israel museum studies in archaeology volume 8...

Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology Volume 8 · 2016‒2017

Israel Museum Studies in ArchaeologyVolume 8 • 2016‒2017

An annual publication ofThe Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Archaeology Wing,The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

This volume was made possible byThe Montgomery Securities and FriendsEndowment Fund of the Israel Museum

Additional support was provided byDr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn, Zurich

Editor: Silvia RozenbergAssociate editors: Shirly Ben-Dor Evian, Debby Hershman English editor: Miriam Feinberg VamoshAdvisory Board: Tallay Ornan, Rina Talgam, Haim Goldfus

Design adaptation: Batya SegalOriginal design concept: Masha PozinaPrinted by Elinir Digital Print, Petah Tikva

All correspondence and papers for publication should be addressed to:

The EditorIsrael Museum Studies in ArchaeologyThe Israel Museum, JerusalemP.O.B. 71117, Jerusalem 9171002Israel

E-mail address: [email protected]

ISSN 1565-3617© The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2017All rights reserved

Front cover: Bronze candelabra and lamps from a Byzantine hoard, 6th century CE

Back cover: Bezel design of a bronze signet ring from a Byzantine hoard, 6th century CE (drawn from the positive)

Yigal Bloch and Laura A. Peri 2 I Placed My Name There: The Great Inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I,

King of Assyria, from the Collection of David and Cindy Sofer, London

Rachel Caine Kreinin 57 “Divine Reflexivity”: a Case Study of Greco-Roman Egyptian Terracotta

Figurines from the Collection of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem

Orit Peleg-Barkat, Hillel Geva and 74 A Monumental Herodian Ionic Capital Ronny Reich from the Upper City of Jerusalem

Ronny Reich 89 Addendum 1: Where was the Capital Incorporated?

Orit Peleg-Barkat, Hillel Geva 91 Addendum 2: A Monumental Herodian Ionic Capital from the Royal Stoa? – a Reply to Ronny Reich

Tali Sharvit 97 A Marble Sphinx Statue from Horvat Omrit

Moshe Fischer, Arie Nissenbaum and 116 Appendix: Yannis Maniatis Marble Analysis of the Omrit Sphinx

Karni Golan, Haim Goldfus and 117 Why Hide? – Hoarding in Late David Mevorah Antiquity in View of a Byzantine Hoard from Israel

Bruno Callegher 162 A Hoard of Byzantine Folles (ca. 610 CE) within a Hoard of Bronze Objects: Some Hypotheses 170 Information for Contributors

171 Abbreviations

Contents

An incomplete white marble sculpture of a female sphinx was found during

the 2004 excavation season in Horvat Omrit (hereafter, Omrit), in northern Israel (fig. 1).2 The sphinx, whose head is missing, is depicted with a winged human torso with female breasts on a lion’s lower part. Crouching on its hind legs, its tail curls over the right hind paw, while the forepaws are broken down from the elbows. Hair locks remain over the shoulders as well as

parts of the broken wings springing from the shoulder blades. Traces of red color

are still preserved over the nape and inside the hair curls. The sphinx is attached to a rectangular plinth with

a high, partly broken, vertical board at the back that was presumably concealed to the viewer (2:a–d).3

The statue was found in the temple complex at Omrit, where a

series of three temples was built, each new temple replacing and enveloping its

predecessor. Its exact find spot was in fill that was cleared from Area SP1, related to the secondary foundation walls of Temple II, dated to the Flavian period, within the earlier Temple I podium (fig. 3). The fill contained other sculpted marble fragments and inscriptions, fragments of architectural elements, ash, bones, plaster, pottery and glass. The sphinx was found under a marble slab with an inscription of a probable Late Roman–Byzantine date, and in the adjacent locus a Byzantine lamp was found. It seems that this sub-floor area was opened and filled in the Byzantine period.4

