco, and paint. Miller notes that in Macedonia the artist for the first time separates himself from the functional aspect of the Classical façade and begins to play around with its elements, relocating some of them, and turning them into mere fodder for his decorative program. The viewer is not meant to receive the impression that she or he is looking at real or sensible architecture (Miller 1982:157). The naiskos at Maresha was portrayed in such a way, as no Doric temple stood with two pilasters flanking an entranceway and supporting a frieze with only a couple of triglyphs and a pediment. The façade is painted deep within the tomb, similar to the false inner façade of the Tomb of Eurydice at Vergina. The application of an exterior building style as ornament on an interior space existed in the Hellenistic period in stucco decoration that is referred to as the masonry style (Bruno 1985:4; Venit 2002:28). Thus, in our case, the naiskos is removed from its context twofold. One, the façade depicted is illogical in terms of the rules of Classical architecture, and two, its location in an interior space and on a small scale deducts from its realistic appearance. In its small-scale imitation of a monumental structure, it seems to have been influenced by contemporary burial steles.

However, in the Maresha tomb the trompe-l’oeil is quite limited in effect, creating only a moderate sense of illusion, if one at all. The Ionic pilasters are squat and not shown to support the ceiling structure, as opposed to the Ionic pilasters at Shatby, for example. Wreaths are hung above them, and only somewhat above the wreaths is the animal frieze. This disconnect puts a profound restriction on the illusionary effect of the pilasters and the entablature they would support in a genuine construction. Underneath the animal frieze runs the narrow dotted band, meant to signify the architrave, but too failing in its purpose. The principal architectural elements of architrave, frieze, and cornice— the latter replaced here by the streaming garland—are hardly sensed by the viewer. Garlands in the Alexandrian and Macedonian tombs are shown actually hanging from the painted pilasters, and thus further contribute to the impression that the pilasters are real (Miller 1993a:46–47; Venit 2002:34). While at Maresha, the garland and pilasters are in no way related, and the pilasters themselves are not convincing in their architectural role. In other tombs at Maresha, the pilasters are carved in relief between the loculi and reach the rock-cut frieze, thus accomplishing what in reality they are meant to do as a vertical support element, while imparting visual logic to the arrangement (Kloner 1991:76; Oren and Rappaport 1984:134; Rozenberg 2001:315). Thus the architectural depiction in the Tomb of Apollophanes is analytic and disharmonic. Furthermore, in contrast to the Alexandrian and Macedonian tombs, the pilasters are entirely linear and flat, and there is no use of light and shadow to give them depth. Instead of actually imitating a real pilaster, they seem to have been drawn merely to designate where pilasters would be located in the case of a freestanding structure. In a paraphrase of Rene Magritte’s title of his well-known painting of a tobacco pipe, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” it can be said here that “This is not a pilaster, nor an illusion of a pilaster, rather a mere indication of a pilaster.” The effort is almost expressionistic, typical of conceptual art, much like that of the Roman East. The second and even more common architectural element painted in the tomb is the Doric naiskos. Here the artist draws from Hellenistic techniques of architectural illusion in the combined use of relief and paint.111 As mentioned, it

Contrary to the Ionic pilasters between the loculi, the naiskos is effective in its purpose. First, the combination of relief and paint aids in creating the illusion, as the façade is actually three-dimensional rather than merely imitating one that is. Indeed, there is no use of light and shadow or perspective, which could have assisted in the trompel’oeil, although relief is employed instead. The location of the naiskos behind the kline and within a gabled alcove further contributes to its illusionary effect, while the use of gradation—a gabled opening within a gabled opening—creates a sense of mystery. Furthermore, the decorative elements on either side of the naiskos, which are positioned more or less symmetrically, as well as the heraldic arrangement of the eagles, direct the viewer to the naiskos. In sum, the naiskos captures the eye of the visitor to the tomb immediately upon entry, and when viewing it from the antechamber its illusionary effect is clearer, and its lack of plasticity and other faults are not readily seen from such a distance and in the relative darkness of the tomb. The resulting effect is one of movement through compartments, a kind of hierarchical set-up of the rooms within the tomb. Similar passage among chambers is seen in the Alexandrian tombs, despite the fact that the naiskos at Maresha, it is recalled, is more similar to the façades of Macedonian tombs. At Maresha, the visitor moves from the antechamber onward into the burial hall, past the rockcut kline and into the unknown space beyond the entrance to the naiskos—the rear burial chamber—a metaphor perhaps for the journey into the world to come.

111 In a later phase in Italy, in the second Pompeian style of wall painting, the painted wall became entirely flat. But the incorporation of relief in wall painting in an architectural depiction was not without heir in the Early Roman period, as seen in the paintings on the lower terrace of

Herod’s Northern Palace at Masada; see Foerster 1995:13–25, Pls. 1, 10.

76

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA century.112 Similar paintings from Italy are perhaps even slightly earlier. The Panathenaic amphorae should be placed within the fourth century. The Shatby mosaic and steles and Ptolemy II Philadelphus’ procession are associated with the first third of the third century. Only the Palestrina mosaic, similar in its use of animal iconography but quite different in every other respect, is of a later date. Of the above, Ptolemy’s procession is the most important to our topic. Since unmistakably African animals like the giraffe and hippopotamus are depicted for the first time in Greek art in the Maresha frieze, the fact that Ptolemy’s hunting parades concluded in 270 BCE is of upmost significance to the tomb’s dating, as the captured animals were only then put on display in the zoological garden in Alexandria (Meyboom 1995:47). Some scholars have tried to push the date of the tomb into the second half of the third century or the second century. Meyboom claims that some of the animals depicted at Palestrina and Maresha were only discovered during the reign of Ptolemy III with the exploration of the Somaliland lakes, noting as well that the first investigation of the Red Sea shore took place only in 270 (1995:48–49, 104). Venit dates the Maresha tomb to the second century on the basis of its similarity to Alexandrian tombs (2002:175).

Spatial Arrangement The crudeness and linearity of the painting, as well as the artist’s unfamiliarity with some of the models in the composition (primarily animals), suggests a provincial artist with only moderate technical skill (Peters and Thiersch 1905:92–93). In contrast, its spatial arrangement attests to thorough and adept preplanning. The painting was well suited to the tomb space cut out of bedrock, and the composition as a whole is tight and harmonious. A few main features are worth mentioning in this regard: One, the tomb was hewn precisely and aesthetically, with clear symmetry along a central axis. Although recent surveying of the tomb has shown there to be some minor faults and assymetries in the plan, they are not detectable when visiting the tomb. In this respect the tomb surpasses the loculi tombs of Alexandria, and is further evidence of the skillfulness of the Maresha rock cutters. Second, only the central hall, that which is located directly in front of the steps leading into the tomb, is painted. The other halls were hewn no differently, and all halls are linked together conceptually by the garland. Third, the artist made a clear distinction between the side and end walls. The paintings on the end walls, which face one who enters the tomb, are viewable from only one vantage point and arranged in a near symmetrical and heraldic manner. They both bear symbolic motifs taken from the repertoire of chthonic iconography. Both walls, along with the kline, lend the tomb a kind of ceremonial grandeur. The paintings on the side walls above the loculi, on the other hand, were not viewed from the same vantage point, but sequentially from the entrance inward and then out again. They likely are to be seen as a narrative, perhaps from the life of one of the progenitors buried in the tomb. This can offer an explanation to the presence of such a rare motif in the burial tomb, during a period before it had been standardized in art. Fourth, the tomb space is arranged hierarchically, beginning with the antechamber and moving through the long hall, past the kline, and through the naiskos. The hierarchy is not for defining forbidden from permissible space, as in a church or pagan temple, but for drawing attention to the kline and naiskos in the rear of the hall, and perhaps for simulating in symbolic terms the journey into the great unknown, that dark place beyond the naiskos door. It is to be emphasized that the length and narrowness of the tomb are not in service of the painting. Rather, the opposite is true, as all of the burial tombs at Maresha display a similar plan, and the paintings in this one were suited especially for the tomb. The result of all of these features is that despite the paintings’ imperfections and unrefined style as compared to other Hellenistic works, the overall picture is well ordered and pleasing to the eye.

It cannot be proven that the some of the animals portrayed at Maresha were only first discovered after the reign of Ptolemy II, and one view sees the illustrated scroll on which the Palestrina mosaic was based as having been produced in 280–273 BCE (Meyboom 1995:376, n. 33). The grand procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in which many animals depicted at Maresha took part, including non-Egyptian species such as the giraffe, is dated to the winter of 275/274 BCE (Hölbl 2001:39). It can be assumed that it took some time from the displaying of the animals to the production of patternbooks, which would have been used by the Maresha artist. A date ca. 250 BCE for the wall paintings of the tomb, about two decades after the great hunts of Ptolemy II, could certainly be appropriate. If one of the deceased buried in the tomb took part in the hunts, such a date would leave a feasible span of time till his death. The quarrying of the tomb in the middle of the third century approximates the date given by Oren and Rappaport, who analyzed the dates appearing on the tomb inscriptions and concluded that it was in use from the first half of the third century (Oren and Rappaport 1984:148– 149; Kloner 2003:24). An analysis by Tal of similar loculi tombs in the Judean lowlands yielded a similar date of the mid-third century or earlier (2003:296–297). A later date distances the tomb chronologically from most of its wall paintings’ closest parallels. Therefore, the tomb paintings should be dated to ca. 250 BCE or perhaps slightly later.

The Date of the Paintings Conspicuous is the fact that all of the parallels to the Maresha frieze are from the Early Hellenistic period, dating no later than even the first third of the third century. The Alexander sarcophagus, the Vergina painting, the Craterus monument at Delphi, the Thracian tombs, and the Pella mosaics are all from the last third of the fourth

Tomb II (The Tomb of the Musicians) Tomb II lies a short distance from Tomb I, the Tomb of 112

It should be noted that the wall paintings from Macedonia and Thrace are dated to the Early Hellenistic period, while from the second century onward there are more painted steles and no monumental wall paintings in tombs; see Miller-Collett 1997:85; Miller 1999:87.

77

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Apollophanes. Its general plan recalls that tomb, although it is less elongated and its two side rooms were perhaps added in a later phase (Peters and Thiersch 1905:29–30). From the main hall with its loculi is a passageway into another room, from which seven burial chambers were entered. In this tomb as well, only the chambers opposite the entrance to the tomb were painted. But here the paint was applied on a plaster layer rather than directly on the rock walls of the tomb. The tomb was less well documented than the Tomb of Apollophanes, its discoverers never publishing pictures or photographs of most of its paintings. Therefore, those paintings that were not visually documented will not be thoroughly analyzed here. They will only be described along with the overall layout of the tomb. Contrary to the Tomb of Apollophanes, the Tomb of the Musicians has largely not been reconstructed (aside from the scene with the musicians), and thus it is difficult to get an authentic impression of the paintings, or even that received in 1902 by the tomb’s discoverers.

Albright partially agrees with Thiersch’s observation, and compares the candelabra to Phoenician and Punic metal incense burners (1942:21–23). He notes the similarity to Etruscan burners, and suggests a connection through the western (Punic) colonies of the Phoenicians (1942:23– 24). He concludes that the two giant burners at Maresha resemble those on either side of the Temple of Aphrodite at Paphos, and are comparable to the two columns—referred to as Jachin and Boaz—on either side of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem (1942:24–24). The prominent figurative decoration in the tomb appears on the wall facing the entrance to the tomb, on either side of the opening into the very rear burial chamber. The opening itself, Attic in form, is bordered in a gold band (Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. XVI). The illustration to the right was very badly damaged and difficult to record because of stone rubble in the tomb; all that is left is its textual description by its discoverers (Peters and Thiersch 1905:33). A disproportionately small young figure standing just to the right of the opening pours a libation from a vessel. Behind him is a golden tripod table, similar to the table in the Tomb of Apollophanes, with legs resembling the ones on the incense burner of that tomb. On the table rests a glass vessel, and beyond it is a large glass krater standing on a pedestal. The upper part of the wall has been chipped away, perhaps because there once were depictions there of humans (although it would then be unclear why the adjacent musicians’ scene was not damaged). Peters and Thiersch conjecture that the painting on the wall depicts a banqueting scene (1905:33–34)

Painted on the lintels at the entrance to the tomb are two palm trees full of fruit. The trees were not drawn, but described in words. Just below the ceiling of the antechamber is a frieze of leaves and ribbons, also never drawn or photographed (Peters and Thiersch 1905:31). In the main hall, a frieze of alternating garlands and wreaths appears above the gabled loculi, every wreath placed directly above the peak of each gable. On the basis of Peters and Thiersch’s description and the sketch they published, the garlands in this tomb are more naturalistic than the streaming garland of the Tomb of Apollophanes (1905:31–32, Fig. 6). They are painted in two shades of green, suggesting the individual leaves of the wreath. On the inner side of both short walls flanking the entrance to the main hall are amphorae, depicted similarly to those of the Tomb of Apollophanes, parts of them surviving until today.

The painting to the left of the entrance into the rear burial chamber is the only in the tomb to have been photographed, sketched, and published by the discoverers of the tomb (Color Fig. 7; Peters and Thiersch 1905:33, Pl. XVI). The scene contains two musicians, striding on a groundline that slopes downward toward the entrance. The first figure wears a short chiton with short sleeves and vertical colored bands and is girded with a red cord. His overshoes reach just below the knee. On his head is a green wreath tied with a ribbon. He blows into two long, narrow flutes. His pace seems hurried, his midsection leaning forward in a down-stride. His proportions suggest a squat man, fullbodied with a relatively large head. Following behind him is a woman, smaller, slenderer, and more elegant. She is garbed in a long chiton with short sleeves and an overfold. Her garment also has vertical stripes and is girded under the breast. Her hair is gathered into what appears to be a Knidian coiffure (hair pulled back in wavy lines and tied into a bun above the nape). She plays a small harp. It should be noted that the colored lithograph of this painting deviates significantly from the original work, particularly in the area of her head, as is shown by the original blackand-white photographs (Jacobson 2007:38, Pls. 30–31). It is commonly accepted that the two figures are musicians in ceremonial dress, descending—to the underworld, perhaps—to console and cheer up the dead (Peters and Thiersch 1905:33; Braun 2002:209). Rozenberg suggests that they play dirges for the dead (2001:314). Players of

The discoverers of the tomb describe two long gilded candelabra on the pilasters flanking the entrance from the main hall to the rear chambers. Each candelabrum stands on a square base and holds a ceramic lamp. Approaching one of the candelabra are two small figures, who reach only a quarter of the height of the candelabrum. The front figure is wrapped in garb, touches the candelabrum, and holds the hand of a naked child. Peters claims that the iconography recalls Babylonian seals and low reliefs (Peters and Thiersch 1905:31–32, Fig. 6), while Thiersch compares the candlebra to Phoenician examples (Peters and Thiersch 1905:87). Unfortunately, the scene as a whole was never drawn or photographed; the individual candelabra, however, were drawn, and one was even partially photographed in 1920 (Albright 1942: Figs. 1–2). Albright proposes a number of changes in the description and interpretation of the candelabra: their upper part should not be seen as ceramic lamps, but bronze or copper objects, as suggested by their red color; the candelabra are not true incense burners, such as those standing on either side of temples on Phoenician coins, given their great height as indicated by human figures in the scene; and their likeness to candelabra on Neo-Babylonian seals should be rejected. 78

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA wind instruments appear in Hellenistic tombs, such as the female trumpeters in the Kazanlak tomb, who even wear similar clothing to the harp player at Maresha and also walk in a procession (Micoff 1954: Pl. XIV). Depictions of music played for the dead are common on Etrurian wall paintings. In a tomb from the beginning of the fifth century at Tarquinia are a number of musicians, including players of the double-flute and harp (Steingräber 1986:106–108); and in a Hellenistic tomb from the same site, a harp player and a double-flute player accompany a banquet for the dead (Steingräber 1986: Pl. 147). Many examples also come from the south of Italy. In a fourth-century tomb from Paestum, a man and woman standing on either side of a banqueting scene play double-flutes (Sestieri 1956– 1957:94–96), and in another tomb at Paestum a musician plays a wind instrument (Zevi 1990:253). Depicted in a fourth-century tomb at Ruvo is a woman playing a rounded harp (Bertocchi 1964:41). In a Hellenistic tomb at Tarentum is a musician playing a double-flute (Bertocchi 1964:66, Fig. 41). Other examples of musicians come from non-funerary contexts.

should be made between the Edomites of the Negev desert in the Iron Age, to the Hellenistic Idumeans of the Judean lowlands, to a Late Roman ceramic workshop in the lowlands. The instruments depicted originate in the East (Sachs 1940:128–137), but from the Hellenistic period they begin appearing in various parts of the Hellenized world. While they do remain more common in the East, some would become typical of the koine culture. The Tomb of the Musicians differs from the Tomb of Apollophanes with respect to the quarrying and spatial planning, the arrangement of its decoration, and its style. In the Tomb of the Musicians, the main burial chamber is a near square, and another inner room leads into the chief burial chambers; while in the Tomb of Apollophanes, an elongated hall ends in a kline, which is passed over in order to reach the chief burial chambers at the rear. The plan of the Tomb of the Musicians is thus less directional, its room arrangement less hierarchical. Its ornamentation is also different. The amphorae were given another location, and the figurative elements were concentrated on one wall opposite the entrance to the tomb. The two figures next to the candelabra are disproportionately small. There is no narrative to the paintings, no continuous figurative frieze, and no continuity to the garlands, which appear in segments separated by wreaths. Furthermore, no attempt was made to create symmetry on the rear wall, the focal point of the decorative program, although the compositions on the entranceways—the palms, candelabra, and amphorae—are symmetrical. The rear wall of the Tomb of Apollophanes, on the other hand, features the clearest symmetry of that tomb. It can be said that the scenes in the Tomb of Apollophanes, except perhaps for one or two, are more effectively intertwined and tighter as a unit than the more isolated scenes and motifs of the Tomb of the Musicians. Peters and Thiersch write that the paintings of the Tomb of the Musicians are stylistically and technically better than those of the other tomb. It is difficult to confirm this today, as the musicians scene is the only that has been fully documented. If we compare it to the hunting scene from the Tomb of Apollophanes, it is set apart only by its more vibrant colors, and no significant difference in style is apparent between the two with regard to linearity, uniformity of surface coloration, disproportionality, and movement. It can be assumed that the garlands in the Tomb of the Musicians are indeed more naturalistic-seeming than those of the other tomb.

At Maresha musicians also appear in terracotta, a very common Hellenistic type for that medium. These terracottas are typically seen in ceremonial or cultic contexts (Erlich and Kloner 2008:23–25). One type plays a lute, characteristic of the Hellenistic East, although more common at Maresha is the player of the small triangular harp, the trigonon. It is a type widespread throughout the Hellenistic world, with many examples in the Levant, Egypt, and Cyprus (Braun 2002:248). The trigonon is considered to have been suited for women, as it is lightweight in comparison to the heavy kithara. On a small terracotta arula from Maresha sits Apollo, playing a kithara for his mother, Leto (Erlich and Kloner 2008: Pl. 35, no. 189). The harp painted in the Tomb of the Musicians is not the small trigonon or the large kithara. It is medium-sized and arched, and can thus be identified as some kind of lyre. It recalls the Ptolemaic moon-shaped harp like that used in Pharaonic Egypt (Rozenberg 2001:319, n. 22; Braun 2002:209–210). Braun proposes that it is a four-stringed Idumean variant of the Egyptian harp (2002:210). The instrument the flutist plays can be identified as the double-flute (aulos). The host of musicians depicted in art at Maresha—the trumpeter of the hunt and the harpist and flutist on the tomb wall paintings as well as the abovementioned lute and trigonon players in terracotta—attest to familiarity of the inhabitants of Maresha with musical instruments and the contexts in which they were used, as accompaniments for ceremonial rites, the dead, or the hero on a hunt. Braun ascribes great importance to music in Edom/Idumea but gives a time span that is too large, from the Edomite ceremonial musical instruments from Hatzeva and Horvat Qitmit of the seventh century BCE up to the Beit Natif figurines of the fourth century CE (2002:203–205). Music was no doubt known at Maresha and its hinterland and served an important role in ceremonies and cultic practice, but such is the case for the entire East, including that of the Early Hellenistic period. No connection in this respect

The treatment of the musicians is similar to that of those participating in the hunt, and the motifs used are also somewhat similar. Especially noticeable are the identical amphorae and the tripod tables. Incense burners, albeit of different types, also recur in both tombs, as do the garlands and wreaths, despite their varied arrangement. The earliest inscription in the Tomb of the Musicians dates to 188 BCE, but it can be assumed that the tomb was cut earlier, at the beginning of the second century or even end of the third century (Peters and Thiersch 1905:68–69; Albright 1942:18). On the other hand, the proximity of the two tombs, their similar decorative schemes, and the fact that 79

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE no other tomb at Maresha contains wall paintings lead to the conclusion that they were painted at or around the same time. Thus the date of the Tomb of the Musicians should likely be pushed up to the middle of the third century, or slightly later.

garden. It should be noted that while motifs were taken from Ptolemaic art, no clear Egyptianizing is evident in their iconography, such as the Egyptian doorways, broken lintels, and sphinxes seen in Alexandrian tombs from the second century onward. On the other hand, some features exhibit Phoenician and Persian influence, like the incense burners, tripod tables, and leopardess hunting scene. Others are pan-Hellenic, such as the Kerberos, amphorae, garlands, and wreaths. Italy is also represented. The distinctiveness of the Maresha painted tombs lies in the fact that they employ motifs taken from this host of varied sources and mold them into eclectic works of art.

Summary The painted tombs at Maresha are a unique surviving record of wall painting in Early Hellenistic Palestine, for which finds are meager. They are also the most detailed figurative paintings from the Hellenistic period found in all of Israel.113 The dozens of burial caves surrounding Maresha share similar plans and gabled loculi, Greek inscriptions, sporadic use of carved ornament such as engaged pilasters or rows of dentils, but only two were painted. Other areas of the Hellenistic world, such as Macedonia and Alexandria, contain a much larger number of painted tombs, even those painted along similar lines. The question should be asked: to what extent are these two tombs representative of Maresha, Idumea, or even Palestine? Are they unique phenomenon or just one example of a wider practice not yet uncovered?

In addition to their heterogeneity in this respect, the tombs’ local character is also reflected in a number of traits. It seems as though the artists at work had at their disposal proper patternbooks, but not a sophisticated stylistic sense. Miller writes regarding the Macedonian tombs that the eclectic nature of their illusionary façades suggests the absence of tradition or canon, which artists were obliged to follow in Greece and Asia Minor. The Macedonian artist, not being acquainted with these guiding principles, was free to experiment and break down the tenets of Classical architecture. The ornamental thus superseded the structural (Miller 1982:157). The Maresha artist, it follows, paid even less heed to a canon, whatever it may be. He knew that engaged pilasters were commonly depicted between loculi, and was perhaps even acquainted with similar architecture,114 but did not attempt at creating a convincing illusion of it. The pilasters appear in the right places, but they are without function and provide no sense of realism. Illusion would become a mainstay in Hellenistic art and assumed a large role in the formation of Hellenistic baroque. In this regard, the artists and possibly also their viewers were not part of the Hellenistic mainstream. Naturalism is also absent here, readily apparent in the depictions of humans and animals. So is the use of light and shade, which give that sense of volume so vital to Hellenistic works. The artist was interested in conveying the “proper” iconography for the tomb, and not in the naturalistic painting of details. He is at the root of what would blossom into the largely expressionistic art of the Roman East. The tombs’ iconography, it can be said, generally reflects the koine culture, but with a local flavor. The style, however, is entirely local.

Whether unique or not, the paintings do seem to demonstrate well some features of the art of the region. Steingräber has claimed that tomb paintings were part of the Hellenistic koine culture (at least of the aristocrats), as they are found in Italy (Etruria and Magna Graecia), northern Greece (Macedonia and Thrace), southern Russia, and Alexandria (2001). It is interesting to note that these areas do not lie in the center of what was Classical Greece, but in its periphery—in Macedonia and Thrace rather than in the heart of Greece, and in the Levant and Egypt rather than in Asia Minor. In Italy the phenomenon was the outcome of an Etruscan painting tradition. Thus aside from Italy, as well as Egypt, the wall paintings should be seen as a purely Hellenistic development, a sign of that time. The Maresha paintings are part of this koine culture. Their rarity at Maresha is a reflection of their being associated with the upper class only—kings, high officials, and aristocrats. In the large cemeteries of Shatby and Hadra in Alexandria as well, the decorated tombs are a small minority in comparison to simple tombs furnished with steles only. Since they are part of the koine cultural repertoire of funerary art, the Maresha painted tombs have parallels in all of the areas mentioned above (Rozenberg 2001:315–316). Nevertheless, two main influences are distinguishable: the Alexandrian and the local. The plan of the tombs resembles a few of the Alexandrian tombs; certain details of their decorative program—the eagles, painted pilasters, and trees—are reminiscent of Alexandria; and primarily the animal frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes, which can be directly associated with the Ptolemaic kings, the fauna of the Upper Nile, and the Alexandrian zoological

The question of ethnicity is a prominent one in the study of the Alexandrian tombs. Alexandria was a cosmopolitan city, with many ethnicities intermingling with its local population. Venit supports the view which sees ethnicity as a socially and culturally defined concept, irrespective of biology, and that aside from clearly identified ethnicities such as Christians and Jews, the Alexandrian tombs cannot be classified by ethnic group, whether Egyptian, Greek, etc. (Venit 2002:10–11). An ethnic group can maintain its identity while adopting the cultural patterns, including the burial practices, of another group (Venit 2002:91). Evidence

113

Other examples, such as the paintings in Jason’s Tomb, are better characterized as graffiti rather than preplanned wall paintings; see Rozenberg 2001:315; Hachlili 2005:148–150.

114

A residence in Area 53 at Maresha contained small Ionic pilasters engaged in walls; see Kloner 1991:81–82.

80

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA execution, and thorough preplanning of the painted area as it suits the tomb space. In one sentence, the paintings are Hellenistic art that have been filtered through Phoenician cultural agents.

from the Maresha tombs supports Venit’s approach. Given that names originating from various ethnicities appear in the same tomb, and that all of the Maresha tombs are of the same general type (contrary to Alexandria), the difficulty of assigning a clear ethnicity to any given feature in a multicultural and multiethnic society where intermarriage is practiced becomes abundantly clear. The Maresha tombs have yielded an onomasticon composed of a wide variety of names, mostly Greek, but also Semitic, Idumean, Phoenician, Egyptian, and Macedonian (Peters and Thiersch 1905:68; Hengel 1981:62; Fuks 1983:33; Oren and Rappaport 1984:142–148; Kloner 1991:74). The eclectic nature of this onomasticon, as well as the wall paintings, was explained along ethnic lines by the discoverers of the tomb, who express well their dismay in the following sentence:

An even more complex question related to the ethnicity issue: what is the nature of the limited koine culture reflected in the paintings? Steingräber suggests that wall paintings in the Hellenistic world formed common religious and ideological models (2001:201). Can this really be said of wall paintings and their parallels, that so much is shared in the funerary art of Italy, Macedonia, Thrace, Alexandria, and Maresha? Or perhaps the repertoire of motifs was so standardized that no special meaning should be ascribed to them? The Maresha tombs might not be able to provide answers to these questions, but they just might give us a few clues. The overall plan of the tombs attests to similarity with this greater culture, but minor adjustments and revisions by the local artist point to diversity. In any case, indicators such as tomb plan and burial method, rather than wall paintings, should be used for identifying religious and ideological models. The painted tombs at Maresha are of a type strikingly pervasive in their region and unseen elsewhere. Their wall paintings, on the other hand, can contribute little to understanding the specific character or ideology espoused by the local population of Maresha and its surroundings.

They (the tombs) have given us an unlooked-for glimpse into an unexpectedly varied mixture of peoples and cultures, a Phoenician settlement on Jewish-Idumaean soil, under Egyptian-Syrian rule, with a culture which, with the exception of some Persian influences, is chiefly Greek (Peters and Thiersch 1905:92). Peters and Thiersch associate the tombs with the Sidonian ethnic group that settled at Maresha, as based on the Apollophanes inscription, the crudeness of the paintings, the resemblance to Punic art, and some of the names of the deceased. They claim that the Greek influence is merely contrived115 (Peters and Thiersch 1905:90–93). Other scholars have also agreed with this conclusion (Fuks 1983:29–34; Oren and Rappaport 1984:151; Kasher 1990:24–25). Even if the Sidonian connection did not remain strong over the course of use of the tomb, when it was painted the affinity was unmistakable, and even clearly stated in an inscription. It stands as an interesting test case for tomb paintings in a clear ethnic context. Therefore, instead of asking the usual question of which ethnic group used the tomb, our approach must be from the opposite angle: what is the nature of a tomb whose inhumed have stated their ethnic affiliation? The answer might not necessarily provide a model for Phoenician/ Sidonian tombs in Idumea, but it could shed light on artistic traits common to that group. The traits have already been outlined: iconography drawn from a mix of origins within the koine culture, Phoenician and Ptolemaic influences side by side and along with other minor influences from the entire Mediterranean basin (expected from a seafaring people), a unique style obedient to none of the Hellenistic styles or schools of art, crude and shoddy technical

The wall paintings in the Thracian and Macedonian tombs were not made for viewing. Inhumation into those tombs happened once, access to them was difficult, and their decorated façades and tumuli were covered over with earth (Valeva 1993:121). Italian wall paintings as well were meant for the eyes of the dead, not the living (Pallottino 1986:13). Contrary to them, the Maresha wall paintings were explicitly intended for the living. Burials within the tombs they decorated were conducted over several generations, the Maresha necropolis having been in use over some two hundred years. The altar at the entrance to the Tomb of Apollophanes and the kline at its rear were used for repeated funeral ceremonies, the attendants seated on the rock-cut bench surrounding the tomb, having come to honor their dead. Perhaps it is for this reason that the composition of the tomb’s wall paintings is so cohesive. As fate would have it, however, the efforts of this first generation were in vain, and their descendants would pay little attention to the wall paintings. This is evidenced by the sketchy inscriptions and graffiti that cover over some of the paintings and the breaching of two loculi in the southern wall, all impairments to the aesthetic of the tomb. Just as the earliest names of those buried in the tomb are more Hellenic and the latest are more Semitic or Idumean, so too did the treatment and attitude of those who used the tomb change over time. The espousal of the Hellenistic koine was limited to those first individuals inhumed in the tomb and the artists who painted it. In the following generations, the tomb was afforded only slightly more respect than it would receive by the iconoclasts who discovered it at the turn of the twentieth century.

115

With respect to the history of research of the Hellenistic period in Israel, the approach of the discoverers of the tomb is interesting. While they saw the Greek influence at work in the tomb as trivial and peripheral, and emphasized its Semitic character, many scholars over the twentieth century have seen the Maresha paintings as epitomizing Hellenization. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, scholarly research has returned to seeing the art of the Hellenistic East as a phenomenon decidedly more local in influence and character, although these new voices carry none of the tone of disappointment or disdain for this fact, which is clearly apparent in Peters and Thiersch’s discussion.

81

82 Yes

No

Levant, Europe, Asia, North Africa

Only in Africa— southern Sudan and southward. Was once in Egypt, but moved southward due to desertification

Boar in hunting pose (P&T); wart-hog, despite its size (Meyboom); many appearances of boar in Egyptian art (Osborn:142–143).

Unsuccessful attempt at giraffe, with large head and eyes, hind quarters of a deer (P&T). Rare in Egyptian art, made known to Greeks only in Hellenistic period. Crude depiction of a poor model or based on verbal description (Meyboom); a sheep’s face, body sloping in wrong direction (Hammerstein); the giraffe prepares for boar attack (Bodenheimer); appearances in Egyptian art (Osborn:41, 148–151).

