You are on page 1of 22

From Pella to Gandhara

Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and


Architecture of the Hellenistic East
Edited by

Anna Kouremenos, Sujatha Chandrasekaran


and Roberto Rossi
with a foreword by

Sir John Boardman.

BAR International Series 2221


2011

Published by
Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2221

From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East

Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011

ISBN 978 1 4073 0779 4


Cover image: Cybele Plate (silver and gold, d. 25 cm, c. 3rd B.C.) from Ai Khanum, the Temple with Indented Niches.
Afghanistan National Museum, Kabul. Mus. No: 04.42.7. After F. Hiebert and P. Cambon (eds.), Afghanistan, Hidden
Treasures from National Museum, Kabul, cover image/ Pl. 11. Washington. (ISBN 978-1-4262-0295-7).

Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd

All BAR titles are available from:


Hadrian Books Ltd
122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available
free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii
Preface................................................................................................................................ viii
Anna Kouremenos
Foreword ................................................................................................................................ x
Sir John Boardman
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Roberto Rossi
Alcibiades, a classical archetype for Alexander ............................................................... 11
Michael Vickers
Hybridisation of Palatial Architecture: Hellenistic Royal Palaces
and Governors Seats ...................................................................................................... 17
Maria Kopsacheili
Hellenising the Cypriot Goddess: Reading the Amathousian Terracotta
Figurines ......................................................................................................................... 35
Giorgos Papantoniou
The Ruins on Mount Karasis in Cilicia ................................................................................ 49
Timm Radt
A Hybridized Aphrodite: the Anadyomene Motif at Tel Kedesh......................................... 65
Lisa Ayla akmak
Hybrid Art, Hellenism and the Study of Acculturation in the Hellenistic East:
The Case of Umm el-Amed in Phoenicia ...................................................................... 85
Jessica Nitschke
Cultural interaction and the emergence of hybrids in the material culture
of Hellenistic Mesopotamia: An interpretation of terracotta figurines,
ceramic ware and seal impressions ............................................................................... 103
Sidsel Maria Westh-Hansen
Temple Architecture in the Iranian World in the Hellenistic Period .................................. 117
Michael Shenkar
Cultural convergence in Bactria: the votives from the Temple
of the Oxos at Takht-i Sangin ....................................................................................... 141
Rachel Wood

From Gandharan Trays to Gandharan Buddhist Art: The Persistence


of Hellenistic Motifs From the Second Century BC and Beyond................................. 153
Jessie Pons
The Places in Between: Model and Metaphor in the Archaeology
of Hellenistic Arachosia ............................................................................................... 177
Rachel Mairs
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 191
Sujatha Chandrasekaran

ii

HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF


ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST:
THE CASE OF UMM EL-AMED IN PHOENICIA1
Jessica L. Nitschke
Georgetown University

The idea that Hellenism was responsible for the end of


Phoenician culture and identity in the Levant is an old
one, going back to the first modern explorations of the
Phoenician homeland in the 19th century: Linfluence
grecque fut de bonne heure prdominante Sidon. Cette
influence avait commenc sexercer avant Alexandre.
Ds lan 400 peu prs, Sidon shellnise.2 This
sentiment has persisted since then in contemporary
scholarship; so Glenn Markoe writes, while the age of
Alexander marked the beginning of the Hellenistic period
in the eastern Mediterranean, the process of Hellenization
had begun in earnest a full century before.3 Josette layi,
perhaps the foremost scholar on Persian period Phoenicia,
asserts that the domination of the Greeks whose culture
had attracted the Phoenicians even before Alexanders
conquest, was more powerful and uncompromising than
the Achaemenid, and it progressively destroyed the
Phoenician civilization.4 Nina Jidejians oft-cited surveys
of the Phoenician cities and their culture largely discount
any sense of independent Phoenician character in the
Hellenistic period: they [the Phoenicians] adapted
themselves to the influences of Hellenization to such an
extent that it is with difficulty that a distinction can be
made between Greeks and native Phoenicians.5 John

Grainger presents a comparable characterization in his


harsh assessment of the impact of Macedonian war:
Their [the Phoenician survivors] cultural heritage was
also surely mutilated beyond repair, leaving an impoverishment which Greek culture could hope to fill.6 The
historian Sebasto Bondi arrives at a similar conclusion:
with the Macedonian conquest the history of Phoenicia
as a free country in reality comes to an end. It is true that
a number of original cultural expressions and moments of
true independence remained ... These were however flickers of life due more to the force of tradition than to the
rekindled vitality of the Phoenician world, whose historical season finished against the background of the triumph
of Hellenism.7 Among non-specialists Phoenicias
hellenized character is often presented as simply
established fact; so Peter Green remarks (incorrectly) in
his survey of the Hellenistic world: in the heavily Hellenized areas of Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, bilingual
inscriptions are common.8 Stanley Burstein, in his essay
on Greek identity in the Hellenistic period, asserts that
many ancient cities in the East took on a Greek identity,
and that the majority were in Syria and Phoenicia.9

But the notion that Phoenician civilization in the Levant


simply ended with Alexander or soon after is incorrect
and easily disproved. There is substantial evidence to
suggest that the citizens of the Phoenician cities
conceived of themselves as having a separate identity,
both ethnic and cultural, from the Greeks and were
perceived in a similar fashion by Greeks as well as
Romans in return. We need only look at later writers,
such as Arrian, Lucian, Strabo, Pausanias, Pomponius
Mela, Polybius, Diodorus, and others to find proof of the

The ideas and research reflected in this paper stem from my 2007
doctoral thesis, Perceptions of Culture: Interpreting Greco-Near
Eastern Hybridity in the Phoenician Homeland (UC Berkeley),
currently being revised in preparation for publication as a monograph.
The research included in this paper would not have been possible
without a grant from the graduate group in Ancient History and
Mediterranean Archaeology at UC Berkeley to fund the study of this
material in Paris and Lebanon. I am grateful also to Suzy Hakimian at
the National Museum of Beirut and the Director General of Antiquities
in Lebanon for access to material, as well as to the Dunand Archives in
Geneva for allowing me access to what remains of Dunands original
notes and documentation concerning the site of Umm el-Amed.
2
Renan 1864, 398.
3
Markoe 2000, 63.
4
layi 1980, 28.
5
Jidejian 1988, 128; echoed in Jidejian 1968, 1969, 1971a, 1971b, and
1973.

Grainger 1991, 51.


Bondi in Moscati 1988, 44.
8
Green 1990, 313, giving no examples. In fact, Greek and bilingual
Greek-Phoenician inscriptions that can be dated to before the Roman
period are extremely rare in central Phoenicia.
9
Burstein 2003, 240.
7

87

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

Fig. 1: Satrap Sarcophagus, from the Ayaa Necropolis, Sidon, c. 420 BC. Istanbul Archaeological Museum.
(Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY)

continuity of the Phoenicians as a cultural entity distinct


from other cultural or ethnic groups in the Mediterranean
in the Hellenistic period and beyond.10 Once we accept
that the Phoenicians did continue on as a distinct identity
in the centuries after Alexander, it is necessary to reframe
this question of supposed hellenization into something
more tangible and precise. Did the particulars of cultural
life in Phoenicia become increasingly similar to that of
the Greek cities, or did they remain culturally distinct?
Did the daily life of the Phoenicians, including their
beliefs, customs, habits, their art, and their physical
space, transform, either gradually or abruptly, into what
we understand as a Greek, Hellenistic way of life? Or, to
put the question in a simpler but more pointed way: Was
there anything particularly Phoenician (at least in terms
of how scholars have typically applied that label) about
being a Phoenician in the Hellenistic Age?

of evidence that can speak to possible foreign cultural


input into Phoenicia is archaeological in nature. The
presence in particular of Greek styles, materials, and
methods in stone sculpture that has emerged from coastal
Syria and Lebanon dating to the late 5th and 4th centuries
BC has given the impression of an increasingly
hellenized society in Phoenicia.12 The most spectacular
examples of this are the four well-known royal
sarcophagi from Sidon, now in the Istanbul Museum.13
(Figs. 1 and 2) A Greek trained hand as well as Greek
marble (mostly Parian, but also Pentelic) can be found in
other sculpture from Phoenicia in this period as well,
such as the stone anthropoid sarcophagi found
as a source for an authentic Phoenician voice for the Hellenistic or any
earlier periods is problematic. Much ink has been spilt on this topic; see
especially Baumgarten 1981, Barr 1976, Eissfeldt 1952, and Oden 1978.
Literary figures do emerge from Phoenicia in the later Hellenistic
period, namely Meleager of Gadara (ca. 136 60), Antipater of Sidon
(ca. 170 100), and the philosopher Zeno of Sidon (3rd century BC); of
the latter two we know very little, and virtually nothing about their life
in Phoenicia itself. While it is clear from these figures that the
Phoenician cities were cosmopolitan enough to produce individuals that
could reach literary achievement in the Greek world, the strong western
overseas association in the biographies of these writers suggests in fact
that the Phoenicians cities were not major centers of Greek learning and
literature in the Hellenistic period. On this question, see further AviYonah 1978, 184-186. See Nitschke 2007, 160-187 for a discussion of
the written evidence for Greek and Greeks in central Phoenicia.
12
Renans statement (quoted above) was a reaction to his discovery of
the Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagi. See also discussions of the
presence of Greek art among the Phoenicians in Markoe 2000, layi
1988, Gubel 1986. The prominence given to material evidence for
evaluating hellenization is evident not just in the scholarship of
specialists in material culture, but of historians as well: e.g., Millar
1983, 68, Sartre 2005, 277.
13
Hamdy Bey 1892; Kleemann 1958; Schmidt-Dounas 1985; Fleischer
and Schiele 1983; Messerschmidt 1989; von Graeve 1990; Ferron 1993;
Ferron 1996.