BackgroundThe sphinx is a hybrid mythological creature with an animal body (usually a lion) and a human head (male or female); adorned with wings and/or horns.5 Over the centuries the creature’s depiction has

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 97

A Marble Sphinx Statue from Horvat Omrit

Tali Sharvit1

The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

appeared in a remarkable variety of combi-nations that integrate various animals. The earliest artistic depictions, as a half-human, half-lion male creature, appeared in Egypt around the middle of the 3rd millennium BCE.6 From Egypt the sphinx probably spread to Mesopotamia, the Levant and the Mediterranean, usually in a religious or heroic context. In the first third of the 2nd millennium BCE, female sphinxes, depicting queens or princesses, started to appear in Egypt.7 During the 2nd mil-lennium BCE, slightly differently depicted winged presentations of the Egyptian sphinx spread to Asia and the Classical world. In the Near East and the ancient Land of Israel heraldic male and female pairs or pairs of female sphinxes became rather common.8 In Greece the sphinx was commonly depicted beginning in the archaic period in Greek art. It appeared in painting, sculpture and in funerary contexts usually with a female head, wings and a lion’s lower body. The lion’s tail sometimes

ended in a snake head and the paws were occasionally depicted as bird’s claws. From the 5th century BCE the female features, including breasts, became more prominent and the sphinx was commonly depicted in a crouching posture.

The sphinx also found its way to Greek literature and myth. While Homer has no reference to the sphinx, Hesiod (8th century BCE) refers to it as the daughter of Echidna (or Chimera) and Orthus and the sister of the Nemean Lion.9 In 5th-century Greek literature the creature was described as a young winged woman with a lion’s10 or dog’s11 lower body. In Boeotian myths, it is described as a female winged creature related to Oedipus and the city of Thebes.12 The sphinx was said to have been sent to Thebes by Hera to bring disaster to the Kadmeians. In Thebes it seized and devoured men, mostly young, every day. A riddle composed on the advice of the Muses was offered as a means of escape to her victims: “What is that which has one voice

98 T. Sharvit: A Marble Sphinx Statue

Fig. 1Map of the Omrit region

Fig. 2:a–dThe sphinx from Omrit

Fig. 3The Temple complex at Horvat Omrit

2a

2c

2b

2d

and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed?” Oedipus solved the riddle declaring that it referred to man, “for as a babe he is four-footed, going on four limbs, as an adult he is two-footed, and as an old man he gets besides a third support in a staff.” Oedipus then killed the monster, or the sphinx killed herself by throwing herself from her rock.13 Apollodorus also gives the fullest description of the sphinx: “She had the face of a woman, the breast and feet and tail of a lion, and the wings of a bird.”14

In Italy, the Etruscan sphinx followed the Greek type and gradually gained popu-larity, subsequently becoming a common theme in Roman art all over the Roman Empire. Greek, Hellenistic and Etruscan sphinxes were widely imitated; most common were the sphinxes copied from the depictions on the throne of Zeus at Olympia and on the helmet of the Athena Parthenos in Athens, both by Phidias. The Roman type was usually depicted with a classical hairstyle (a braid on the back of the neck or hair locks over the shoulders) and with stylized wings, and it incorporated animal udders on the stomach in addition to human female breasts.

In the Greek-speaking East, a region deeply influenced by Hellenistic culture, the Roman classicism of the imperial period receptively returned to Greek and Hellenistic traditions. Hence, it is no surprise that the Omrit sphinx, revealed in a Roman site in the Galilee, seems to be related to the later stage in a long evolution.