__________

Yes—alone, a rare animal

Yes

ΚΑΜΕΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΟC

Buffalo—Africa

Standard bull— Levant;

Bull attacked by snake (P&T). Two kinds of buffalo in Africa, but perhaps intention is to a meat-ending bull—sarcophagus taurus—a mythical creature mentioned in sources. The snake is a cobra (Meyboom). Standard bull appears in Egyptian art (Osborn:194–196).

Yes— Indian and Ethiopian cattle

No—bull; yes—snake

Trumpeter, hunter on horseback, injured leopardess, two collared hounds. Inscription: “The rider’s horse of Lebanon” (P&T,4 Avi-Yonah5); “The horse of Libanus, the cavalry commander” (Meyboom,6 and others). Leopardess is hunted here, and inscription reflects confusion (Bodenheimer,7 Hammerstein8). Leopard appears in Egyptian art (Osborn9:119–121). Lion mounting a hill. Inscription identifying it as panther is mistaken (P&T). Mane covers animal’s shoulders and front belly and is typical of Asian lion, which lived in Levant until thirteenth century CE; African lion is short-maned (Hammerstein). Uncertainty regarding long-maned lions in Egypt (Osborn:114).

Identification

ΛΥΚΟ ΤΑΥΡΟC

Lion—Levant, Asia, and Africa

Leopard—Levant, Asia, Africa

Fauna3

Perhaps remains of another lion (P&T).

Yes— panther; No—lion

Yes—all of the animals in the scene

Ptolemy II’s Procession2

__________

Yes

ΠΑΝΘΗΡΟC

Palestrina1 Yes— leopard and hounds

Drawing

ΙΡΡΟC ΛΙΒΑΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΙΠΠΙΚΟΥ / ΠΑΡΔΑΛΟC

Inscription

The Identification of the Animals on the Frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

83

__________

Other fish appear

Probably (Meyboom)

Yes

ΡΙΝΟΚΕΡWC

ΕΛΕΦΑC / ΑΙΘΙΟΠΙΑ

No

ΟΡΥΞ

Palestrina1 No

Drawing

ΓΡΥΨ

Inscription

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No (mythical creature)

Ptolemy II’s Procession2

Africa

Two-horned rhino—Africa

North Africa and Sahara, as based on horns

Fauna3

Fish with tusk and trunk, feathers on tail; fanciful creature, perhaps corresponding to rhino and elephant opposite it (P&T); fits Greek belief in similar creatures living on land and underwater (P&T, Avi-Yonah, Hammerstein); perhaps an exaggeration of an authentic Nilotic fish, perhaps mormyridae/ barbels (Meyboom).

Saddled African elephant, led by axe-wielding man (defaced) bearing name “Ethiopia,” painted over an incised woman beside it (P&T). Elephant is trained, the axe considered an Ethiopian hunting weapon used by tribes in Meroe; inscription better suits woman (Meyboom); Ethiopia as symbol for Africa (Avi-Yonah). Ptolemy was left no Indian elephants from the inheritance of Alexander, thus hunted African ones (Rice); appears in Egyptian art (Osborn 125–130).

Large rhino; head too large and eyes too high, gives comic appearance; two horns (P&T); crudely depicted rhino, size indicates white rhino, rare in Egyptian art (Meyboom); hippopotamus or red rhino (Avi-Yonah); poor or imprecise depiction of Egyptian rhino or square-lipped rhino (Hammerstein); both white and black rhinos appear in Egyptian art (Osborn :138–141).

Oryx; kind of antelope, with disproportionately long body, changed from original outline on wall (P&T); antelope with horns curved back, typical of North Africa and Sahara (Rice,11 Meyboom, Hammerstein, Osborn); red dots the invention of artist (Meyboom); ram (Hammerstein); deer (Bodenheimer, Avi-Yonah); long-horned deer with striped body (Rozenberg); appears in Egyptian art (Osborn:160–165).

Griffin; finest of the paintings (P&T); mythical creature, although Pliny relates that it really exists (Meyboom); common in Greek and Ptolemaic art, including funerary contexts (Rozenberg10).

Identification

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA

84 Yes

Unclear identification

Yes—white rhino; no— black rhino

ΙΥΙ·Λ, suggested—

ΛΟΦ,

ΥΛΟΦΑΓΟC

suggested—

ΛΥΚΟC

Unclear identification

Yes

Yes

No

No

Ptolemy II’s Procession2

ΟΝΑΓΡΙΟC

__________

Yes

ΚΡΟΚΟΔΙΛΟC / ΙΒΙC

Palestrina1 Other fish appear

Drawing

__________

Inscription

One-horned rhino—India; black rhino— Africa

Levant, Asia, Africa

Africa

Levant, Africa

Fauna3

Tapir (P&T, Avi-Yonah), based on reconstruction of inscription “wood-eating” (P&T); rhino (Hammerstein, Meyboom, Rozenberg); rhino with a small body and large horn, as it appears in Egyptian depictions; perhaps a black rhino (Meyboom).

Similar to lynx; perhaps wolf, as based on reconstruction of inscription (Bodenheimer, P&T); field rat (Avi-Yonah); lynx (Rice); hyena (Meyboom); lynx appears in Egyptian art (Osborn:112–113).

Wild ass and snake fighting; inscription onagrios associated with wild ass (P&T); Somali wild ass with large hairy ears; less likely, a zebra; battle with snake a variation of buffalo/snake fight on opposite wall (Meyboom); wild ass (Bodenheimer, Avi-Yonah, Hammerstein); appears in Egyptian art (Osborn:132–134).

Hippopotamus with large head and eyes (P&T), typical of Egypt (Meyboom, Rozenberg); scares away fisherman, destroys crops, hunted with fishing spear, common in Egyptian ritual hunting scenes (Meyboom); appears in Egyptian art (Osborn:144–148).

Crocodile and ibis (P&T), animals very characteristic of Egypt, found in Nile and, according to Strabo, in Somaliland (Meyboom, Rozenberg);12 red crocodile and ibis (Bodenheimer, Avi-Yonah); inscription says ibis but straight beak suggests a cattle egret (Hammerstein); upturned beak, as opposed to down-turned, suggests avocet and not ibis, identified by mistake (A.E.)?

Horned fish, perhaps corresponding to tapir or rhino (P&T and others); exaggeration of authentic Nilotic fish, perhaps Elephant snout-fish, or some other species (Meyboom).

Identification THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

85

Unclear identification

H…C

Unclear identification

Yes

No

Ptolemy II’s Procession2

Levant, Asia, Africa

Levant, from India to Turkey and Arabian peninsula

Fauna3

Lion, head in full-view with human face, recalls lion on Persian coat of arms (P&T); manticora, mythical man-eating creature, mentioned by Pliny (Cook in P&T, Phillips in Meyboom); lamassu, mythical Assyrian creature (Avi-Yonah); standard lion, full-face (Meyboom).

Lynx (P&T, Hammerstein, Meyboom); leopardus (Bodenheimer); field rat (Avi-Yonah).

Porcupine (P&T, Meyboom); appears often in desert scenes (Meyboom); porcupine with sheep’s face and unnatural slope on body (Bodenheimer, Hammerstein); hedgehog (Avi-Yonah, Rozenberg). The porcupine appears in Egyptian art; historical sources often confuse it with the hedgehog, despite its size (Osborn:53–54).

Identification

Footnotes: 1 The Palestrina mosaic, as based on the list in Meyboom 1995:287, n. 28. 2 The grand procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, based on the account of Athenaios, 200F–201C, brought in Rice 1983:86–89. 3 Fauna of the Hellenistic period, as based on the studies of Hammerstein, Meyboom, Osborn, and the Hebrew-language encyclopedia, “Flora and Fauna of the Land of Israel,” edited by A. Alon. 4 Peters and Thiersch 1905:23–28, discoverers of the tomb, and publishers of the inscriptions of the animal frieze. 5 Avi-Yonah first published his description of the tomb in the first Hebrew edition (1970) of the Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. He later published the description together with A. Kloner in the second edition; see AviYonah and Kloner 1992:1018–1020. This sub-section on Maresha was written by A. Kloner in the English edition of that encyclopedia (1993). 6 Meyboom, in his study of the Palestrina mosaic, deals with the identification of animals on the frieze of the Tomb of Apollophanes, mentioning identifications of other scholars as well; see Meyboom 1995:44–49, and notes on pp. 281–287. 7 Bodenheimer 1956:7–9; sketches are not to a unified scale. 8 Hammerstein, a biology teacher who took on the subject as a research project at Haifa University (1978). 9 Osborn, in his book on the mammals of Egypt, as based on their appearances in ancient Egyptian art (Osborn and Osbornová 1998). 10 Rozenberg summaries the symbolism of each creature (2001). 11 Rice 1983, which deals with the grand procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus. 12 See Houlihan’s study (1986) of the birds of Egypt.

Yes—same inscription mistake

ΛΥΝΞ

Palestrina1 No

Drawing

ΥCΤΡΙΞ

Inscription

THE PAINTED TOMBS AT MARESHA

86

VI Domestic and Palatial Ornament The wall, floor, and ceiling decorations in the residences of the wealthy in the Hellenistic world followed the fashions of the day. These adornments were less common than they would become in the Roman Imperial period, but nevertheless are found at main sites in the West and East, as in the rich cities of Campania, Sicily, Macedonia, Delos, Pergamon, and Alexandria. Domestic ornament included white stucco or colored fresco and mosaic floor pavements of various sorts. These decorations can be seen to a certain degree as a continuation of traditions from the fourth century, yet in another light they reflect great innovation and progress within the Hellenistic period. Wall painting improved stylistically in the period. One clear change as it relates to Classical painting is the decline of vase painting and the development of painting as a larger medium on floors and walls (Villard 1973:98–102). Wall paintings and ornament were generally simple works, usually depicting the main structural elements of the decorative wall. Not surprisingly, the paintings survive only partially in most cases. The mosaics of the period, on the other hand, are intricate compositions in a naturalistic style, as a whole better preserved given their location on the floor. Hellenistic mosaics were considered by many to be the apogee of Greek pictorial art, with many Greek mosaic artists commissioned abroad in Italy.

Two Late Hellenistic period mosaics have been uncovered in situ at two above-mentioned sites: Tel Anafa (Herbert 1994:66–67, Pl. 38) and Jericho (Netzer 2001:101). Mosaic fragments from the second century BCE were recovered in a Roman period refuse pit at Dor (Stewart and Martin 2003). The remains are sporadic but they are likely to increase in number in the future. Mosaics The first appearance of mosaics in the Greek world was at the end of the fifth and primarily in the fourth centuries. The latter century heralded great progress in mosaic work, as in sculpture, which would continue through the Hellenistic period (Robertson 1965; 1967; Pollitt 1986:210; Ling 1998:19–23; Dunbabin 1999:5–17). The earliest Greek mosaics were made of pebbles; later mosaics in opus tessellatum (cubical stones or tesserae), opus vermiculatum (tesserae of stone and other materials smaller than 4 mm), and other techniques were developed (Ling 1998:24–27; Dunbabin 1999:18–35). It was not a linear evolution, and different techniques were at times interwoven (Dunbabin 1979; 1999:18–35). Mosaicists adopted different approaches to their craft, creating carpets ranging from simple monochrome pavements, to decorative opus tessellatum pavements, to pictorial compositions in opus vermiculatum. The vermiculatum carpets made use of tiny cut stones in a range of color and material to render the floor three-dimensional, an illusion of depth that contrasted the flatness of the floor (Dunbabin 1999:32). This last technique was employed in carpets known for their pictorial exquisiteness, uncovered at sites in Greece and the East, such as Pergamon, Alexandria, and Delos; or in southern Italy and Sicily in the West (Dunbabin 1979; Pollitt 1986:210–229; Ling 1998:27–33; Dunbabin 1999:18–52; Guimer-Sorbets 1999). Mosaicists made use of known illusionistic effects, including foreshortening, overlapping elements, and the graded use of color for shading. As mentioned, only the vermiculatum carpets yielded the full pictorial effect, while most of the mosaics were much simpler, more basic creations.

Remains of domestic and palatial ornament of the Hellenistic period are fairly limited in number in Palestine (Rozenberg 2008:298–309). Sites where Hellenistic residences have been excavated have yielded virtually no finds of the sort. At excavations at Maresha, Samaria, Dor, Beth-Shean, and Akko, no mosaics and hardly any wall paintings of the Hellenistic period have been exposed in situ. Houses at Jewish and Samaritan sites as well are nearly devoid of this kind of ornament, except for remains of stucco and fresco at “the Mansion” on Mount Gerizim (Magen 2000:89). Wall ornament was uncovered at the Tel Anafa villa (Gordon 1977) and at the Hasmonean palaces at Jericho (Netzer 2001:18), both dating to late in the Hellenistic period. At Maresha, several pieces of painted plaster of unknown provenance were discovered in one of the subterranean complexes. They should be dated at the latest to the second century, given the chronology of the site. Fresco pieces dated to the Hellenistic period were also found at Akko (Segal and Porat 2000) and in some other places in the region (Rozenberg 2008:303–309). The Hellenistic mosaics in Palestine are also quite few.116

Bruneau identified the following six types of mosaics at Delos: ceramic sherds, pebbles, stone and marble chips, opus signinum (mortared floors with isolated inlaid tesserae), opus tessellatum, and opus vermiculatum (1972:16–35; Dunbabin 1979:267). Of these six techniques, three are represented in three Hellenistic mosaics in Israel: signinum, tessellatum, and vermiculatum. Pebble mosaics from the Early Hellenistic period have not been found in Israel to date. Figurative pebble mosaics are rare

116

Balty has even claimed that there is no evidence of mosaics in the eastern Mediterranean prior to the first century CE; the finds are indeed very minimal; see Balty 1995:30.

87

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE emblema. Martin claims that the mosaic was produced at Dor, as based on the nature of its mortar. However, Tal (2006:174) has suggested that the fragments were brought to the site for the extraction of raw materials or to be incorporated in secondary use in some construction. Martin’s understanding seems better founded. It can be assumed that the mosaic originally adorned some luxurious residence at Dor, where the frame for the emblema was produced using local mortar. The frames were typically created on site, while the emblemata were produced in the artist’s workshop. The production of the mosaic at Dor in the second century, perhaps by a craftsmen commissioned to arrive at the site for this purpose, is of great importance to the question of the Hellenization of the site (Stewart and Martin 2003:142–143). A specifically commissioned artistic work differs a great deal in this regard from art simply purchased by local residents or notables and shipped from afar. The Dor mosaic in all likelihood adorned a private residence, the owners of which paid for a Hellenistic carpet par excellence, perhaps made by a foreign craftsman. The patron-artist relationship reflected here differs in no way from what transpired in the important Hellenistic urban centers, and attests to the presence of the overriding aesthetic values and ideas of the age. It is far from representing the provinciality of the region. Unfortunately, it was found out of context in a rubbish pit. Mosaics of this sort have as yet not been uncovered in properly excavated Hellenistic houses (Stern 2000:108–111).

outside of Greece, Macedonia, and Sicily. At Alexandria, for example, only one pebble mosaic has been revealed (Daszewski 1985: Pls. 1–3). The absence of pebble mosaics is likely related to the faint presence of the third century on the archaeological record of various areas in the East, particularly the Levant (Smith 1990). On the other hand, it remains possible that the lack of Early Hellenistic pebbled and tessellated pavements on record is a matter of happenstance, and that new findings will come to light in the future. The only known second-century mosaic happened to be uncovered only in 2000, before which it was commonly accepted that mosaic carpets were not introduced to Palestine prior to the first century BCE. It is likely that mosaics in techniques previously unseen in the region, such as Early Hellenistic pebble mosaics, will come to light as excavations continue. Mosaic Fragments from Tel Dor During the 2000 excavation season at Dor, mosaic fragments were found in a Roman refuse pit. The larger fragment measures 40×30 cm (Back cover; Stewart and Martin 2003:132–141, Figs. 8–10117). It is made in vermiculatum, of stone, ceramic, and glass pieces measuring 1–5 mm; a surrounding frame is composed of larger white tesserae. Depicted on the fragment is a New Comedy mask of a male, with a speira surrounded by a garland of leaves, flowers, and various fruits from the Dionysiac realm (ivy sprays, pinecones, olives, pomegranates, and wild roses). Martin proposes that it is an eclectic piece combining features of two masks of young men from the New Comedy (Stewart and Martin 2003:134–137). There are smaller mosaic fragments hinting at the existence of another mask (Stewart and Martin 2003:139). Another fragment portrays a basket with fruit similar to that alongside the mask (Color Fig. 8, left). The third fragment is of a meander in perspective (Color Fig. 8, right). Martin suggests that the three fragments are of the frame of the emblema, and were made on site (Stewart and Martin 2003:138).118 The mosaic from the Nile Delta said to be a portrayal of Berenike II resembles the Dor mosaic fragment in style and technique (Guimer-Sorbets 1999:93; Dunbabin 1999:25–26; Stewart and Martin 2003:139–140). The garlands recall Pergamene mosaics (Dunbabin 1999:25–26, 28–29; Stewart and Martin 2003:140). But the frame and the garlands are, generally speaking, most similar to frames from Delos and Pompeii (Bruneau 1972:156–159; Stewart and Martin 2003:140–141). Martin dates the mosaic on iconographic and stylistic grounds to the middle of the second century.

Mosaic from Tel Anafa A mosaic panel was found in Room 16 of a bathing suite in the villa on Tel Anafa. It is dated to the first Hellenistic period phase in the villa, postdating 125 BCE (Figs. 92– 93; Herbert 1994:26, 66–67, Pl. 38). The panel measures 3.5×2.3 m, and is made of black diorite and white marble tesserae, 1.0–1.5 cm in size. The carpet is framed in a thick black band, which continues onto an unpreserved panel to the south. The surviving panel is divided into three unequal segments. In the western segment is a chessboard pattern; in the central and eastern are irregular patterns of black and white tesserae. These patterns, as well as the asymmetrical layout of the panel, are seen on contemporary mosaics from Delos and Cyrene (Bruneau 1972:128–129, 144–145; Dunbabin 1979; Herbert 1993:123–124). East of the mosaic is a thin band in opus signinum—mortar with isolated tesserae (Herbert 1994: Pl. 40). This technique is primarily characteristic of Italy and Sicily beginning from the third century (Joyce 1979:254–255; Ling 1998:10, 34–36). The use of multiple mosaic techniques in a single pavement in this period is well known (Dunbabin 1979). Opus signinum also appears on Delos, where it has been associated with Italian influence (Herbert 1993:124). Some see it as having Punic origins (Ling 1998:34; Dunbabin 1999:20–21). Phoenician and Western influence is present at Anafa in other categories of material culture as well (Herbert 1993:123–124). The Anafa mosaic is typical of its period in its asymmetry, disunity, and synthesis of techniques. Yet it also has two elements local in character,

These mosaic fragments, extraordinary in quality, are but remnants of a lavish carpet that perhaps included an 117

This article was published by both authors, although R. Martin alone investigated the mosaic; the discussion below on the fragment will relate to her conclusions.

118

The emblema is the central panel of the mosaic, usually figurative. It is the focal point of the carpet, viewable from only one side, and surrounded by a frame; it appears as a portrait or picture hanging on the surface. Artisans would create the emblemata in workshops and insert them into the floor on site, while the tessellated frame would have been created on site; see Dunbabin 1999:29.

88

DOMESTIC AND PALATIAL ORNAMENT

Fig. 92. Black-and-white mosaic from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994: Pl. 38.

Fig. 93. Black-and-white mosaic from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994: Pl. 40.

89

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE namely the Phoenician-Punic influence reflected in the signinum technique and its generally substandard appearance. It is thus a good representation of the fusion of canonical Hellenistic cultural markers with provincial Phoenician influences.

1983: Fig. 100), and the crenellated or sawtooth frame with chessboard squares in the corners is preserved at Masada (Foerster 1995:144, Pl. XIII) and Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: Fig. 165). The tripartite panel, crenellations, and especially the corner chessboard squares are quite rare at Hellenistic sites, as at Delos and in Egypt, but appear at the Hasmonean palace complex at Jericho and at Masada and Jerusalem (Ovadiah 1990; Foerster 1995:145–146). Elements of the Hellenistic mosaic repertoire that are absent here are the use of lead strips for outlining, tesserae of graded sizes, and three-dimensionality; their absence reflects a provincial style (Ovadiah 1990:212; Foerster 1995:151). The style, composition, and motifs of these local productions were particularly well liked by artisans at work in the region. Their mosaics can be defined as local productions characteristic of Judea in the first century BCE, even if their roots in the region reach further back in time. In summary, although the Jericho mosaic is part of a Late Hellenistic period bathing suite, its mosaic panel is stylistically and iconographically a forerunner of the Early Roman tessellated pavements that would soon follow, though it and its successors remain typical Hellenistic productions in every respect.119 It is perhaps a missing link between simple Hellenistic mosaics that have been lost and the better known Herodian mosaics.

Mosaic fragments were uncovered in the debris of a room in the southeastern part of the main building, together with many stucco pieces. On the tessellated pieces are a white frame, made of 5-mm tesserae; and a central decoration on a black background, of 3-mm tesserae (Gordon 1977: Pl. VII; Herbert 1994: Pl. 34B). Gordon proposes that the mosaic had an emblema, and that the white frame was meant to contrast the black orthostat area he reconstructs on the wall in this room (Gordon 1977:62–69). The few fragments of the mosaic are not sufficient for an in-depth discussion. Mosaic from Jericho One of the rooms of a Hellenistic bathing suite at the Hasmonean palace complex at Jericho, dated to the last phase of the complex—between Pompey’s conquest in 63 BCE and the earthquake that laid waste to the complex in 31 BCE—was fitted with a mosaic panel (Color Fig. 9; Netzer 2001:101, 337, Pl. VII). Although the bathing suite is in a Hellenistic style, the mosaic is a harbinger of Herodian tessellated carpets that would be produced in the region mere decades afterwards. The mosaic measures 60×120 cm and is made in opus tessellatum of relatively large tesserae, 15–20 mm each. It portrays geometric motifs. It is framed in a light red band and divided into three symmetrically arranged registers, the central register larger than the flanks. The flanks are comprised of black, white, and orange squares arranged in haphazard diagonal rows. The central register consists of a frame and an inner panel. The frame is made of crenellations (or a sawtooth) in orange and black; in the corners are chessboard squares in orange, white, and black, a variation of sorts on the motif of the flanks. A square frame in the center of the panel encloses a chessboard diamond in orange and black, similar in execution to the crenellations. The mosaic has a crude, slipshod appearance, and reflects a lack of uniformity in its use of color. It attests to local, provincial craftsmanship.

Wall Ornament Wall decorations of molded plaster (stucco) or painted plaster (fresco, secco, and others) were common in the Hellenistic world. Their appearance intensified in Italy in the first centuries BCE and CE. As with mosaics, the art form is generally associated with the private realm: well-appointed homes, palaces, and tombs. The most widespread style in Greece and the Hellenistic East was the “masonry style,” alternatively known as the “structural style,” “incrustration,” or the “First Pompeian style,” even if the latter term is problematic geographically and chronologically (Bruno 1969:307–308; Laidlaw 1985; Rozenberg 2008:399, n. 3). It adorned lavish residences and tombs of the Hellenistic period (Bruno 1969; 1985:1–6; Barbet 1985:18–25; Rouveret 1989:166–173; Rozenberg 2008:283–291). The masonry wall is plastered in stucco, painted, incised, or molded in relief so as to evoke the structure of the ashlar masonry (Bruno 1969; Barbet 1985:23–25). The classic wall division is, from bottom to top: plinth (baseboard), orthostats, a string course, a main zone, and a frieze (Rozenberg 2008:283–287; Foerster 1995:8–9). The style originated in temples of Classical Greece, and differs from the First Pompeian style of Campania in the squat plinth, which in effect turned the orthostats into a visual base for the wall, and in its more organized division into colors (Bruno 1969:309–311; Rozenberg 2008:292–298). The

Geometrical mosaics of various sorts are common on Delos, the richest site for Hellenistic mosaics. However, as stated, the Jericho mosaic is most closely related to its Herodian successors in regard to motifs and style, even if the arrangement and execution of those later carpets are of a much higher quality. In a manner similar to those Herodian panels, the mosaic conveys the sense of a woven rug. Its layout places it in an intermediary stage between Types B and C of Ovadiah’s typology (1990), which is to say, a mosaic in three registers where the central register is only somewhat larger than the flanks. A similar layout is evident in the Herodian mosaics of the Upper City in Jerusalem (Avigad 1983: Figs. 100, 162). Its motifs are also present in the Herodian group: The chessboard squares appear in the Upper City in Jerusalem (Avigad

119

The Jericho mosaic and Herodian mosaics can generally be classified as Hellenistic productions, given their motifs, style, and composition (Foerster 1995:150). Only a few mosaics at Masada are of the Roman black-and-white type (Foerster 1995:151–158). On the Hellenistic influences on Herodian art and architecture, see Turnheim 1998.

90

DOMESTIC AND PALATIAL ORNAMENT forerunners of the Second Pompeian style, also known as the illusionary or architectural style, are seen on Hellenistic tomb paintings in Macedonia and Alexandria (Rouveret 1989:174–201; McKenzie 1990:85–101; Miller 1993a:98– 100), but this style was not common in Hellenistic houses. An exception is a house uncovered at Amphipolis in Greece, which contained a painting in the illusionary style dating from the second century (Ginouvès 1994:137–138, Figs. 92–93). In any case, these two styles—the masonry style and the illusionary style—which parallel the First and Second Pompeian styles, have precursors in the Hellenistic world (Tybout 1989:109–154).

Above the painted panels at the Jericho palace, where the wall recedes, was a white plaster decoration of isodomic ashlar courses. There is no record of a string course, as would be expected between the orthostats and the isodomic courses. The wall decoration on the lower terrace of the Northern Palace at Masada, which dates to the Herodian period and primarily reflects the Second Pompeian style, is painted only up to the band directly above the orthostats, and the rest is left white (Foerster 1995: Pl. 1). A similar phenomenon is seen in the Herodian wall paintings at Herodion (Foerster 1995:9–10; Fittschen 1996:143), and to some degree at Anafa (see below). The use of color on the orthostats but not in the main zone is typical of the Greek masonry style (Bruno 1969:311). But by the end of the Hellenistic period, even the isodomic courses of the main zone were usually painted, as with examples from Delos. The masonry style of the Herodian period at Masada, Herodion, and Jerusalem is exceptional in that it was entirely white, reflecting Hellenistic tradition (Foerster 1995:11; Rozenberg 2008:355). Vitruvius warned that white was likely to call attention to smoke stains (De Architectura 7, III, 4). A likely reason that the isodomic courses were painted white at Hellenistic Jericho and Anafa and at Herodian sites is that white panels are better suited for poorly lit rooms (Gordon 1977:54–56; Foerster 1995:11). It is an Eastern Hellenistic—perhaps even local—feature of the masonry style. Since the source of the porphyry imitation was likely Alexandria, one can suppose that painting of the main zone white also originated there. At Tomb A at Shatby, for example, the main zone above the orthostats was left white (Foerster 1995:11; Venit 2002:28–29).

The remains of Hellenistic wall paintings in Palestine are particularly few in number, and the in-situ examples do not predate the second century. Wall ornament in stucco and fresco would become more common in the Herodian period. The process we observed for mosaics is also evident for wall ornament: the few remains from the Hellenistic period are forerunners to a much larger body of Herodian works. Of course it is to be assumed that wall decorations were far more numerous than what remains today; the rarity of wall preservation at sites contributes to the problem. The principal remains in Palestine point in the direction of Delos and Alexandria, two key sites from the Late Hellenistic world. The Hasmonean Palaces at Jericho Painted plaster was found in the Hasmonean palaces at Jericho, both in situ and among debris. The most impressive preservation is the stucco decoration in one of the chambers of the palace said to have been built by John Hyrcanus at the end of the second century (Color Fig. 10; Netzer 2001:17–18, 335, Pl. IV; Rozenberg 2008:298–301).120 Only the corner of the room was exposed; preserved within it was a wall decoration reaching a height of 1.6 m above the floor. The decoration included a squat plinth under large panels or orthostats painted to imitate marble, alabaster, or porphyry. They are most similar to paintings on Hellenistic tombs at Alexandria (Fittschen 1996:146). Alexandrian tombs with walls and orthostats painted in imitation of alabaster include: the Alabaster Tomb (Adriani 1940: Pl. III; Venit 2002:8, Fig. 3) and the tombs at Moustafa Pasha (Adriani 1936: Pl. XIV), Sidi Gaber (McKenzie 1990: Pls. 183–184), and Ras el-Tine (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 194; Venit 2002:70). At the Anfushi tomb, the imitation of marble was painted in the first or Greek masonry-style phase, but continued to appear in the second or Egyptian-style phase (McKenzie 1990: Pl. 191; Venit 2002:80–83). Alabaster was widely imitated in the early painting styles at Pompeii (Eristov 1979). In Herod’s palaces porphyry imitations are common, as it is the stone type most easily depicted on wall paintings (Fittschen 1996:146). Particularly reminiscent of the Jericho decorations are the orthostats on the lower terrace of the Northern Palace at Masada (Foerster 1995:26, Pl. I).

The remains of wall ornament in the early phase of the Hasmonean palaces at Jericho are a variation of the Hellenistic masonry style. The squat plinth, the large panels of the main zone, and the upper stucco work that imitates isodomic courses are all traits of this style, although the colorful string course is absent and the arrangement of the orthostats is not particularly well ordered. The combination of a colorful lower band and an upper band in white stucco is one of the features of the Hellenistic and Early Roman masonry style in Palestine. The porphyry imitations betray Alexandrian influence. Some of these features will reappear in the decorative programs of Herod’s palaces. Tel Anafa Many remains of stucco and fresco were uncovered both in and out of context during excavations at Tel Anafa. The decorative remains originate in the villa on the east side of the mound, referred to as the Late Hellenistic Stucco Building (LHSB), and are attributed to a phase dated to 125–75 BCE (Herbert 1994:14–19). The wall ornament was investigated by R. Gordon during doctoral work; this study remains the most authoritative analysis and reconstruction of the decorative elements (Fig. 94; Gordon 1977).121 Unfortunately, Gordon’s work does not include

120 Fresco fragments from the phase dated to Alexander Janneaus were found; they also imitate porphyry; see Netzer 1999:20.

121 In the first excavation report, it says that N. Cahill is preparing a final report on the stucco, although it has yet to be published; see Herbert

91

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE a molding composed of a cyma reversa (Color Fig. 11; Weinberg 1970: Pl. 4, top), large dentils, and a cyma. The cornice also functions as an architrave for large Corinthian pillars that divide the wall into even parts (some 3 m tall). The pillars, which were fashioned from stucco in relief, are engaged, their upper parts fluted and their Corinthian capitals gilded. Directly above this lower sector of the wall is the upper sector or attic zone, which consists of panels of molded triangles in relief with ovoli in the margins, alternating with panels of diamonds in relief that are reminiscent of ceiling decoration (Herbert 1994: Pl. 34A; Weinberg 1970:136, Pl. 4, bottom). Between these panels are engaged Corinthian pilasters, fluted and copiously gilded. The pilasters have small capitals, which carry an entablature (Weinberg 1970: Pl. 4, center). The height of the attic zone is at least 1 m. Gordon reconstructs windows between the pilasters (Gordon 1977:230, Fig. 24). The division of the wall into sectors is a common feature of the Hellenistic masonry style. The overall scheme is known from stucco decorations beginning from the fourth century, and it is worth noting in this context the Great Tomb at Lefkadia, where engaged pilasters in stucco appear on the upper register of the decoration (Gordon 1977:251; Ginouvès 1994:137, Fig. 22). With regard to overall design and color scheme, contemporaneous wall paintings at Delos are the best comparanda for the Anafa decoration (Bezerra de Meneses 1970; Gordon 1977:289–293, 300). With regard to molding, Palace IV at Pergamon offers the best examples (Gordon 1977:279– 284, 300). Another parallel, which is slightly later than the Anafa decoration, is at the House of the Griffins in Rome; it is more a reflection of the beginning of the Second Pompeian style (Gordon 1977:275–277, 298). The Anafa wall ornament recalls this illusionary style in the molded margins of the panels, the fluted pillars, and other elements (Gordon 1977:300). Alexandria has relatively few parallels to offer, one of which is for the unusual lozenge design, which appears at Anfushi, albeit not in relief or on a wall, but on a ceiling (Gordon 1977:184–188, 311–312; Venit 2002:84, Fig. 69).