This is a large question that presents many difficulties,


not least of which is that of methodology, and how we are
to evaluate the presence of foreign cultural influences
and their ultimate impact on Phoenician culture and
identity. It is a question made all the more difficult by the
nature of our available evidence. We have little in the
way of surviving written testimony from Phoenicia or by
the Phoenicians themselves.11 As such, the preponderance
10

E.g., Diod. Sic. 33.5, Strabo 16.2.25, Heliod. Aeth. 10.41.3, Arr.
Anab. 2.16, Lucian Syr. D., Pomp. Mela Chor. 1.12, Paus. 7.23.
11
Mostly in the form of brief votive and funerary inscriptions. That a
Phoenician historical tradition did exist is suggested by Josephus who
claims to, have consulted Phoenician records in compiling his account
(Euseb. Praep. evang. 1.9.23-24, 1.10.5, 1.10.36, 1.10.42-43; Joseph.
Ap. 1.106; AJ. 1.107). Philo of Byblos (early 2nd century AD) likewise
makes claim to early Phoenician writers, with many scholars believing
that he drew on a Hellenistic source, although this is controversial. Philo

88

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Fig. 2: Mourning Women Sarcophagus, from the Ayaa Necropolis, Sidon, c. 390-380 BC.
Istanbul Archaeological Museum. (Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY)

direct copy of any single object found in the Greek cities.


Rather, they all in some way mix genre, motifs, and/or
styles from different artistic canons. Relying on artistic
hybridity as concrete evidence of shifts in cultural
identity is a thorny matter. Hybrid art does not
necessarily point to hybridity in all other aspects of a
culture, much less to a hybrid identity. From a Phoenician
point of view the hellenizing aspects of their art likely
had a quite different meaning than it does for us. Without
a verbal record to tell us exactly what the Phoenicians
thought about such shifts in artistic style, it is essential to
consider the wider material context of such hellenizing
elements. Rather than identifying and isolating works that
exhibit Greek characteristics and thus concluding a
process of hellenization of the culture and people, we
should consider these objects both with respect to
documented historical trends in Phoenician art and in
relation to contemporary non-Greek material in continued
use. Only then can we address the question of whether or
not this constitutes evidence of greater acculturation or
even a change in cultural identity, as the inhabitants of
the Levant came into increasingly closer contact with the
Greeks.

predominantly in the region of Arados and Sidon, votive


sculpture and architectural fragments from Bostan echSheikh near Sidon, in addition to isolated, accidental
finds from elsewhere in Lebanon.14 The Greek element in
the handling of the marble and the naturalistic style of the
figural representation in this sculpture as well as the
presence of Greek motifs and iconography in the royal
sarcophagi is striking. It is difficult for a viewer raised in
a western tradition, where the connection between what
we regard as Greek ideals and culture and what we categorize as Greek art is so strong, to look at such material
and not see a Greek way of life, or even a Hellenic
identity behind it. So it is perhaps understandable that
most such observers, with foreknowledge of this fourthcentury material, assume that the advent of Greco-Macedonian rule in the Levant could only mean an increase
in the Greekness in the culture of the Phoenicians, and
hence a corresponding loss of Phoenicianess.
However, the Phoenicians did not just simply import
Greek art, and little of the hellenizing sculpture that is
attributed to fourth-century Phoenicia, including the royal
sarcophagi just mentioned, the anthropoid sarcophagi, the
infant statues from the Temple of Eshmun near Sidon, or
the so-called tribune of Eshmun,15 can be considered a

What we know from the evidence of fourth-century


sculpture in Phoenicia is that at the time of the
Macedonian conquest, the occupants of the Phoenician
cities not only had knowledge of and access to Greek
artistic material and techniques, they had also started to
incorporate it into their own material. Conventional

14

See Lembke 2001 for a catalog of the anthropoid sarcophagi; see also
Josette layis important discussion (layi 1988b). For a catalog and
discussion of the material from the Temple of Eshmun at Bostan echSheikh near Sidon, see Stucky 1984, 1993, and Stucky et al. 2005.
15
See above note for references.

89

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

wisdom would have it that in the period of GrecoMacedonian rule, with the widespread influx of Greeks
into new and existing cities in the East, the culture
(including artistic output) of the local population should
only become more Greek.16 However, the evidence of
Umm el-Amed, a small site about seventeen kilometers
south of Tyre, suggests that the situation is more
complicated than that.
UMM EL-AMED
The sanctuary town of Umm el-Amed gives us some of
the best-contextualized evidence in the Hellenistic period
for the art and architecture not only of Phoenicia but the
entire Levantine region, allowing us to glimpse the
original physical setting for some of the forms of Greek
art and architecture adopted by the inhabitants.17 Umm elAmed (mother of the column) is located on the coast of
southern Lebanon, between Tyre and Ptolemais-Akko, on
a promontory overlooking the main North-South coastal
road running from Laodikeia to Ptolemais-Akko. (Fig. 3)
The major features of the site include two substantial
enclosed sanctuary complexes (the Temple of
Milkashtarte and the so-called East Temple) and
numerous olive oil press installations. Inscriptions from
the site (all of which are in Phoenician, made by
individuals with Phoenician names; there is no evidence
to suggest the migration of Greeks into the area) identify
the name of the site in antiquity as Hammon,18 Aside
from a possible reference in the book of Joshua (19:28),
there is no mention of a town with this name in our extant
literary sources, including the fourth-century BC account
of Phoenicia by Pseudo-Scylax.19
16

Hence the dating of material stylistically Egyptianizing as preHellenistic, even if found in a good Hellenistic context. See the catalog
entries for Egyptianizing material from Umm el-Amed in Caubet et al.
2005 and Doumet-Serhal 1998. Kaoukabani 1973 divides the figurines
into pre-Hellenistic Egyptianizing types and post-Hellenistic
Hellenizing types simply by virtue of the belief that non-Greek must
be pre-Alexander, not by any stratigraphic criterion.
17
For the principal cities of the Phoenician homeland, i.e. Arados,
Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, and Beirut, we are woefully ill-informed with
respect to the Hellenistic periods, archaeologically; we have nothing for
Tyre, Arados, or Sidon proper. The material from Byblos is limited and
largely unpublished; see Salles 2003 for a discussion. The recent
salvage excavations in Beirut have been more forthcoming, but this
material has been published only preliminarily. See Aubert 2003 for a
brief preliminary interpretation, and essays in Aram 13-14, 2001-2002.
Regarding Hellenistic levels of Phoenician sites on Cyprus, the site of
Amathus has been extensively investigated; see Papantoniou, this
volume, for references and for a discussion of some of this material.
18
Inscriptions naming Hammon: five from the Temple of
Milkashtarte (Dunands nos. 2 [CIS I, 8], 3 [CIS I, 9], 13, and 14).
Drawings and transliterations of all the inscriptions from Umm elAmed can be found in Dunand and Duru 1962, ch. 8.
19
Joshua makes reference to a Hammon as part of the domain of the
tribe of Asher. This is dismissed by Dunand and Duru as a reference to
an entirely different Bronze Age settlement. But as Maes points out
(Maes 1991, 210), the book of Joshua may have been composed as late
as the Persian period, perhaps an identification should not be ruled out.
Dunand and Duru conducted one small deep sounding in the courtyard
of the Temple of Milkashtarte, finding deep below the temple platform
evidence of earlier building, which they date to the Persian period or
earlier based on the presence of a few fragments of fifth- and fourthcentury Attic pottery; the details provided by the excavators are scanty
(see Dunand and Duru 1962, 20); otherwise the levels below the
Hellenistic period temples have not been explored.

Fig. 3: Map of Phoenicia. (J. Nitschke)

Known to several eighteenth- and nineteenth-century


explorers of the Levant, Umm el-Ameds first real
investigations were undertaken and recorded by the
French explorer Ernst Renan.20 The sites small size and
apparently late date made it of little interest to Renan,
who spent less than a month there; he removed a group of
sculpture and architectural fragments that are today
divided between the Muse du Louvre and the National
Museum of Beirut.21 The principal excavations of the site
were carried out in the mid-20th century by a French
mission led by Maurice Dunand and Raymond Duru,
from 1943 to 1945.22 Their investigations included a
detailed study of both sanctuaries, excavation of a select
few private dwellings and industrial shops, and a cursory
20

Renan 1864, 695-749. However, it was Count de Vog who first


recognized the site as Hellenistic in date, with temples mixing Egyptian,
Persian, and Greek influences. For earlier explorers accounts of the
site, see Dunand and Duru 1962, pp 1-4.
21
Published in Caubet et al. 2002 and Doumet-Serhal 1998,
respectively.
22
Dunand and Duru 1962.