The Omrit SphinxDepicted sitting alone, the Omrit sphinx cannot be connected to the Greek myths. It should be considered the image of a hybrid creature whose meanings and depictions were already well rooted in the collective culture of the Roman world. The statue

seems to be an eclectic representation of the creature and not a direct copy of a known statue.15

In addition to the Omrit sphinx, a few other sphinxes were found in Roman Palestine. One is a fragment of an imported oil lamp from Caesarea Maritima, depicting a female sphinx crouching in a frontal pose, with outspread wings and female breasts, probably of the 1st century CE. Its legs are tightly attached and its hair is gathered behind with locks on its shoul-ders.16 Another example is a lead coffin from Akhziv decorated in relief with female sphinxes, crouching to left or right, upon a plinth. The coffin is dated to the late 2nd to mid-3rd centuries CE.17 None of these examples are similar to the Omrit sphinx.

The depiction of the Omrit sphinx is quite naturalistic and it is well conveyed by the various textures achieved by carving, such as the smooth skin, coarse hair, tender fur and delicate, feathered wings, and by the emphasized ribs and muscles under the skin. The well-proportioned body, naturally and correctly carved organs depicted by delicate plastic transitions, emphasize the superb


Fig. 4The sphinx from Omrit, detail: color preserved on the nape

work of the artist. The variety in depiction of the curls on the shoulders, the tail resting nonchalantly over the right paw, and the feathered wings break the rigid symmetry of the frontal stance, and add to its lively effect. The naturalistic nature of the statue was probably intensified by color, traces of which were preserved at the nape (fig. 4) and in the curly hair.

The curls, designed by drill and chisel work, lay gently on the shoulders (fig. 5). Inside the drilled channels for the hair, small bridges were left intentionally, a feature of Roman carving technique most likely beginning in the Antonine period.18 An early appearance of this technique can be observed in the reliefs decorating the first f loor of the scaenae frons of the theater at Perge (Asia Minor), e.g., in the images of a river god and a nymph. The friezes of Perge belong to the early stage of the theater’s construction, dated by some scholars to the Hadrianic-Antonine period.19 This dating would mark this work as one of the earliest appearances of this stylistic feature in relief.20 The earliest three-dimensional statues

featuring this hairstyle technique are also dated to the Antonine period, for example in the statues of Dionysos from Ephesus (Asia Minor); the Dionysos head with a wreath and two women’s heads, presumably muses, from Nysa on the Meander (Asia Minor); and the head of Apollo or a goddess from the theater at Aphrodisias (Asia Minor), dated to the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE (fig. 6).21

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 101

Fig. 5The sphinx from Omrit, detail: upper torso

Fig. 6Head of Apollo or of a goddess, fragment of sculpture from the theater, Aphrodisias, 2nd to 3rd centuries CE

An Antonine dating of this technique’s first appearance would set a terminus post quem for dating our sphinx. The technique became a trend all around the Roman world, but was especially associated with the art of Asia Minor,22 and particularly notable in the Perge region.23 Still, an association with a specific workshop based only on this technical trait cannot be certain.

As for the wings, all that was preserved is their connection to the upper back, including some short, leaf-shaped round feathers with a central shaft. Emerging from them are long, thin, downward-curling feathers with a central shaft. From these remains it seems that the wings were relatively small, and did not continue much downward or sideward, though there is no hint to whether the wings were in a resting posture or wide open, facing upward.24

The wings resemble those depicted in 2nd–3rd century CE statues and reliefs of winged images of sphinxes, Erotes, Psychai or Victories. Depictions of Erotes usually

present small light wings emerging from the upper back, and their size and volume resemble the wings of the Omrit sphinx. The winged Erotes in a relief decorating the theater scaenae frons at Nysa on the Meander, dated to the 2nd century CE (fig. 7)25 is a good example of such appearance. The sphinx’s wings in the garland sar-cophagus from Germencik in southwestern Asia Minor, dated to the 2nd century CE, closely resemble those from Omrit (8:a‒b).26 Different types of wings, usually long but with a similar connection to the upper back, are known in images of sphinxes or Victories.27

The artist working on the Omrit sphinx chose to create delicate female breasts and hands attached to a human torso. Greco-Roman female sphinxes portray different ways of connecting the human and animal torsos: Some statues are depicted without human breasts or with the front part of the wings replacing the breasts, while others possess disproportionally large breasts or