Fig. 94. Reconstruction of Room 10 at Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Herbert 1994:68, Fig. 2.14.

clear photographs, and only few photographs of the wall ornament have been published elsewhere. Below is an analysis and reconstruction of the stucco based on Gordon’s research, with a number of additional comments. It should be emphasized that the stucco was retrieved primarily from debris and fill, so that the published reconstruction is merely a proposal, and does not necessarily reflect the definitive decorative program of the residence. The stucco from Anafa is made of lime plaster, or occasionally marble-dust lime, as was common in Greek stucco (Gordon 1977:29–30, 52). In the courtyard north of the main building (Herbert 1994:15, Fig. 1.3, North Colonnade) were found two stuccoed walls in situ (Gordon 1977:49–52). The decoration consists of panels painted in red and imitating orthostats; they are divided by vertical grooves. The ornament directly above this space did not survive.

Therefore, the ornament at Anafa stands firmly within the koine of the Eastern Hellenistic wall decorations (Rozenberg 2008:303). Nevertheless, there are at Anafa local or regional elements. The absence of color on some of the isodomic courses (the others painted yellow) is characteristic of the region, as was discussed regarding Jericho above. The superimposing of two Corinthian orders is extremely rare in Hellenistic architecture; the Corinthian order is employed on the upper register at Iraq el-Amir in Transjordan (Gordon 1977:225–226, 310–311). The Hellenistic-Punic mausoleum at Sabratha in Tunis is a reference point, with its engaged, fluted pilasters (Gordon 1977:309–310). The Corinthian capitals at Anafa were molded in a characteristically Syrian style (Gordon 1977:314–345). The lozenges in relief in the upper register are an element also found at Herodion (Foerster 1995:9). The arrangement of the entire upper register is evidence of a general Eastern-Syrian orientation with eclectic

Most of the remains are fragments coming from debris, fill, or leveling activity. Gordon reasons that the finds all originated from the same place, a room in the southeastern area of the structure, where the mosaic finds discussed above were found (Gordon 1977:62–89); this is Room 10 in the final report (Herbert 1994:85, Fig. 2.18).122 His reconstruction of the walls of the room, from bottom to top, is as follows (Gordon 1977:82, 90–232, Fig. 23): At the bottom are black orthostats, over which is a narrow string course in various colors. Above the string course are isodomic courses either in yellow with margins in another color, or white with color on the double groove framing the faces of the stones. Overlying the courses is a cornice with 1994:17, n. 35. 122

Herbert reconstructs a similar wall decoration in the bathing room with the black-and-white mosaic discussed above, Room 16; see Herbert 1994:68, Fig. 2.14; see also Fig. 94.

92

DOMESTIC AND PALATIAL ORNAMENT influences (Gordon 1977:348–349). Gordon recognized two trends reflected in the Anafa stucco, both emblematic of eastern areas and the Late Hellenistic period: the eclectic trend, in its mixing of elements from various orders and its having been influenced from a range of sources; and the “baroque” trend, as expressed in the emphasis on relief and on sculpted and gilded details (Gordon 1977:347–355). He suggests that the artisans were Phoenicians, perhaps from Tyre or Sidon (Gordon 1977:29–30).

Miscellaneous Fresco Fragments Three sites have yielded fresco fragments found out of context. Unlike examples given above, it has not been possible to reconstruct the appearance of the walls they adorned. Many fragments (more than 1000 in number) of painted plaster have been discovered at Maresha.123 They were excavated out of the fills of subterranean complexes, most from Complex No. 84. Most depict marble imitations, some in identical coloration; also found were the molded margins of a stucco decoration imitating ashlar masonry. They probably originate in the opulent houses of the Lower City, on walls treated with the polychrome masonry style of the Hellenistic period. Some drums of engaged Doric columns covered with stucco and some fragments of red fresco were unearthed at Tel Ya‘oz in the southern coast, dated to the Hellenistic period (Fischer, Roll and Tal 2008). At Akko, fresco fragments associated with a Hellenistic period fortification wall were uncovered together with fragments of a ceramic vessel containing the pigment powder (Segal and Porat 2000). Most of the colors are local, some imported. They are evidence of an acquaintance with this technique in Palestine even in the Hellenistic period (Segal and Porat 2000:10*–11*).

It emerges that the wall decorations at Anafa are a fusion of two main elements: the overall scheme and style are Hellenistic in character, while the details and adaptations are local. These two trends likely reflect the Greek and the Phoenician, a duality evident in the other categories of material remains at Anafa (Herbert 1993; 1994:17–18). Since Gordon carried out his study, the finds from Syria and Hellenistic Phoenicia have greatly increased, and Anafa need no longer carry the burden of representing that region alone. A second-century residence uncovered recently in Beirut is a noteworthy example, its walls adorned in painted stucco in the masonry style (Aubert 2001–2002:78, 85, Pl. 3; Aubert and Eristov 2001). The ornament in that house is more prosaic than that at Anafa; it recalls decorations at Amphipolis and Delos (Aubert and Eristov 2001:213). Two features shared by the decorative programs of the Anafa and Beirut residences: the use of white panels (at Anafa on the isodomic courses of the main zone, at Beirut on the orthostats), and of small stucco fluted pilasters, one of which is attested at Beirut (Aubert and Eristov 2001:214). Further data will likely be collected in the future, making it easier to characterize the interior decorations of luxuriant homes in the Levant.

Summary Despite the relative scarcity of decorative floor and wall remains from the Hellenistic period in Palestine, the surviving corpus is reasonably diverse, and instructive on the merging of the Hellenistic koine with local elements. The two most prominent sites for both floor and wall ornament, where remains were found in situ or can be reconstructed, are both from the Late Hellenistic period. The earlier of the two is Tel Anafa, where in the last quarter of the second century a villa was adorned in mosaic and wall paintings of a style characteristic of its period, similar to examples at Delos. The other site is Jericho, where late second-century wall decorations were exposed, as was a mosaic from the very beginning of the Early Roman period, the last stage of the Hasmonean palace complex. An earlier second-century mosaic was uncovered at Dor, but unfortunately not in situ.

Tel Kedesh The administrative building exposed at Kedesh in the Galilee in recent years includes a bathing room with a wall decorated in painted stucco in the masonry style (Herbert and Berlin 2003:35–37). The surviving lower register seems to depict a plinth and orthostats. Since it has been published only preliminarily, no further details can be added at this stage.

The villa at Tel Anafa demonstrates well two main artistic trends at work in Palestine: the Hellenistic and the local. The black-and-white mosaic at Anafa resembles many mosaics from Delos and Cyrene, although its incorporation of opus signinum reflects Phoenician influence. The second Anafa mosaic likely had an emblema, and was perhaps more similar to standard Hellenistic productions. The wall decorations are, as a whole, characteristic of the Hellenistic masonry style that was so widespread in the Mediterranean in this period, although as discussed above, they were also endued with local, Phoenician, Syrian, and Palestinian traits. The artisans at work at Anafa, it can be assumed, were Phoenicians well acquainted with the prevalent Hellenistic decorative style. Yet they made sure to give their own unique expression to the overall scheme.

Mount Gerizim The remains of stucco and fragments of fresco are briefly described in a preliminary publication in association with one of the houses in Area P at Mount Gerizim (Magen 2000:89). The photograph shows wide orthostats in white stucco, similar to the above-mentioned Hellenistic period sites. Yavneh-Yam Colored stucco on the walls of Structure A of the second century is mentioned in the preliminary report of the Yavneh-Yam excavations (Fischer 2002:7; Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003:35). No further details have been reported.

123

These fragments are being studied by S. Rozenberg; for a summary see Rozenberg 2008:304.

93

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE The examples of indoor decoration in the Jericho palaces, both earlier (i.e., the wall decoration) and later (the mosaic), also fit into the larger Hellenistic decorative scheme. Nevertheless, they reflect Judean characteristics that would later be more conspicuously expressed in Herodian ornament. To properly characterize them one must classify them together with their Herodian successors, not necessarily with similar contemporary decorations in other Palestinian areas. The Dor mosaic fragments are unusual in that they possess no local features whatsoever, whether in quality of execution, motifs, or style. The same mosaic could just as easily have been exposed in Alexandria, Delos, or Pergamon. Its on-site production would attest to unmistakable Hellenization at Dor.

Palestine. Anafa betrays its affinity to Phoenicia; Jericho, its role as a royal center for Judea; Dor, its Hellenic and cosmopolitan nature. However, it must be recalled that most of the Hellenistic period residences in Palestine, even the more spacious and lovely homes, were furnished with none of these elements from the Hellenistic decorative repertoire. The architectural plans of most do not reflect the typical Hellenistic peristyle house, but rather incorporate courtyards of various sorts (Tal 2006:90–115). It is worth noting that the house with the most substantial decorative remains—the villa at Anafa—is a type of peristyle construction. But as a whole, Anafa and the other examples discussed here are by no means paradigmatic of the Palestinian residence in the Hellenistic period. Wall and floor ornament were far more common at more central and wealthier sites of the Hellenistic period such as Delos and Pompeii.

Thus there is a great degree of diversity and regional influence on the domestic ornament of Hellenistic

94

VII VARIA The previous chapters dealt with the prominent media of plastic art—painting, mosaics, sculpture, and figurines. This chapter will examine productions on the periphery of what can be defined as art, mostly minor art or other specimens bearing iconography. They include bone objects, faience, glass, small metal ornaments (buttons, jewelry, appliqués, etc.), weights, coins, and bullae. They will be discussed briefly and concisely, as they are not artistic items par excellance, but reflect the incorporation of artistry into the manufacture of everyday items, jewelry, and amulets. This distinction between “pure art” and everyday items of an artistic nature is difficult and artificial, certainly when dealing with antiquity. Ceramic bowls, braziers, and Hellenistic mold-made lamps, for example, are all everyday items that were given some kind of adornment. They will not be discussed here at all, as they fall into the category of ceramics, and their decorations are conventional. On the other hand, coins struck locally, as well as bullae, can offer crucial insight into issues of iconography and will thus be examined here despite the fact that they are not art per se. The items of this sort are numerous and common at various sites, though their publication is often incomplete. They usually are not presented in articles and preliminary publications on sites, and are occasionally excluded from final reports as well. Therefore, the main topics surrounding them will be illustrated here, but no attempt has been made to exhaustively gather all of the known specimens on these varied media.

coins at autonomous local mints in Palestine began in the second century, but at only a relatively few city mints, and without uniformity or continuity (Tal 2006:299). There were even poleis that did not necessarily strike coins. Palestinian issues can be divided into two main groups: Ptolemaic and Seleucid city coins and Hasmonean coins from the last third of the second century and onward.

Coins The discussion on coins will deal with iconography only, namely the models, motifs, and figures appearing on Palestinian coin issues. The local coins are usually dimunitive bronze coins, making stylistic analysis irrelevant. Hellenistic coins are typically only included in studies of art when discussing royal portraiture (Pollitt 1986:25–29). The technical, monetary, historical, economic, and epigraphic sides of numismatics will not be addressed here. Nor will the discussion relate to chronological questions, or to issues surrounding which types should be associated with which rulers, so long as the issue is irrelevant to the iconographic discussion. Only coins struck in Palestine will be considered. Coin issues coming from Hellenistic royal mints, both within or outside Palestine, are of no consequence to a discussion on Palestinian art in the Hellenistic period.124 The striking of

A royal mint functioned in Akko from Alexander the Great through Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule (Tal 2006:300–302, 304–307). Autonomous mintage began in Akko in the second half of the second century (Hill 1910:lxxvii–lxxxii; Meshorer 1985:12). Portraits of rulers typically no longer appeared on the autonomous coins of the second and first centuries, with an exception being those of the prolific city founder Antiochus IV. Designs included heads of the Dioskouroi donning piloi, wreathed and starred; the head of Tyche with turreted crown; Nike standing on a palm branch; the head of Apollo; naked Apollo, standing or sitting; Zeus sitting and holding a small Nike in his hand; and the wreathed head of Zeus with an eagle. Other motifs included fruit-filled cornucopia, a lyre (with Apollo), a tripod, or the bow of a ship (Hill 1910:128–130; Kadman 1961:49–52, Pls. I–III; Tal 2006:304–307). The designs on Hellenistic coins from Akko represent iconography of the Hellenistic East typical of Phoenician city coinage. The

City Coins Most Palestinian cities, even poleis, did not issue coins in the Hellenistic period. The ones with indisputable evidence of mintage in the Hellenistic period are AkkoPtolemais, Ashkelon, and Gaza. A substantial number of coins, primarily those from the early part of the era, are standard Ptolemaic or Seleucid royal issues struck in various cities. Royal mints were established in Akko, Jaffa, and Tyre125 by the Ptolemies once it became clear that their single mint in Alexandria was insufficient (Kindler 1995). The Seleucids set up royal mints for similar reasons in Akko and Ashkelon (Voulgaridis 2000). These coins are in every way royal issues, and their iconography follows suit, consisting of portraits of kings and queens, Zeus, the eagle and other symbols of Zeus, and various gods, all typical of Hellenistic coins. This coinage is not a topic of study for this book, which seeks to examine specifically Palestinian iconography. Those indeed relevant come from the autonomous mints of a few coastal cities in Palestine: Akko, Ashkelon, and Gaza.

124 Incorporating a study of royal Hellenistic coins into this work would be comparable to examining British bills and coins of the Mandatory colonies as part of research into local culture and art of that period in colonized regions (Palestine, India, etc.); of course such an endeavor

would be futile. 125 The Tyre mint was the most important in our region, though it remains beyond the scope of this book, as explained in the Introduction.

95

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Dioskouroi also appeared on second-century coins of the Phoenician city of Tripoli and would become even more popular in the Roman period (Forrer 1929:784–785, Pl. 297; Matsson 1969:65–66). The other designs are common in the Late Hellenistic period in Phoenician cities such as Tripoli, Sidon, and Arwad (Forrer 1929:770–771, 783, 785, Pls. 295, 297).

Gaza had a long-standing tradition of minting coins, one which reaches back to the Persian and Early Hellenistic periods (Tal 2006:304), though its autonomous mint began production in the middle of the second century (Hill 1914:lxix; Meshorer 1985:29). The designs appearing on the autonomous coins from Gaza are of a standing Zeus; the wreathed head of Zeus; the head of Apollo; the head of Athena; the head of Tyche with turreted crown; a woman wearing a kalathos and holding a cornucopia and phiale; a tripod; and cornucopias (Hill 1914:lxx–lxxi, 143–144; Kushner 2000:23; Tal 2006:309–311). Hill proposes identifying Zeus with the local god Marnas, and the woman wearing a kalathos as the city goddess (1914:lxxi). But aside from this—a suggestion made on historic rather than iconographic grounds—the iconography of the autonomous coins of Gaza can be said to be typically Eastern Hellenistic.

The motifs on Akko coins are typical of a PhoenicianHellenistic city. They include portraits of syncretic GreekPhoenician gods. Apollo, for example, was identified with the Phoenician god Reshef (Matsson 1969:11; Flusser 1976:1070–1071; Teixidor 1983); and Zeus of course was identified with all of the possible manifestations of Baal. Also typical of the region is the appearance of non-Olympian gods, as symbols more than as deities per se (Nike for victory, Tyche for abundance and fortune). Tyche or the city goddess is one of the commonest motifs on Palestinian and Phoenician coins (Matsson 1969:47). Nike is also frequently found on Hellenistic and Roman coins of the region (Matsson 1969:142–144). Symbols occurring on the Akko coins are attributes of gods (the lyre of Apollo, the eagle of Zeus), symbols of abundance (the cornucopia), and maritime symbols (the bow of a ship). They bear witness to Akko having been a Hellenized Phoenician coastal city. It seems that the most characteristic and unique figures on the Akko coins as they relate to other Palestinian and Phoenician cities are the Dioskouroi, those astral gods who, among their other roles, would accompany seafarers. They were popular in Syria and Egypt (Augé and Linant de Bellefonds 1986:593), and were apparently particularly favored at Akko. We have noted their ubiquity in other contexts, as on terracotta, stone relief, and bronze relief.

It has been put forward recently that Maresha struck coins under Gabinius (Qedar 1992–1993). Occurring on the coins are a head (of Gabinius?) with a helmet and wreath, an eagle, the head of Tyche, and a palm branch appearing alone or with a snake. It seems that the mint reflects the beginning of the settlement at Beth-Guvrin (Kloner 2003:6), and its examination is relevant to the Roman period rather than to Hellenistic Maresha. Hasmonean Coins The coins minted by Hasmonean kings in the Judean kingdom are particularly important to the study of art given the meager evidence of art from Judea in the Hellenistic period. Basically the only artistic expressions known to date from that context are those associated with the ruling regime. Hasmonean mintage began during the reign of John Hyrcanus, after 128 BCE (Meshorer 2001:31), and continued to Matthias Antigonus in what was essentially the Early Roman period (Meshorer 2001:50). The motifs appearing on these coins are standard for Hellenistic coinage, although there is a conspicuous absence of figurative or explicitly pagan symbols. Furthermore, the Hasmonean kings attempted to create, from the standard Hellenistic models, motifs that would be unique to them by omitting details, altering composition, and combining designs. In this way they forged their own language on their coinage, while not abandoning the basic symbols of administrative rule appearing on coin issues of their time.

Appearing on Ashkelon coins minted during the second century are Tyche, Zeus, the bow of a ship, a dove, and an eagle on a thunderbolt (Tal 2006:308–309). A large part of the coins are silver issues dated to the end of the second century or the first century and imitating royal Ptolemaic coins. Thus the image of the ruler appears on one side and an eagle on the other, with the addition on Ashkelon coins of a small dove, a symbol of the city goddess Aphrodite Urania or Tyche-Astarte (Hill 1914:1, 107–108; Spaer 1984; Barkay 1992–1993:25; Meshorer 1985:26). Another type has Aphrodite on one side and a dove on the other (Forrer 1929:797, Pl. 299, no. 8110). The bronze coins minted in the city after it gained independence in 104–103 BCE are somewhat substandard, with figures of Tyche and turreted crown, an unidentified bearded man, an eagle, and a warship (Hill 1914:lv–lvi, 105–106; Forrer 1929:797, Pl. 299). The coins of this city, whose mint is among the oldest and most productive, are basically imitations of royal coinage. Only a few crudely manufactured issues are local in character. It is a Hellenistic repertoire typical of Phoenician and Eastern cities, with only the dove representing a local idiosyncrasy. The maritime character of the two cities thus far discussed—Akko and Ashkelon— is expressed in the warships and bows of ships appearing on their coins.

One of the most pervasive designs consists of two opposed cornucopias on either side of a pomegranate (Mesheror 2001:33–34) or, according to another view, a poppy-head (Hill 1914:188; Reifenberg 1947:39–40). Cornucopias are often portrayed on Hellenistic coins, but always parallel to each other. Their placement in opposition to one another, and on either side of a pomegranate, is unique to the Hasmoneans; Meshorer has proposed that the combination was meant to preserve the traditional symbols of abundance while maintaining a distinctly Jewish character (2001:34). The lulav, which appears on the coins of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Jannaeus, is an abstraction of the popular 96

VARIA

Fig. 95. Bullae from Tel Kedesh depicting Greek deities, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Herbert and Berlin 2003:51, Fig. 26.

Fig. 96. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting Tyche, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:74, Fig. 7.

Nike figure on Hellenistic coins (Meshorer 2001:35). The symbolism of victory is thus preserved without showing the pagan goddess representing it. The wreath, symbol of majestic glory, is also brought, only not on the head of a king, as was common on Hellenistic coins (Meshorer 2001:35–36). The anchor, which on Hellenistic coins symbolizes the sea and mooring at a safe harbor, appears on Alexander Jannaeus’ coins perhaps as a reference to his political conquests (Meshorer 2001:37). The Seleucids often put the anchor on their coins, and the Hasmoneans likely chose it to emphasize their legitimacy as successors of the Seleucids (Jacobson 2000). Alexander Jannaeus’ coins also have a star encircled by a royal diadem. The star symbolizes the Dioskouroi, appearing together with them on Hellenistic coins. Meshorer posits that the star was a replacement for the portrait of the king, the diadem meant to have been on his head; to emphasize this association, writing was placed between the rays of the star (Meshorer 2001:37–38). All of these designs reflect the almost painstaking attempts of the Hasmoneans to represent their kingdom as equal to other Hellenistic kingdoms but distinctively Jewish, keeping the traditional Jewish prohibition of figurative art. It resulted in a unique, eclectic iconography.

symbols. The use of symbols of the Temple are beyond the scope of this work, given their late date and their unique historical context. The Hasmonean coins, which primarily drew on royal symbols of the Hellenistic milieu, would thus close with a resoundingly Jewish swan-song. Bullae A bulla or sealing is an impression made by a seal on a piece of clay, used as a signature for identifying official documents written on papyrus or parchment. Bullae carry a symbol or design of some sort in relief used for the identification of the owner of the document. They are relatively small (1–2 cm) and resemble coins in form and occasionally design. Pagan Bullae The largest collection of bullae (over 2000 in number) was discovered recently during excavations at Tel Kedesh, in a layer dated to the first half of the second century in a room that was apparently used as an archive (Herbert and Berlin 2000:122–123; 2003:20). The room was one of several of a Hellenistic structure identified as an administrative building (Herbert and Berlin 2003:19–20). Of the legible bullae (1765 in number), the vast majority bears Greek iconography, such as mythological or other Greek figures (75%), Greek-style portraits (20%), or symbols of the Seleucids or other rulers.126 The gods include Apollo, Aphrodite (Fig. 95; Herbert and Berlin 2003:51, Fig. 26), and Tyche (Fig. 96; Ariel and Naveh 2003:74, Fig. 7). The mythological creatures are the Sphinx, Centaur, and Pegasus (Ariel and Naveh 2003:74). The clearest symbol of Seleucid rule is the anchor (Jacobson 2000; Herbert and Berlin 2003:53, Fig. 228). Other motifs are standard Hellenistic symbols such as the caduceus, which is the staff of Hermes (Ariel and Naveh 2003:65, 66, Figs.

Some of the designs on the coins are purely Jewish, their content and form not taken from Hellenistic prototypes. One such motif is the rosette, which is characteristic of Yehud coins from the Persian period and would continue to be a popular motif in the Second Temple period (Meshorer 2001:34–35). It is prominent in various artistic media of the Second Temple period, and particularly common on Hasmonean coins. But an explicitly Jewish motif would only be used at the end of the Hasmonean era, on the coins of Matthias Antigonus. Only then, at the time of Herod’s ascendancy, would the last of the Hasmonean kings attempt to assert his rule by employing symbols of the Temple— the seven-branched candelabra and the shewbread table (Meshorer 2001:54–55). Beforehand the Hasmoneans had proclaimed their priestly status only in writing, not in visual

126

Of the identifiable bullae, only a few have been published in writing or photographs, and thus the discussion here will be incomplete.

97

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 97. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting an agricultural motif, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:73, Fig. 6.

Fig. 98. Bulla from Tel Kedesh depicting Tanit symbol, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert and Prof. Andrea Berlin; after Ariel and Naveh 2003:63, Fig. 1.

2, 3).127 Thus most of the seals have signs or Hellenistic figures that are Greek in origin, which should come as no surprise when considering the social status of the owners of the seals, who came from the Hellenized upper class of Phoenician society (Ariel and Naveh 2003:69).

Hasmonean Bullae The Hasmonean bullae are quite similar to Hasmonean coins, even if their designs are more limited and contain some new elements. The designs include standard motifs— the rosette, the double cornucopias or the single cornucopia, and the single palm tree flanked by an inscription (Meshorer 2001:57–59). As expected, no pagan or anthropomorphic designs appear on the Hasmonean bullae.

A small number of the seals bear Phoenician iconography that can be considered local. The dolphin, symbol of Tyre, appears on one (Ariel and Naveh 2003:68). On another is a woman standing on the bow of a ship, grasping an unclear object. Ostensibly the depiction is one of Greek iconography and style, but the motif also appears on Sidonian coins, where it is interpreted as Astarte holding an aphlaston (Ariel and Naveh 2003:74–77). One bulla has a fantastical agricultural motif of a stalk of wheat and a bunch of grapes growing from the same plant; Ariel and Naveh associate it with the common combination in the Hebrew Bible of “grain” and “new wine” (Fig. 97; 2003:73–74, Fig. 6). The most patently Phoenician bullae are nine which bear the Phoenician/Punic symbol of Tanit with a Phoenician inscription expressing dominance: “he who is over the land” (Fig. 98; Ariel and Naveh 2003:62– 63, Fig. 1). This Tanit symbol joins a series of Hellenistic Tanit symbols uncovered on the Phoenician and Palestinian coast (Dothan 1974; Stern 2006). To summarize, most of the bullae from Kedesh are typically Greek in their iconography, which reflects the Hellenization of the upper echelon of Phoenician society. Nevertheless, a few of them bear local Phoenician motifs, mostly under Tyrian influence. They represent a unique Phoenician identity that owners of the documents wished to preserve.

Glass There was an increase and spread of glass manufacture in the Hellenistic period, and production techniques became more advanced (Spaer 2001:30). Glass objects are to be associated with the larger Hellenistic koine, with important production centers located in Ptolemaic Egypt and on the Palestinian and Phoenician coasts (Spaer 2001:30–31). Those that interest us here are mainly pendants and beads, both minor art. “Head pendants,” which were styled as grotesque or demonic heads, are well evidenced on the Phoenician coast in the first millennium, and in Israel heads of this type have been found mainly in Persian contexts (Spaer 2001:155–158). In the Hellenistic period, the new casting technique was incorporated with the ancient core-formed technique (by which glass was wound around a core), and the head pendants became more colorful and lost their grotesque appearance (Kloner and Jackson 2000; Spaer 2001:158–159). Heads such as these have been found throughout the Mediterranean basin; in Palestine they have been retrieved in clear archaeological contexts at three sites: four pendants at Maresha, one at Dor (Spaer 2001:159), and one at Beersheba (Giveon 1973: Pl. 24, no. 4).128 The Dor specimen is somewhat unusual, and details on its colors have not been reported (Stern 2000:176–177, Fig. 114). One of the Maresha beads stands out because of its dark blue color; others have yellowish and blue colors (Kloner and Jackson 2000:135*, Color Pl.; Spaer 2001:159, Fig. 70). Similar pendants from the third and second centuries have been unearthed in Carthage, the Levant, and Cyprus (Kloner and Jackson 2000), which

A small number of Hellenistic bullae were found during excavations at Beth-Zur. These items, similar to the vast majority at Kedesh, depict mythological figures and creatures (Sellers 1933:61–62, Fig. 56, nos. 6–11). 127

Ariel and Naveh note that the caduceus appears in Phoenician iconography together with Hermes, but is rarely found in the second century as an isolated symbol on coins and seals. Nevertheless, it appears on a few types of coins, seals, and lead weights. They attribute its appearance on seals and lead weights in Phoenicia to its connection with Hermes, who among other things was seen as a god of commerce, mediation, and contractual agreements; see Ariel and Naveh 2003:68–69. It is worth noting that the caduceus also appears on handles of imported amphorae, where it is understood as representing Hermes, god of commerce.

128 It should be noted here that a glass bead (likely not a pendant) found at Beth-Zur recalls this type; see Sellers 1933:62, Fig. 56, no. 1.

98

VARIA strengthens the connection with their Phoenician-Punic predecessors. Another type of Hellenistic glass object found at sites in Palestine is the two-faced “Janus pendant.” This type also was manufactured using casting and core-form techniques. It features male and female faces in homogenous recurring types (Spaer 2001:160–161). Two items of this type worthy of note were discovered at sites mentioned above: Maresha and Dor. At Maresha, a two-faced pendant of a female made of transparent blue glass was found (Kloner and Jackson 2000:135*, back cover; Spaer 2001:161, Fig. 72). Since the coiffure seems Egyptian, it was suggested that the object was imported from an Alexandrian workshop (Kloner and Jackson 2000). At Dor two male two-faced pendants were discovered and attributed by the excavator to the Roman period (Stern 2000:315–316, Fig. 223). Spear suggests that one of them dates to the Late Hellenistic period (2001:161, Fig. 73). Fig. 99. Glass pendant from Yavneh-Yam (2.7 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Moshe Fischer; after Fischer 2002: front cover.

A third group of glass pendants uncovered at Hellenistic period sites in Palestine consists of those formed in the round as tiny figurines rendered according to typical Egyptian-Hellenistic iconography. Monochrome pendants of an African head, a type particularly common and uniform in appearance, were found at Anafa and Samaria (Spaer 2001:162, Fig. 74). At Akko, a bichrome pendant of Baubo was recovered (Messika 1997:127, Fig. 3, no. 17; Spaer 2001:162, Fig. 75). Found at Yavneh-Yam is a bichrome pendant of a youthful Harpocrates in a Hellenistic style, dated to the second century and put into disuse together with the other objects from Hellenistic Yavneh-Yam with the destruction of the city by John Hyrcanus (Fig. 99; Fisher 2002: front cover; Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003). It is reasonable to assume that these pendants originated in either Ptolemaic Egypt or the Phoenician coast (Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003:36).

Hellenistic types (Nenna and Seif El Din 1994). Figures in a purely traditionalist style, aside from Bes, do not appear. It seems that in Ptolemaic Egypt the production of faience for the same purposes continued—mainly for amulets and pagan cultic practice—but as art the medium would be Hellenized. Other media of minor art in Egypt, such as bronzes, underwent a similar evolution. Most of the faience in Palestine dates to the Persian period. No Hellenistic types of amulets or faience figurines, such as those from Alexandria, have been found to date in Palestine. Nevertheless, faience bowls from the Hellenistic period uncovered in Palestine are of a HellenisticPtolemaic type, not earlier; but they are beyond the scope of this work. The plastic faience objects from Palestine are of Egyptian types of the Persian period that would continue to be used in the subsequent period. At Samaria, for example, faience bowls are dated to the Hellenistic period while the sculpted faience objects are from an earlier date (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:389–391). Found at the Beersheba temple, which is dated to the third and second centuries, were a small faience bowl and a faience bowl with lions and a frog on its rim, both of a Hellenistic type (Giveon 1973:55, Pl. 25, nos. 3, 5; Derfler 1984:129– 131). A Bes-like amulet and the base of a figurine of a seated animal were discovered together with the bowls (Giveon 1973:55, Pl. 23, nos. 2–3; Derfler 1984:128–130); both stand firmly within Egyptian traditions, displaying no evidence of Hellenistic influence. Recovered from the same favissa were bronze figurines, all Egyptian in character (see above). Faience figurines were unearthed in a similar context of a Persian-Hellenistic temple on Mount Mispe-Yamim (Frenkel 1997:51). The figurine depicts the sacred family of Isis, Osiris, and Horus. It seems that this figurine, as is the case with the bronze statuettes, dates to the Persian period but continued in use in the Hellenistic.