90

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Fig. 4: Plan of the Temple of Milkashtarte (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 90)

investigation of nearby rock-cut tombs. From the


evidence of the inscriptions and small finds (principally
ceramics and coins), Dunand and Duru concluded that the
dwellings, installations, sanctuaries, and associated finds
(i.e. sculpture) date to the Hellenistic period; the
sanctuaries in particular were founded in either the late
4th or 3rd centuries BC and fell out of use or at least
entered a period of major decline and neglect around the
time of the Roman annexation of Phoenicia in the 1st
century BC.23 In the Byzantine period the western part of
the site was reoccupied, and a church was built
incorporating the ruined elements of the temple of
Milkashtarte, including the cella.

THE SANCTUARY OF MILKASHTARTE


The Temple of Milkashtarte and the East Temple are
broadly similar in plan; for reasons of space, the
discussion here will focus for the most part on the former,
which is the larger and more elaborate of the two.24 The
Temple of Milkashtarte, identified on the basis of
inscribed dedications, consists of a sacred enclosure on
top of an artificial terraced platform. (Fig. 4) The plan of
the sanctuary includes a large paved court, with a long,
narrow, rectangular, podium structure isolated in the
center, identified as a cella.25 Surrounding the court and
incorporated into the enclosure wall are a columned hall
(four rows of six columns), columned porticos bordering

23
Dunand and Duru 1962, 21 and 234 ff. This is a conclusion arrived at
on the basis of the diagnostic small finds, namely the following: the
preponderance of Hellenistic coins (earliest issues belong to Ptolemy I
and include Ptolemaic, Seleukid, and Tyrian mints; these drop off
noticeably in quantity in the 1st century BC; coins pick up again in the
late Roman period; no find spot is given for any of these coins), see
Dunand and Duru 1962, ch. 12; ceramics, both local and imported,
dating from the late 4th to the 1st centuries BC (ch. 9); lamps (ch. 10);
and Rhodian stamped handles (ch.11). The only pre-fourth-century
diagnostic material (pottery) was found in a deep sounding made
by Dunand and Duru below the platform of the Temple of
Milkashtarte.

24

A fuller reconsideration and analysis of the surviving and documented


evidence from these sanctuaries can be found in Nitschke 2007, 200222; the focus here is on the most noteworthy and demonstrative
material.
25
The dimensions of the courtyard are approximately 45 meters from
east to west and 24 meters from north to south; the entire complex
covers an area 61 by 56 meters in size (Dunand and Duru 1962, 22)
large in comparison to known Phoenician temples in the Levant up until
this period. The podium foundation of the cella rises 1.2 meters above
the surface of the court, and measures 24 meters in length and 8.5
meters in width (Dunand and Duru 1962, 23).

91

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

evidence of architectural decoration throughout the


sanctuary).

the eastern half of the courtyard, and a series of auxiliary


rooms.26 Archaeological remains do not provide precise
information regarding the function of the last, but given
the number and spatial arrangement they likely served as
dwellings, storerooms, and/or auxiliary chapels purported
to support the functioning of the cult.27 The main entrance
to the sanctuary is from the east, through a doorway in
the southern part of the east portico, off-axis with the
cella.

The excavators characterized the plan of the sanctuary of


Milkashtarte as West Semitic in nature, and thus
traditional to the region.34 This is only partially correct.
Aspects of the spatial arrangement, including an enclosed
sacred space focused on a courtyard, subsidiary
chambers, and an off-axis entrance, are certainly typical
of ancient Syrian and Levantine religious architecture
generally since the Bronze Age.35 But some aspects of
this plan deviate from earlier examples of this tradition.
First, the inclusion of a columned hall is unprecedented in
sacred architecture in the Levant. The only possible
parallel is the Iron Age sanctuary at Kition, which was
renovated in the 9th century BC to include a rectangular
hall with four rows of pillars, although questions remain
about the function of that plan, i.e. if it was used as the
sanctuary itself or as a pillared courtyard leading to the
sacred chamber. Our columned hall here, with one row of
columns in faade bordering on a courtyard, is more
reminiscent of the more contemporary Achaemenid
Persian apadana. Achaemenid style architectural
fragments are attested elsewhere in Phoenicia, such as at
Sidon (Figs. 15 and 16), and demonstrate that the
Phoenicians were well acquainted with that canon.36 At
any rate, the purpose of such a columned hall in this
sacred setting at Umm el-Amed is unclear. As pointed
out by the excavators, the hall is carefully constructed
and its foundations were laid at the same time as the
temple platform, indicating that this structure was part of
the original design of the sanctuary.37 At the same time, it
is clearly in a subsidiary position in the sanctuary. Does it
reflect a secondary cult? Or is it meant to provide a
monumental space for other ceremonial and
administrative activities for the clergy of the sanctuary as
well as perhaps the citizens of the town and countryside?
The latter seems likely, particularly if it is an echo of the
Achaemenid apadana, which itself served a ceremonial
function for the king and upper administration.

What remains of the cella suggests that this building was


fronted by a porch and staircase accessed from the east;
there was a supplementary small staircase with entrance
on the long north side.28 This lateral staircase was also
approached from the east, and was placed adjacent to the
porch, leading to a door that would have opened into the
cella chamber proper. The original superstructure was
destroyed and the cella eventually converted into a
church in the Byzantine period.29 However, portions of
the superstructure have survived of the comparable cella
in the East Temple. This structure is similarly fronted
by a porch, with frontal and lateral staircases. At the back
of the porch is a monumental doorway (which was
surmounted by a lintel with winged sun-disk; more on
this below), and beyond the doorway there is an
arrangement of three rooms: a larger one in the front, and
two in the back; the front room alone was finely paved in
a similar manner as the courtyard, perhaps suggesting that
this chamber was at least partially open to the sky.30 The
excavators propose an Ionic prostyle facade for the cellae
for both sanctuaries, with four Ionic columns across the
front. This is hypothetical, as no fragments of capitals or
an entablature were excavated that would seem to fit the
dimensions required for such a reconstruction.31
Nonetheless, a decorative facade of some type is
expected32 and fragments of smooth column shafts were
identified that could fit;33 given the dimensions of the
porch a reconstruction of either a tetrastyle prostyle
facade or distyle in antis is not unreasonable, although
without concrete evidence the style of any decoration on
the facade remains in question (see further below for the

The second atypical feature of the plan of this temple is


the cella. A long, rectangular, elevated cella isolated in a
courtyard, with both front and side staircase, is unusual
for the Levant up to this point in time. Square cellae
enclosed in and set off from a precinct are known from
earlier Phoenician architecture, such as the cella of the

26

See Dunand and Duru 1962, 27-47 for a detailed description of these
remains.
27
Dunand and Duru (1962, 44-46 and 236-7) prefer to identify rooms
on the southwest end of the courtyard as subsidiary chapels on the basis
of fragments of architectural ornamentation found in the vicinity,
although there is nothing to indicate what god(s) these might have been
for. See further below regarding these fragments and a secondary cult
chamber in the East Temple.
28
Dunand and Duru 1962, 24-27, pls. 9-11.
29
See Dunand and Duru 1962, ch. 5 for a cursory description of the
Byzantine remains.
30
Dunand and Duru 1962, 57-61. The two back rooms had a floor
surface consisting of a lime mortar, similar to that which was used to
dress the local stone throughout the site.
31
Durand and Duru 1962, 25-26 and fig. 10.
32
This would be in keeping with earlier known examples of Phoenician
shrines, such as those at Amrit and Ayn el-Hayat (see Dunand 1985 and
Renan 1864, 69) as well as the naiskoi stelai, models of small roofed
shrines, with either two antae or two columns in facade surmounted by
an entablature, typically a cavetto cornice. See Caubet et al. 2002, 82-84
for examples.
33
Dunand and Duru 1962, 25-26. Also, as no roof tiles have been found
on the site (nor fragments of pediments), the flat roof as proposed by the
excavators is most likely.

34

Dunand and Duru 1962, 27 and 234: le plan des temples ne doit rien
aux usages de la Grce. Leur conomie est strictement conforme aux
pratiques architecturales cultuelles des Smites occidentaux.
35
E.g., The Bronze Age Temple of the Obelisks at Byblos and the
Persian period temple at Amrit (shrine, courtyard, and enclosure wall)
the Persian-Hellenistic Solar Shrine at Lachish (Tufnell 1953, pl. 121);
Hazor Lower City Area F Double Temple from the Middle Bronze Age
II (focus on a central court surrounded by corridors and chambers;
Yadin 1972, figs. 23, 24); the late Bronze Age Baal-Anat temple
complex at Kamid el-Loz in the Beqaa valley (courtyard leading to a
four-columned facade; see Hachmann 1978, 27ff, fig. 1) For off-axiality
of entrance and approach as a feature especially of Palestinian temples,
see Wright 1985, 237-238.
36
Beirut, National Museum, no 2078; Stucky, et al. 2005, nos. C1- C24.
37
Dunand and Duru 1962, 28 and 238. Their suggestion that this
columned hall is an evolution of the Hittite beit-hilani type structure of
Anatolia is not convincing.