Fig. 7Two Erotes, relief decorating the theater scaenae frons, Nysa on the Meander, 2nd century CE

have human breasts in addition to animal udders.28 Italian sphinxes of the 1st century CE, in contrast to the Omrit sphinx, usually present an animal torso with a human head and instead of a woman’s breasts they depict the upper joint of the legs and the wings’ covering feathers.29 A sphinx table support in the Israel Museum collection dated from the 1st century BCE to the 1st century CE has a similar composition, with wings replacing the female breasts (fig. 9).30 Moreover, in some of these Roman examples dogs’ legs replace the lions’ paws. Closer examples for the human torso can be seen in statues and reliefs from the Hellenistic period depicting goddesses, their Roman copies, and in images of sphinxes from the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE. A torso similar to the Omrit sphinx torso can be seen, for example, in the Hellenistic statue of the Aphrodite Anadyomene from Benghazi (Libya).31 A similar Roman example are the sphinxes on the above mentioned sar-cophagus from Germencik (8:a–b). These

examples seem to indicate that the torso and breast design of the Omrit sphinx are part of the classicism of the 2nd to 3rd centuries CE, the Greek classicism that swept Roman art from the Hadrianic period on.

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 103

Fig. 8:a–bSphinx reliefs on the Garland Sarcophagus from Germencik, 2nd century CE, details

Fig. 9Sphinx, from a table support, 1st century BCE to 1st century CE

One of the most charming details of the Omrit sphinx is the way the lion’s tail curls over the right hind paw and rests on top of it. In common sphinx depictions the tail usually curls in the lower hind quarters of the animal, or at its hips.32 The Omrit tail feature might represent a late variation of an earlier motif, well known in examples from Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Asia Minor, Crete, Cyprus and Etruria, in which

sphinxes, griffins and lions are depicted with a tail emerging from behind, continu-ing under or next to the hip and rising over it.33 The specific depiction of the tail resting over the paw was observed in various statues in Asia Minor as well as in the Land of Israel, as, for example, in a statue from Erez in the Negev, dated 210–211 CE. This statue depicts a crouching female griffin with bent hind legs, right foreleg resting over the Nemesis fate wheel, and tail resting gently over the left foreleg.34 Sphinxes adorning the corners of a garland sarcophagus from Perge (fig. 10)35 and on the sarcophagus from Germencik (fig. 8:a–b), both dated to the 2nd century CE, have a similar pose with their tails resting over the rear left paw. A similar posture

can be seen in a statue from Ephesus of the first half of the 2nd century CE (fig. 11).36 The last is probably a Roman copy of the sphinxes attacking young men described by Pausanias as decorating the armrests of the throne, in the chryselephantine statue of Zeus in Olympia, by Pheidias.37 One might wonder whether this tail was also a feature of the original renowned work. The tail motif, rather common in Hellenistic and Roman Asia Minor and the East, is quite rare in the western parts of the Roman Empire.

The artist who produced the sphinx from Omrit used Greek and Hellenistic models, combining traditions typical of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire creating a newly integrated Roman image.38 He might have been inspired by ancient models or their copies, imitating the general theme, posture, depiction of the ribs, textures, hair-style, human torso etc. of ancient examples.39 The classicist creation of the Roman artist seems to symbolize an attempt to imitate Classical and Hellenistic artistic traditions and merge them into a new Roman style, in which the depictions of


Fig. 10Sphinx relief, sarcophagus from Perge, Asia Minor, 2nd century CE, detail

Fig. 11Sphinx attacking a youth, sculpture, Ephesus, first half of the 2nd century CE (reconstruction)

the wings, tail and torso are the outcome of new work methods, innovations and trends, which drifts away from the early trends into a new pronounced classicist creation. A panther, depicted on a sarcophagus at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, presents a creation made in the same spirit (fig. 12): The depiction of the muscles, the naturalistic rendering of texture and volume and the delicate transitions, the fur over the legs, similar paws and the drill work of the hair are all similar to the Omrit sphinx.40

Indeed, the various comparisons indicate that the sphinx from Omrit is a Roman classicist and eclectic creation that cannot be dated earlier than the Antonine period, with a probable range of dating well into the 3rd century CE.