In summary, a representative variety of figurative glass pendant types of the Hellenistic period has been found in Palestine. Their types and styles are rooted in Phoenician traditions but exhibit Ptolemaic-Egyptian influences, and as such are good reflections of Palestine’s geographical setting and cultural environment. Faience Faience is an artificial material made from sand, quartz, lime, and alkali, and formulated into rich colors, mostly shades of turquoise and green (Friedman 1998). It was particularly popular in Pharaonic Egypt, having been produced for the most part for minor art and vessels (CraigPatch 1998). One of the primary uses for faience was in the production of amulets dedicated to various Egyptian gods, objects that, given their apotropaic qualities, are found in the contexts of tombs and sanctuaries (Craig-Patch 1998:43). In the Hellenistic period, faience production would change both in terms of iconography and style. The corpus of faience objects in the Graeco-Roman Museum of Alexandria, for example, has a large number of Hellenistic types alongside relatively few Egyptian99

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 100. Ivory plaque from Jerusalem (3.5 cm high), courtesy of the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; after Ariel 1990:138, Fig. 18.

Fig. 101. Bone figurine from Tel Dor (3 cm high), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

City of David and Tel Dan bone plaques, both likely provenanced in Alexandria, bear Hellenistic iconography untouched by local influences. Three ivory figurines, each of a naked woman standing in a stiff hieratic pose, have been discovered at sites in Palestine—one at the Hellenistic temple at Beersheba (Aharoni 1974: Pl. 59B; Derfler 1984:124–125); another at Dor (Fig. 101); and a third at Samaria, attributed with reservations to the Hellenistic period (Ayalon 1999:63, Fig. 90). The two latter specimens are in an Eastern, early Egyptian style with no signs of Hellenistic influence.

The numerous faience amulets retrieved from Tel Dor have been attributed by Stern to the Persian period (2000:174–180). The amulets, which include depictions of Bes and other gods, were originally part of apotropaic necklaces. It is likely that in this case as well the faience objects would remain in use in the Hellenistic period. Excavations at Maresha have yielded a few faience figurines and many faience bowls of unclear date, most from the fills of subterranean complexes. The figurative amulets are only of traditional Egyptian figures, such as Thoth and Taweret, while the faience bowls are of new Hellenistic types.129 Therefore, either the figurines are Persian and the vessels Hellenistic; or, what is more likely, both are dated to the Hellenistic period but draw on different traditions, with the vessels produced in a newer Hellenistic style and the figurine and amulets maintaining a conservative Egyptian style, as is the case with the objects from the Beersheba temple. This latter conclusion suits well what is known of the Hellenistic bronze figurines in Palestine, which also preserve earlier Egyptian traditions. There appears to have been a tendency toward conservatism and anachronism in spheres of religion and magic.

Metal This category includes various metal objects that are not bronze figurines. “Captive figures” made of lead were used for black magic and curses. Such objects have been found at Samaria (Reisner, Clarence and Lyon 1924: Pl. 76y) and Maresha (Fig. 102; Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 85). The Maresha figurines were recovered during excavations on the tell, where a concentration of 17 statuettes was found in a single room. The renewed excavations at Maresha have yielded a few lead figurines of this type. Most are schematically rendered males or females with hands or legs bound together, symbolizing the misfortune that will befall the recipient of the curse. At Anafa, the type is represented by a crude terracotta figurine (Weinberg 1971:105–106, Pl. 19D–E). Uncovered at Tel Ashdod was a small flat lead figurine, apparently of a woman leaning against a pillar (Fig. 103; Dothan 1971: Pl. XXI, no. 1). Its design is schematic, linear, and stylized; all features are portrayed in relief or by means of shallow depressions. Dothan claimed the figurine had a small tail and suggested identifying it as Atargatis-Derecto (1971:65). Rosenthal-Heginbottom (1999) catalogued lead plaques in the Southern Levant dating from the Hellenistic to Late Roman periods, relating them to votive plaques found in relation to shrines and sacred water sources and installations. Such plaques were tossed for luck and considered to have an apotropaic quality. It seems therefore that lead figurines and plaques were used explicitly for magic rituals.

Bone Very few carved or ornamental bone objects from Hellenistic Palestine have been uncovered and published. A noteworthy find is an ivory plaque depicting the capture of Ganymede by Zeus’ eagle; it was found in a Hellenistic locus in the City of David in Jerusalem (Fig. 100; Ariel 1990:137–138). Plaques of this sort were common in the Hellenistic period, even though the capture of Ganymede is not a scene commonly found on them. It also appears on a Roman ivory figurine from Samaria (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957: Pl. XIV, no. 5). An oval bone plaque with a sheaf of thunderbolts, the thunderbolt being a symbol for Zeus, was found at Tel Dan. There is disagreement regarding the date and use of this plaque, whether it was the cover of a Hellenistic box or a miniature of a Roman shield (Hershkovitz 2002; Stiebel 2003). The 129 I would like to thank N. Sidi, who studied the faience objects from Maresha, for communicating this information to me.

100

VARIA

Fig. 102. Lead figurines from Maresha; after Bliss and Macalister 1902: Pl. 85.

Fig. 103. Lead plaque from Tel Ashdod, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. XXI, no. 1.

Fig. 104. Lead slingshots from Akko, courtesy of the Leon Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies at the University of Haifa; after Dothan 1993:24.

Lead projectiles and weights from Palestine were adorned in standard motifs. A scorpio appears on lead slingshots from Akko (Fig. 104; Dothan 1993:24), while those from Tel Dor have Zeus’ winged thunderbolt staff (Schlesinger 1982; Stern 2000:211–213). Both the scorpio and the thunderbolt staff were common motifs seen as having magical and apotropaic value (Schlesinger 1982). The lead weights from Palestine also have standardized decorations. Appearing on a series of published weights from Maresha is a Macedonian shield, a rare motif in the Seleucid and Ptolemaic East (Finkielsztejn 1998:34–36). Other weights, which are unpublished, bear Macedonian shields in variegated forms, a round non-Macedonian shield, parallel

double cornucopias, a single cornucopia, a rosette or star, and perhaps a pair of piloi of the Dioskouroi.130 Lead weights with the symbol of the Punic-Phoenician goddess Tanit have been found at Dor and Ashdod-Yam (Fig. 105; Stern 2006). In sum, decorative motifs on lead projectiles and weights were typically Eastern Hellenistic (the cornucopia, the thunderbolt staff); Phoenician (the Tanit); or foreign to the region, having originated in northern Greece (the Macedonian shield). 130

I would like to thank G. Finkielstztejn, who studied the weights, for communicating this information to me; the objects are to be published in the near future.

101

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

Fig. 105. Lead weight from Tel Dor (3.5 cm long), courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project. Fig. 106. Gold earring from Za‘akuka, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Fig. 107. Gold button from Za‘akuka, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Fig. 108. Gold earring from Tel Ashdod, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority; after Dothan 1971: Pl. XXI, no. 2.

All of the metal objects described above are made of lead. Other artifacts include jewelry in fine metals, bearing some kind of iconography. Two gold pieces of jewelry were uncovered in an Early Hellenistic burial cave at Za‘akuka in the Judean lowlands (Figs. 106–107; Kloner, Regev, and Rappaport 1992:35–36). One piece is an earring in the form of a ram in an Achaemenid style, its comparanda coming from the Levant and Cyprus of the fifth to second centuries. The second piece is a button with a gorgon relief, likely sewn to burial vestments. An earring decorated with the head of a ram, similar to the Za‘akuka object, was found in a second-century layer at Tel Ashdod (Fig. 108; Dothan 1971:65, Pl. XXI, no. 2). It also is likely from the Early Hellenistic period, if not slightly earlier. All of these pieces reflect the importation of luxury goods into Palestine. Other objects in silver and gold but without iconography or decorative motifs are not relevant to this study.

the region’s northern and southern neighbors, Phoenicia and Egypt. In addition to these regions’ Hellenistic period art (Seleucid and Ptolemaic), their earlier art also had an influence on Hellenistic Palestine.

Summary

The objects not used in an official capacity—the figures and the lead, gold, bone, and faience pendants and jewelry—reveal a more complex picture. The objects were fashioned in more clearly Eastern traditions, with some Hellenistic influences appearing as well. All of the faience amulets of the Hellenistic period are conservative

The more official objects—those associated with economy and the military—tend to be more Eastern Hellenistic in character. These include bullae, coins, and lead weights and slingshots, all of which were used, more or less, in an official capacity. The bullae display a certain variety, as they were privately owned items, despite their use in sealing official documents. Their owners were members of society’s elite, and thus the iconography they bear is primarily Hellenized. The coins, lead weights, and projectiles were manufactured by the economic or military authority at work in the region, and thus mostly reflect Eastern Hellenistic iconography incorporating Phoenician elements, or Hellenistic elements that were particularly widespread in Phoenicia.

The category of miscellaneous minor art is by definition variegated and thus difficult to summarize. Yet this eclectic group of objects still represents in the artistry of its objects the geographic and cultural position of Palestine in the Hellenistic period. The two main actors at work here were 102

VARIA Egyptian productions. The two gold earrings were made in an Achaemenid tradition. The two bone figurines continue an Egyptian tradition. The lead figurine from Ashdod is oriental in subject and style. The “captive figures” are typical of Palestine and Phoenicia. The glass pendants reflect a continuation of an Eastern tradition with a Hellenistic treatment. The “head pendants” are more refined versions of a type rooted in an earlier period; while the two-faced pendants and those molded in the round are Hellenistic but their types are Ptolemaic-Egyptian. The gold button and two bone reliefs are the only objects of the group discussed here that represent typically Hellenistic iconography absent of any Eastern influence. In short, objects made as amulets, jewelry, or for some other private use tend to preserve earlier traditions; while objects made for some official use usually display new Hellenistic motifs.

The Hasmoneans were a distinct voice in the Palestinian milieu of the Hellenistic period. They walked a cultural tightrope of sorts. Their bullae and coins were iconographically unique, first and foremost in the nonappearance of figurative depictions. These objects reflect the concerted—and successful—attempt of the Hasmonean kings to receive legitimacy both in the greater Hellenistic world and at home among their Jewish subjects. Their efforts resulted in the creation of an iconographic system that utilized motifs that were standard enough, but arranged in unique compositions and drawing on none of the obvious pagan motifs. Of the eclectic host of objects presented in this chapter, it is the Hasmonean coins and bullae that were the most decidedly local and distinct in character.

103

104

VIII Summary and Conclusions Style, Iconography, and Medium The artistic finds from Hellenistic Palestine presented in this study reflect different kinds of art: stone sculpture in the round or in relief, bronze and terracotta figurines, wall paintings, mosaics, and minor art of variegated materials. Despite the great diversity of such an assemblage of art, certain commonalities emerge when considering it as a group. First, there is virtually no major art in Hellenistic Palestine. Monumental marble statues are exceedingly rare, and not a single large bronze statue has been found to date. The architectural ornament, which was not included in this study, is minimal; it consists of only the basic components of the architectural orders (Avigad 1954; Rahmani 1964; Barag 2002; Fischer and Tal 2003). No sculpted friezes typical of temples or public architecture have been found. For that matter, no Greek-style temples have come to light in Hellenistic Palestine either. The lone exception in this regard is the elaborate Qasr el-Abd at Iraq el-Amir, where sculpted friezes were uncovered; but the structure remains unique in the region, and even beyond the geographical limits of this study. Wall paintings are also scarce. The painted tombs at Maresha, much like Qasr el-Abd, offer a rare glimpse that simply has no parallel in Palestine. Mosaics as well are extremely uncommon, with only two that are definitely Hellenistic having been found to date in Israel. The artistic finds are primarily minor art, mostly figurines, amulets, pendants, jewelry, and other diminutive objects. They are artifacts that usually take a back seat to major art in general studies on Hellenistic art.

productions—the marble statues, the bronzes, and even other objects—are likely imports. Palestine appears to have had few “masters,” and virtually no local flavor or thrust to its art. The absence of original local art, combined with the rarity of major art, leads to a repertoire that is assorted both in style and quality. It is an eclectic mix of art, difficult to define. Yet it is one not without recurring trends and shared traits in its style and iconography. The style that finds expression in Palestinian art of the Hellenistic period is indeed an eclectic one, but in most cases it can be categorized as Hellenistic-provincial. It is Hellenistic in its fundamental principles and provincial in its crude design and careless technique. It bears virtually no resemblance to the better-known Hellenistic styles of art— the Hellenistic baroque, the Hellenistic rococo, and realism. One seldom encounters, for example, a face fashioned in a baroque style, a grotesque, or a decorative rococo figure. Of the marble statues found in Palestine, only one fits the Hellenistic paradigm: the portrait of Alexander the Great, a work of religious and political propaganda. The marble statue of a man found at Akko, on the other hand, is a good example of the minimalist provincial treatment used locally on this medium. The sculptures made of local stone are all mediocre or crude productions in terms of technique; in terms of style, their provinciality is apparent. Though some may display features of a Hellenistic style, the inexpertness of their sculptors is not lost on their viewers. In cases when an artist attempted to imitate the work of a renowned sculptor, such as the bronzes imitating Lysippos’ Heracles, there is imprecision in the copying of the types, style, and proportions; and a certain amount of distortion and adaptation. Most of the terracottas are canonical, as it was a medium where objects were mass produced and thus could closely follow foreign prototypes. Nevertheless, some terracottas deviate from the canon, and most were made using crude, rudimentary techniques. The wall paintings at Maresha draw on Hellenistic iconography and were carried out in a heretofore unique provincial style. The closest comparanda are Thracian tomb paintings, but there the style is stiffer, more stationary, than at Maresha. The Dor mosaic is extraordinary in its quality and Hellenistic traits, while the mosaics from Anafa and Jericho are inelegant, even coarse. Wall paintings were well made, but only at Anafa is there evidence of sophistication and refinement. It was a land with no school of art, no important artistic centers, no expert artists, and no well-formed or distinct style of its own. The result was provincial art of limited aesthetic value.

A second conclusion emerging from a survey of the material relates to artistry and medium. Not only is major art lacking from Palestine, but so is original art. Most of the items discussed here are not original works. They are imitations, mold-made and mass-produced, employing standard and uninspired designs. Others are simply crude and careless productions. It goes without saying that one cannot speak of artistic “schools” at work in Hellenistic Palestine; even the known schools of the Hellenistic world are small in number. But in Palestine the situation is even more extreme. Beyond the question of schools, there is not even evidence of an artistic center, however marginal. One could say that the locally made artistic works are conspicuously crude; there is evidence of artisans from abroad working locally.131 The higher quality 131 The mosaic from Dor is an example. Although I cannot prove that the mosaicist came from abroad, the researcher who studied the mosaic also reached the conclusion that it was not made by local mosaicists; see Stewart and Martin 2003:142–143. Indeed, had there been more local mosaicists at work we would have found many more Hellenistic mosaics, such as what is known from Delos and Cyrene.

In the Roman period a distinct style would emerge in the 105

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Roman East, particularly outside the large cities of Syria, Transjordan, and Palestine (Avi-Yonah 1981; Colledge 1976). It incorporated elements of artistic traditions of more ancient times in the East with those of the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. Only in some cases do Hellenistic period pieces display nascent characteristics of this oriental Roman style, examples being the bronze Heracles and a few of the stone statuettes from Maresha, or the marble statue from Akko. Most of the Hellenistic finds do not herald the emergence of this oriental style, and we must let not their provinciality fool us into thinking otherwise. They were poorly executed, but there remains no link between the technical ineptitude they reflect and their fundamental style. They do not represent a distinct and deliberate style, such as that which would be used in the succeeding period. The prominent characteristic of the oriental Roman style is frontality, a feature that is not consistently present in Hellenistic figures. The human figures in the painted caves at Maresha are all in profile. The Hellenistic terracotta and bronze figurines are not as static as their Roman successors would be. Only a few of the marble and stone statues were crafted in true frontality. It seems futile to search for the roots of the oriental Roman style in the Hellenistic period. Its causes and influences must be explored elsewhere.

limestone statue of Nike from Dor, for example, reflects an archaic style. The Anafa stone figurine’s stiff and hieratic pose retains earlier traditions. Some of the Hellenistic terracottas were manufactured in outdated Classical types. The traditionalism expressed in some of the Palestinian art has various forms, whether Egyptian, Greek, Eastern, or otherwise. Such traditionalism is typical of the Hellenistic East. Traditionalistic, religious, and hieratic tendencies are evident in the art of Hellenistic Mesopotamia, for example (Van Buren 1930:XLVII–XLIX; Mathiesen 1982:74; Karvonen-Kannas 1995:117; Martinez-Sève 1998:654). Phoenician and Cypriot influences are just as prominent as Egyptian ones. The statues of hard limestone recall statues of Phoenicia and Cyprus. The terracottas from northern sites resemble the large and important corpus from the Kharayeb favissa near Sidon. The painted tombs at Maresha have clear Phoenician motifs, such as the incense burners and the hunting scene. Punic influence is evident in the Anafa mosaic, and the wall paintings of the same residence should likely be attributed to a Phoenician artist. The city coins have Phoenician or Phoenician-Hellenistic designs, as do the weights. Some of the glass pendants stand in a Phoenician and Cypriot tradition. One can also credit the Phoenicians with much of the Egyptian influences at work in the local art. They were cultural agents and purveyors of art in the region. For example, patently Egyptian bronze types were recovered at the Phoenician temple at MispeYamim, where an inscription on a situla dedicated to a Phoenician-Canaanite goddess was found. The Phoenicans are also to be held accountable for the provincial and eclectic art, which was already characteristic of Phoenicia in earlier periods (Harden 1963:217–218). It should be noted that, similar to the case of Egyptian influence, Phoenician influence was expressed in Hellenistic elements that were widespread in Phoenicia (such as the coins), as well as in traditional Phoenician motifs (such as the Tanit symbol). The primary difference between Hellenistic Phoenicia and Palestine is that the former was home to a more distinct, extant style of art. Phoenician sites have yielded Classical and Hellenistic period marble statues (at the necropolis and the Temple of Ashmun at Sidon) as well as reliefs and statuary made of local stone (at the Temple of Ashmun at Sidon and the Temple of Astarte and Melqart at Umm el-Amed), all executed in the same unmistakable style. Palestinian art had no such distinctive style.

The geographic and cultural milieu of Palestine is well reflected in its artistic finds. The two major forces at work in the region were Egypt (ancient and Ptolemaic) and Phoenicia (traditional and Hellenistic). To a lesser extent there is some similarity between Palestinian art and Mesopotamian and Cypriot art of the Hellenistic period. The Alexandrian-Ptolemaic influence is distinguishable on the statues of Alexander and the Herm, on terracottas (of Isis, Serapis, Harpocrates, Baubo, etc.) from sites throughout Palestine, on the Maresha tomb paintings, on certain motifs of wall paintings (alabaster and illusionary effects in fresco and stucco), and in some coin and glass pendant designs. The strong presence of these influences should come as no surprise, and it would not weaken with the Seleucid takeover. Only in the Roman period, it seems, would there be a true disconnect between Egypt and Palestine. The latter would then turn northward to Syria. There were influences from ancient Egypt at work locally in the Hellenistic period, leading to a kind of anachronism in the local art. The Egyptian-style bronze figurines, the faience objects, and the bone figurines are the primary examples. At a time when the types and style of bronze and faience figures had undergone change in Egypt, Palestinian objects of this sort continued using outdated motifs. This trend was noted by Avigad in the type of Hellenistic and Early Roman memorial monument—the nefesh—on tombs in Jerusalem; the nefesh is in the shape of a pyramid, an architectural form that had gone out of use in Alexandria and greater Ptolemaic Egypt (Avigad 1954:131–132). It continues the tradition of the First Temple period nefesh, and Avigad proposes that its anachronistic appearance in Jerusalem is to be attributed to the Phoenicians, who maintained and diffused earlier motifs. The anachronistic tendency is also evident in art not influenced by Egypt. The

Some of the artistic finds are pure Hellenistic productions. Free of regional influences, whether from Egypt or the Levant, they are unadulterated reflections of the koine. They include most of the Greek-style bronzes, such as the Heracles figures from Samaria, the Pan from Anafa, and the panther from Ashdod. Most of the terracottas also represent koine types, whether they originate from a Macedonian colony like Samaria or from an Idumean city like Maresha. As noted above, the terracottas resemble koine types because they were copied in molds made from prototypes, and thus often imitate known types invented elsewhere. The marble statues of Alexander and of the Herm, while in an Alexandrian style, are typical koine 106

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS creations. The muse from Ashkelon and the Aphrodite from Dan are also Hellenistic in style, though their date is controversial. The Dor mosaic was made in the finest Hellenistic tradition, the likes of which can be found at Pergamon, Delos, and Alexandria. These pieces of art all reflect the universal Hellenistic culture, not some unifying factor influencing local art. Palestine’s location between two important Hellenistic kingdoms, as well as its long coastline dotted with busy harbors, can explain the koine element in local art. It should be emphasized that Greek culture and art was not entirely foreign in Palestine or other eastern lands prior to the Hellenistic period (Hengel 1981:12–13; Fuks 1983:7–13; Colledge 1987:134–138; Stern 1989). Nevertheless, more extreme Hellenizing forces at work in local creations were a result of the nature of the Hellenistic period itself, and not of the limited importation or sporadic colonization by Greeks in the Persian period.

back in ancient Eastern civilization. Should we classify them as purely Greek objects or as objects with Eastern iconography in a Greek style? Despite these dilemmas, the somewhat inflexible model put forward by Colledge remains useful in describing the wide range of possibilities created by this meeting of cultures. Examples of Greek iconography in an Eastern or provincial style are mainly seen in sculpture. The statue of a man recovered at Akko fits into this category, as it was manufactured in the canonically Greek raw material of marble. Others are the stone figurine of a woman found at Anafa, the Heracles in soft limestone at Maresha, and the animals at Tel Kotlit. The Jericho mosaic also presents a Greek design in an Eastern, provincial style. The opposite combination—Eastern iconography in a Greek style—is witnessed mostly in terracottas. All of the depictions of Hellenistic-Egyptian gods fit into this category (Isis, IsisAphrodite, Harpocrates, Serapis, and Baubo), as do the pillar goddesses and the camel-and-riders at Maresha. Some of the glass pendants also employ Egyptian iconography in a Greek style. The hybrid category is the hardest to define; it might simply incorporate all the debatable objects. The bronze Heracles from Maresha has a composite style, as do some of the stone statuettes from Maresha. The painted tombs at Maresha have a composite style and iconography.

Colledge noted several forms of interaction between Eastern and Greek art in the Hellenistic East. There were instances of pure Greek art, pure Eastern art, hybrids, or iconography or subject matter of one culture executed in the style of the other (Colledge 1987). Representations of these kinds of interaction do occur in Palestinian art, albeit in variable proportions. Those items mentioned in the above paragraph are “pure Greek art.” Their Greek traits are expressed in their style and iconography; yet one cannot rule out local interpretation and adaptation. At the other end of the spectrum is “pure Eastern art,” such as those abovementioned objects made in an ancient Egyptian style or some other Eastern iconography and style; examples are some of the terracottas (the boat in a Mesopotamian style from Tell Keisan and Dor, the rhyta in an Achaemenid style from Maresha, and the primitive figurines from Maresha), and some of the soft limestone figurines from Maresha leaning toward a Phoenician-Punic style. Just as the “pure” Greek pieces are not necessarily Greek in their interpretation, the Egyptian ones need not be purely Egyptian in meaning. At times they are merely an artistic medium for expressing local Eastern content, as in the case of Mispe-Yamim.

Some have claimed that the two main cultural forces at work in Ptolemaic Egypt—the Greek and the Egyptian— remained independent of one another, and if certain elements were borrowed from one culture to the other they were artificial and only marginally significant (Pollitt 1986:250–263; Robertson 1993:71). This might be somewhat of a generalization, and the extent to which it holds true is a matter of debate, but it seems to get at something that is fundamentally correct. I have shown how Colledge’s model, with its categories of fusion and hybridization, can be applied to the art of Hellenistic Palestine, yet most of the pieces indeed point to a dichotomy between the Hellenistic Greek traditions and ones that are Eastern, primarily Egyptian. The difference is that this polarization was not all-encompassing. There were mixtures and blends, like in other areas of the Hellenistic periphery. It seems that Egyptian-style art in Ptolemaic Egypt was polarized because it was so strong and well established, having existed there for thousands of years. It was inflexible, unwilling to incorporate new subject matter and forms. Palestine, on the other hand, had no such distinct artistic tradition at the dawn of the Hellenistic era (a point to be explored further below), though the factors influencing local art from the second millennium onward did contribute to Hellenistic period art. The result was an eclectic art under the umbrella of Hellenization.

The categories of composite forms of art laid out by Colledge are too strict in our case, where the interaction between Eastern and Greek elements took place in subtler, more intricate ways. One is reminded of the rhyta from Maresha, which are fundamentally Eastern productions but with certain details of design, as well as iconography and style, that are Hellenistic. Another example is the painted tombs of Maresha, whose iconographic systems are mixed and whose style is difficult to define: it is not quite Eastern, nor paradigmatically Hellenistic. A third example is the mother-with-child (Kourotrophoi) figurines that are commonly found at Palestinian sites. Their iconography and style are characteristic of the Hellenistic world, from Magna Graecia, through Greece and Asia Minor, to the East. Yet their types are particularly widespread in the East (Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant, and Cyprus), and the roots of their iconography should be sought far

Function and Archaeological Context Most of the pieces studied in this work were found in archaeological excavations. Their origins are known and secure. Only a few were uncovered as part of activity that is not archaeological or research-oriented. Excluded from the 107

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE study entirely are objects of dubious provenance, acquired by antiquities dealers, collections, or museums. The majority of the finds discussed were found in secondary use or in fills rather than in their original functional contexts. Nevertheless, archaeological context has been instructive on the use of some. The very nature of others can attest to their use.

(wall paintings, graffiti). Relatively scanty finds can thus point to a wide range of uses of funerary art. Sanctified space is another realm of artistic expression. One would expect to encounter artistic finds in the context of sanctuaries, but such remains are few and far between. Some of the bronzes and terracottas, as well as other small finds, derive from shrine favissae or some other temple context. The favissa of the Beersheba temple yielded bronzes, terracottas, faience figurines, and other objects, most of which are in an Egyptian style. Found at the MispeYamim temple were also bronze and faience figurines of Egyptian types. The cache of Egyptian bronzes at Ashkelon has been understood in the context of a workshop, though it likely originated from a temple. Two sites at Akko have produced concentrations of terracottas that appear to have been deposited in favissae of adjacent temples. Terracotta figurines from Tel Beth-Shean were also retrieved in a cluster, suggesting the presence of a small repository there. Other finds that were perhaps used in temples are the marble statue of a worshipper found at Akko and the acroterion in the form of Nike at Dor. Aside from this last object, which was used as ornament, the other finds would have been temple offerings. They reflect a range of styles and influences. The Eastern-Egyptian nature of some of the shrine-related objects is noteworthy; in the case of MispeYamim the objects were used for generations reaching as far back as the Persian period.

Some of the pieces are related to the domestic sphere of the individual—the private residence. These include the wall paintings and mosaics used to adorn palaces and homes. Most of the minor art (jewelry, amulets, appliqués, and ornamental objects of various materials), even if found outside of their primary contexts, are understood as having been used in the private realm. A large portion of the terracottas and figurines of bronze and stone were retrieved in domestic contexts, such as the sizeable assemblage from Maresha, excavated from within the subterranean complexes under houses. These figurines and plastic vessels were used in the domestic cult, as charms or luxury items. This kind of art reflects the larger society— primarily its middle and upper classes living in urbanized areas. It offers a more faithful representation of society than religious art, which would have been formulated by priests or artists commissioned by the ruling authorities. The survey of domestic art has shown no preference or tendency toward a certain iconography or style, and it reflects well the art of the entire land.

Finally, some of the pieces can be attributed to the public and administrative spheres. Such a link is usually established on the basis of medium or type rather than archaeological context. An exceptional finding is the large group of bullae recovered at Tel Kedesh in a single room that was used as a public archive. Despite the official use of the archive, the designs on the bullae are personal. They are not necessarily taken from the public sphere. The opposite is true in the case of the other kinds of objects, which display public iconography but were potentially owned by individuals. The lead weights were manufactured under the oversight of the regional agoranomos, while the coins were designed in city mints or the royal Hasmonean mint before being diffused into the general public. The designs on these objects reflect the public and economic realm of Palestine. They are dated to the second and first centuries and their orientation is to the north, towards Phoenicia and the Seleucid kingdom. The piece of art from Palestine most thoroughly linked to the monarchy is the colossal statue of Alexander the Great, only the head of which is preserved. It would have been erected in public space at Beth-Shean. It was a statement asserting a direct link from Alexander himself—part king, part hero, part god—to his successors ruling at Scythopolis.

Another private domain is the burial place. The infrequency of funerary art in Hellenistic Palestine recalls that of domestic ornament. Most of the tombs of the period are simple and undecorated. It can be assumed that artistic ornament was bestowed upon the tombs of the upper classes only. Tombs of Hellenistic Palestine consist of tombs for one person (Akko, Jaffa) and family loculi tombs (Maresha, Jerusalem), among others (Tal 2006:217–269). Those with the most notorious art are of course the painted tombs at Maresha. However their uniqueness prevents us from drawing universal conclusions on the region’s funerary art. Other tombs in the Judean lowlands and Jerusalem (at Maresha, Za‘akuka, Jason’s Tomb, and the B’nei Hazir Tomb) have carved, internal or external architectural ornament, or some kind of graffiti. There are also artistic finds associated with the burial cult—funerary offerings and items accompanying the dead in burial—but these are few in number. In tombs at Jaffa and Akko were found terracotta figurines of boys in Macedonian dress, a common offering in tombs of children. Uncovered at Jaffa, Maresha, and Za‘akuka were decorative or apotropaic ornaments appliquéd to sarcophagi or vestments of the dead. The animal figurines from Tel Kotlit have been thought of as belonging to the funerary milieu, though their use remains uncertain. The funerary art of Hellenistic Palestine reveals assorted layers of function and meaning, including veneration of the dead (the architectural ornament), portrayal of the burial rite (wall paintings, graffiti), accessorizing with burial offerings or apotropaic objects (terracottas, the gold button), and mirroring prevalent chthonic art of the period

Chronology Scholars of Hellenistic art often subdivide the era into historical periods. Pollitt (1986:17) divides it into the reign of Alexander (up to 323 BCE), the period of the Diadochi (up to 275 BCE), the Hellenistic kingdoms (up to 150 BCE), and the Greco-Roman period (up to 31 BCE). Ridgway uses 108

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS a more generalized subdivision with periods extending from Alexander to 200 BCE and from 200 to 100 BCE (1990; 2000). In Palestine, the Hellenistic era is most aptly subdivided by the historical events that brought about political changeovers. Given the absence of data that could provide a more accurate subdivision, the entire period extending from Alexander, through the era of Ptolemaic rule, and up to the battle at Banias in 200 BCE is to be taken as a single chronological unit—the Early Hellenistic period. The next period would begin with Seleucid rule and continue through the Hasmonean takeover in the middle of the second century. The takeover may have been a turning point in historical terms, but no artistic finds attributable to this period have been uncovered in Judea, making it inconsequential to the study of art. Only toward the end of the second century and at the beginning of the first would significant changes take place in the geo-political landscape of Palestine, with the conquests of the Hasmonean kings and the enlargement of the boundaries of the Jewish kingdom. The subsequent period commenced in the 60s BCE when Palestine went under the aegis of Roman provincial administration, pagan cities regained their independence under Gabinius, and the Hasmonean kingdom came to an end. The end of the Hellenistic era in Palestine, as stated in the Introduction, came with the ascendancy of Herod the Great. In summary, the era can be divided for the purposes of this study into three sub-periods, each more or less occurring in its own century: (1) the end of the fourth and the third centuries, (2) the second century (at least through the conquests of John Hyrcanus, if not until Alexander Jannaeus), and (3) the last part of the era in the first century (mostly from Pompey through Herod).