92

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

temple of Amrit in the Persian period and the Late


Bronze Age Temple of the Obelisks at Byblos. But
these are problematic as prototypes. Both sanctuaries are
far simpler than the Temple of Milkashtarte, and the
Obelisk Temple is over a thousand years earlier in date.
In the case of the temple at Amrit, the cella was not
intended to be regularly accessed, since it was surrounded
by a pool, whereas the cella of the Temple of
Milkashtarte had two clear points of access. Outside of
these two examples, an arrangement where the cella is
isolated in the center of the courtyard is virtually
unknown in Syro-Levantine sacred architecture up to this
point. Both the design of the cella (podium cella with
front porch on the short side) and its placement in a
porticoed courtyard is rather more reminiscent of the
cellae of Syrian sanctuaries of the Roman period than of
any contemporary or recent (i.e. Iron Age or Persian
period) sanctuary,38 although the cella of the Temple of
Milkashtarte is proportionally longer and narrower than
those of the Roman period. This raises the question of
whether what we see at Umm el-Amed is an early
version of the typical Syro-Roman sanctuary plan and if
so should we regard this sanctuary type as a Phoenician
invention? Or should we look for prototypes further west,
for a possible Punic and/or Italic inspiration? Regarding
the latter, it has been suggested that the temple at Punic
Carthage uncovered by the German mission from 1975 to
1997 is paralleled at Umm el-Amed, but only the back
half of the cella has been exposed, and the chronological
relationship between the two buildings is not entirely
clear.39 Further discovery and excavation of third- to firstcentury Phoenician and Punic religious architecture is
needed to clarify the question. If a prototype from the
Phoenician west can be found, then it is possible we are
perhaps looking at a transmission of Italic traditions in
temple architecture, in particular the use of a podium,
rectangular shape, and columned porch on one short
end.

preserved examples (which can be securely dated) of the


use of the Greek architectural order in the East.41 In
addition to the columns of the portico and columned hall,
there are numerous other fragments of Greek-style
architectural elements (in limestone) that do not appear to
have belonged to either of those structures based on their
dimensions. These included fragments of Attic bases,
Ionic capitals, Doric capitals, fluted columns, smooth
columns, and moldings with egg and dart motif, all in
proportions too small to fit the columned hall or the
porticos.42 The original placement of these elements is not
certain, but they may have decorated the cella or been
used for the facades of some of the rooms along the
southern side of the courtyard.43
Greek-style columns were only part of the picture,
however. These elements were placed side-by-side with
non-Greek styles of architectural decoration as well.
These include several fragments of cavetto cornices, a
type of architectural molding understood to be Egyptian
in origin but which becomes ubiquitous in the Near East
especially during the Persian period when it was adopted
by Darius and his successors at Persepolis. Several door
lintels with sun disks flanked on either side by uraei were
recovered from the ruins of the temple of Milkashtarte as
well.44 Based on their dimensions, these were likely
placed on the smaller doors within the sanctuary, visible
from inside the court. In its Egyptian context, the winged
sun disk was a protective symbol, going back to at least
to the Old Kingdom, and was used to adorn doorways,
ceilings and stelai in temples and tombs.45 In its
Phoenician context, where it appears with some
frequency on, seals, ivories, model naiskoi, and stelai
throughout the first millennium BC, the sun disk with
uraei appears to have a similar protective function, and as
in Egypt, is usually depicted with wings.46
The non-winged versions we have here in the temple of
Milkashtarte seem to be a local variant.47 Whether this

Turning to the sculpted architectural detailing, the style of


the sanctuarys design becomes more mixed. Both the
portico and the columned hall are supported by limestone
columns in the Greek order: Doric for the portico and the
interior of the columned hall (unfluted, no bases); Ionic
for the facade of the columned hall (unfluted, attic bases).
Regarding what these columns supported, only fragments
of an architrave were found that likely belong to the
porticos; no further elements of a Greek-style frieze or
entablature fitting the dimensions of the columned hall
have been found. Any further superstructure for the
columned hall could have been constructed in wood, of
course, but we have no way of knowing what form this
took. According to an inscription, the date for the portico
is 222 BC, and that of the columned hall sometime
previous to that,40 making this one of the earliest

alteration of the original temple platform, which itself was constructed


at the same time as the cella and the columned hall. Thus, the columned
hall was constructed prior to the portico, and should be dated to no later
than 222 BC.
41
It has been suggested that Ionic capital fragments in marble found at
the Temple of Eshmun at Bostan ech-Sheikh near Sidon could date as
early as the 4th century (Stucky et al. 2005, 98ff), but they were found
outside of a clearly dated context, and could easily be later.
42
See Dunand and Duru 1962, 44-46.
43
Dunand and Duru 1962, 45.
44
From the Dunand and Duru excavations: 2 (M. 300 and M. 366); from
the Renan expedition: 3 (in the Louvre: AO 4901, AO 4903, AO 4909).
See Vella 2000, 38-39 for the winged sun disk having religious meaning
in Phoenicia and in Umm el-Amed especially; See Wagner 1980 for a
catalog of all Egyptianizing elements in Phoenician architecture from
the Bronze Age through the Roman period.
45
See Wagner 1980 for a catalog of all Egyptianizing elements in
Phoenician architecture from the Bronze Age through the Roman period
as well as a discussion of the prototypes in Egypt.
46
E.g., Moscati 1988, nos. 271, 416, 526, 528, 653, 658, 831, and 836
(naiskoi and seals); Institut du Monde Arabe 1998, 87 (pectoral from
Byblos) and 148 (bracelet with intaglio); the stele of King Yehawmilk
of Byblos in the Louvre (AO 22368).
47
A further local example can be found at the smaller Phoenician
sanctuary at Kharayeb: Kaoukabani 1973, 54 and Pl. 18.2. Kaoukabani
mistakenly suggests that the wings wore off; rather, it is clear that they
were intentionally not represented.

38
E.g., the recently uncovered Herodian temple at Omrit (Overman et
al. 2007), the temple of Zeus Baetocaeca in Syria, and the temples at
Qalat-Faqra, Yanouh, and Qasr Naous in Lebanon, among others; see
Nourdiguian 2005 generally, and Ball 2000, 317-342.
39
Rakob 2002, pp 30-33.
40
The date of the dedication of the columned portico is indicated by an
inscription as 222 BC (Louvre AO 1440). According to Dunand and
Duru (1962, 35), excavation revealed that the portico was a later

93

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

Fig. 5: Reconstruction of the East Temple, with section showing the facade of room 11 and the main
entrance, as seen from inside the courtyard. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, figs. 15 and 17)

lack of wings is a symbolic or artistic choice (or both) is


unclear; however, the winged version is especially
prominent in the East temple, notably over the main
entrances to the sanctuary complex, above the subsidiary
chapel dedicated to Astarte (see below) as well as the
cella itself. (Fig. 5) The appearance of these sun disks in
these temples mark their earliest substantial use in
surviving Phoenician architecture, although given the

paucity of remains of Phoenician architecture from the


first millennium, it is perhaps premature to read too much
into this. The use of the winged sun disk should be seen
as evidence of Phoenician iconographic and religious
continuity, but the striking juxtaposition of this
decoration alongside the Doric and Ionic colonnades likely reflects an innovation of the Hellenistic
period.

94

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Fig. 6: Sculpted orthostate fragments from the Temple of Milkashtarte:


bull goring a bush. Limestone. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 28.1 and 29.4)

The remaining evidence for sculpted architectural


ornamentation of the Temple of Milkashtarte consists of
a series of sculpted orthostate fragments uncovered (but
not found in situ) in various parts of the Temple of
Milkashtarte; these reflect purely Levantine artistic
traditions. The original placement of these orthostates is
unknown, but based on their sizes the excavators
hypothesized that they may have decorated a central altar,
moveable curtain walls, or the portico walls. Very little
stone relief sculpture has survived from pre-Roman
Phoenicia, and so it is difficult to find material with
which to compare. Nonetheless, there is just enough
information to firmly situate this material in the canon of
Phoenician-Levantine art. Two pieces represent young
bulls;48 (Fig. 6) one depicts the head of a bull, goring a
stylized bush; the second, larger fragment shows most of
a bull in a similar pose, but the object of the goring is
lost. The scene of a bull goring a palmette plant or other
type of vegetation can be found on Phoenician ivories
from around the Eastern Mediterranean in the Iron Age,
particularly ca. 950 to 700 BC.49 In sculpture it can be
found on a fragment from Tyre of unknown date, as well
as on a stele from the Sanctuary of Eshmun, which
perhaps dates to the late Iron Age or Persian period.50 A
further orthostate fragment (Fig. 7) found by Dunand and
Duru in the courtyard area of the Temple of Milkashtarte
depicts a scene of cultic ritual, specifically involving a
votive column surmounted by aeolic-type capitals as the
aniconic object of worship. The Aeolic capital depicted
on these fragments resembles types found in Israel during
the late Iron Age at sites such as Hazor and Ramat Rahel
and in the sixth century at Golgoi and Tamassos in
Cyprus.51 The adorant figure holds a common Phoenician
ritual pose, paralleled on stelai from Umm el-Amed
itself and elsewhere.52

Fig. 7: Sculpted orthostate from the Temple


of Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed: Female adorant in
front of a pillar with Aeolic type capital. Limestone.
(After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 28.2)

With respect to design and decoration the designers of the


sanctuaries at Umm el-Amed drew inspiration from both
local and foreign traditions, demonstrating that after
Alexander the Phoenicians continued their practice of
selectively adopting and combining elements of foreign
canons with styles stemming from their own tradition to
create their own particular kind(s) of visual setting.
Aspects of Greek architectural design are present, but
they do not dominate; rather, they have been appropriated
selectively by the Phoenicians for use in a non-Greek
building type, and juxtaposed with architectural
decoration of local tradition. Nor does this practice stop
at architecture; the multi-lingual aspect of the temple
design is echoed in the votive sculpture discovered in and
around them.