Artist’s Origin and Source of MarbleSince no marble quarries exist in the Land of Israel, the statue must have originated from one of the Roman provinces rich in marble, either brought as a complete product, or what seems less probable – partially sculpted.41 Marble statues found in the region usually bear stylistic and technical characteristics

seemingly typical of the major schools in Asia Minor, as those at Ephesus and Aphrodisias.42 In Roman Palestine, Greek marbles were less common than the Asia Minor types; however, marble analysis of the Omrit sphinx (Appendix 1) determined that the marble originated from the quarry of Marathi in the Island of Paros (Greece). Most of the marble from Greece used to manufacture statues or sarcophagi came from the Pentelikon, whereas marble from Thasos, Hymmetus and Paros was mainly designated for sculptures, and even then in small quantities.43

The absence of indicative parts of the sphinx, such as its face or a fabric, makes it difficult to detect a specific regional style, but some points indicate that Greece was not the statue’s place of origin. The texture of skin at the neck, shoulders and breasts, for example, was polished and smoothed, a technique not characteristic to the ateliers in Greece (Attica and Peloponnese) during the Roman period. Furthermore, the drill used for carving the hair was rarely used for this purpose by artists in Greek ateliers.44

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 105

Fig. 12Relief of sarcophagus with the Triumph of Dionysos and the Seasons, ca. 260–270 CE, detail: panther depicted on the front

Therefore, we can deduce that the sphinx was not a product of a Greek workshop.

Regional sculpture workshops also existed in various centers in Asia Minor, like Aphrodisias, Ephesus, Side and Perge, during the 1st to 3rd centuries CE.45 Sculpture from these areas from the end of 1st to the 3rd centuries CE featured a typical “Asiatic” style, different from the Greek sculptural styles.

Based on its preserved stylistic details, it seems rather clear that the sphinx from Omrit was carved in the “Asiatic” style of one of Asia Minor’s artistic centers, as two of the “Asiatic” characteristics can be seen in this piece: the emphasized drill-work in the hair, and the roughly blocked-out neck support. In the statue the neck support was broken, but is still partly detectable (fig. 13).46 Regretfully the sphinx’s state of preservation does not permit a clear and positive association with one of the Asiatic centers.

One can easily notice the stylistic resemblance of the Omrit Sphinx to a Roman sphinx table support from Alabanda in Asia Minor (fig. 15)47: The muscle design, the naturalistic depiction of texture and volumes, the delicate transitions, the paw shape and even the position of the tail are alike. Thus, the two were most likely a product of the same “Asiatic” sculptural tradition, despite the fact that the statue was sculpted from Greek Parian marble. In fact, the relationship between technique or style of an artwork and the origin of the material is not necessarily linear. Technique and style usually indicate the training center of the artist rather than the actual working location, let alone the provenance range of the marble used. An artist from Asia Minor could, in all probability, create a statue from a block of imported marble brought to the atelier, in one way or another, and vice versa – he might seek work in a workshop far from home. For example, several sarcophagi found in Israel show no


Fig. 13The sphinx from Omrit, from above

Fig. 14 (right)Nemesis, sculpture, Perge, 2nd century CE, detail: neck support

relation between their sculptural style and their marble origin.48 Furthermore, a group of statues from Copenhagen assumed, due to their style, to be from Asia Minor were actually executed in marble from Carrara (Italy), as artists from Aphrodisias were known to work in other centers as well.49 A statue base in Paros was signed by Marcus Kossutios from Aphrodisias, indicating the nomadic spirit of the artists.50 Similarly, the Omrit sphinx was carved from Parian marble by an artist trained in the “Asian” sculptural tradition, working in Paros or even in the Land of Israel,51 or more likely,

the marble was imported from Paros to one of the major workshops of Asia Minor where it was carved.