They are an example in Palestine of a rich iconographic system and a distinctive style already in use at such an early point in the period. Egyptian-style bronze figurines were perhaps manufactured prior to the Hellenistic period but went out of use only in the second century, so that they were in use in the Early Hellenistic period. Some of the terracottas are relatively early. This holds true for the finds from Tel Akko, some of the figurines from Dor, some of the terracottas from Samaria, the finds from Za‘akuka, and some of the Maresha repertoire. This claim is based mainly on types and style, though in the case of Dor and Za‘akuka it is founded on associated archaeological finds as well.132 Not a single stone or marble sculpture, nor any instance of domestic ornament, can be dated confidently to the third century. No official, iconographic objects such as autonomous city coins, weights, or bullae of the third century are in our possession. The extant artistic finds of the Early Hellenistic period attest in part to continuity from the Persian period, which supports Smith’s claim mentioned above. But others are evidence of strong Hellenistic influence, of an iconographic and stylistic disconnect from the previous period. The Hellenistic component of the art strengthens the above claim made by most scholars, that Hellenization was in full force in Palestine from perhaps as early as Alexander’s arrival. Thus, two processes took place in the third century. It was a time of preserving traditions on the one hand, but of breaking away from them and becoming a part of the Eastern Hellenistic koine on the other. The second century is better understood. Many cities of Hellenistic Palestine saw their floruit in this century. The Seleucids now viewed Coele-Syria as an integral part of their kingdom rather than as merely a good source of grain, wine, olives, and maidservants. The poleis were bolstered; efforts were invested in Palestine (Smith 1990:125–127). This prosperity is readily apparent in the results of archaeological excavations. It appears to have increased in the second half of the century. The floruit has been evidenced at sites such as Tel Anafa, Akko/Ptolemais, Beth-Shean/Scythopolis, Dor, Mount Gerizim, Maresha and the settlements near Lod. Most of the artistic finds from Hellenistic Palestine are from this sub-period. They include nearly all of the marble statues and most likely all of the statues of local stone. All of the bronzes of Hellenistic types are from the sub-period; as are most of the terracotta figurines, mainly from Akko, Dor, and Maresha; the mosaics from Dor and Anafa; the wall ornament from Anafa and Jericho; and the coins, bullae, weights, and other minor art. The architectural orders find prominent expression in this century as well (Fischer and Tal 2003; Stewart and Martin 2003). Settlement expansion and demographic growth is thus accurately reflected in the Hellenistic art of Palestine.

A vexing problem in the study of the Hellenistic Levant is the lack of adequate evidence on the third century. Important historical documents from the period are the Zenon papyri (Tscherikower 1937), but they are instructive on administrative and commercial matters rather than cultural ones. Fuks has gathered evidence from the Ptolemaic period, admitting it is scanty (1983:13–35). Berlin associates with the period certain sites whose floruit came in the second century, such as Maresha, Mount Gerizim, and Iraq el-Amir (1997a:4–14). All of these scholars, as well as others, have pointed to a process of Hellenization in Palestine already in the Early Hellenistic period, despite the meager evidence. Smith, on the other hand, has claimed that the Ptolemies viewed Coele-Syria as a border area rather than an integral part of the kingdom; they thus made use of the land without fully investing in it. He suggests that the third century in Palestine did not witness the beginning of cultural change from the Persian period (Smith 1990:123–125). A similar attitude is represented in Tal’s (2006) study of the archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine. The artistic finds from this formative period—the dawn of a millennium of Hellenization in the region—are also limited in number, though not absent altogether. The most important of them are the painted tombs at Maresha, which can be dated to the first half or the middle of the third century.

The historical events that would bring this sub-period to a close, particularly in terms of art and culture, are 132 Most of the terracottas from Za‘akuka were robbed from the site; they are now on display at the Israel Museum.

109

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE unquestionably the conquest by John Hyrcanus of many of the cities of Hellenistic Palestine. It would be a severance point for repertoires of art (Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003:350). The lower city of Maresha, home to a wealth of artifacts, would cease to exist. Objects and artistic productions from the Beersheba temple, Lachish, YavnehYam, Samaria, Scythopolis, and Mispe-Yamim were likewise damaged. Clear continuity from the second to the first century is distinguishable only in the finds corpora from Dor, Akko, and Tel Anafa. John Hyrcanus brought about a revolutionary change not only in pagan cities but also within the original borders of his kingdom. He was the first king of the Second Temple period whose reign would be witness to the use of art among the Jews, if only on a limited scale (Hachlili 1988:65–119). The wall ornament on the Jericho palaces dates back to his reign, as do the designs on Jewish coins. In truth, the influence of the Hasmonean period on the field of art would not begin with the revolt of 167 BCE, but with the rise of John Hyrcanus to power, and especially with his conquests late in the second century.

unattested in Palestinian art. Therefore, the chronological examination of Hellenistic Palestine is important for understanding historical events but virtually ineffectual as a means of outlining its art history. Regional and Ethnic Differences Hellenistic Palestine was a patchwork of geographically and ethnically distinct peoples. The coastal area was settled by pagans, whether Phoenicians or descendants of other ancient peoples such as the Philistines or Arabs (Kasher 1990:15; Stern 1993:59). The northern coast had been part of Phoenicia in the previous period, and Phoenician influence remained strong in Hellenistic times. In Galilee, various pagan populations lived alongside Jews, the northern part of the region heavily inhabited by Itureans. The Upper Galilee, like the coastal area, was influenced by Phoenicia (Berlin 1997b). The region of Samaria was inhabited by Samaritans everywhere but in the capital city of Samaria, which was a Macedonian colony. Judea was a Jewish area. Idumea to its south was mostly Idumean. In the Negev were the Nabateans, who were not yet a sedentary people in the Hellenistic period. Much of these regions had urban centers or poleis with native populations mixed with immigrants (Stern 1993:56–59).

The first century BCE has left a relatively sparse record of artistic finds. It is to be recalled that until Gabinius’ reforms of 57 BCE, most of the poleis in Palestine still suffered from the Hasmonean conquests, unable to produce anything of note neither in art nor architecture. The immediate effects brought about by Gabinius are difficult to identify archaeologically. The builder who would leave the biggest mark on the first century BCE would be Herod, but his reign lies outside the chronological and cultural scope of this study. Potential first-century BCE Hellenistic finds are those from Tel Anafa (bronzes, terracottas, and the statue in local stone), some of the terracottas from Akko and Dor, the Jericho mosaic, and some of the wall paintings at Jericho. Many of the coins are from the first century BCE as well.

The art of Hellenistic Palestine reflects four main sources of ethnic influence: the Greeks (perhaps Macedonians and other immigrants) and their Hellenistic culture; the Phoenicians, who were cultural intermediaries; the Idumeans, inhabitants of Maresha and environs; and Jews and Samaritans, the two monotheistic peoples who dwelled in the hill country at least through the end of the second century (before expanding their territories). Our knowledge of these four sources of influence is dependent on the state of archaeological inquiry into the Hellenistic period. Some areas remain mystifying. The small number or limited nature of excavations within their boundaries have left us knowing very little of the peoples who lived in them in the Hellenistic period. The Nabateans prior to the second century, for example, are an enigma. Cities such as Hellenistic Ashkelon and Gaza, which were preeminently important in this period, as well as intriguingly diverse, are scarcely understood. Even Transjordan, which is beyond the scope of this study, has yielded minimal information on the period. Maresha is well understood due to extensive excavations at the site over the course of a century, but other Idumean villages remain obscure, as does the other Idumean capital city, Adora. Thus the four main influences on art correspond to real forces at work in the region, though the picture is distorted by the confines of archaeological inquiry.

The history of the Hellenistic period in Palestine, particularly of its pagan inhabitants, is mirrored in its artistic finds: It began hesitantly in the third century, incorporating the continuations of older traditions; peaked in the second century; forcibly declined under Hasmonean rule; and wavered during the transfer of power to the Romans. Despite the variability of the archaeological records of each sub-period, none are without representation. No true lacuna exists in any of part of the Hellenistic era in Palestine. Yet the sporadic nature of the artistic finds, the absence of recurring styles or of stylistic development, and the variable degrees to which each sub-period is represented on archaeological record do not allow for a meaningful look at stylistic evolution. Even cultural tendencies or patterns are difficult to establish from such an eclectic and fragmentary record. The trend noted among the Nabateans, for example, of accelerated Hellenization at the beginning of the period followed by a return to Eastern values in a process of self-definition (Schmid 2001),133 is entirely

Greek influence is the most difficult to ascertain. It is known that there were Greek immigrants to Palestine, as well as Macedonian soldiers (Tcherikover 1961:89; Hengel 1981:15; Fuks 1983:13–22; Stern 1993:59–63). But these newcomers were not necessarily purveyors of Greek culture in the region, a role often assumed by the

133

A similar process is seen in generations of personal names of the interred in the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha. While those of the first generations are Greek, the later generations are much more Eastern; see

Fuks 1983:34.

110

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS local elite (Tcherikover 1961:26–27; Fuks 1983:18). Greek immigrants would have intermarried with local women, so that after a generation or two their Greek ethnicity would have meant very little; they also would have been diffused throughout the country, both in cities and rural estates. It would be false to attribute every instance of Hellenism in art to some Greek ethnos or immigrant group that made their way to Palestine, though their overall presence may be felt on the local cultural landscape. Had immigration from Greece never occurred, the process of Hellenization would likely have been slower and less complete. The only site where actual Greek presence is readily apparent is the city of Samaria, which, as stated, was a Macedonian colony (Stern 1993:61–62). It would thus be an inland city—removed from the Hellenizing coastal areas and surrounded by a strong Samaritan population—that would, for historical reasons, become a colony and produce art bearing strong Greek influences. The massive round tower uncovered at the site is said by its excavators to be an entirely Macedonian rather than a typically Palestinian construction (Crowfoot, Kenyon and Sukenik 1942:27; but see Tal 2006:20–22, 324). So too for the city’s marble and local stone sculpture, terracottas, and bronzes, which are pure Hellenistic productions nearly untouched by local influences.

under Tyrian influence. The wall and floor ornament of the villa at Tel Anafa attest to Phoenician influence and even Phoenician artists at work there; the floor mosaic specifically points to western Phoenician influence. The influence of Phoenicia on the northern Palestinian coast and the Galilee was not political, as was the case in the previous period, but cultural and commercial (Berlin 1997b). The art of Palestinian sites shows that ties to Phoenicia were far deeper and culturally meaningful than those based merely on the trading of objects and goods in ceramics. Hellenistic art on the northern Palestinian coast and the Galilee is not purely Phoenician art, because such a thing never existed, even in previous periods when the Phoenicians were at their height (Harden 1963:217–218). Rather, the Phoenician elements of the art are expressed in its resemblance to sources to the south, north, and west, which had filtered through Phoenician agents, with their unrefined artistic style. Since Phoenicians settled in areas not under direct Phoenician influence, links to Tyre and Sidon are evident in other areas of Palestine as well; this will be further explored below. As stated above, the decision to relate to Idumea as its own ethnically and culturally distinct region stemmed primarily from the results of intensive excavations at Maresha, and the rich finds they have yielded. Given how little we know of Idumean culture and religion from the written sources, save the theophoric element “qos” in personal names (Kasher 1988:3–13), the Idumeans must be examined on the basis of their material culture, namely those elements which define and separate them from surrounding peoples, including their art. A large portion of the art from Maresha, particularly the mold-made art (terracottas and bronzes), stands within the Hellenistic canon. But the free-form stone figurines and wall paintings, as well as some of the terracottas, have features characteristic of Maresha and nearly unseen in surrounding areas. Some of the terracotta types, such as the camel-and-rider and pillar figurines and the rhyta, are entirely unique to Maresha, reflections of a local, Eastern artistic tradition. A certain technique was used at Maresha to carve stone statuettes and reliefs, resulting in a unique body design; the anthropomorphic element was diminished in some of the pieces. Both of these features, unique to Maresha, suggest cultural ties to the south and east, toward the Nabatean and Arabian spheres, where similar phenomena were present in this period or slightly thereafter. The notion of Idumean connections to these geographical regions suits Herodotus’ description of the southern coast of Palestine as having been inhabited by Syrio-Palestinians and Arabians (Historiae III, 5; see also Kasher 1990:17). The Idumean ethnos appears to have been oriented to the south, toward Arab lands. Their surviving material culture may even offer insight into the Nabateans, given their alleged assimilation with them (Kasher 1988:10). The camel-and-rider figurines, for example, are a patently Nabatean feature, which would become quite popular in Nabatea in the Roman period.

Phoenician elements are more conspicuous. They derive from the cities of the northern Levantine coast, the two most influential of which were Tyre and Sidon. These cities can offer an interesting case-study in Hellenization. Although most were not re-founded as Hellenistic cities, they nevertheless became a full part of Hellenistic culture (Millar 2006:32–50). The Phoenician cultural influence in Palestine was extensive in the coastal cities (from Dor northward) and the Upper Galilee; it was also felt in more distant inland cities (Berlin 1997b). The evidence from the heavily affected areas shows cultural forces coming from the north and northwest, namely the Greek islands, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and most of all, the heart of Phoenicia. Even Egyptian influences present at these sites on the Palestinian northern coast and Upper Galilee can be understood as having been brought by Phoenician agents. At Dor, the terracottas attest to influences from Asia Minor; the marble Herm, from Ptolemaic Egypt; the mosaic, from Greece or Asia Minor; and the Nike statue, possibly from Cypros. Phoenician elements are apparent at Dor in some of the minor art, such as the terracottas, weights, glass pendants, and faience amulets. At Akko there is evidence of Greek influence through a Phoenician or an Egyptian source, as in the terracottas, some of which resemble the repertoire from Kharayeb near Sidon; the coins, whose motifs are characteristic of Phoenician cities; the glass pendant, which is Egyptian; or the marble statue, which recalls Phoenician works. The cosmopolitanism reflected in Akko’s art distinguishes it as a Hellenized Phoenician harbor city. Cities of the Upper Galilee also attest to strong Phoenician influence. A Phoenician temple dedicated to Phoenician gods was built on Mount MispeYamim; it yielded finds of Egyptian character. The bullae from Tel Kedesh show that the site was an official estate

A discussion on Maresha must inevitably turn to the 111

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Phoenician-Sidonian element within its population, as evidenced in the Apollophanes inscription within the main painted tomb at the site. Indeed, the Maresha painted tombs are an example of Hellenized Phoenician art at its best. The crude style is Phoenician, the importing of ideas from Alexandria suits the Phoenicians, and some of the iconography is clearly Phoenician. The tombs contain no evidence of Idumean culture, aside from some of the personal names recorded on their walls. The Phoenician influence at Maresha extends beyond funerary murals. The stone statuettes have elements reminiscent of Punic and Phoenician art. Some of the terracottas bear great resemblance to items from Phoenicia, the Punic world, and Cyprus, with some having their only parallels in those areas. The long reach of Phoenician cultural agents made its mark on the Hellenistic period art of Maresha, as seen in its iconographic system and provincial style. Thus the three main forces at work on the art of Maresha were the Idumean-Arab, the Phoenician-Egyptian, and the Greek koine in all its variable forms. It should be emphasized that the only of these three forces that can be said to have made an impact throughout Idumea is the Idumean-Arab element. Maresha was a prosperous city—culturally, it was nearly a polis—and, as such, should be seen as a selfcontained entity not necessarily reflecting upon the cultural make-up of its environs.

art, as well as art on perishable materials (carpets, carved furniture, ornamental textiles, etc.). In the absence of these remains, it can be said that art among these peoples began to flourish only in the Roman period, specifically at the beginning of Herod’s reign. It survives both in the king’s palaces (wall and floor ornament) and in the private sphere (domestic ornament, monumental tomb façades, and ossuaries; Hachlili 1988:65–119). The above analysis has pointed to influences that were ethnic, cultural, or regional. The northern area of Israel and its coast were part of the Phoenician region and culture, though not necessarily its ethnicity. Idumea was influenced by ethnic, cultural, and regional factors. The impact of Greek immigrants cannot be fully ascertained, and Greek influence should be first attributed to overriding cultural forces than to the local presence of a specific ethnos. The only ethnic groups that would remain distinct from others were the Jews and Samaritans, two monotheistic peoples whose interaction with art and syncretism was complex and even somewhat problematic. Venit, in her study of Alexandrian tombs, noted a similar phenomenon there. She writes that in a cosmopolitan city such as Alexandria it is impossible to use burial customs or funerary art to differentiate ethnicities in all cases except two: the Jews and Christians (2002:11). The differences of the monotheistic peoples in this regard are readily distinguishable. The cultural divide was certainly not all-compassing; we have noted the Hellenistic motifs on Hasmonean coins, for example, and the use of Greek architectural ornament in Jewish architecture. But it was readily apparent in the realm of art, where the cultural and religious content is of greater substance.

The fourth and final ethnic and regional element influencing the art of Hellenistic Palestine is one that is often traceable ex silentio. The two large, monotheistic populations living in the Judean hill country—the Jews and Samaritans—can be defined as decidedly anti-art in this period. They have left no art of the Hellenistic period dating to prior to the second century. An exception is the elaborate structure at Iraq elAmir, built by a ruler who had removed himself from the administrative center in Jerusalem and was therefore no archetype. The finds are quite limited even after the end of the second century. Aside from the graffiti in Jason’s Tomb, the designs on Hasmonean coins, and a few sporadic decorative remains in the Hasmonean palaces, not a single piece of Jewish art from the Hellenistic period survives on record. The Jewish reaction to Hellenization, as expressed in the Hasmonean revolt, lead to full adherence to the prohibition of figurative art. This, combined with their strict monotheism and weak tradition of plastic art, led to the virtual nonexistence of this aspect of their culture. They would leave behind the greatest number of historical and religious texts of any contemporaneous group anywhere. But they left no art. It was this void, however, that would make the Jews and Samaritans the most influential actors on the stage of Hellenistic art in Palestine. Their presence affected others, particularly at the time of the Hasmonean conquests of pagan cities, conquests that would silence much of the local production of art. The only true representative of Jewish art in this period, the designs on Hasmonean coins, is not even art per se. Despite this, their iconography can offer insight into the inner struggles of kings who were at once Jewish and Hellenized. Samaritan art of the Hellenistic period is entirely nonexistent. One can assume that the Jews and Samaritans did have functional

Religious Iconography and Cult Through antiquity art was intricately linked to religion and cult. In large part it has remained so even in our time, though it was in modernity that these bonds would begin to unravel. The Hellenistic era is usually seen as one of secularization compared to the Classical, though in truth its art was more variegated rather than simply more secularized. As the everyday types and themes were proliferated in art, so too did the religious ones increase in number. Since Hellenistic art in Palestine had not been intensively studied, it is now possible to use it as a means of shedding light on the relatively obscure topic of religion and cult in the region in the period. The minimal historical and epigraphic evidence has left many scholars looking elsewhere for information on the topic, whether in the preceding period or in adjacent, better understood geographical areas. The cults of Palestine have been studied mostly on the basis of chronological and geographical leaps to periods and areas closely related to Hellenistic Palestine; Roman coins have been a medium often examined to gain information on the topic, for example (Kasher 1988a:29–48). The artistic finds studied in this work form a broad spectrum of religious iconography and offer bona fide evidence of cult and religion. The gods mentioned in Hellenistic period inscriptions and 112

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS historical documents from Palestine are few in number. The sources have been gathered and studied by several scholars (Flusser 1976; Teixidor 1977; Millar 1987; 2006:3–31; Kasher 1988a:29–48; Stern 1993:64–66; Tal 2006:48–72). The Books of the Maccabees speak of cults of Heracles at Tyre (2 Macc 4:10) and Dagon at Ashdod (1 Macc 10:84). Found at Dan was a bilingual inscription in Aramaic and Greek dedicated to “to the god who is in Dan” (Biran 1994:221–224). A bulla mentioning in Phoenician the Baal at Tyre was revealed at Tel Kedesh (Ariel and Naveh 2003:71–72). On Mount Mispe-Yamim was found an Egyptian situla bearing a Phoenician dedication to Astarte; despite its early date the object continued in use in the Hellenistic period (Frankel and Ventura 1998:46– 48). The temple at Umm el-Amed, next to Tyre, was dedicated to Astarte and Melqart (Dunand and Duru 1962). A dedicatory inscription to Hadad and Atargatis was discovered in Kafr Yassif, next to Akko (Avi-Yonah 1959). Found at the post office site in Akko, where a temple stood, was a Greek military inscription dedicated to Zeus the Savior (Landau 1961). A Greek inscription from Tel Beth-Shean was read by Ovadiah as a dedication to the “savior gods” (Ovadiah 1975).134 A Greek dedicatory inscription to Isis and Serapis was revealed at Samaria (Crowfoot, Crowfoot and Kenyon 1957:37, no. 13), and Magness has suggested that a temple to those gods was located in the city before Herod’s reign, perhaps during the days of Gabinius (2001). An Ashkelonian citizen living on Delos wrote a dedicatory inscription and offered sacrifices there to Zeus, Atargatis, and Aphrodite Urania (Brunaeu 1970:347). Maresha has yielded inscriptions to Apollo (Clermont-Ganneau 1901:454–455), the virgin of the underworld, and the heavenly spirits (Bliss and Macalister 1902:185). Aphrodite is mentioned in the Tomb of Apollophanes (Peters and Thiersch 1905:57, Fig. 19), and Isis and Demeter on unpublished inscriptions from Maresha.135 It is thus clear that the inscriptions are written in different languages (Greek, Phoenician, Aramaic) and are dedicated to a host of gods, both Greek and Eastern.

a single god. Herms are portrayed on a marble statue from Dor, on stone and terracotta figurines from Maresha, and on stone reliefs from Maresha and its vicinity. Terracottas of Eros alone or together with his counterpart Psyche were found at Akko, Dor, and Maresha. Zeus, head of the Greek pantheon, was identified with the main Phoenician gods revered in Palestine and mentioned in inscriptions noted above, but is relatively poorly represented in local art; there are unidentified terracottas from Maresha that may depict him, and he appears on Akko coins. Dionysos, considered an important god in the Hellenistic East (Flusser 1976:1067–1069), is never shown directly, and one wonders if his cult was already popular in Palestine in the Hellenistic period. Nevertheless, some portrayals seem to be indirectly associated with him, such as the theatrical masks from Anafa, Akko, Samaria, Dor, and Maresha; and the terracottas of satyrs from Akko and Maresha. Pan is represented on a bronze from Anafa; Attis and Helios, on terracottas from Akko; Priapus, on terracottas from Maresha; and Apollo, identified with the Phoenician god Reshef, on coins from Akko and bullae from Tel Kedesh. Of the Greek goddesses, Aphrodite, whose name appears on two of the inscriptions mentioned above, occurs quite frequently. She is portrayed on terracottas from Akko, Dor, the el-Wad cave, and Maresha; on bullae from Tel Kedesh; and on coins from Ashkelon. There are possible depictions of Demeter and her daughter Persephone on a statuette from Anafa; ceramic protomes from Samaria, Akko, and Maresha; and terracottas from Maresha, Akko, and Beersheba. The city goddess of fortune, Tyche, appears on city coins and bullae. The mother-goddess Kourotrophos occurs frequently in the terracotta repertoires from Akko, Maresha, and Gezer; and is apparently depicted on a stone statue from Samaria. The victory goddess Nike is portrayed on a statue at Dor, on city coins, and possibly on terracottas from Akko and Maresha. There are representations of Artemis and Athena on terracottas of Maresha, and the Asian Kybele at Dor, Akko and Maresha. Egyptian gods, whether from the ancient or Hellenistic Egyptian religious spheres, are prominent. Isis and Serapis are mentioned in the inscriptions named above. The primordial gods Horus, Isis, Osiris, Apis, Bes, and others are commonly depicted on bronze figurines, terracottas, and faience amulets. These objects were found primarily in favissae and caches at Mispe-Yamim, Ashkelon, and Beersheba; but occur also at Dor, Dan, Akko, Maresha, and elsewhere. Representations of Egyptian gods of Hellenistic types are widespread in terracotta and glass. The Hellenistic Isis appears in terracotta at Beth-Yerah, Akko, and Maresha. Isis-Aphrodite occurs at Akko and Maresha. The Hellenistic Harpocrates is represented at Dor and Maresha; Serapis, at Akko and Samaria. Glass pendants of Baubo were found at Akko and of Harpocrates at Yavneh-Yam. All of these are Ptolemaic Egyptian gods, whose iconography is Hellenistic. Non-Egyptian gods of a local, Eastern provenance include the Phoenician goddess Tanit, whose symbol appears on weights and bullae; and enigmatic figures from Maresha who likely are local

The artistic finds present a wider range of gods, nearly all Greek or Egyptian, in a diverse iconographic system (see more below). Let us begin with the male Greek gods. Heracles was a popular mythical hero in the Hellenistic East, identified at Tyre with the Phoenician Melqart (Bonnet 1988). He is depicted on various media at a range of sites—on a statuette at Maresha; on bronzes at Maresha, Samaria, and Ashkelon; and on terracottas at Maresha, Dor, and Akko. The Dioskouroi and their symbols occur on the stone relief from Samaria, on terracottas from Maresha, on coins from Akko, and on the battering ram from Atlit. Ovadiah is of the opinion that the Tel Beth-Shean inscription dedicated to the “savior gods” refers to them (1975). The Herm was also a popular figure in Palestine, though it has been interpreted on various grounds and did not stand for 134 The reconstruction of “savior” is dubious, as only three letters survive. 135

My thanks to H. Korzakova, who is studying the Greek inscriptions from Maresha, for this information.

113

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE gods, such as the pillar figurines and the camel-and-rider figurines.

Priapus, Demeter and Persephone, Kourotrophos, Kybele, and Isis and her son Harpocrates. The figures are usually women, guardians of maternity and children. Dionysos, Demeter, and Isis are also related to the mystery cults and beliefs in eternal salvation.

It is interesting to compare this Palestinian pantheon with others of the Hellenistic world. Assessments of this sort have typically been carried out in the context of terracotta figurines, which often appear in large groups in favissae and can thus serve as a good indicator of the pantheon of a city or sanctuary. Chéhab outlined the gods of Kharayeb near Sidon: the mother-goddess (Demeter), Dionysos and Silenus, Hermes, Aphrodite, Eros, Artemis, and Heracles (1951–1954:132). The gods represented at the Temple of Demeter and Kore at Acrocorinth, for example, are Demeter, Kore, Aphrodite, the Nymphs, Eros, and Dionysos (Merker 2000:327). At Morgantina the popular gods were Persephone, Hades (particularly revered in Magna Graecia), Artemis, the Nymphs, Eros, and Nike. The local pantheon thus appears to have been no different from the Hellenistic standard, though distinguished mainly by its inclusion of Egyptian and Eastern gods. If a comparison is to be made to the Kharayeb repertoire in Phoenicia, for example, much of the same gods appear, only their ranking is different and in Palestine there are Hellenistic gods more typical of the East. The Palestinian finds of course are from a broader spectrum of media, sites, and contexts, while at Kharayeb they originate from a single favissa of a specific temple. The differences, then, should come as no surprise. Some have associated all Eastern figurines of the period with the religious sphere (Van Buren 1930:XLVIII; Mathiesen 1982:74), and indeed much of the Hellenistic art in Palestine is related to folk or official cults and magic. However, decorations such as wall paintings, floor mosaics, and ornamental bronze accessories are unconnected the religious sphere. They are to be attributed to general processes of secularization that began in Hellenistic art.

Lesser Gods and Heroes In the Hellenistic period the Olympian gods would back off center stage and make way for more earthly figures, namely lesser gods and mortal heroes (Chéhab 1951–1954:131; Thompson 1963:60; Miller-Ammerman 1990:38). Indeed, most of the gods represented in Hellenistic Palestine are not Olympians. Only Aphrodite appears regularly. Zeus rarely occurs, even though his syncretic cult was ubiquitous. Apollo, Artemis, and Athena also receive minimal attention in art, despite Apollo’s frequent occurrence as a theophoric element in personal names in Palestine. Contrary to these deities, the earth and fertility gods named in the above paragraph were extremely popular. Also preferred were figures that were not fully divine, being either revered heroes or semi-gods of unclear function or many functions; examples include Heracles, the Dioskouroi, and the horse-and-riders. There was also a preference for powerful figures that lacked status and were unnamed, such as the Kourotrophos; or personified concepts, usually not representing an actual cult, such as Tyche and Nike. Some of the gods reflect the popular cult, carried out in the private sphere, as opposed to the official cult run by priests. Small objects such as terracotta and faience figurines are also evidence of folk cult, as in Greco-Roman Egypt (Dunand 1979:107–140). Since figurines are a large part of the repertoire of Palestinian art, popular religion is well represented. It is expressed in the Kourotrophoi, the horseand-riders, apotropaic figures, lesser gods, and heroes of lower rank in the official religious hierarchy. Savior Gods The two above trends, preference for fertility gods and lesser gods, are tied into the third, a preference for gods who offer assistance and deliverance in response to prayer (Teixidor 1977:7–10). It is a feature which marks Eastern influence on Hellenistic culture. Inhabitants of the East preferred these kinds of deities—for their assistance in agriculture, promise of healthy progeny, and assurance of redemption after death—over more official gods that were estranged from the Olympic pantheon. Some have suggested that this preference of Eastern peoples led to the well-documented frontality of the art of the Roman East, which encouraged focused, direct contact between the supplicant and deity (Avi-Yonah 1981:65–95). This preference for savior gods who answer prayers may not have led to a frontal style in the Hellenistic art of Palestine and Phoenicia,136 but it is certainly reflected in the area’s religious iconography. The trend finds expression in the formulas of ancient inscriptions, directed toward gods who redeem and listen to prayers. In Palestine these savior gods

There are recurring themes in the Palestinian pantheon, some found throughout the Hellenistic world and others distinct to the region. They include the preference for gods of fertility and fecundity, lesser gods and heroes, savior gods, Greek gods with local features or syncretic potential, and gods in pairs or triads; and the absence of well-defined local iconography (Erlich and Kloner 2008:123–127). Gods of Fertility and Fecundity Recurring attributes of gods in the Hellenistic world, including in the Hellenistic East, are fertility and fecundity, if not also chthonic powers, which tie into the widespread mystery cults of the Hellenistic East (Thompson 1963:58–60; Dunand 1979:107–118; Miller-Ammerman 1990:39–40). Chéhab associates most of the terracottas at Kharayeb with mystery cults, which he sees as having been particularly common in Phoenicia (1951–1954:143– 151). It is not known how widespread these cults were among all levels of society, particularly the lower classes (Teixidor 1977:4–5). In any case, deities associated with the fertility of women and the fecundity of agricultural fields were always popular in Palestine and the East. Of those represented in art, mention can be made of Dionysos,

136 See, for example, the dominance of profiles on the reliefs of Umm el-Amed near Sidon; Dunand and Duru 1962.

114

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS are the Dioskouroi, all the fertility gods mentioned above, and the Egyptian and Eastern gods.

usually appear as a pair; Eros occurs in many of the terracottas alongside his lover Psyche; the Kourotrophos is a mother-with-child figure; and Demeter appears with her daughter Persephone at the Beersheba temple. The mysterious pillar figurines from Maresha often consist of two faces on a single shaft; both faces were cast in the same mold. All of these figures likely derive from the concept of a divine family, a patently Eastern theme. The Kourotrophos figurines from Hellenistic Amathus in Cyprus are understood on these grounds as well (Queyrel 1988:92). The two-faced glass pendants (the Janus pendants) seem to have been standard productions unrelated to the trend.