48

Dunand and Duru 1962: 143-145 and pls. 28, 1 and 29, 4.
E.g., Nimrud: Herrmann 1986: nos. 723, 725, 727, 740.
50
AO 4899; Stucky 1993a, no. 59, p74.
51
Wesenberg 1971, figs. 123-125, 127-128, 131, 134; this type also
appears in Phoenician ivories, e.g. Moscati 1988, no. 79. See Shiloh
1979 for the aeolic style in architecture generally.
52
E.g., the Yehawmilk stele (Louvre, AO 22368; Caubet et al. 2002, 6466.); a stele from Arados (Louvre AO 4949), stelai from Tyre (Louvre
49

AO 1001 and AO 4821). The figure on this orthostate was originally


identified by Dunand as a bald male priest; although the piece is worn
and now missing, a closer look at the photograph and comparison with
the better preserved votive stelai (see below) suggests rather that this
figure is female, with her mantle pulled over her head.

95

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

VOTIVE SCULPTURE
Examples of votive sculpture recovered from both the
Temple of Milkashtarte and the East Temple were found
either in situ or discarded below the surface among the
ruins.53 No ritual deposits (favissae) were found by either
Renan or Dunand; as such, the amount of votive sculpture
is limited as compared to other first millennium
sanctuaries in the Phoenician homeland, such as Amrit or
Bostan ech-Sheikh. Nonetheless, what survives is
revealing, and suggests that the patrons variously and
contemporaneously commissioned sculpture that
followed Phoenician, Egyptian, and Greek traditions.
Beginning with cult objects proper, the only sculptures
uncovered that clearly served such a purpose are the two
so-called Astarte thrones, an object exclusive to
Phoenicia that exhibits no input from Greek religious
practices or iconography. These thrones are characterized
by their armrests, which are in the form of female winged
sphinxes, a type typically found in Phoenician glyptics
since the Iron Age. These thrones typically are empty or
have a cutting for the placement of an iconic cult object
(e.g. a betyl), and often on the front or on the backrest
there are cultic scenes or symbols. Approximately a
dozen of these thrones have been found in Phoenicia, all
in the region of Sidon and Tyre,54 and they are associated
with Astarte mainly on the basis of the iconography.55
Thrones featuring animals as armrests have a long history
in the Near East, and sphinx thrones with seated kings or
divinities can be found in relief carvings in the early first
millennium in Phoenicia and the Levant, such as on the
Ahiram sarcophagus and in glyptics and ivory carving.56
Whereas the early glyptic representations of such thrones
show a divinity (or in the case of Ahiram, a king) seated
in the throne, the physical thrones found in Sidon and
Tyre were clearly intended to remain vacant and thus
serve as an aniconic cult object, as indicated either
because of their small size, the slope of the seat, or the
presence of an object. It is understood that the emptiness
of the throne, or the object within, is an indication of the
presence of the divinity.57

Fig. 8: Astarte Throne from room 11


of the East Temple, Umm el-Amed. Limestone.
(After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 67)

With respect to the remaining recovered votive sculpture,


Egyptian styles of representation dominate. Numerous
examples of Egyptianizing sculpture in the round were
recovered by Dunand as well as uncovered during
clandestine excavations in the 19th century.59 Dunands
expedition uncovered a male votive statue in Egyptian
dress knocked over from its base, in front of the main
entrance to the sanctuary of Milkashtarte. (Fig. 9). The
head is missing, as well as the lower part of the legs, but
the base, along with the feet were found in situ. (See Fig.
4 for the find spot) The inscription along this base
indicates that it was dedicated by a certain Abdosir to
Milkashtarte. Although typically Egyptian in dress and
stance, the statue deviates from its Egyptian prototype
with the right arm raised in the so-called gesture of
adoration, commonly found in representations of people
engaged in religious ritual, both at Umm el-Amed and
elsewhere in Phoenicia and the greater Levant. These socalled Egyptianizing votives statues, as they are usually
called, are found elsewhere in Phoenicia and Cyprus (e.g.
Amrit, Bostan ech-Sheikh and Golgoi) from as early as
the sixth century, although the examples from Umm elAmed wear a conservative, less ornate style of kilt and
neckpiece than these earlier examples.60

One example of such a throne was found nearly in situ in


the East temple, (Fig. 8) in its own room on the
Northwest periphery of the courtyard. This room was
accessed through a large doorway surmounted by another
lintel decorated with a winged sun disk flanked with
uraei, of the type discussed above.58 The throne itself was
found knocked over and broken next to the platform on
which it presumably originally stood. The presence of
this throne points to continuity both in Phoenician
religious practices as well as iconography.

In the same vein are the numerous fragments of sphinxes


recovered by both expeditions from both sanctuaries.61 In
all examples the type appears consistent: a traditional
59

Dunand and Duru 1962, nos. M. 436, E. 213, E. 173, E. 102. Caubet
et al. 2002, 19, 38, catalog nos. 145-149); these were acquired by
clandestine collecting at the prodding of Ch. Clermont-Ganneau in the
19th century.
60
Amrit: Lemke 2004, 50-56 and nos. 119-165, with bibliography;
Bostan ech-Sheikh, near Sidon: Stucky 1993. For examples in Cyprus,
see Karageorghis et al. 2000. See also the excellent discussion of this
statue type in Phoenician art in Markoe 1990.
61
Dunand recovered fifteen fragments: M. 362, M. 98, M. 13, M. 14; E.
88-90, 112, 123, 129, 130, 134-136, 141. (Dunand and Duru 1962)
Renan recovered three nearly complete examples, now in the Beirut
museum (Doumet-Serhal et al. 1998, no. 69 and 70; the third is
unpublished but reproduced here, see Figure 10) Four further fragments
were excavated by Renan and are now in the Louvre: AO 4851, AO
4852, AO4952 and AO 4841 (Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 132-135).

53

Although Dunand and Duru provide plans that locate horizontally a


majority of the architectural and sculptural fragments excavated in both
sanctuaries, they do not give the elevation of any of these find spots.
54
E.g., Beirut, National Museum, nos. 2118, 2062, 2120, 2116.
55
Delcor 1983, 778; Doumet-Serhal et al. 1998: 26.
56
For thrones in Phoenician art generally see Gubel 1987, 37-84.
57
For these Astarte thrones (or sphinx thrones, as they are sometimes
called) as aniconic cult objects, see Mettinger 1995, 100-103.
58
Dunand and Duru 1962, Pl. 63, 1, inv no. E. 6.

96

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Fig. 10: Detail of the head of a sphinx (portrait of


Ptolemy VIII Physkon?) recovered from the Temple of
Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed. Limestone. Beirut,
National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke)

and 145-114).63 A head of similar type and style was also


found by Renan and is presently in the Louvre.64 This
piece is much more worn and the headdress is mostly
missing; nonetheless the face, the headband, and the
Egyptian-type stylistic hair and sideburn are quite clear.
This head is not identical to the Beirut piece (the
headband and ears are different), but there is a
resemblance in the facial structure; this piece bears close
resemblance to the known portraits of Ptolemy VIII.65 The
presence of these works at Umm el-Amed holds great
significance for our understanding of the relationship
between the style and audience of Ptolemaic portrait
types. There has been a prominent view in Ptolemaic
studies in recent times that Egyptianizing Ptolemaic
portraiture, like all expressions of traditional Pharaonic
culture in the Hellenistic period, was intended for a
purely Egyptian audience.66 The Umm el-Amed portraits,
along with recent Egyptianizing finds from Alexandria
and other recent research in Ptolemaic studies,67 support
the idea that the audience for such styles was a fair bit
more mixed than that, and that it is a mistake to assume a
one-to-one correlation between particular stylistic
categories of art and specific ethno-cultural groups in the
Hellenistic period.

Fig. 9: Egyptianizing male statue from the entrance


to the Temple of Milkashtarte. Limestone. Beirut,
National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke)

New Kingdom-style recumbent sphinx with decorative


usekh collar and Nemes klaft headdress. This type is in
contrast to the Levantine type that has wings and is often
female (for example, the ones that appear on the armrests
of the Astarte thrones; see above), a type that is
common in Phoenician ivories and scarabs before this
period. As such, what we see here is most likely a new
borrowing. One well-preserved example is particularly
revealing. (Fig. 10) This is an unpublished sphinx in the
National Museum in Beirut that was found by Renan in
the 19th century and recently reassembled by the museum
staff. The head is of special interest in that while the
headdress and sideburns are in traditional Pharaonic style,
the face is sculpted in the distinctively fleshy, idealized
manner of Ptolemaic portraiture, seamlessly blending
Egyptian Pharaonic imagery with a more naturalistic
treatment of the face preferred by Greek sculptors.62
Although worn and highly idealized, the physiognomy of
the head does indeed bear a clear resemblance to the
hybrid Egyptian-Greek style portraits of both Ptolemy VI
(reigned 180 to 145) and Ptolemy VIII (reigned 169-164

63

Ptolemy VI: Stanwick 2002: figs. 52-53, 58, 74-75, 77. Ptolemy VIII:
Stanwick 2002: figs. 81-82, 84-85, 98-99.
64
AO 4868; Caubet et al. 2002, 131.
65
E.g. Stanwick 2002, figs. 258-9 (dated to 121/0); Smith 1991, fig.
241.
66
For the widely held view of separate, distinct cultures with little
interest on the part of Greek speakers in Egypt for Egyptian culture, see
the following: Momigliano 1975, Praux 1978, Samuel 1983 and 1989,
Lewis 1986, Bagnall 1988, Green 1990, and Cartledge 1997.
67
Recent research has demonstrated the clear incorporation of Egyptian
culture and ideas into aspects of Greek elite culture in Alexandria, such
as poetry, kingship ideology, and artistic self-expression: Stephens
2002, Koenen 1993, Baines 2004 with bibliography.