Greek Gods with Local Features or Syncretic Potential It is no surprise that many of the Greek gods depicted in local art are those with origins in the East, or whose mythos is related somehow to the East, or who were well entrenched in Eastern syncretism (Chéhab 1951–1954:131). The opposite is true in the case of Hades, the popular god at Morgantina in Sicily, whose pantheon was mentioned above. Hades was especially well-liked in Magna Graecia, but entirely absent from the pantheon of the Hellenistic East. The koine had various regional expressions that reflected local traditions. The Greek mythos of Heracles had a parallel in the East, which aided in Heracles’diffusion there (Levy 1934; Uhlenbrock 1986:16). In fact, of all the Greek deities, Heracles was perhaps the most popular in the Hellenistic and Roman East, quite often represented in its art (Chéhab 1951–1954:94, 133; Connelly 1989; Downey 1969; Kaizer 2000). His identification with the Melqart of Tyre (Teixidor 1983; Bonnet 1988) helped with his diffusion into Palestine and led to his large number of depictions in sculpture. The Dioskouroi were also popular in the Hellenistic East—in their original form in Egypt and fused with local gods in Syria (Barry 1906; Augé and Linant de Bellefonds 1986). Aphrodite originated in the East (on the Cypriot coast) and came to be identified with the local goddess Astarte, the Egyptian Isis, and others (Jentel 1984), so that her presence in Palestinian art, as well as inscriptions, comes as no surprise. The Greek Kourotrophos has a strong affinity to the East, with some of her roots reaching far back into its ancient history (Price 1978:4–12). Other gods portrayed in local art are the products of Eastern syncretisms, such as Athena, who was identified with the Nabatean goddess Allat (Starcky 1981); Zeus, who was fused with the Canaanite god Baal, the Syrian god Hadad, and others; and Apollo, identified with the Phoenician god Reshef (Flusser 1976:1070–1071; Teixidor 1983).

Absence of Well-Defined Eastern Iconography The gods mentioned in historical sources and inscriptions from Palestine can be divided into three categories: Greek or Ptolemaic gods (Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, Aphrodite, Demeter, Isis,137 Serapis), Eastern gods (Dagon, Baal, Hadad, Astarte, Atargatis), and obscure nameless figures (“the god who is in Dan,” “the virgin of the underworld,” “paternal and maternal spirits”). The religious iconography represented in the art of Hellenistic Palestine can be divided into two main categories: Greek and Ptolemaic gods on the one hand, and obscure figures difficult to identify on the other. Aside from ancient Egyptian gods, which are represented on specific media (bronze and faience), quintessential Eastern gods, such as those mentioned in inscriptions from Palestine, are nearly absent. The Tanit symbol is an exception, though Tanit was not dominant throughout the region; her cult was concentrated primarily on the Phoenician coast and in the Punic world. It is true that most of the iconography was Greek, but the very absence of Eastern gods in the visual language was actually a longstanding local, Eastern tradition. The gods of Canaan and Syria had no clear iconography—identifiable forms, features, stances, or attributes—a stark contrast to other visual systems such as those of the Egyptian and Greek pantheons (Boardman 2000:324, 333). The Semitic gods were obscure characters, usually identified with more than one consort and function (Cumont 1956:131–132; Moscati 1968:31–38). Some have suggested that, when dealing with the realm of the East, the discussion should not center on mythological narratives or concrete deities, but on essences and varied, recurring concepts (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:12–13, 393–394). Nunn associates the phenomenon of the absence of attributes and identifiable images of divine figures in Persian art of the Levant to the growth of apotropaic and redemptive religions over those defined by more aggressive, war-like deities (2002:19–25). Her supposition, however, that in the Hellenistic period there was a return to a clear, classified, hierarchic system of gods, is partially correct (Nunn 2002:24). The Hellenistic gods did make their appearances, it is true, but many

Gods Appearing in Pairs and Triads Many of the Hellenistic inscriptions from Palestine, mentioned above, are dedicated to more than one god. The worship of multiple gods in a single cult is characteristic of the ancient East. One of the features enduring through the Hellenistic period is the divine family, which could consist of a pair of consort gods; consort gods and their child; or a mother god and her child (Teixidor 1977:34– 59). Such combinations are evident in inscriptions. The abovementioned inscription from Kafr Yassif is dedicated to the pair Hadad and Atargatis; the inscription from Samaria, to the pair Isis and Serapis; Beth-Shean, to a pair of brother savior gods; Delos, to the triad(?) Zeus, Aphrodite, and Astarte; and Maresha, to the pair of paternal and maternal spirits. The temple at Umm el-Amed is dedicated to what is perhaps the mother and son pair of Astarte and Melqart.

137

Dunand reasoned that the Isis cult was not particularly common in Hellenistic Palestine; see 1973:132. The artistic finds show that the opposite was true, with the cult of Hellenistic Egyptian gods quite known in Palestine in this period; see Magness 2001; Fischer and Jackson-Tal 2003:37–39.

This tendency to worship multiple gods is also reflected in some of the art of Hellenistic Palestine. The Dioskouroi 115

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE divine figures remained vague and unidentified. There was no real shake-up in the Eastern religious system.

only be done cautiously using indirect evidence or based on unrecognized figurative images, i.e., those recurring “entities.” The Kourotrophos, if it is indeed the image of a goddess, could embody fertility and maternity, and thus be associated with the cult of Astarte. The horse-and-riders might stand for stamina and masculine strength rather than a specific god or hero. The camel-and-riders from Maresha could represent Syrian-Nabatean gods of the caravan, perhaps linked to Idumean cult worship. Local gods of the caravan in Roman Syria are depicted in such a manner (Rostovtzeff 1932; Linant de Bellefonds 1984; 1986). The aniconism reflected in the Herms and on some of the stone statuettes could point to Eastern trends or Eastern gods. The prohibition of figurative imagery was in full effect among the Jews in this period, and partially so among the Nabateans (Patrich 1990). It is expressed in the reduction of anthropomorphizing elements in local sculpture. One can attempt to identify Eastern gods, extracting them from the murky iconography that envelopes them. The result, however, will not compare to the orderly Hellenistic iconographic system, where each form and symbol corresponds to a specific religious or mythological figure.

The Hellenistic period was witness to the encounter of Greek culture, with its well-ordered iconographic system, and the local culture, whose visual system was markedly ambiguous and obscure. In the artistic sphere, the result was a clear victory for Greek iconography. This does not necessarily mean that the Greek system would reign supreme in areas of content as well. An example illustrating this kind of process is seen at the shrine on Mount Mispe-Yamim, which has a Phoenician dedicatory inscription to Astarte on a situla, while all the figurines from the shrine are Egyptian in character, as is the situla itself. An Egyptian-style art appears to have been used there to convey Canaanite religious meaning. The same can be said of figurines and statues of Greek gods: their names remained Greek though they were potentially quite different in meaning. There seems to have been a threepart system consisting of meaning, name, and form. The meaning or content likely remained traditionally Eastern in many cases; the name was often Greek or Eastern (as in the varied inscriptions mentioned above); but the form was almost exclusively Greek. Tcherikover claimed that the Greek names of gods in the East do not attest to meaning, whether in terms of cult or the nature of the gods themselves, both of which remained Eastern (1961:93–94). Teixidor has similarly claimed that only Greek gods and names were received in the East, while Greek dogma and mythological narrative did not take root (1977:143–146). The view that in the East it was not the narratives or names of gods that were important, but the recurring constellations of main concepts (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:12–13), is best expressed in those ambiguous figurative items that seem to carry some kind of religious or divine content. Take for example the pillar figurines and the horse-and-rider figures from Maresha, or for that matter, most of the figurines made of local stone from Maresha, all of which do not represent a specific figure. These visual representations are comparable to some of the more obscure inscriptions, such as that which reads “the god who is in Dan.” One should proceed with great caution when using Hellenistic art in Palestine as a gauge for Hellenization. There is no doubt that a change from the preceding period is evident, but it primarily took place in mass-produced, imitative media such as terracotta and bronze. One cannot know how many of these figural images actually stand for Greek entities. Nevertheless, the implementation of a clear, visual, compartmentalized system of iconography emerging from the Greek world attests to a process of Hellenization. The entire artistic and visual language had been altered, and it would have an impact on thought patterns.

Syncretism Reconsidered All studies on the Hellenistic period have noted that a prominent feature of Hellenistic religion in the East was syncretism, the fusion of religions and gods (e.g., Flusser 1976:1085). In recent years it has been claimed that in the peripheral areas of the Hellenistic world there was not true syncretism, but biculturalism. The model imagines a society where two or more cultures and religions do not fuse together but live, intact, side by side. A similar claim was made above regarding Ptolemaic art, where very little assimilation between Egyptian and Hellenistic art is evident. Eastern and Greek figures are in dichotomy with each other in Mesopotamian cities and Hellenistic Arabia, another example of biculturalism in the place of true syncretism (Mathiesen 1982; Martinez-Sève 1998:656). This claim is to some extent a methodologically dangerous one to make, as it appears to be a product of our modern worldview, which in prefers multicultural models over the “melting pot.” This post-modern Zeitgeist has the potential to undesirably impact the study of the ancient world, with the comparison of the “melting pot” to ancient syncretism, and multiculturalism to the dichotomy between ancient Eastern and Greek culture. Nevertheless, it is worth considering whether there is some truth to the claim of biculturalism and multiculturalism. As pointed out in the discussion above, Eastern and Greek artistic features were fused only minimally, and in most cases the two styles remained distinct from each other. The absence of a well-formed Eastern iconography, which has already been noted, makes the question of syncretism a difficult one to address. If Heracles and Melqart are both presented using Greek iconography—which is to say Heracles’ iconography—how can we identify the syncretism of the two? Let us consider the depiction of Heracles in local stone at Maresha, a Greek figurative image executed in the most

The result is that in the art of the Hellenistic period, which is considered iconic and unambiguous, we are unable to recognize the chief Eastern gods described in inscriptions and historical sources. The iconography of Heracles almost entirely prevails over that of Melqart (Bonnet 1988:834), for example, and the same holds true for most of the other Greek gods. The identification of Eastern gods can 116

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Eastern style possible: does the object portray the Greek god, the Eastern god, or a syncretic god? Heracles is a particularly problematic figure to take as an example, however, because even in the Roman East—a milieu better understood than the Hellenistic East—his nature and the syncretism he reflects are a matter of debate (Kaizer 2000). The study of art can offer no solution to the matter. The inscription left by the Ashkelonian at Delos is somewhat instructive on this same dichotomy, as it is dedicated to Zeus the Savior, Aphrodite Urania, and the Philistine goddess Astarte. The last two were thought to have been syncretized, but the inscription addresses the three separately. In sum, it is perhaps justified to detract from theories of religious syncretism in making way for a view based more on the coexistence of religions or the diversification of the pantheon. Multiculturalism seems particularly apt in the case of Palestine, whose population was a veritable patchwork of peoples.

were found, best understood in this context as temple boys. All of these figures tie into a cult of fertility and fecundity. Male and female musicians accompanying religious ceremonies also appear in terracotta form at Samaria and Yavneh-Yam, as well as on the paintings of the Tomb of the Musicians at Maresha. The latter could have represented actual figures that were part of the burial ceremony, or have been symbols for the consoling and accompaniment of the dead. Other motifs painted on the tombs at Maresha point to objects used in the burial rite or part of the funerary milieu, such as altars, wreaths, tables, and incense burners. The visual representations of cult and ritual in Palestine differ in no significant way from those of the Hellenistic East, specifically Egypt and the Levant. The Hellenistic Zeitgeist The Hellenistic age is characterized by far-reaching changes in culture, thought, and human self awareness (Fuks 1993). Pollitt, in his works on Hellenistic art, has noted five attributes of the Hellenistic Zeitgeist: an obsession with fortune or Tyche, a theatrical mentality, individualism and emphasis on personal affairs, a cosmopolitan outlook, and a scholarly mentality (1986:1–16; 1993). All of these cultural traits are present in Hellenistic art. The obsession with Tyche is expressed in the city statue of Tyche and all of its copies, and in many images of astral figures. The theatrical mentality is evident from theatrical types and the baroque style, theatrical in nature. Individualism is reflected in the expansion of the repertoire of figures to include portraits and depictions of children, the elderly, the handicapped and deformed, and not just gods and athletes; as well as in the portrayal of emotion. The cosmopolitan outlook finds expression in depictions of various races and unique individuals, and in the legitimization of visual representations of different cultures under the auspices of Hellenism. The scholarly mentality is reflected in portrayals of nature, landscape, and animals; and in pieces of art with an upper simplistic layer over a deeper philosophical one, much like the multi-layered Great Altar of Pergamon.

Cult and Ceremony The identities of figurative images which are ostensibly religious—whether god, priest, or supplicant—can be difficult to ascertain (Merker 2000:327). The problem is accentuated in cases of figures whose attributes or distinguishing symbols put them on the borderline of potential identities. The stone statue from Anafa, for example, could symbolize Demeter or one of her supplicants. The same is true of many terracottas. A recent widespread notion has been that the figures were purposefully vague, so that supplicants could apply their own interpretations according to context and need (Muller 1996:472–473; Merker 2000:328). The approach lends a great deal of freedom to the supplicant in ancient times, perhaps excessively.138 Since it is impossible to establish the exact identity of certain figures, it seems most appropriate to assume that their identities were variable, as based on different contexts and needs. Much of the religious figurative imagery from Hellenistic Palestine can be divided into representations of immortals and mortals. There are objects portraying votaries, priests, or rituals. Votaries are depicted on a marble statue from Akko, a stone carving of a figure next to an altar found at Maresha, and perhaps also in the stone statue from Anafa. Terracottas of women in a hieratic stance from Akko and Maresha are apparently also of supplicants. The same sites have yielded female figurines from the Isis cult, perhaps representations of her priestesses or supplicants. Found at Akko and Maresha were figurines depicting common religious rituals of the East—dancing and playing music. Figurines from the favissa in Area L at Akko show cultic figures, mostly women. They include women carrying water vessels (hydrophoroi), women carrying various objects, women in a hieratic stance, dancers, and musicians. It can be assumed that the figures were participants and believers in the cult, bringing offerings, dancing, and playing music. In addition to the women, a few boys in Macedonian dress

Studies dealing with the Hellenistic culture of Palestine and its environs have either pointed to a measure of Hellenization (Fuks 1983:13–35; Stern 1993:56–67) or to the very minimal influence of significant Hellenistic elements (Millar 1987; 2006:3–31; Tal 2006). All agree that Hellenization, whether large or small, did not reach the grassroots level, but impacted primarily the urbanites and elite of society. The results of studies of this sort are everchanging—not due to the evolving nature of the surviving corpus of finds, but to the approach of the scholar, or to new scholarly trends in the study of the Hellenistic period. As noted in the Introduction, the Hellenistic period was once thought of as merely an addendum to the Classical period, and its study was both Hellenocentric and Eurocentric. The Hellenic elements were sought out while the overriding cultural elements were left in the dark (Kuhrt and SherwinWhite 1987). A renewed focus on the Hellenistic period has emerged in the last two decades (Green 1993), as has the tendency to shed light on its wide range of cultures—Hellenistic, Eastern, Greek, and others—while

138 Similar to the abovementioned claim that the multicultural view was influenced by modern-day trends, so too might this claim stem from our worldview, given the freedoms enjoyed in our society today. It is not certain that such a view should be projected onto ancient society.

117

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE downplaying the unifying constituent (Bilde et al. 1993). Tal, for example, has emphasized in his important work (2006) continuity rather than a break in tradition (see below). The new approach is of course both a post-modern one, which gives great weight to diverse narratives over a single doctrine, as well as a culturally dependent one, much like the Hellenocentrism mentioned above. Given these reservations, it is interesting to examine whether the provincial art of Hellenistic Palestine adapted or was unresponsive to the Hellenistic tendencies noted by Politt. In this respect it is worth remembering that the Hellenistic culture was, from its inception, a syncretic culture rather than a purely Greek one, regardless of whether it suited Greek tastes.

suited to the Hellenistic koine, but it is not known whether they reflect merely artistic trends or broader cultural ones. Grotesque depictions, a derivative of theatrical types, are quite rare in Palestine. In summary, the theatrical component is present in the art of Hellenistic Palestine, but its sporadic appearance attests to the provinciality and marginality of the region. Individualism and cosmopolitanism are two interconnected features of the Hellenistic Zeitgeist, both resulting from the spread of Hellenistic culture throughout the oikoumene. The two are not very prominent in Palestinian art, which tends to be more conservative. Pollitt has claimed that mystery ceremonies promising personal redemption are part of this trend (1986:8). Yet despite the potential existence of the mystery cults in Palestine (see above), there are not many expressions of individualism and cosmopolitanism in its art. Portraiture is rare (the marble portrait of Alexander and conventional portraits on coins being exceptions). The terracottas, for example, do contain depictions of children, but portrayals of disabled individuals and grotesques are relatively rare, as are those of Africans and other races. The artistic finds of this sort include two glass figurines of Africans and a few grotesques from Akko. Canonical marble sculpture is very uncommon; the few that have been found reflect themes of state and religion. Most of the bronzes portray gods or animals. Popular terracotta types such as grotesques or Tanagras, which are secular in nature, are scarce in Palestine, whose art tended to be traditional, religious, and hieratic. It can be assumed as well that the cities of Palestine were less cosmopolitan than Alexandria and the urban centers in Asia Minor, where sculptors depicted the reality known to them from their surroundings. Noteworthy in this regard is the cosmopolitan poem of Meleager of Gadara, brought as a frontispiece in this book. Meleager was born in Gadara, but similar to other intellectuals from the East, in his early adulthood he would leave his birthplace and move elsewhere. His works were written in Tyre (Geiger 1985:7–9; Stern 1993:66). The irony is that the features of the Hellenistic oikoumene— cosmopolitanism, universalism, and individualism— stemmed from the openness of the Greek world to new religions and cultures, including those of Palestine and Phoenicia, but would have little effect on the provinces and peripheral areas themselves. It is thus justified to refute the Hellenocentric approach once common in the study of the Hellenistic world, by which the provinces and the entire East were treated as a single amorphous mass understood as having contributed to change but not worthy of thorough examination itself.

The obsession with Tyche was a Hellenistic trait borrowed from the East, where astral religions and the belief in good fortune had long been mainstays. Pollitt claimed that the portraits of Alexander reflected this trend, as they were used as symbols for good fortune (Pollitt 1986:1). Tyche appears on coins and bullae. Astral iconography is present on the Dioskouroi figures and some of the symbols on terracottas. The ceramic, faience, and lead amulets are from the magical realm, but can also be associated with this trend. Some of the objects were imbued with apotropaic value, reflecting the hope for good fortune; others, such as the lead images of captives from Samaria and Maresha, express the hope for bad fortune for enemies. All are expressions of the belief in fortune and fate, as represented by Tyche. The theatrical mentality is a difficult theme to explore in Hellenistic Palestine, because no built or canonical theater from the Hellenistic period has been uncovered to date (Frézouls 1959). On the other hand, many theatrical themes are reflected in Palestinian art. The terracotta repertoire includes portrayals of masks and stage actors; theatrical masks are depicted on the Dor mosaic. It is worth asking whether these are superficial decorative motifs or if Palestinian art truly reflects a theatrical mentality. Do the masks and images of actors indicate that Hellenistic Palestine was witness to theatrical performances and plays, even if they did not take place in permanent stone structures? In the discussion on terracottas I brought the example of the fourth–third century terracottas from Lipari Island next to Sicily, where hundreds of terracotta masks of all the dramatic genres (comedy, satyr, etc.) were uncovered, but no built theater has been found. The researcher of the masks notes that most cities of Greece and Magna Graecia did not have stone-built theaters in this period (Bernabό-Brea 2001:277). The Lipari corpus, with its wide range of masks and the genres they represent, betrays intimate knowledge of the dramatic medium. In Palestine, however, objects of theatrical nature are sporadic. It has yielded items representing Old Comedy (figurines from Maresha), New Comedy (the mosaic from Dor and figurines from other sites), and Tragedy (masks and figurines). Baroque art, which was influenced by a theatrical mentality, is nearly absent from Palestine. It can be said that the theatrical types extant in Palestine are well-

Scholarly mentality is a Hellenistic feature that finds expression locally in only one instance: the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha. The animal frieze in the tomb is a patent representation of the study of geography, which was developed in the Hellenistic period in Alexandria (Meyboom 1995: passim). But the frieze remains a unique example. Other local works do not seem to either reflect scholarly pursuits or even have philosophical subtexts. 118

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Thus, some of the attributes of Hellenistic culture are clearly embodied in Palestinian art while others find only minor expression. One can make the generalization that those features expressed in iconography are more prominent (Tyche, theatrical masks, etc.) and those expressed in style are less prominent (the theatrical baroque, realism, etc.). This results from the fact that iconography in Palestinian art of the period is largely entrenched in the koine, while the style is conservative, provincial, and mostly blind to the innovations of Hellenism that reached the large urban centers. It is a duality exemplified by two topics that are actually quite different in nature: fashion and aesthetics. Stylistic fashions of dress and hairdos are portrayed in the Hellenistic art of Palestine, and for the most part reflect standard Hellenistic fashions rather than local variants.139 Greek fashion is exhibited in mold-made objects such as terracottas and bronzes and free-form works such as wall paintings and sculpture. Form and iconography tie into fashion, which, when portrayed in art, can be seen as reflecting the reality of the time. Aesthetics, on the other hand, are quite limited if not absent altogether in the crude, provincial art of Palestine. One of the identifying features of Hellenistic art—its aestheticism—is thus lacking in the local art. It is a component founded on the philosophy of the age, and intertwined with issues of style (HughesFowler 1989). It seems that in Hellenistic Palestine—home to poets and philosophers (Geiger 1985) and not without its gymnasia (Fuks 1983:18–19; Stern 1993:70–71)—the Hellenistic culture was filtered through a local, provincial prism, while affecting only a smallsegment of the population. In some regards it signaled a considerable change from earlier periods, but in others it reflected continuity. The culture of the Hellenistic period in Palestine, as expressed in its art, is the purest and most authentic form of all that is meant by the term “Hellenistic”—the integration or coexistence of contemporaneous Greek culture with local Eastern traditions. The variety of languages spoken (and written) in Palestine at that time is further evidence of this coexistence. The culture of Hellenistic Palestine is but one variant of Hellenistic culture—a legitimate, local, provincial expression of that culture, not a mutation of it.

whether in terms of their morphology and typology, the new aesthetic they reflect, or their shear quantity? The number and diversity of ceramic finds from the Hellenistic period are exceptional in comparison to what remains of the previous period. Does this not attest to some behavioral change in society? And with regard to language—which has in the past couple of decades been recognized as a crucial component in the study of culture—can the ascendancy of Greek be rightfully overlooked? Should the inception of left-to-write orthography, the writing of vowels, and the use of Greek sentence structure, which differs significantly from that of Semitic languages, not be seen as signaling some major cognitive, societal change? Similarly, in terms of art, even if traditional concepts and themes find expression in local art, is not the large-scale change in iconography, the transition to a Greek compartmentalized visual language, not a most notorious development in and of itself? Earlier Palestinian traditions would continue to materialize for centuries to come, but the Hellenistic era has proven itself to be, in my view, an era of great change. The term Hellenistic, it is recalled, is no synonym for Hellenic, and Palestine fits in its own provincial way into the larger Hellenistic world. Palestine as Hellenistic Periphery It would be methodologically incorrect to compare the processes of Hellenization in Palestine of the Hellenistic period to those of large urban centers of the Hellenistic world such as Alexandria, Pergamon, Delos, and Rhodes. The appropriate comparison should be made with other peripheral areas, and not according to the rigid model of “center and periphery” (Bilde et al. 1993), but by directly comparing the peripheries themselves. Fischer and Tal note the similarity in the architectural ornament of Palestine and Ai Khanum in Afghanistan, though no direct relationship exists between the two areas (2003a:30). Despite geographical detachment, there are still often similarities between peripheral areas reacting to Hellenistic culture and the Hellenistic administrative rule impacting them. An illustration of the point is the terracotta repertoire from Maresha (Erlich and Kloner 2008). The primary sphere of influence on the terracottas consists of its immediate neighbors—Egypt, Phoenicia, and Cyprus. The secondary sphere, however, is not the next closest ring of neighboring lands such as Asia Minor and Greece, but other peripheral areas such as Hellenistic Mesopotamia, the Black Sea region, Magna Graecia, and the Punic world. This sphere had no direct influence on Palestine,140 but as the Hellenistic periphery, exhibited similar tendencies. Yet despite this, there are differences setting Palestine apart from the other peripheral areas, and they are interesting to consider. Special attention should be paid to the fact that no original artistic style emerged from Hellenistic Palestine.

Tal writes the following in the summary of his recent book (2006:335), appearing here in translation from the Hebrew: “The material culture of the Hellenistic period is proof, in my opinion, of the supremacy of local over Greek traditions, at least in areas discussed here—architecture, burial, and finds. The settlement and social history reflected in the archaeological remains attests to continuity rather than a break in tradition.” It seems that the extent to which Palestine was Hellenized is a matter of opinion. There were trends of continuity, to be sure, but there were also momentous innovations. I shall put forth two examples of what in my opinion were drastic changes that took place in the Hellenistic period, outside the realm of art. They involve pottery and language. Should we dismiss as irrelevant the revolutionary change embodied in Hellenistic ceramics,

Cities of Hellenistic Mesopotamia, like Palestine, have a great deal of minor art, specifically terracottas and statuettes. However, unlike Palestine, they were also 140

139 Cf. the oriental dress of the figures on the Umm el-Amed temple in Phoenicia; Dunand and Duru 1962.

Exceptions include imports from Magna Graecia, and Punic cultural influences introduced by the Phoenicians.

119

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE factor of the great wealth of its kings and silver mining industry (Fol and Marazov 1977). Palestine, however, was economically exploited rather than invested in, limiting its ability to produce original art (Smith 1990). Money and wealthy patrons serve as an important basis for the creation of major art, and their absence will negatively affect the development of original productions. There was thus no impetus to develop the art of Palestine, despite its relative proximity to centers of Hellenistic rule. Another peripheral area, the Black Sea region, was not the recipient of royal investments, but it had affluent colonies populated by Greek immigrants along the Black Sea coasts, which would grow even further in wealth in the fourth century. The only city in Palestine that underwent a similar process was Samaria, whose art indeed reflects accelerated Hellenization.

marked by a long-standing artistic tradition, the Hellenistic phase of which would prove to be but a historical intermezzo between eras of Persian and Parthian rule. The art thus displays Hellenistic features while preserving clear attributes of local Eastern culture; the two cultural influences were kept distinct from one another (Mathiesen 1982; Connelly 1989; Karvonen-Kannas 1995; MartinezSève 1998; Downey 2003). Palestine was not endowed with an artistic tradition of any sort, and even the art of its northern neighbor Phoenicia was always imitative and eclectic. In the Persian period, which directly preceded the Hellenistic in the region, Palestine was part of the Persian koine, and its art is a local expression of that koine (Stern 1982:159–175). In this manner the Hellenistic koine was in the local arena simply a replacement for another koine, never encountering an elaborate local artistic tradition that it would have needed to relate to. This can explain the paucity of authentically local types and motifs, as well as the Hellenistic or Egyptian nature of all the local iconography.

The final factor inhibiting original Hellenistic art in Palestine is the ethnic component, discussed above. Palestine was inhabited by a rich assortment of ethnicities, two of which had negative attitudes toward plastic art. The prohibition of figurative imagery—observed by Jews and Samaritans—was a profound detriment to the development of original art in Hellenistic Palestine. As fate would have it, the first king in the region to be Hellenistic in the cultural and artistic senses of the word would be a Jew ruling in the Roman period, Herod the Great. He founded Caesarea and Sebaste, erected facilities and sanctuaries, built audacious palaces and lavished them in ornament. His works establish him as the region’s first true Hellenist (Turnheim 1998). Herodian architecture and art are indeed marked by additional features, such as those stemming from the Roman or Jewish worlds, but first and foremost they are the products of Hellenistic culture.

The Hellenization of Palestine in the Hellenistic period is but one stage in a long process. Greek cultural influence on the region commenced beforehand, so that the appearance of Greek minor art was not a sudden, revitalizing innovation but—at least in coastal cities—the proliferation of a known trend. And the three centuries of the Hellenistic period would not see its termination. They served as a preparation of sorts for a much more profound process of Hellenization that would take place in the Roman and Byzantine periods. It would unfold in punctuated occurrences, the results of historical events, rather than in a linear fashion. Hellenistic culture in Palestine is distinguishable primarily in minor art and portables, which continue traditions of the previous period, and less from monumental architecture and major art. In locales where the process was briefer and more acute, Hellenistic features are more prominent. They were an innovation to these areas, and would not dissipate in the subsequent period, as was the case at Ai Khanum (MacDowall and Taddei 1978:218–232; Colledge 1987; Smith 1991:224–225). The proximity of Palestine to the Hellenistic centers of Alexandria and Antioch and its long Mediterranean coast aided in the introduction of cultural influences and the suppression of any unique, indigenous voice.

The multitude of remains from Herod’s building program likely played their part in the meager preservation of Hellenistic period art. If it were not for Herod, we would be more familiar with the material remains of the preceding period. Examples of the point are some of the Judean desert fortresses, which Herod built-up intensively, leaving very few Hasmonean remains. Pegae would be flattened with the establishment of Antipatris, Straton’s Tower would disappear under the outskirts of Caesarea, and Samaria would be covered by Sebaste. Herod changed the face of the region, and he did it by drawing on Hellenistic architectural and artistic practices. The historical point at which this study must close is, in fact, the starting point of an era of full-fledged Hellenistic culture in Palestine, one following three centuries of preliminary, hesitant steps toward Hellenization.

Ai Khanum was a beneficiary of the Hellenistic kings, who erected buildings there and hoped for its prosperity. A comparable peripheral area was Thrace, whose art is considered provincial and unrefined yet original, likely a

120

Abbreviations AASOR ActArch AIPMA AJA AM AMGR AW BA BAIAS BAR BASOR BCH BCH Suppl. BIFAO BMB BMYB CE ESI IAA Reports IEJ INJ JDAI JHS JNES JRA Suppl. JRS LIMC MEFRA NEAEHL PEFQS PEQ QDAP RA RB RHR SM ZDPV

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Acta Archaeologica Association internationale pour la peinture murale antique American Journal of Archaeology Athenische Mitteilungen Annuaire du musée Gréco-Romain Antike Welt Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Biblical Archeaology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, supplément Bulletin de l’institut Français d’archéologie orientale de Caire Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth British Museum Yearbook Chronique d'Égypte Excavations and Surveys in Israel Israel Antiquities Authority Reports Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series Journal of Roman Studies Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologicae Classicae, Zurich & Munich Mélanges de l’école française de Rome The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (E. Stern ed.), in English (1993) and Hebrew (1992). Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine Reveu archéologique Revue biblique Revue de l’histoire des religions Schweizer Münzblätter Zeitschrift Deutschen Palästina Vereins

121

122

Bibliography

Adriani A. 1936. La nécropole de Moustafa Pacha. AMGR 1933–1935.

Avigad N. 1954. Ancient Monuments of the Kidron Valley. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Adriani A. 1940. Nécropoles. AMGR III 1935–1939:65– 135.

Avigad N. 1956. The Necropolis. In M. Avi-Yonah. Sepher Yerushalayim (The Book of Jerusalem). Jerusalem. Pp. 320–349 (Hebrew).

Adriani A. 1952. Trouvaille à Ras el Soda. AMGR III 1940–1950:28–46.

Avigad N. 1960. Excavations at Makmish, 1958: Preliminary Report. IEJ 10:90–96, Pls. 9–12.

Aharoni Y. 1973. Tel Beersheba. IEJ 23:254–256. Aharoni Y. 1974. Tel Beersheba. IEJ 24:270–272.

Avigad N. 1976. Beth She‘arim, Vol. III: Catacombs 12– 23. Jerusalem.

Aharoni Y. 1975. Investigation at Lachish V, The Sanctuary and the Residency. Tel Aviv.

Avigad N. 1983. Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville.

Albright W.F. 1942. Two Cressets from Marisa and the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz. BASOR 85:18–27.

Avi-Yonah M. 1959. Syrian Gods at Ptolemais-Acco. IEJ 9:1–12.