62

And does so somewhat more effectively than many other hybrid


Greco-Egyptian portraits of the Ptolemies. See Smith 1997 regarding
the reception of Greek sculptural ideas by Egyptian sculptors.

97

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

adoration. All of the stelai are round-topped with a


winged sun disk crowning the scene, and some have
inscribed (Phoenician) dedications, dated to roughly the
3rd and 2nd centuries BC on paleographic grounds.70 In
terms of genre, they fit perfectly well within in
Phoenician tradition.

Fig. 11: Fragments of Hellenizing statuettes (bearded


head, ht. 12 cm; head of a youth, dimensions unknown;
statuette of a woman, ht. 55 cm), Temple of
Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed. Marble. (After Dunand
and Duru 1962, pls. 38.2, 35.5, and 33.1, respectively)

There is a handful of small, fragmentary examples of


Greek-style statuary from both sanctuaries, in both
marble and limestone, all of which quite small in scale,
and now unfortunately missing. (Fig. 11) Their small and
fragmentary nature makes it difficult to draw any
conclusions, but their presence is perhaps indicative that
there may have been much more. The more notable
pieces include a small bearded head, a fragment of a head
of a youth, and a statuette of a woman dressed in a highgirded, emphatically pleated chiton and himation, all in
marble and all found in the southern area of the temple of
Milkashtarte.68
The most notable Hellenic element in the votive sculpture
from Umm el-Amed, however, is to be found within a
series of stelai in local limestone, sixteen in total. Only
two of these are documented as having been found in the
sanctuary ruins proper. Three were found on the southern
slope of the site by a farmer in the 1950s, and the rest
were found in the vicinity of the site in the 19th century
by chance or through clandestine excavations.69 These
stelai feature basically the same scene: a figure, male or
female, stands with an arm raised in the gesture of

Fig. 12: Votive stele from Umm el-Amed. Limestone.


Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke)

What is particularly striking about these stelai is that the


female figures wear what looks similar to a Greek
himation and chiton, (Fig. 12) while the male figures
mostly wear robes and a polos hat as seen in some
Persian-period representations.71 (Fig. 13) In terms of

68

Dunand and Duru 1962, catalog nos. M. 602 (pl. 33, 2), M. 426 (pl.
35, 5), M. 439 (pl. 33, 1). Without being able to examine these pieces it
is difficult to type them.
69
See Dunand and Duru 1962, 164-7; the knowledge that the ruins of
Umm el-Amed were a source of Phoenician inscriptions prompted such
clandestine activities; these stelai were sold to collectors, and eventually
made their way to the Louvre: Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 150, 154, 156163; and Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 1835 (see Dunand and
Duru 1962, pl. XXVII). The three discovered in the 1950s are in the
National Museum in Beirut (inv. 2071, 2072, 2075); see Doumet-Serhal
1998, nos. 88-90.

70

The function of these stelai is disputed; some call them votive


(Doumet-Serhal 1998), others funerary (Caubet et al. 2002). See
Dunand and Duru 1962, 165-166, for an explanation as to why they can
be both.
71
Such as the stele of King Yehawmilk of Byblos, dating to the mid-5th
century BC, Louvre, AO 22368; Caubet et al. 2002, 64-66. An
exception to this representation of dress is Louvre AO 4402 (Caubet et
al. 2002, no 161) the lower half of a stele showing the lower part of the
legs of a male individual.

98

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

The use of Greek costume for the women in these stelai is


intriguing, especially in contrast to the non-Greek
costume of the men. Does it reflect current fashion
among Phoenician women, or has it been copied from the
prototypes for these figures? If the former, are we to
believe that the men retained traditional Phoenician
dress, while the women adopted Greek fashions? Or did
Phoenician women wear something not dissimilar to
Greek dress long before this, making the transition to a
more naturalistic, Hellenic representation of their dress
in art natural? As for the male figures, those appearing on
these stelai have been traditionally interpreted as priests
of some sort. If this is so, is the dress that we see
intentionally archaic, and thus unrepresentative of what
the average man on the street would be wearing? But if
most of the men represented on all these stelai are in fact
priests, who, then, are the women?77 Or are we simply
looking at typical male dress? And if we assume that
what is represented on these stelai reflects what people
actually wore, then must we not also have to assume that
the Egyptian costume found on the votive statues
mentioned above is also in use? There are many questions, which are difficult if not impossible to answer. A
comparison with earlier Phoenician womens costumes
would be useful, but there is a lack of comparative material dating before the Hellenistic period.78 Regardless,
for two of the stelai, the decision to render these female
figures based on a well-known sculptural type reflects a
clear choice on the part of the patrons, and indicates an
adoption of Greek style by these individuals, as much as
the choice of more traditional forms on the stelai of other
figures demonstrates an opposite preference.

Fig. 13: Fragment of a votive stele from


Umm el-Amed. Limestone. Paris,
Louvre (AO 3754). (Photo: J. Nitschke)

iconographic and stylistic parallels, the female figures are


similar to the woman on the orthostate mentioned above.
There are also isolated similar relief representations from
undetermined contexts at other sites, such as Arados and
Tyre.72 The sculptural technique employed in most of
these stelai and the rendering of the dress can be
described as local; however, in a few of the stelai there
appears to be perhaps some Greek technical inspiration in
the rendering of the drapery and folds of the garments
and in some of the faces and hair.73 In particular, two of
the stelai feature women who, in the style and
arrangement of their dress, clearly recall the so-called
small Herculaneum woman type (albeit in a slightly
different medium relief as opposed to sculpture in the
round),74 suggesting at the very least that this particular
manner of representing female dress had found
widespread distribution in non-Greco-Roman contexts by
the mid-Hellenistic period; it could perhaps also reflect a
direct access to and copying of such statuettes; as no such
pieces have been found in the region that could have
inspired the skill and attention that we see in the stelai
here, this is only speculative. However, mold-made
figurines of women in Greek dress (imitations of the
Tanagrean type) have been found at the site of Kharayeb
to the north,75 and a finer example of such a figurine has
been unearthed in the recent excavations of Beirut.76 The
existence of these figurines does confirm a wide trend in
this region for images of women in this type of dress.

When we take all of this material together as a whole, it


becomes clear that the visual impression of these
sanctuaries and their artistic embellishment is stylistically
mixed: foreign and local elements appear to be presented
simultaneously in a manner that lies outside the bounds
of traditional archaeological and cultural typology. Greek
elements feature in the architectural decoration with limited presence in votive sculpture as well as in the images
of women, while male figures are presented in either
traditional Phoenician garb or ceremonial Egyptian costume. We have Syro-Phoenician continuity in some of the
spatial arrangements of the sanctuary and in some of the
relief sculpture. Egyptian imagery is prevalent throughout, and imperial Persia is echoed in the columned hall.
77

See discussion of Maes 1991, esp. 223-238, which is critical of


Dunand and Durus identification of these figures as priests.
78
Female figures do appear on the Sarcophagus of the Mourning
Women (see Fleischer and Schiele 1983 and Ferron 1993 for this
sarcophagus), but the identification of these women is uncertain, i.e.
whether they are meant to be mortal or immortal, and whether they are
meant to represent specific individuals or intended to act as a generic
symbolic presence. A female figure with her garment pulled over her
head can be found in the banquet scene of the Satrap sarcophagus; such
figures can be found in decisively non-Greek art in the Achaemenid
empire (the artistic themes of which the satrap sarcophagus takes some
of its inspiration from); see Girshmann 1964, fig. 468. The layers and
draping of the dress worn by the women in mourning on the
sarcophagus of Ahiram (ca. 1000 BC or earlier) are not incongruous to
the type of dress we see here on the Umm el-Amed stelai, but this
comparanda is far too early and the rendering too stylized to draw firm
conclusions.

72

See Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 7, 113, 114.