Andronikos M. 1984. Vergina, The Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens.

Avi-Yonah M. 1981. Art in Ancient Palestine, Selected Studies (reprinted 1981). Jerusalem.

Applebaum S. 1986. Excavations at the New Post Office in Akko. In M. Yedaya ed. The Western Galilee Antiquities. Tel Aviv. Pp. 261–265 (Hebrew).

Avi-Yonah A. and Kloner A. 1992. Mareshah. NEAEHL. Pp. 1015–1021 (Hebrew). Ayalon E. 1999. Corpus of Bone Artifacts. In E. Ayalon and C. Sorek, eds. Bare Bones, Ancient Artifacts from Animal Bones. Eretz Israel Museum. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Arav R. 1989. Hellenistic Palestine, Settlement Patterns and Town Planning, 337–31 B.C.E. (British Archaeological Reports 485). Oxford.

Balty J. 1995. Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient. Chronologie, iconographie, interprétation. Paris.

Ariel D.T. and Messika N. 2007. Finds from the Hellenistic ‘Favissa’ at ‘Akko-Ptolemais. ‘Atiqot 57:11–20. Ariel D.T. and Naveh J. 2003.Selected Inscribed Sealings from Kedesh in the Upper Galilee. BASOR 329:61–80.

Barag D. 2002. New Developments in the Research of the Tombs of the Sons of Hezir and Zecharias. Qadmoniot 123:38–47 (Hebrew).

Ariel T.D. 1990. Excavations at the City of David 1978– 1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, II (Qedem 30). Jerusalem.

Barbet A. 1985. La peinture murale romaine, les styles décoratifs Pompéiens. Paris.

Aubert C. 2001–2002. Architecture et décor de la maison hellénistique à Beyrouth. Aram 13–14:73–85.

Barbet A. and Valeva J. 2001. Le tombeau de Maglij (Bulgarie). In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). Saint-Romain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 233–238.

Aubert C. and Eristov H. 2001. L’habitat hellénistique de Beyrouth et son décor (site du Petit Sérail). In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). Saint-Romain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 211–214.

Barbet A. and Vibert-Guigue C. 1994. Les peintures des nécropoles romaines d’Abila et du nord de la Jordaine. Beyrouth.

Augé C. and Linant de Bellefonds P. 1986. Dioskouroi in periphria orientali. LIMC III:593–597.

Barkay R. 1992–1993. The Marisa Hoard of Seleucid Tetradrachms Minted in Ascalon. INJ 12:21–26, Pls. 3–5.

Aviam M. 2004. Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee. Rochester.

Barr-Sharrar B. 1990. Coroplast, Potter and Metalsmith. In J.P. Uhlenbrock ed. The Coroplast’s Art. New York. Pp. 31–36.

Avida U. 1978. Aphrodite, a Greek Goddess (Israel Museum Catalogue No. 184). Jerusalem (Hebrew). 123

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Hellenistic World (Studies in Hellenistic Civilizations IV). Aarhus.

Barry M.L. 1906. Sur un lampe en terre cuite. Le culte de Tyndarides dans l’Égypte gréco-romaine. BIFAO 5:165– 181.

Biran A. 1992. Dan, 25 Years of Excavations at Tel Dan. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Bartoloni P. 1976. Le stele archaique del tofet di Cartagine. Roma.

Biran A. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem.

Bažant J. 1979. The Iconography of Hellenistic Bronzes. Actes du V colloque international sur les bronzes antiques: Bronzes hellénistiques et romains, tradition et renouveau. Lausanne. Pp. 65–68.

Birchall A. and Corbett P.E. 1974. Greek Gods and Heroes. London.

Beer C. 1994. Temple Boys, I. Jonsered.

Bliss F.G. and Macalister R.A.S. 1902. Excavations in Palestine during the Years 1898–1900. London.

Bell M. 1981. Morgantina Studies I: The Terracottas. Princeton.

Boardman J. 1990. Herakles, General Commentary. LIMC V:183–192. Zurich und Munich.

Berlin A.M. 1997a. Hellenistic Palestine Between Large Forces. BA 60–61.

Boardman J. 1997. Pan. LIMC VII:923–941. Zurich und Düsseldorf.

Berlin A.M. 1997b. From Monarchy to Markets: The Phoenicians in Hellenistic Palestine. BASOR 306:75–88.

Boardman J. 2000. Images and Media in the Greek World. In C. Uehlinger ed. Images as Media, Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millenium BCE). Fribourg. Pp. 323–337.

Berlin A.M. 2002. Power and its Afterlife, Tombs in Hellenistic Palestine. BAR 65/2:138–147.

Boardman J. and Palagia O. 1988. Herakles. LIMC IV:728– 838. Zurich und Munich.

Bernabó-Brea L. 2001. Maschere e personaggi del teatro greco nelle terracotte Liparesi. Roma.

Bodenheimer F.S. 1956. Animal Life in Biblical Lands. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Bertocchi F.T. 1964. La pittura funeraria Apula. Napoli.

Boehringer E. 1966. Die Ausgrabungsarbeiten zu Pergamon in Jahre 1965. JDAI 81:415–483.

Besques S. 1971–1972. Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs, étrusques et romains III: Époques hellénistique et romaine, Grèce et Asie Mineure. Paris.

Bol P.C. 1972. Die Skulpturen des Schiffsfundes von Antikythera. Berlin.

Besques S. 1986. Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs, étrusques et romains IV: Époques hellénistique et romaine 2: Italie méridionale - Sicilie - Sardaigne. Paris.

Bondi S.F. 1972. Le stele di Monte Sirai. Roma. Bonnet C. 1988. Melqart, cultes et mythes de l’Héraclès Tyrien en Méditerranée (Studia Phoenicia VIII). Leuven.

Besques S. 1992. Musée national du Louvre. Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs, étrusques et romains IV: Époques hellénistique et romaine, Cyrénaïque, Égypte ptolémaïque et romaine 2: Afrique du Nord et Proche-Orient. Paris.

Boucher S. 1979. Des bronzes hellénistiques aux bronzes romains. Quelques problèmes. Actes du V colloque international sur les bronzes antiques: Bronzes hellénistiques et romains, tradition et renouveau. Lausanne. Pp. 95–102.

Bezerra de Meneses 1970. Le revetement mural (La décoration intérieure). In P. Bruneau et al. Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l’école Française d’Athènes, XXIX, L’îlot de la maison des comédiens. Paris. Pp. 151–193.

Braemer F. 1979. Bronzes hellénistiques» et «romains». Problèmes de chronologie.Actes du Vcolloque international sur les bronzes antiques: Bronzes hellénistiques et romains, tradition et renouveau. Lausanne. Pp. 31–42.

Bieber M. 1961. The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (rev. edition). New York.

Braun J. 2002. Music in Ancient Israel/Palestine, Archaeological, Written and Comparative Sources. Cambridge.

Bieber M. 1964. Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art. Chicago.

Breccia E. 1912. La necropoli di Sciatbi. Caire. Breccia E. 1930. Monuments de l’Égypte gréco-romaine 2:I, Terrecotte Figurate Greche e Greco-Egizie del Museo di Alessandria. Bergamo.

Bienkowski P. 1991. The Art of Jordan, Treasures from the Ancient Land. Merseyside. Bilde P., Engberg-Pedersen T., Hannestad L., Zahle J. and Randsborg K. eds. 1993.Centre and Periphery in the 124

BIBLIOGRAPHY Breccia E. 1934. Monuments de l’Égypte gréco-romaine 2:II, Terrecotte Figurate Greche e Greco-Egizie del Museo di Alessandria. Bergamo.

Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East. In A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin White eds. Hellenism in the East. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Pp. 134–162.

Brönner M. 2001. Cypriote Limestone Sculpture. In Brehme S. et al. Ancient Cypriote Art in Berlin. Nicosia. Pp. 27–31.

Connelly J.B. 1988. Votive Sculpture of Hellenistic Cyprus. Nicosia. Connelly J.B. 1989. Votive Offerings from Hellenistic Failaka: Evidence for Herakles Cult. In T. Fahd ed. L’Arabie préislamique et son environnement historique et culturel. Leiden. Pp. 145–158.

Brown B.R. 1957. Ptolemaic Paintings and Mosaics and the Alexandrian Style. Cambridge. Bruneau P. 1970. Recherches sur le cultes de Délos a l’époque hellénistique et al’époque impériale. Paris.

Connelly J.B. 1990. Hellenistic Alexandria. In J.P. Uhlenbrock ed. The Coroplast Art. New York. Pp. 89–92.

Bruneau P. 1972. Exploration archéologique de Délos faite par l’école Française d’Athènes, XXIX, les mosaïques. Paris.

Craig-Patch D. 1998. By Necessity or Design: Faience Use in Ancient Egypt. In F.D. Friedman ed. Gifts of the Nile, Ancient Egyptian Faience. London. Pp. 32–45.

Bruno V.J. 1969. Antecedents of the Pompeian First Style. AJA 73:305–317.

Crawford H. and Rice M. 2000. Traces of Paradise: The Archaeology of Bahrain 2500 BC–300 AD. London.

Bruno V.J. 1985. Hellenistic Painting Techniques: The Evidence of the Delos Fragments. Leiden.

Crowfoot J.W., Crowfoot G.M., and Kenyon K.M. 1957. The Objects from Samaria. London.

Burn L. and Higgins R. 2001. Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in the British Museum III. London

Crowfoot J.W., Kenyon K.M., and Sukenik E.L. 1942. The Buildings at Samaria. London.

Burr D. 1934. Terracottas from Myrina in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Vienna.

Cumont F.V.M. 1956. The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. New York.

Callot O. and Nenna M.D. 2001. L’arcitecture des tombes. In J.Y. Emperuer and M.D. Nenna eds. Nécropolis 1, Études alexandrines 5–2000. Paris. Pp. 43–160.

Daressy M.G. 1906. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, Statues de divinités. Caire.

Caubet A., Hermary A., and Karageorghis V. 1992. Art antique de Chypre au musée du Louvre du chalcolithique à l’époque romaine. Athènes.

Daszewski W.A. 1978. Some Problems of Early Mosaics from Egypt. In H. Maehler and V.M. Strocka eds. Das ptolemäische Ägypten, Akten des internationalen Symposions 27–29 September 1976 in Berlin. Mainz am Rhein 1978. Pp. 123–136.

Charatzopoulou C. 2001. Le peinture funéraire en Grèce du IVe au IIe S. av. J-C. Un état de la recherche. In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). Saint-Romain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 43–49. Charbonneaux J. 1958. Greek Bronzes. London.

Daszewski W.A. 1985. Corpus of Mosaics from Egypt I: Hellenistic and Early Roman Period. Mainz am Rhein.

Chéhab M.H. 1951–1954. Les terres cuites de Kharayeb. BMB 10–11.

De Ridder A. 1904. Collection de Clercq, III: Les bronzes. Paris.

Ciasca A. 1963. Un deposito di statuette da tell Gat. Oriens Antiquus II:45–62.

De Visscher F. 1962. Heracles Epitrapezios. Paris. Delaporte S. 2003. La fouille du secteur 2, pont de Gabbari. In J.Y. Emperuer and M.D. Nenna eds. Nécropolis 2, Études alexandrines 7–2002. Paris. Pp. 33–83.

Clarke J.R. 2001. Sex, Death and Status: Nilotic Tomb Imagery, Apotropaic Magic, and Freedman Acculturation. In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). Saint-Romain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 85–91. Clermont-Ganneau C. 1901. Recueil d’archéologie orientale, IV. Paris.

Deonna W. 1938. Exploration archéologique de Délos XVIII, Le mobilier délien. Paris.

Colledge M.A.R. 1976. The Art of Palmyra. London.

Derfler S. 1981. A Terracotta Figurine from the Hellenistic Temple at Tel Beer-Sheba. IEJ 31:97–99.

Colledge M.A.R. 1977. Parthian Art. London.

Derfler S. 1984. The Hellenistic Temple at Beersheva, Israel. Ph.D. diss. Michigan.

Colledge M. 1987. Greek and Non-Greek Interaction in the 125

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Devambez P. 1968. Piliers hermaïques et stèles. RA 19681:139–154.

Erlich A. 2004. A Bronze Figurine from Be’erotayim. In R. Cohen and R. Cohen-Amin eds. Ancient Settlement of the Negev Highlands. Vol. II: The Iron Age and the Persian Period. Jerusalem. Pp. 217–219 (Hebrew).

Dothan M. 1993. Acco. NEAEHL. Pp. 16–24. Dothan M. 1971. Ashdod II–III (1963–1965) (‘Atiqot 9–10). Jerusalem.

Erlich A. 2006a. Hellenistic and Byzantine Terracotta Figurines. In A. Mazar ed. Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996 I (The Beth-Shean Valley Archaeological Project 1). Jerusalem. Pp. 616–625.

Dothan M. 1974. A Sign of Tanit from Tel Akko. IEJ 24:44–49.

Erlich A. 2006b. The Persian Terracotta Figurines from Maresha in Idumea: Local and Regional Aspects. Transeuphratène 32:45–59.

Dothan M. 1976. Akko, Interim Excavation Report, First Season:1973–4. BASOR 224:1–48. Downey S.B. 1969. The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report III, I, 1: The Heracles Sculpture. New Haven.

Erlich A. 2009. The Image of Kybele in the Land of Israel in the Hellenistic Period. Eretz-Israel 29 (Ephraim Stern Book). Pp. 22-34 (Hebrew).

Downey S.B. 2003. Terracotta Figurines and Plaques from Dura-Europos. Ann Arbor.

Erlich A. and Kloner A. 2007. Plastic Vessels and Rhyta from Maresha. Qadmoniot 134:103–109 (Hebrew).

Dunand F. 1973. Le culte d’Isis dans la Bassin oriental de la Méditerranée, I–III. Leiden.

Erlich A. and Kloner A. 2008. Maresha Excavations Final Report II, Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from the 1989– 1996 Seasons (IAA Reports 35). Jerusalem.

Dunand F. 1979. Religion populaire en Égypte romaine, Les terre cuites isiaques du Musée du Caire. Leiden.

Erlich A. forthcoming a. Two Bronze Figurines from Maresha. In A. Kloner ed. Maresha Final Reports (IAA Reports). Jerusalem.

Dunand F. 1990. Musée du Louvre, Départment des antiquités égyptiennes, Catalogue des terres cuites grécoromaines d’Égypt. Paris.

Erlich A. forthcoming b. Clay Rhyta from Maresha. Transeuphratène 37.

Dunand M. and Duru R. 1962. Oumm el ‘Amed, Une ville de l’époque hellénistique aux échelles de Tyr. Paris.

Erman A. 1971. Life in Ancient Egypt. New York.

Dunbabin K.M.D. 1979. Techniques and Materials of Hellenistic Mosaics. AJA 83:265–277.

Falsone G. 1988. Phoenicia as a Bronzeworking Centre in the Iron Age. In J. Curtius ed. Bronzeworking Centres of Western Asia c. 1000–539 B.C. London and New York. Pp. 227–250.

Dunbabin K.M.D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World. Cambridge. Dusenbery E.B. 1998. Samothrace II, The Nekropoleis and Catalogue of Burials. Princeton.

Faust S. 1994. Die Klinen. In G. Hellenkemper-Salies et al. eds. Das Wrack, Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia. Köln. Pp. 573–606.

Edgar C.C. 1904. Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du musée du Caire, Greek Bronzes. Caire.

Figueras P. 1983. Decorated Jewish Ossuaries. Leiden.

Ehrlich A. 2003. Notes on E. Stern’s Article in Qadmoniot 124 “Goddesses and Cults at Tel Dor.” Qadmoniot 125:55– 56 (Hebrew).

Finkielsztejn G. 1998. More Evidence on John Hyrcanus I’s Conquests: Lead Weight and Rhodian Amphora Stamps. BAIAS 16:33–55.

El Khouri L.S. 2002. The Nabatean Terracotta Figurines (British Archaeological Reports International Series 1034). Oxford.

Finkielsztejn G. 1999. A Standard of Volumes for Liquids from Hellenistic Maresha. ‘Atiqot 38:51–64. Fischer J. 1994. Griechische-römische Terrakotten aus Ägypten: Die Sammlungen Sieglin und Schrieber. Tübingen.

Elgavish J. 1993. Shiqmona. NEAEHL. Pp. 1373–1378. Eristov H. 1979. Corpus des faux-marbres peints à Pompéi. MEFRA 91–2:693–771.

Fischer M. 1990. Some Remarks on Architectural Decoration in Palestine during the Hellenistic Period (3rd–1st Centuries B.C.E.). In Akten des XII. International Kongresses für klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988. Mainz. Pp. 434–436.

Erlich A. 2002. Terracotta Figurines of Hellenistic Maresha: Between Art and Craft. Assaph 7:1–16. Erlich A. 2003. Notes on E. Stern's Article in Qadmoniot 124 "Goddesses and Cults at Tel Dor". Qadmoniot 125: 55-56 (Hebrew).

Fischer M. 1998. Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. Konstanz. 126

BIBLIOGRAPHY Fischer M. 2002. Yavneh-Yam 1992–1999—Interim Report. Qadmoniot 123:2–11 (Hebrew).

Fol A. and Marazov I. 1977. Trache and the Trachians. New York.

Fischer M. 2003. A Terracotta Harp Player from Hellenistic Yavneh-Yam (Israel). In E. Hickmann and R. Eichmann eds. Studien zur Musikarchäologie IV: Papers from the 3rd Symposium of the International Study Group on Music Archaeology at Monastery Michaelstein, 9–16 June, 2002 (Orient-Archäologie 15). Rahden, Westf. Pp. 437–443.

Fol A. 1986. The Thracian Tomb near the Village of Sveshtari. Sofia. Forrer L. 1929. Greek Coins, Asia, Africa, The Weber Collection, Vol. III, Part II. London. Frankel R. and Ventura R. 1998. The Mispe Yamim Bronzes. BASOR 311:39–55.

Fischer M. and Dashti B. 1991. The Archaeological Finds in the Sadeh Collection, the Pottery. In M. Fischer ed. Yavneh-Yam and its Vicinity. Palmachim. Pp. 43–55 (Hebrew).

Frenkel R. 1997. The Sanctuary from the Persian Period at Mount Mizpe Yamim. Qadmoniot 113:46–53 (Hebrew). Frézouls E. 1959. Recherches sur les théâtres de l’Orient syrien. Syria 36:202–227.

Fischer M. and Jackson-Tal R. 2003. A Glass Pendant in the shape of Harpocrates from Yavneh-Yam, Israel. Journal of Glass Studies 45:35–40.

Friedman F.D. 1998. Faience: The Brilliance of Eternity. In F.D. Friedman ed. Gifts of the Nile, Ancient Egyptian Faience. London. Pp. 15–21.

Fischer M. and Tal O. 2003. Architectural Decoration in Ancient Israel in Hellenistic Times, Some Aspects of Hellenization. ZDPV 119:19–37.

Fuchs W. 1963. Der Schiffsfunds von Mahdia. Tübingen. Fuks A. 1993. Features of the Character of the Hellenistic World. In U. Rappaport and I. Ronen eds., The Hasmonean State: The History of the Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic Period. Tel Aviv. Pp. 47–54 (Hebrew).

Fischer M., Roll I. and Tal O. 2008. Persian and Hellenistic Remains at Tel Ya‘oz. Tel Aviv 35:104–142. Fittschen K. 1996. Wall Decorations in Herod’s Kingdom: Their Relationship with Wall Decorations in Greece and Italy. In K. Fittschen and G. Foerster eds. Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Göttingen. Pp. 139–151.

Fuks G. 1983. Scythopolis—A Greek City in Eretz-Israel. Jerusalem (Hebrew). Fuks G. 2001. A City of Many Seas: Ashkelon During the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Fittschen K. and Foerster G. (eds.) 1996. Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Göttingen.

Galilee E., Sharvit J., and Dahari U. 2001. Ashqelon and the Sea in Light of the Underwater and Coastal Archaeological Findings. In A. Sasson, Z. Safrai, and N. Sagiv eds. Ashkelon: A City on the Seashore. Tel Aviv. Pp. 11–38.

Fjeldhagen M. 1995. Catalogue of the Graeco Roman Terracottas from Egypt, NY Carlsberg Glyptotek. Carlsberg.

Galili E., Sharvit J., and Dahari U. 2000. Tel Ashqelon, Coastal and Underwater Survey. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 111:110–111 (Hebrew).

Fleischer R. 1983. Der Klagefrauensarkophag aus Sidon. Tübingen. Flusser D. 1976. Paganism in Palestine. In S. Safrai and M. Stern eds. The Jewish People in the First Century (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 1:II). Assen. Pp. 1065–1100.

Geiger J. 1985. Athens in Syria: Greek Intellectuals of Gadara. Cathedra 35:3–16 (Hebrew). Gelsdorf F. 1994. Antike Wrackfunde mit Kunsttransporten im Mittelmeer. In G. Hellenkemper-Salies et al. eds. Das Wrack, Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia. Köln. Pp. 759–766.

Foerster G. 1985. A Cuirassed Bronze Statue of Hadrian. ‘Atiqot 17:139–157, Pls. XXIII–XXVIII. Foerster G. 1995. Masada V, The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports, Art and Architecture. Jerusalem.

Gersht R. 1999. The Sdot-Yam Museum Book of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Foerster G. 1997a. Hellenistic and Roman Trends in the Herodian Architecture of Masada. In G. Hurvitz ed. The Story of Masada, Discoveries from the Excavations. Provo, Utah. Pp. 61–66.

Ginouvès R. 1994. Macedonia from Philip II to the Roman Conquest. Princeton. Giveon R. 1973. Egyptian Objects in Bronze and Faience. In Y. Aharoni ed. Beer Sheba I. Tel Aviv. Pp. 54–55, Pls. 22–23.

Foerster G. 1997b. The Wall Paintings of Masada. In G. Hurvitz ed. The Story of Masada, Discoveries from the Excavations. Provo, Utah. Pp. 67–77.

Glueck N. 1965. Deities and Dolphins. New York. 127

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Goldman H. 1942. The Origin of the Greek Herm. AJA 46:58–68.

G. and Bauchhenss G. 1994. Das Wrack, Der antike Schiffsfund von Mahdia. Köln.

Gordon R.L. 1977. Late Hellenistic Wall Decoration of Tel Anafa. Ph.D. diss. University of Missouri-Columbia.

Hengel M. 1981. Judaism and Hellenism, Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (2nd rev. ed.). Philadelphia.

Graindor P. 1939. Terres cuites de l'Égypte gréco-romaine. Antwerpen.

Herbert S. 1981. Tel Anafa, 1979, 1980. IEJ 31:105–107.

Green P. 1990. Alexander to Actium, The Historical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley.

Herbert S. 1993. The Greco-Phoenician Settlement at Tel Anafa: A Case Study in the Limits of Hellenization (Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990). Jerusalem. Pp. 118–125.

Green P. 1993. New Approaches to the Hellenistic World. In P. Green ed. Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley. Pp. 1–11.

Herbert S. 1994. Tel Anafa I, i, Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel (JRA Suppl. 10). Ann Arbor.

Gubel E. 1987. Phoenician Furniture (Studia Phoenicia VII). Leuven.

Herbert S. and Berlin A. 2000. Tel Kedesh, 1997–1999. IEJ 50:118–123.

Guimier-Sorbets A.M. 1999. From Macedonia to Alexandria: The Hellenistic Mosaics. In Alexander the Great: From Macedonia to the Oikoumene, International Congress (1998). Veria. Pp. 89–96.

Herbert S. and Berlin A. 2003. A New Administrative Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at Kedesh. BASOR 329:13–59.

Guimier-Sorbets A.M. and Nenna M.D. 2003. Le lit funéraire dans les nécropoles alexandrines. In J.Y. Emperuer and M.D. Nenna eds. Nécropolis 2, Études alexandrines 7–2002. Paris. Pp. 533–575.

Hermary A. 1986. Dioskouroi. LIMC III:567–593. Hermary A. 1989. Catalogue des antiquités de Chypre, sculptures, museé du Louvre. Paris.

Guimier-Sorbets A.M., Nenna M.D., and Seif el-Din M. 2001. Découvertes récentes dans la nécropole occidentale d’Alexandrie (quartier de Gabbari). In A. Barbet (Ed.). La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). SaintRomain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 123–127.

Herrmann A. 2000. A Bronze Lebes in the Light of the Mahdia Wreck. In C.C. Mattusch, A. Brauer and S.E. Knudsen eds. From the Parts to the Whole, Acta of the 13th International Bronze Congress. Rhode Island. Pp. 241–249.

Güntner G. 1997. Persephone. LIMC VIII:956–978.

Hershkovitz M. 2002. A Carved Bone Plaque from Tel Dan. Qadmoniot 124:113–115 (Hebrew).

Hachlili R. 1988. Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Leiden.

Herzog Z. 1993. Beersheba. NEAEHL. Pp. 167–173.

Hachlili R. 2005. Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period. Leiden and Boston.

Higgins R.A. 1967. Greek Terracottas. London.

Hadas G. 1994. Nine Tombs of the Second Temple Period at ‘En Gedi. ‘Atiqot XXIV.

Higgins R.A. 1976. Magenta Ware. BMYB 1:1–32.

Hammerstein E. 1978. Who Were the Animals Depicted on the Tomb of Apollophanes at Maresha? Teva Vaaretz 20/6:29–34 (Hebrew).

Hill D.K. 1949. Catalogue of Classical Bronze Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery. Baltimore.

Higgins R.A. 1987. Tanagra and the Figurines. London.

Harari M. 2001. Les cavaliers et le mort, architecture et peinture à l’origine de l’art alexandrine. In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). SaintRomain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 143–150.

Hill G.F. 1910. Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London.

Harden D. 1963. The Phoenicians. London.

Hoffmann A. 1999. Ein hellenistisches Heiligtum in Gadara. Τοποι Orient-Occident 9/2:795–831.

Hill G.F. 1914. Greek Coins of Palestine (Galilee, Samaria and Judaea). London.

Harrison E.B. 1965. The Athenian Agora XI, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. Princeton.

Hölbl G. 2001. The History of the Ptolemaic Empire. London and New York.

Hayes J.H. 1984. Greek, Roman, and Related Metalware in the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto.

Horowitz G. 1980. Town Planing of Hellenistic Marisa: A Reappraisal of the Excavations after Eighty Years. PEQ 112:93–111.

Hellenkemper-Salies G., von Prittwitz H.H., Bauchhenss 128

BIBLIOGRAPHY Houlihan P.F. 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt (The Natural History of Egypt, Vol. I). Warminster.

Kaplan J. and Kaplan H. 1989. Remains of a Serapis Cult in Tel Aviv. Eretz-Israel 20:352–359 (Hebrew).

Houser C. 1998. The “Alexander Sarcophagus” of Abdalonymos: A Hellenistic Monument from Sidon. In O. Palagia and W.D.E. Coulson eds. Regional Schools in Hellenitic Sculpture. Oxford. Pp. 281–291.

Karageorghis V. 1970. Chronique des fouilles et découvertes archéologiques à Chypre en 1969. BCH 94:191–300. Karageorghis V. 2001. Ancient Cypriote Art in Copenhagen, The Collections of the National Museum of Denmark and the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Nicosia.

Hughes-Fowler B. 1989. The Hellenistic Aesthetic. Wisconsin.

Karageorghis V. 2003. The Cyprus Collections in the Medelhavsmuseet. Nicosia.

Ilan O. 1999. Photograph and Idol: Treasures of the Rockefeler Museum and Areal Photograph of Dubi Tal and Moni Haramati (Israel Museum Catalog). Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Karageorghis V., Vassilika E., and Wilson P. 1999. The Art of Ancient Cyprus in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Nicosia.

Iliffe J.H. 1934. A Nude Terra-cotta Statuette of Aphrodite. QDAP 3:106–111.

Karvonen-Kannas K. 1995. The Seleucid and Parthian Terracotta Figurines from Babylon (Monografie di Mesopotamia IV). Firenze.

Iliffe J.H. 1936. A Hoard of Bronzes from Askalon. QDAP 5:61–68, Pls. XXIX–XXXIV.

Kasher A. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs: Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Nations of the Frontier and the Desert during the Hellenistic and Roman Era (332 BCE–70 CE). Tübingen.

Invernizzi A. 1997. Near-Eastern Incense-Burners and Pyraeums (I Millenium B.C.–I Millenium A.D. Al-Rāfidān XVIII:241–261. Jackson H. 2006. Jebel Kahlid on the Euphrates, 2, The Terracotta Figurines. Sydney.

Kasher A. 1990. Jews and the Hellenistic Cities in EretzIsrael. The Relations of the Jews in Eretz-Israel with the Hellenistic Cities during the Second Temple Period (332 BCE-70 CE). Tübingen.

Jacobson D.M. 2000. The Anchor on the Coins of Judaea. BAIAS 18:73–81.

Kassab D. 1988. Statuettes en terre cuite de Myrina. Corpus des signatures, monogrammes, lettres et signes. Paris

Jacobson D.M. 2004. Marisa Tomb Paintings. BAR 30/2:24–39. Jacobson D.M. 2007. The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa (PEF Annual VII). Leeds.

Keel O. 2001. Der Titel dieses Buches, die ägyptischen Bronzen aus Palästina/Israel und dieser Katalog–eine Einführung. In M. Page Gasser. Götter bewohnten Ägypten, Bronzefiguren der Sammlungen «Bible+Orient» der Universität Freiburg Schweiz. Freiburg. Pp. IX–XVII.

Jentel M.O. 1984. Aphrodite in Peripheria orientali. LIMC II:154–166. Jockey P. 1998. Neither School Nor Koine: Local Workshops of Delos and Their Unfinished Sculpture. In O. Palagia and W.D.E. Coulson eds. Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture. Oxford. Pp. 177–184.

Keel O. and Uehlinger C. 1998. Gods, Goddesses and Images in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis. Killerich B. 1993. The Public Image of Alexander the Great. In J. Carlsen et al. eds. Alexander the Great, Reality and Myth. Rome. Pp. 85–92.

Joyce H. 1979. Form, Function and Technique in the Pavements of Delos and Pompeii. AJA 83:253–263, Pls. 33–36.

Kindler A. 1995. The Ptolemaic Coin Emissions in the Coastal Cities of Eretz Israel and Phoenicia. In Y. Eshel ed. Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting. Ariel. Pp. 109–119 (Hebrew).

Kadman L. 1961. The Coins of Akko Ptolemais (Corpus Nummorum Palaestinensium IV). Jerusalem. Kaizer T. 2000. The “Heracles Figure” at Hatra and Palmyra: Problems of Interpretation. Iraq LXII:219–231.

Kingsley B.M. 1981. The Cap that Survived Alexander. AJA 85:39–46.

Kalmah J. 1999. Zwei nordpalästinische “Heiligtümer” der persischen Zeit und ihre epigraphischen Funde. ZDPV 115(2):163–190.

Kingsley B.M. 1991. Alexander’s Kausia and Macedonian Tradition. Classical Antiquity 10:59–76. Kitov G. 2001. A Newly Found Thracian Tomb with Frescoes. Archaeologia Bulgarica V.2:15–29.

Kalos M. 1999. Un sanctuaire d’èpoque hellènistique en Syrie du sud: Khirbet Massakeb. Τοποι Orient-Occident 9/2:777–794. 129

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Kitov G. 2002. New Thracian Frescoes from Bulgaria. Minerva 13.3:42–45.

Kushnir A. 2000. Late Hellenistic Coins of Gaza and the Date of Hasmonean Conquest of the City. SM 198:22–24.

Kleemann I. 1958. Der Satrapen-Sarkophag aus Sidon. Berlin.

L’orange H.P. 1982. Apotheosis in Ancient Portraiture. New York.

Kleiner G. 1984. Tanagrafiguren (rev. ed.). Berlin.

Laidlaw A. 1985. The First Style in Pompeii: Painting and Architecture. Roma.