E.g. Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 154, 159,161; Carlsberg Glyptotek 1835;
Doumet-Serhal 1998, nos. 88-89. This treatment is not consistent across
these examples, i.e. we are not looking at one sculptor.
74
Louvre, AO 3135 (Caubet et al. 2002, no. 154); National Museum in
Beirut, no. 2075 (Doumet-Serhal 1998, no. 88). For the Herculaneum
woman type see Trimble 2000, fig. 1, and Connelly 1988, pl. 3, fig. 12.
75
See Kaoukabani 1973 for a preliminary report on the sanctuary and
the figurines.
76
Institut du Monde Arab 1998, 170. (Beirut, Direction gnrale des
Antiquities inv. 24905).
73

99

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

Phoenician. This is exemplified in the Phoenician


anthropoid sarcophagi, (Fig. 14) dating to the 5th and 4th
centuries BC. While one can break down the local,
Greek, or Egyptian characteristics of these sarcophagi in
terms of function, design, material, technique and stylistic
representation, the end product as a whole speaks with a
clear point of view that is neither Greek nor Egyptian, but
uniquely Phoenician.
Even in the case of the grand royal Sidonian sarcophagi
of the 4th century (Figs. 1 and 2) that feature so
prominently in textbooks on Greek art, the picture is not
so clear-cut. One cannot find an object of this specific
design, purpose, and decoration in the Greek homeland;
rather, the Sidonian royal sarcophagi blend already
existing traditions of funerary monuments of Cyprus and
western Anatolia, which are themselves hybrids.80
And as Greek as those sarcophagi may appear in style
and in some motifs, they are counterbalanced by the
contemporary existence of non-Greek imagery and styles,
such as is found on the coins of Sidon, produced and
approved by the Sidonian kings; far from reinforcing
some sort of Hellenic aspirations, they in fact do the
opposite: overwhelmingly exhibit iconography adapted
from Achaemenid imperial art. The Achaemenid Persian
element is found not simply in coins, but in architecture
as well, as demonstrated by monumental marble
fragments of column capitals and bases found in Sidon.
(Figs. 15 and 16) The material is of particular interest.
The use of island marble in these pieces indicates the
patronage by the Sidonians of Greek workmen and
sculptors, and thus that the Sidonian court had access to,
knowledge of, and resources to pay for Greek-style
monumental architecture. Instead, the Sidonians
commissioned a building with decidedly unGreek
decoration. What this all tells us is that the appearance of
Greek artistic traditions in some Phoenician art does not a
priori indicate an abandonment of or disinterest in other
artistic traditions.

Fig. 14: Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagus of unknown


origin. Marble. Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum.
(Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY)

What bearing, then, does this sanctuary and its finds have
on how we understand Phoenician identity, and the
question of acculturation among the Phoenician citystates in the Hellenistic period? In this regard it is
relevant to note that nothing found at the temple argues
for anything other than a purely Phoenician cult: as
mentioned earlier, all the inscriptions are to a Phoenician
deity, written in the Phoenician language, by people with
Phoenician names, suggesting that the inhabitants and
primary patrons were locals. But if we did not have this
written evidence, would we be tempted to conclude from
the presence of hellenizing elements in the architecture
and art a gradual hellenization of the cult and its patrons
as well? Scholarly precedent suggests we might. But does
the appearance of these elements really indicate that
Phoenician art and architecture is less Phoenician than
before, as suggested by the scholarly commentary cited at
the beginning of this paper?

CONCLUSION
Considering the material of Umm el-Amed as a whole,
we have clear evidence of the incorporation of certain
characteristics of Greek visual culture such as building
material, naturalistic style, architectural ornamentation,
and fashion. Does this merit the use of a label such as
hellenized or perhaps the less loaded GrecoPhoenician, to describe this people and their culture?
Does the incorporation of elements of Greek art into

Phoenician material culture has of course long been


characterized as prone to the appropriation of foreign
canons, often derisively so. Henri Frankfort famously
declared that the hallmark of Phoenician art is the
bungled use of Egyptian themes.79 More recent
assessments of Phoenician art have been kinder,
acknowledging the Phoenicians engaged not in mere
mindless mimicry, but were selective in what they
adopted from other cultures, and almost always
transferred borrowed symbols, themes, and motifs into
something that can be only be characterized as distinctly
79

80

E.g., the Amathus Sarcophagus (Karageorghis, et al. 2000, 201-204


with a date of 475 BC; Ferron 1993, 246-7 prefers a date around 550);
and the sarcophagus from Golgoi (Kharageorghis 2000, 204-206 with a
date of 450-425 and Ferron 1993); various funerary monuments from
Lycia (such as the Harpy tomb at Xanthos) that give the Lycian
Sarcophagus its name, see Langer-Karrenbrock 2000 and SchmidtDounas 1985 for a discussion of those prototypes, as well as Ferron
1993, figs. 69-73; the Harpy tomb and the so-called Nereid Monument
at Xanthos; and two recently discovered sarcophagi from the Granicus
river valley (Rose 2007, Sevin, et al. 2001); See Dusinberre 2003 for
the Achaemenid artistic impact on western Anatolia.

Frankfort 1996, 310.

100

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

Fig. 15: Bull-protome capital from Sidon. Marble. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke)

design, which will go on to have a long and fruitful


history in the region. The selection and combination of
specific artistic and architectural from canons both local
and far has long been typical of Phoenician material
culture; that one of these canons is now that of the Greeks
does not make this material any less Phoenician nor
should lead us to refer to the Phoenicians as hellenized.
After all, the Phoenicians are not labeled by
Egyptologists as an Egyptianized people for having
borrowed from Egyptian art and fashion, nor
Persianized by Near Eastern archaeologists for having
borrowed from Persian art and fashion. Why should
they be considered hellenized for having borrowed from
Greek art?
It has become conventional for Classical archaeologists to
apply the term hellenized, with all its implications of
the passive absorption of culture, to any material or
cultural group that exhibits an element of borrowing from
Hellenic culture. By contrast, when it comes to foreign
eastern elements in archaic Greek art, Classicists do not
refer to archaic Greek art as Orientalized, but insist
rather on the active Orientalizing, in order to give
emphasis to the Greeks active role in this cultural
exchange. This focus on the active agency of the
borrower, rather than on any perceived dominance or
superiority of the culture borrowed from, is surely the
right approach. But this same methodological standard
needs to be applied to the cultures that engaged with
Greek culture in turn.

Fig. 16: Assyrian-style torus base with vegetal


decoration from Sidon. Marble. Beirut, National
Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke)

Phoenician material culture make the Phoenicians less


Phoenician? The answer to both of these is negative.
These temples, with their diverse elements, represent an
architectural innovation, both in terms of space as well as

In the case of the Phoenicians, we know that with their


long established contacts with the Greek world they were
well acquainted by the advent of the Hellenistic period

101

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

Heckel and L.A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of History:


The Age of Alexander, 217-42. Claremont.

with Greek artistic styles, manner of representation, and


imagery. And the Greek elements from the material at
Umm el-Amed demonstrate that they still had
knowledge and access to this canon as this age
progressed. Looking at the evidence from Umm elAmed, though, we are left with the simple fact that if the
inhabitants of this town wanted a Greek-style temple they
could have had one. They chose otherwise. If they had
wished to honor the Ptolemaic king with an image in the
fine Greco-Macedonian tradition, they could have done
so. They chose something else.

CAUBET, A., FONTAN, E. and GUBEL, E. 2002. Art


Phnicien: La Sculpture de Tradition Phnicienne.
Paris: Muse du Louvre.
CARTLEDGE, P. 1997. Introduction. In P. Cartledge, P.
Garnsey and E.S. Gruen (eds.) Hellenistic Constructs:
Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, 1-19.
Berkeley.
CONNELLY, J. 1988. Votive Sculpture of Hellenistic
Cyprus. New York.

I began this overview by asking the question, is there


anything Phoenician about Phoenician life in the
Hellenistic Age? The material at Umm el-Amed suggests
that there certainly is. Although the evidence presented
here in this limited forum is only a part of the entire
picture of Hellenistic Phoenicia, it demonstrates
nonetheless that a simplistic presentation of Phoenicia as
a hellenized entity will no longer suffice. Hellenic
culture, in whatever manifestation, is not de facto
antithetical to Phoenician culture or identity. The
appearance of Greek styles of art and architecture does
not necessarily herald the demise of a discrete Phoenician
culture. In the case of Umm el-Amed, it in fact reflects
the opposite. These temples and their ornamentation
weave together iconography and styles, both local and
foreign, which reflect both centuries-long tradition as
well as contemporary trends. Far from the death of
Phoenician cultural vitality, we witness here continued
Phoenician creativity and innovation in the way they have
drawn together various elements of different foreign
artistic canons to create a space and artistic setting that is
their own.

DELCOR, M. 1983. Les trnes dAstart. In Atti del I


Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici,
Rome, 5-10 Novembre 1979, 777-87. Roma.
DOUMET-SERHAL, C. (ed.) 1998. Stones and Creed:
100 Artefacts from Lebanons Antiquity. London.
DUNAND, M. and DURU, R. 1962. Oumm el-Amed,
une ville de lpoque hellnistique aux chelles de
Tyr. Paris.
DUNAND, M. and SALIBY, N. 1985. Le Temple
dAmrith dans la Pre dAradus. Paris.
DUSINBERRE, E.R. 2003. Aspects of Empire in
Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge, U.K.
EISSFELDT, O. 1952. Taautos und Sanchuniaton.
Berlin.
LAYI, J. 1980. The Phoenician cities in the Persian
Period. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society
12,13-28.
LAYI, J. 1988a. Pntration grecque en Phnicie sous
lempire perse. Nancy.
LAYI, J. 1988b. Les sarcophages phniciens dpoque
perse. Iranica Antiqua 23, 275-322.

Bibliography

LAYI, J. and LAYI. A.G. 2004. Le Monnayage de


la Cit Phnicienne de Sidon lpoque Perse.
Paris.

AVI-YONAH, M. 1978. Hellenism and the East:


Contacts and Interrelations from Alexander to the
Roman Conquest. Ann Arbor.

FERRON, J. 1993. Sarcophages de


Sarcophages Scnes en Relief. Paris.