Kloner A. 1985. New Jewish Inscriptions from the “Darom.” Qadmoniot 71–72:96–100 (Hebrew).

Lamb W. 1929. Greek and Roman Bronzes. London.

Kloner A. 1991. Maresha. Qadmoniot 95–96:70–85 (Hebrew).

Landau Y.H. 1961. A Greek Inscription from Acre. IEJ 11:118–126.

Kloner A. 1993. Mareshah (Marisa). NEAEHL. Pp. 951– 957.

Laumonier A. 1956. Exploration archéologique de Délos XXIII, Les figurines de terre cuite. Paris.

Kloner A. 1996. Maresha: A Guide. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Leipen N. 1984. Glimpses of Excellence, A Selection of Greek Vases and Bronzes from the Elie Borowski Collection. Toronto.

Kloner A. 1997. Underground Metropolis, Subterranean World of Maresha. BAR 23.2:24–35.

The

Levy G.R. 1934. The Oriental Origin of Hercules. JHS 54:40–53.

Kloner A. 1999. The Artistic Impact of Hellenistic Period Kerameikos on Wall Painting and Reliefs from Maresha, Jerusalem and Petra. AM 114:227–234.

Lightfoot J.L. 2004. Lucian, On the Syrian Goddess. Oxford.

Kloner A. 2003. Maresha Excavations Final Report I: Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 70 (IAA Reports 17). Jerusalem.

Linant de Bellefonds P.L. 1984. Arsu. LIMC II:615–618. Linant de Bellefonds P.L. 1986. Azizos. LIMC III:69–71.

Kloner A., Erlich A., Vitto F. and Shmuel D. 1998. Maresha—Area 61. ESI 17:163–165.

Linder E. 1973. A Cargo of Figurines of the Persian Period Discovered in the Sea off Shavei Zion. Qadmoniot 21:27– 29 (Hebrew).

Kloner A. and Jackson R.E. 2000. Maresha, Head-Shaped Glass Pendants. ESI 20:135*.

Linder E. and Ramon, Y. 1981. A Ram of an Ancient Warship. Qadmoniot 53–54:39–43 (Hebrew).

Kloner A. and Sagiv N. 1993. The Olive Presses of Hellenistic Maresha, Israel. BCH Suppl. XXVI:119–136.

Ling R. 1998. Ancient Mosaics. London.

Kloner A., Regev D. and Rappaport U. 1992. A Hellenistic Burial Cave in the Judean Shephelah. ‘Atiqot XXI:27*– 50* (Hebrew), 175–176 (English).

Maas M. and Mcintosh-Snyder J. 1989. Stringed Instruments of Ancient Greece. New Haven and London. Macalister R.A.S. 1903. Fifth Quarterly Report on the Excavation of Gezer. PEFQS 36:299–326.

Kloner A. and Zissu B. 2007. The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period. Leuven.

MacDowall D.W. and Taddei M. 1978. The Early Historic Period: Achaemenids and Greeks. In F.R. Allchin and N. Hammond eds. The Archaeology of Afghanistan from Earliest Times to the Timurid Period. London–New York– San Francisco. Pp. 187–232.

Kozloff A.P. 1981. Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection. Mainz am Rhein. Kozloff A.P. and Mitten D.G. 1988. The Gods Delight, The Human Figure in Classical Bronze. Cleveland.

Magen Y. 2000. Mt. Gerizim—A Temple City. Qadmoniot 120:74–118 (Hebrew).

Kozloff A.P., Mitten D.G., and Sguaitamatti M. 1986. More Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection. Mainz am Rhein.

Magness J. 2001.The Cults of Isis and Kore at SamariaSebaste in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Harvard Theological Review 94/2:157–177.

Kuhnen H.-P. 1990. Palästina in griechisch-römischer Zeit. Munich.

Ma‘oz Z.U. 1998. The Sanctuary of Pan at Baniyas. Qadmoniot 115:18–25 (Hebrew).

Kuhrt A. and Sherwin-White S. 1987. Preface. In A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White eds. Hellenism in the East. Berkeley. Pp. IX–XII.

Marcadé J. 1953. Les trouvailles de la maison dite de l’Hermès a Délos. BCH 77:497–615. 130

BIBLIOGRAPHY Marcadé J. 1969. Au museé de Délos, étude sur la sculpture hellénistique en ronde bosse découverte dans l’ile. Paris.

Messika N. 1997. Excavation of the Courthouse site at ‘Akko: The Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines from Areas TB and TC. ‘Atiqot 31:121–128.

Martinez-Sève L. 1998. Les coroplathes de Suse, status artisans d’une ville Hellénisée. Τοποι Orient-Occident 8/2:653–656.

Meyboom P.G.P. 1995. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy. Leiden. Michaeli T. 1997. Wall-Paintings from Roman and Early Byzantine Tombs in Israel. Ph.D. diss. Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Mathiesen H.E. 1982. Ikaros, The Hellenistic Settlement I: The Terracotta Figurines. Copenhagen. Matsson G.O. 1969. The Gods, Goddesses and Heroes of the Ancient Coins of Bible Lands. Stockholm.

Michaeli T. 2006. The Pictoral Program of the Apollophanes Tomb at Maresha. Helis V: 360–376.

Mattusch C.C. 1994. Greek Bronze Statuary. Ithaca and London (2nd print).

Michaelides D. 1997. Magenta Ware in Cyprus Once More. In V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and F. Vandenabeele eds. Four Thousand Years of Images on Cypriote Pottery. Brussels. Pp. 137–144.

McKenzie J. 1990. The Architecture of Petra. Oxford. McNicoll A., Smith R.H. and Hennessy B. 1982. Pella in Jordan I: An Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1979–1981. Canberra.

Micoff V. 1954. Le tombeau antique pres de Kazanlăk. Sofia. Middelton A. 2001. Analysis of the White Grounds on Some of the Polychrome Decorated Figurines. In L. Burn and R. Higgins. Catalogue of Greek Terracottas in the British Museum III. London. Pp. 307–310.

McNicoll A., Smith R.H. and Hennessy B. 1992. Pella in Jordan I: The Second Interim Report on the Joint University of Sydney and the College of Wooster Excavations at Pella 1982-1985. Sydney.

Millar F. 1987. The Problem of Hellenistic Syria. In A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin White eds. Hellenism in the East. Berkeley and Los Angeles. Pp. 110–133.

Mendel G. 1966. Musées impériaux ottomans, Catalogue des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines, I. Roma.

Millar F. 2006. Rome the Greek world and the East III: The Greek World, the Jews, and the East. M. Cotton and G.M. Rogers eds. Chapel Hill.

Mendels D. 2003. Palestine Among the Empires from the 4th to the 1st Century B.C.E.: Impact and Reaction. In W.G. Dever and S. Gitin eds. Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past. Winona Lake. Pp. 145–152.

Miller S.G. 1982. Macedonian Tombs: Their Architecture and Architectural Decoration. In B. Barr-Sharrar and E.N. Borza eds. Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times (Studies in the History of Art, 10). Washington. Pp. 153–171.

Merhav R. 1996. A Bronze Leg from a Piece of Hellenistic Furniture—A Find from the Seabed near ‘Atlit. EretzIsrael 25:427–433 (Hebrew). Merker G.S. 1973. A Hellenistic Muse in Jerusalem. IEJ 23:178–180.

Miller S.G. 1993a. The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: A Painted Macedonian Tomb. Mainz am Rhein.

Merker G.S. 1990. Standing Draped Girl. In J.P. Uhlenbrock ed. The Coroplast Art. New York. P. 125, No. 18.

Miller S.G. 1993b. The Iconography of Tomb Painting in Hellenistic Macedonia. In E.M. Moorman ed. Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting (AIPMA V, 1992). Leiden. Pp. 115–118.

Merker G.S. 2000. Corinth XVIII–IV, The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Princeton.

Miller S.G. 1999. Macedonian Painting: Discovery and Research. Alexander the Great: From Macedonia to the Oikoumene, International Congress (1998). Veria. Pp. 75–88.

Mertens J.R. 1985. Greek Bronzes in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43:2.

Miller-Ammerman R. 1990. The Religious Context of Hellenistic Terracotta Figurines. In J.P. Uhlenbrock ed. The Coroplast Art. New York. Pp. 37–46.

Meshorer Y. 1985. City Coins of Eretz-Israel and the Decapolis in the Roman Period. Jerusalem. Meshorer Y. 2001. A Treasury of Jewish Coins. Jerusalem.

Miller-Collett S.G. 1997. Iconographic Issues in Hellenistic Macedonia: The Tradition of Painting. In D. Scagliarini Corlàita ed. I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica (IV sec. a.C.–IV sec. d.C.) (AIPMA VI, 1995). Bolonga. Pp. 85–88.

Messika N. 1996. Terracotta Figurines from Acco in the Persian and Hellenistic Period. M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem (Hebrew) 131

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Netzer E. 1999. The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great. Jerusalem.

Misch-Brandl O. 1985. From the Depths of the Sea. Cargoes of Ancient Wrecks from the Carmel Coast. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.

Netzer E. 2001. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973–1987 Excavations, I, Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem.

Mitten D.G. and Doeringer S.F. 1968. Master Bronzes from the Classical World. Meinz on Rhine. Mollard-Besques S. 1963. Musée National du Louvre, Catalogue raisonné des figurines et reliefs en terre cuite grecs et romains, II: Myrina. Paris.

Nicholls R. 1982. The Drunken Herakles, A New Angle on an Unstable Subject. Hesperia 51:321–328, Pls. 81–82. Nielsen A.M. 1987. Alexander the Great and Lysippos. ActArch 58:151–170.

Mols S. 1999. Wooden Furniture in Herculaneum, Form, Technique and Function. Amsterdam.

Nunn A. 2002. Images et croyances au Levant du VIe au IVe siècle av. J.-C. Transeuphratène 23:9–25.

Moorey P.R.S. 2001. Idols of the People, Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East. Oxford.

Onias J. 1979. Art and Thought in the Hellenistic Age, The Greek World View 350–50 B.C. London.

Moreno P. 1982. Il Farnese ritrovato ed altri tipi di Eracle in ripiso. MEFRA 94–1:379–526.

Oren E.D. and Rappaport U. 1984. The Necropolis of Maresha-Beth Govrin. IEJ 34:114–153.

Moreno P. 1993. L’immagine di Alessandro Magno nell’opera di Lisippo e di altri artisti contemporanei. In J. Carlsen et.al. eds. Alexander the Great, Reality and Myth. Rome. Pp. 101–136.

Osborn D.J. and Osbornová J. 1998. The Mammals of Ancient Egypt. Warminster. Ovadiah A. 1975. Greek Cults in Beth-Shean/Scythopolis in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Eretz-Israel 12:116– 124 (Hebrew).

Moretti M. 1974. Etruskische Malerei in Tarquinia. Köln. Moscati S. 1968. The World of the Phoenicians. London. Moscati S. 1987. Le officine di Tharros. Roma.

Ovadiah A. 1990. Mosaic Pavements of the Herodian Period in Israel. Mediterranean Historical Review 5: 207– 221.

Moscati S. 1988. The Phoenicians. Milan. Moscati S. and Uberti M.L. 1981. Scavi a Mozia—Le stele. Roma. Muller A. 1996. Les terres cuites votives du Thesmophorion. De l’atelier au sanctuaire (Études Thaasiennes XVII). Paris.

Ovadiah A., Fischer M., and Roll I. 1993. The Architectural Decoration of the Roman Temple at Kedesh. In M. Heltzer, A. Segal, and D. Kaufman eds., Studies in the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel, In Honour of Moshe Dothan. Haifa. Pp. 209–230 (Hebrew).

Murray W.M. 1991. The Provenience and the Date: The Evidence of the Symbols. In L. Casson, J.R. Steffy, and E. Linder eds. The Athlit Ram. Texas. Pp. 51–66.

Pagenstecher R. 1919. Nekropolis, Untersuchungen über Gestalt und Entwicklung der Alexandrinischen Grabanlagen und ihrer Malereien. Leipzig.

Muscarella O.W. 1974. Ancient Art, The Norbert Schimmel Collection. Mainz.

Palagia O. 1998. Alexander the Great as Lion Hunter, The Fresco of Vergina Tomb II and the Marble Frieze of Messene in the Louvre. Minerva 9.4:25–28.

Nachtergael G. 1989. Le chameau, l’âne et le mulet en Égypte gréco romaine. CE 64:287–336.

Palagia O. and Coulson W.D.E. (eds.) 1998. Regional Schools in Hellenistic Sculpture. Oxford.

Napoli M. 1973. Paestum. Novara.

Pallottino M. 1986. Introduction. In S. Steingräber ed. Etruscan Paintings. New York. Pp. 11–17.

Narkiss M. 1932. A Dioscuri Cult in Sebustiya. PEFQS 65:210–212.

Paraire D.J. 1980. Les figurines. In Briend J. and Humbert J.B. Tell Keisan 1971–1976, Une cité phénicienne en Galilée. Fribourg. Pp. 331–352.

Negbi O. 1966. A Deposit of Terracottas and Statuettes from Tel Sippor (‘Atiqot VI ). Jerusalem.

Parlasca K. 1981. Syrische Grabreliefs hellenistischer und römischer Zeit, Fundgruppen und Probleme. Mainz am Rhein.

Negbi O. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv. Nenna M.D. and Seif El Din M. 1994. La petite plastique en faïence du musée gréco-romain d’Alexandrie. BCH 118:291–320.

Parrot A., Chéhab M.H., and Moscati S. 1975. Les phéniciens, l’expansion phénicienne Carthage. Paris. 132

BIBLIOGRAPHY Patrich J. 1990. The Formation of Nabatean Art, Prohibition of a Graven Figure among the Nabateans. Jerusalem.

Rahmani L.Y. 1964. The Tomb of Jason (‘Atiqot IV, Hebrew Series). Jerusalem.

Paz S. and Paz Y. 2006. A Roman-Byzantine Road near Regavim–Ramot Menashe. Salvage Excavation Reports 3:69–83.

Rahmani L.Y. 1976. The Museums of Israel. London. Rahmani L.Y. 1994. A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel. Jerusalem.

Pedley J.G. 1990. Paestum, Greeks and Romans in Southern Italy. London.

Reifenberg A. 1947. Ancient Jewish Coins. Jerusalem.

Peled R. 1976. Three Hellenistic Animal Figures. ‘Atiqot XI:51–53, Pl. IX.

Reilly L.C. 1993. The Hunting Frieze from Vergina. JHS 113:160–162.

Perdrizet P. 1911. Bronzes grecs d’Égypte de la collection Fouquet. Paris.

Reisner G.A., Clarence S.F. and Lyon D.G. 1924. Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908–1910. Cambridge.

Perkins A. 1973. The Art of Dura Europos. Oxford.

Rice E.E. 1983. The Grand Procession of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford.

Peshin R. 2001 Altars and Stone Vessels from Maresha. Phd Dissertation, Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology Bar Ilan University. Ramat Gan (Hebrew).

Richter G.M.A. 1926. Ancient Furniture, A History of Greek, Etruscan and Roman Furniture. Oxford.

Peters J.P. and Thiersch H. 1905. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa. London.

Ridgway B.S. 1990. Hellenistic Sculpture I, The Styles of ca. 331–200 B.C. Madison.

Petit Palais 1998. La gloire d’Alexandrie. Paris.

Ridgway B.S. 2000. Hellenistic Sculpture II, The Styles of ca. 200–100 B.C. Madison.

Piggott S. 1992. Wagon, Chariot and Carriage, Symbol and Status in the History of Transport. London.

Rimon O. and Shchori R. 1999. “Crouched as a Lion… Who Shall Rouse Him Up”: Depictions of Animals from the Leo Mildenberg Collection (Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa). Haifa.

Pingiatoglou S. 1993. Coroplastic Art in Egypt during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: Terracotta Figurines in the Benaki Museum. Athens (Greek).

Robertson M. 1965. Greek Mosaics. JHS 85:72–89.

Pollitt J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge.

Robertson M. 1967. Greek Mosaics: A Postscript. JHS 87:133–136.

Pollitt J.J. 1993. Response to: “What is ‘Hellenistic’ about Hellenistic Art” by M. Robertson. In P. Green ed. Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley. Pp. 90–103.

Robertson M. 1975. A History of Greek Art, 2. Cambridge.

Pontrandolfo A. 1996. Wall-Painting in Magna Graecia. In G. Pulgliese-Carratelli ed. The Western Greeks, Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean. London. Pp. 457–470.

Robertson M. 1981. A Shorter History of Greek Art. Cambridge.

Pottier E. and Reinach S. 1888. La nécropole de Myrina, Paris.

Robertson M. 1993. What is “Hellenistic” in Hellenistic Art? In P. Green ed. Hellenistic History and Culture. Berkeley. Pp. 67–90.

Prausnitz W. 1965. Akhziv (Chronique archéologique). RB 72:544–547.

Roebuck C.R. 1951. Corinth XIV, The Asklepieion and Lerna. Princeton.

Price T.H. 1978. Kourotrophos: Cults and Representations of the Greek Nursing Deities (Studies of the Dutch Archaeological and Historical Society 8). Leiden.

Roeder G. 1933. Komposition und Technik der Ägyptischen Metallplastic. JDAI 48:226–263. Roeder G. 1956. Ägyptische Bronzefiguren. Berlin.

Qedar S. 1992–1993. The Coins of Marisa: A New Mint. INJ 12:27–33.

Roll I. 1985. Classicisme et provincialisme dans l’orient Mediterraneen a l’epoque Hellenistique et Romaine. Πρακτικα 1983:262–268.

Queyrel A. 1988. Amathonte IV, Les figurines hellénistiques de terre cuite. Paris.

Rolley C. 1986. Greek Bronzes. Fribourg.

Queyrel F. 1991. Le décor sculpturé. In Will E. and Larché F. ‘Iraq al Amir, le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Paris. Pp. 209–251.

Romano I.B. 1995. Gordion Special Studies II: The Terracotta Figurines and Related Vessels. Philadelphia. 133

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE Rosenthal R. 1975. On ‘Nabataean Dolphins’. Eretz-Israel 12:107–108 (Hebrew).

Sader H. 1991. Phoenician Stelae from Tyre. Berytus 39:101–126.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1981. Notes on Hellenistic Braziers from Tel Dor. Qadmoniot 55–56:110–111 (Hebrew).

Sagiv N., Zissu B. and Avni G. 1998. Tombs of the Second Temple Period at Tel Goded, Judean Foothills. ‘Atiqot XXXV:7–21.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1995. Terracottas from the Hellenistic Period. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Ib (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp.455– 456.

Sagona C. 2002. The Archaeology of Punic Malta (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 9). Peeters. Schlesinger D. 1982. A Lead Slingshot from Dor. Qadmoniot 60:116 (Hebrew).

Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1996. Stamped Jar Handles and Terracotta Fragments. In A. Ben Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali eds. Yoqne‘am I, The Late Periods (Qedem Reports III). Jerusalem.

Schmid S.G. 2001. The “Hellenisation” of the Nabataeans: A New Approach. In A. Hadidi ed. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, VII. Amman. Pp. 407–419. Seeden H. 1980. The Standing Armed Figurines in the Levant (Prähistorische Bronzefunde I-1). München.

Rosenthal-Heginbottom R. 1999. Bleibilder–Zauberbilder. Dielheimer Blätter zur Archäologie und Textüberlieferung der Antike und Spätantike 30:157–173.

Segal I. and Porat N. 2000. Composition of Pigments from the Hellenistic Walls in Acre. Michmanim 14:7*–12*.

Rostovtzeff M. 1941. Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World. Oxford.

Sellers O.R. 1933. The Citadel of Beth-Zur. Philadelphia.

Rostovtzeff M.I. 1932. The Caravan Gods of Palmyra. JRS 22:107–116.

Sestieri P.C. 1956–1957. Tombe dipinte di Paestum. Rivista dell'istituto nazionale d'archeologia e storia dell’arte 5–6:65–110.

Rouveret A. 1989. Histoire et imaginaire de la peinture ancienne. Rome.

Seyrig H. 1955. La quête d’Osiris. Syria 32:44–48, Pl. V.

Rowe A. 1930. The Topography and History of Beth-Shan. Philadelphia.

Siebert G. 1990. Hermes. LIMC V:285–387. Skira A. 1952. Etruscan Painting. Geneva.

Rozenberg S. 1996. The Wall Paintings of the Herodian Palace at Jericho. In K. Fittschen and G. Foerster eds. Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Göttingen. Pp. 121–138.

Smith R.H. 1990. The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Levant 22:123–130. Smith R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture. London. Spaer A. 1984. Ascalon: From Royal Mint to Autonomy. In A. Houghton et al. eds. Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg. Wetteren. Pp. 229–239, Pls. 35–37.

Rozenberg S. 1999. The Depiction of Animals in Wall Paintings of the Second Temple Period. In O. Rimon and R. Shchori eds., “Crouched as a Lion…Who Shall Rouse Him Up”: Depictions of Animals from the Leo Mildenberg Collection (Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum, University of Haifa). Haifa. Pp. 33*–40*.

Spaer M. 2001. Ancient Glass in the Israel Museum, Beads and Other Small Objects. Jerusalem. Stager L.E. 1996. Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction. Eretz-Israel 25:61*–74*.

Rozenberg S. 2001. Hellenistic Funerary Painting in Israel. In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). Saint-Romain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 313–319.

Starcky J. 1981. Allath. LIMC I:564–570.

Rozenberg S. 2008. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports of the 1973-1987 Excavations, IV: The Decoration of Herod's Third Palace at Jericho. Jerusalem.

Steinberg A. 1968. Techniques of Working Bronze. In D.G. Mitten and S.F. Doeringer eds. Master Bronzes from the Classical World. Mainz on Rhine. Pp. 9–15. Steindorff G. 1946. Catalogue of the Egyptian Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery. Baltimore.

Rusiaeva A.S. 1982. Classical Terracottas of the North Pontic Region (4th–1st Centuries B.C.) VI-I. Kiev (Russian).

Steingräber S. (ed.) 1986. Etruscan Painting. New York.

Sachs C. 1940. The History of Musical Instruments. New York.

Steingräber S. 1988. Die Grabmalerei. AW 19.3:17–35.

134

etruskisch-hellenistische

BIBLIOGRAPHY Steingräber S. 2001. Gab es eine Koinè in der Mediterranen Grabmalerei der Frühhellenistischen Zeit? In A. Barbet ed. La peinture funéraire antique (AIPMA VII 1998). SaintRomain-En-Gal–Vienne. Pp. 201–206.

Tadmor M. 1982. Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence. In T. Ishida ed. The Period of David and Solomon. Tokyo. Pp. 139–173.

Stern E. 1982. Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538–332 B.C. Jerusalem.

Tal O. 2003. On the Origin and Concept of the Loculi Tombs of Hellenistic Palestine. Ancient West & East 2/2:288–307.

Stern E. 1985. The Earliest Greek Settlement at Dor. EretzIsrael 18:419–427 (Hebrew).

Tal O. 2006. The Archaeology of Hellenistic Palestine: Between Tradition and Renewal. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Stern E. 1989. The Beginning of the Greek Settlement in Palestine in the Light of the Excavations at Tel Dor. AASOR 49:107–124.

Tcherikover V.A. 1961. The Jews in the Graeco-Roman World. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Teixidor J. 1977. The Pagan God, Popular Religion in the Greco-Roman Near East. Princeton.

Stern E. 1989–1990. Akko, Hellenistic Refuse Pit. ESI 9:104.

Teixidor J. 1983. L’interprétation phénicienne d’Héraclès et d’Apollon. RHR CC-3:243–255.

Stern E. 1995. Clay Figurines and Popular Cult Objects of the Persian Period. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Ib (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 435– 454.

Thompson D.B. 1950. A Bronze Figurine from Alexandria. AJA 54:371–385. Thompson D.B. 1963. Troy, Supplementary Monograph III, The Terracotta Figurines of the Hellenistic Period. Princeton.

Stern E. 2000. Dor, Ruler of the Seas. Jerusalem. Stern E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible II, The Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 732–332 BCE. New York.

Thompson H.A. and Thompson D.B. 1987. Hellenistic Pottery and Terracottas (Reprint from Hesperia, revised by S.I. Rotroff). Princeton.

Stern E. 2006. Goddesses and Cults at Tel Dor. In Gitin S., Wright E and Dessel J.P. eds. Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever. Winona Lake. Pp. 177–180.

Töpperwein-Hoffmann Pergamon. Berlin.

E.

1976.

Terrakotten

von

Török L. 1995. Hellenistic and Roman Terracottas from Egypt. Roma.

Stern M. 1993. Judaism and Hellenization in the Land of Israel in the Third and Second Centuries BCE. In U. Rappaport and I. Ronen eds. The Hasmonean State: The History of the Hasmoneans during the Hellenistic Period: A Collection of Articles. Jerusalem. Pp. 55–74 (Hebrew).

Tscherikower V. 1937. Palestine under the Ptolemies. Mizraim IV–V:9–90. Turnheim Y. 1998. Hellenistic Elements in Herodian Architecture and Decoration. In A. Ovadiah ed. Hellenic and Jewish Arts, International Tradition and Renewal. Tel Aviv. Pp. 143–166.

Stewart A. 1993. Faces of Power, Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford. Stewart A. 1995. Marble Sculpture. In E. Stern ed. Excavations at Dor, Final Report, Ib (Qedem Reports 2). Jerusalem. Pp. 457–459.

Tybout R.A. 1989. Aedificiorum figurae, Untersuchungen zu den Architekturdarstellungen des frühen zweiten Stils. Amsterdam.

Stewart A. and Martin S.R. 2003. Hellenistic Discoveries at Tel Dor, Israel. Hesperia 72/2:121–145.

Uhlenbrock J.P. 1986. Herakles, Passage of the Hero through 1000 Years of Classical Art. New York.

Stiebel G. 2003. Notes on M. Hershkovitz’s Article in Qadmoniot 124, “A Carved Bone Plaque from Tel Dan.” Qadmoniot 125:56–57 (Hebrew).

Uhlenbrock J.P. 1990. The Coroplast Craft. In J.P. Uhlenbrock ed. The Coroplast’s Art. New York. Pp. 15– 21.

Stucky R.A. 1993. Die Sculpturen aus dem EschmunHeiligtum bei Sidon, Grichische, römische kyprische und phönizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6. Jahrhundert v.Chr. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr. Basel.

Valeva J. 1993. Hellenistic Tombs in Thrace and Macedonia: Their Form and Decoration. In E.M. Moorman ed. Functional and Spatial Analysis of Wall Painting (AIPMA V, 1992). Leiden. Pp. 119–126.

Summerer L. 1999. Hellenistische Terrakotten aus Amisos, Ein Beitrag zur Kunstgeschichte des Pontosgebietes. Stuttgart.

Valeva J. 1997. Mythology and History. The Painted Frieze of the Sveshtary Tomb with Caryatids. In D. Scagliarini Corlàita ed. I temi figurativi nella pittura parietale antica 135

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE (IV sec. a.C –IV sec. d.C.) (AIPMA VI, 1995). Bolonga. Pp. 295–298.

Watzinger C. 1905. Griechische Holzsarkophage aus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen. Leipzig.

Van Beek G.W. and Jamme A. 1976. A Hellenistic Bronze Figurine from South Arabia. JNES 35:195–198.

Watzinger C. 1935. Denkmäler Palästinas II. Leipzig. Weber T. 1993. Pella Decapolitana, Studien zu Geschichte, Architektur und bildenden Kunst einer hellenisierten Stadt des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden.

Van Buren E.D. 1930. Clay Figurines of Babylonia and Assyria (Yale Oriental Series 16). New Haven and London.

Weinberg S.S. 1970. Excavations at Tel Anafa. Qadmoniot 12:135–138 (Hebrew).

Van Ingen W. 1939. Figurines from Seleucia on the Tigris. Ann Arbor and London.

Weinberg S.S. 1971. Tel Anafa: The Hellenistic Town. IEJ 21:86–109, Pls. 11–20.

Venit M.S. 2002. Monumental Tombs of Ancient Alexandria, The Theater of the Dead. Cambridge.

Weinberg S.S. 1973. Tell Anafa. IEJ 23:113–117.

Vermeule C. C. 1975. The Weary Herakles of Lyssipos. AJA 79:323–332.

Weinberg S.S. 1975. Anafa, Tel. In M. Avi Yonah ed. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land I. Jerusalem. Pp. 65–69.

Vermeule C. C. 1976. Greek and Roman Cyprus: Art from the Classical Through Late Antique Times (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts). Boston.

Wenning R. 1983. Hellenistische Sculpturen in Israel. Boreas 6:105–118.

Vermeule C. C. and Anderson K. 1981. Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Holy Land. The Burlington Magazine 123:7–19.

Wiles D. 1991. The Masks of Menander. Cambridge. Will E. and Larché F. 1991. ‘Iraq al Amir, le château du Tobiade Hyrcan. Paris.

Villard F. 1973. Painting. In J. Charbonneaux, R. Martin and F. Villard. Hellenistic Art (350–50 B.C.). New York. Pp. 97–198.

Williams E.R.1978. Figurine Vases from the Athenian Agora. Hesperia 47:356–401.

Vincent L.H. 1936. Le culte d’Hélène a Samarie. RB 45:221–232.

Winter F. 1903. Die antiken Terrakotten, Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten, I–II. Berlin and Stuttgart.

Vinogradov Z. 1992. Beth Yerah. In M. Gefen and Y. Gal eds., Kinneret Volume. Ministry of Defense (No place of pub.). Pp. 239–230 (Hebrew).

Winter F. 1925. Die Hellenistische Kunst in Pompeji IV: Gefässe und Geräte aus Bronze. Berlin and Leipzig. Wrede H. 1985. Die antike Herme. Mainz am Rhein.

Von Graeve V. 1970. Der Alexandersarkophag und seine Werkstatt. Berlin.

Zevi F. 1990. Paestum. Napoli. Zissu B. 1997. Horbat Egoz. ESI 19:85*.

Von Sieglin E. 1923. Ausgrabungen in Alexandria, Die griechisch-ägyptische Sammlung Ernst Von Sieglin, I:A. Leipzig.

Zissu B. 1999. Horbat El Ein, ESI 109:87*–88*. Zissu B. and Ganor A. 2002. Horvat ‘Etri—the Ruins of a Second Temple Period Jewish Village on the Coastal Plain. Qadmoniot 123:18–27 (Hebrew).

Voulgaridis G. 2000. Les ateliers monetaires de Ptolemais‘Akko et d’Ascalon sous la domination seleucide. These de doctorat, universite Marc bloch. Strasbourg.

136

COLOUR PLATES 1) Kerberos from Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha, after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. IV.

2) The rear wall of Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Frontispiece.

137

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

3) The hunting scene in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. VI.

4) Reconstruction of animal frieze in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben Ghedalia.

5) Detail of animal frieze in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. XV.

6) Reconstruction of paintings in Tomb I (Cave 551) at Maresha; photographed by Prof. Daniel Ben Ghedalia.

8) Mosaic fragments from Tel Dor, courtesy of Prof. Ephraim Stern, Tel Dor Project.

7) Musicians in Tomb II (Cave 552) at Maresha; after Peters and Thiersch 1905: Pl. XVI.

138

COLOUR PLATES

9) Mosaic from the Hasmonean palace at Jericho, courtesy of Prof. Ehud Netzer; after Netzer 2001: Pl. VII.

10) Wall paintings from the Hasmonean palace at Jericho, courtesy of Prof. Ehud Netzer; after Netzer 2001: Pl. IV.

11) Stucco fragments from Tel Anafa, courtesy of Prof. Sharon Herbert; after Weinberg 1970: Pl. 4, top.

139

BAR 2010 2009

The Art of Hellenistic Palestine

ERLICH

Adi Erlich

THE ART OF HELLENISTIC PALESTINE

B A R

BAR International Series 2010 2009