AUBERT, C. 2003. Phnomnes dacculturation grecque


en Phnicie: le cas de Beyrouth. In M. Sartre (ed.), La
Syrie Hellnistique, 111-24. Lyon.

Phnicie:

FERRON, J. 1996. Contacts et changes culturels attests


par les sept sarcophages scnes en relief phniciens
sculpts entre le dbut du VIe et la fin du IVe sicle
av. J.-C. Transeuphratne 12, 41-58.

BAGNALL, R.S. 1988. Greeks-Egyptians: Ethnicity,


Status and Culture. In Cleopatras Egypt, Age of the
Ptolemies, 5-21. New York, Brooklyn Museum.

FLEISCHER, R. and SCHIELE, W. 1983. Der


Klagefrauensarkophag aus Sidon. Tbingen.

BAINES, J. 2004. Egyptian Elite Self-Presentation in the


Context of Ptolemaic Rule. In W.V. Harris and G.
Ruffini (eds.), Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and
Greece, 33-61. Leiden.

FRANKFORT, H. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the


Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven.
GHIRSHMAN, R. 1964. Persia from the Origins to
Alexander the Great. London.

BALL, W. 2000. Rome and the East: the Transformation


of an Empire. New York.

GRAINGER, J.D. 1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford.

BARR, J. 1974. Philo of Byblos and his Phoenician


History. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57, 1768.

GREEN, P. 1990. Alexander to Actium: the Historical


Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley.
GUBEL, E. 1986. Une nouvelle scne de culte phnicien
de lpoque perse. In C. Bonnet, E. Lipinski and P.
Marchetti (eds.), Religio Phoenicia: Acta Colloquii
Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 Mensis Decembris
anni 1984, 263-76. Namur.

BAUMGARTEN, I. 1981. The Phoenician History of


Philo of Byblos. Leiden.
BURSTEIN, S.M. 2003. The Legacy of Alexander: New
Ways of Being Greek in the Hellenistic Period, in W.

102

J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST

GUBEL, E. 1987. Phoenician Furniture: a Typology


Based on Iron Age Representations with Reference to
the Iconographical Context. Leuven.

MESSERSCHMIDT, W. 1989. Historische und ikonographische Untersuchungen zum Alexandersarkophag, Boreas 12, 64-92.
METTINGER, T.N.D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite
Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context.
Stockholm
MILLAR, F. 1983. The Phoenician cities: a case-study of
hellenisation. Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society 209, 55-71.

HACHMANN, R. 1978 Rapport preliminaire sur les


fouilles au Tell de Kamid el-Loz de 1962 1972.
Bulletin du Muse de Beyrouth 30, 7-26.
HAMDY BEY, O. and REINACH, T. 1892. Une
Ncropole Royale Sidon. Paris.
HERRMANN, G. 1986. Ivories from Nimrud 4. Ivories
from Room SW 37, Fort Shalmaneser. London.

MOMIGLIANO, A. 1975. Alien Wisdom: the Limits of


Hellenisation. Cambridge, U.K.

Institut du Monde Arabe. 1998. Liban: lAutre Rive:


Exposition Prsente lInstitut du Monde Arabe du
27 Octobre au 2 Mai 1999. Paris.

MOSCATI, S. (ed.) 1988. The Phoenicians. New York.


NITSCHKE, J.L. 2007. Perceptions of Culture:
Interpreting Greco-Near Eastern Hybridity in the
Phoenician Homeland. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of California, Berkeley.

JIDEJIAN, N. 1968. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut.


JIDEJIAN, N. 1969. Tyre Through the Ages. Beirut.
JIDEJIAN, N. 1971a. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut.

ODEN, R.A. 1978. Philo of Byblos and Hellenistic


Historiography. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 110,
115-126.

JIDEJIAN, N. 1971b. Sidon Through the Ages. Beirut.


JIDEJIAN, N. 1973. Beirut Through the Ages. Beirut.

OVERMAN, A., OLIVE, J. and NELSEN, M. 2007. A


Newly Discovered Herodian Temple at Khirbet Omrit
in Northern Israel. In N. Kokkinos (ed.), The World of
the Herods. Volume 1 of the International Conference
The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held at
the British Museum, 17-19 April 2001, 177-95.
Stuttgart.
PREAUX, C. 1978. Le Monde Hellnistique: la Grce et
lOrient de la mort dAlexandre la conqute
romaine la Grce (323 146 av. J.-C.). Paris.

JIDEJIAN, N. 1980. Tripoli Through the Ages. Beirut.


JIDEJIAN, N. 1988. Lebanon and the Greek World, 333
to 64 BC: Portraits of Alexander the Great, the
Ptolemies, the Seleucid and Armenian Kings:
Illustrated by Coins in the Michel Edd Collection.
Beirut.
KAOUKABANI, B. 1973. Rapport preliminaire sur les
fouilles de Kharayeb. Bulletin du Muse de Beyrouth
26, 41-60.

RAKOB, F. 2002. Cartago. La topografia de la ciudad


pnica. Nuevas investigaciones. In M. Vegas,
Cartago Fenicio-Pnica. Las Excavaciones Alemanas
en Cartago, 1975-1997, 14-46. Barcelona.

KARAGEORGHIS, V. et al. 2000. Ancient Art from


Cyprus: The Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. New York.
KLEEMANN, I. 1958. Der Satrapen-Sarkophag aus
Sidon. Berlin.

RENAN, E. and THOBOIS, M. 1864. Mission de


Phnicie. Paris.
ROSE, C.B. 2007. The Tombs of the Granicus Valley, in
Delemen, I. (ed.), The Achaemenid Impact on the
Local Populations and Cultures in Anatolia (SixthFourth Centuries BC), 247-265. Istanbul.

KOENEN, L. 1993. The Ptolemaic king as a religious


figure. In A.W. Bulloch, E.S. Gruen and A.A. Long
(eds.), Images and Ideologies: Self-definition in the
Hellenistic World, 25-115. Berkeley.
LANGER-KARRENBROCK, M.-T. 2000. Der lykische
Sarkophag aus der Knigsnekropole von Sidon.
Mnster.
LEMBKE, K. 2001. Phnizische
Sarkophage. Mainz am Rhein.

SALLES, J.-F. 2003. Byblos hellnistique. In M. Sartre


(ed.), La Syrie hllenistique, 53-109. Lyon.
SAMUEL, A. 1983. From Athens to Alexandria:
Hellenism and Social Goals in Ptolemaic Egypt.
Louvain.
SAMUEL, A. 1989. The Shifting Sands of History:
Interpretations of Ptolemaic History. Ottawa.

anthropoide

LEMBKE, K. 2004. Die Skulpturen aus dem


Quellheiligtum von Amrit: Studie zur Akkulturation in
Phnizien. Mainz am Rhein.

SARTRE, M. 2005. Middle East under Rome. Cambridge


(MA).

LEWIS, N. 1986. Greeks in Ptolemaic Egypt: Case


Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World.
New York.

SCHMIDT-DOUNAS, B. 1985. Der lykische Sarkophag


aus Sidon. Tbingen.

MAES, A. 1991. Le costume phnicien des stles dUmm


el-Amed. In E. Lipinski (ed.) Phoenicia and the
Bible, 209-330. Leuven.

SEVIN, N., et al. 2001. A New Painted Graeco-Persian


Sarcophagus from an, Studia Troica 11: 383-420.

MARKOE, G. 1990. Egyptianizing male votive


statuary from Cyprus: a reexamination. Levant 22, 1122.

SHILOH, Y. 1979. The proto-aeolic capital. Qedem 11,


1-49.
SMITH, R.R.R. 1991. Hellenistic Sculpture: a
Handbook. New York.

MARKOE, G. 2000. The Phoenicians. Berkeley.

103

FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA

SMITH, R.R.R. 1997. Ptolemaic Portraits: Alexandrian


Types, Egyptian Versians. In Alexandria and
Alexandrianism, 203-213. Malibu, J. Paul Getty
Museum.

TUFNELL, O. (ed.) 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age.

STANWICK, P. 2002. Portraits of the Ptolemies: Greek


Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs. Austin.

VELLA, N.C. 2000. Defining Phoenician religious space:


Oumm el-Amed reconsidered. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 37, 27-55.

TRIMBLE, J. 2000. Replicating the body politic: the


Herculaneum Women statue types in early Imperial
Italy. Journal of Roman Archaeology 13, 41-68.

STEPHENS, S. 2002. Seeing Double. Intercultural


Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Berkeley.

von GRAEVE, V. 1970. Der Alexandersarkophag und


seine Werkstatt. Berlin.

STUCKY, R. 1984. Tribune dEchmoun: ein


griechischer Reliefzyklus des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.
in Sidon. Basel.

WAGNER, P. 1980. Der gyptische Einfluss auf die


phnizische Architektur. Bonn.

STUCKY, R. 1993. Die Skulpturen aus dem EschmunHeiligtum bei Sidon. Griechische, rmische,
kyprische und phnizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6.
Jahrhundert vor Chr. bis zum 3. Jahrhundert nach
Chr. Basel.

WESENBERG, B. 1971. Kapitelle und Basen.


Beobachtungen zur Entstehung der griechischen
Sulenformen. Dsseldorf.
WRIGHT, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria
and Palestine. Leiden.

STUCKY, R.A. et al. 2005. Das Eschmun-Heiligtum bei


Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. Basel.

YADIN, Y. 1972. Hazor. London.

104

You might also like