Function and MeaningIn the ancient world sphinxes had diverse meanings, either positive or negative. They could personify the pharaohs as in Egypt, guard the gates as in the Hittite kingdom, take the life of young men as in Greece, or be protective creatures displayed over shields, tombstones, sarcophagi and urns, their terrible gaze threatening any disturbance to the deceased as in examples

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 107

Fig. 15Sphinx table support, Alabanda, Roman period

from the ancient Mediterranean area. In Classical times sphinxes were occasionally placed in temples and adorned vessels and buildings as ceremonial offerings. It seems that the cruel and intimidating meanings of early Greek mythology and culture were gradually softened during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods as their symbolic cultic nature gave way to an ornamental function.52 Thus, throughout the Roman period sphinxes decorated table supports, vessels and candelabras, and were depicted in wall-paintings and mosaic f loors. Their meaning was not constant; sometimes they represented a heavenly figure or its close companion with their significance changing accordingly. When associated with Artemis from Ephesus or Athena Parthenos the sphinx could symbolize wisdom, while next to Nemesis it personified Egypt.53 When depicted as décor in tombs, urns and sar-cophagi, they still retained clear apotropaic meaning but essentially, their role was ornamental.

As a decorative piece, the Omrit sphinx could have been part of a common and quite popular table, usually equipped with a single support (monopodia), shaped as an animal or animal’s leg. Numerous examples of such tables have, as support, an animal or sphinx crouching over a f lat base with a rounded or squared, thin, high column connected to their upper back to support the table board. Sphinx wings rising from the sides usually hide the supporting column (fig. 9).54 The wings in the Omrit sphinx emerge from the upper back, leaving no room for a support of this type, because of the neck support on the nape and above it, the hair. The excavators rightly conclude that the angle of the figure’s position, and especially the wings protruding upward, makes it difficult to regard the sculpture as a table support.55

Sphinx depictions functioning as guardians of the sacred were very popular in the ancient world, especially when integrated in temples, city gates, palaces, tombs and sarcophagi. Sphinxes also adorned thrones and ceremonial vessels. On a throne the sphinx informed the viewer of the presence of divinity, highlighting the importance of the figure sitting on it.56 Therefore, if a cultic site featured an impressive throne, sphinxes might have adorned its armrests. Thrones became rather popular in Rome’s official events, following Greek prototypes, though more grandiose. They were richly decorated, in most cases with a round or rectangular back and animal - or monster - shaped armrests.57 Sphinx thrones in a royal context were an earlier creation of the Levant, with Egyptian prototypes. They had sphinxes standing or crouching with spread wings, supporting the seat. The type was rather common in the Phoenician realm during the 2nd and 1st millennia BCE.


Fig. 16Sphinx Throne with the statue of Venus Heliopolitana (Atargatis), Baalbek, Roman period

Some of those thrones were empty, while others served as seats for statues of the gods. The Phoenician throne was adapted by the Achaemenid rulers in the East, and in Punic and Roman provincial contexts in the West. Hellenistic and Roman thrones continued to be popular, reviving earlier iconographic models.58 The throne from Baalbek (today in Lebanon) with the statue of Venus Heliopolitana (Atargatis), dated to the Roman period, is one example (fig. 16).59 Omrit’s location and its proximity to Phoenicia might have had some influence, resulting in the presence of a sphinx throne, well rooted in the religious art of the area, as the seat of a cultic statue.60 But neither a second sphinx (that would have served as the other armrest) nor a cultic statue were found at the site. Moreover, in most thrones the sphinx is depicted in high relief and not as a three-dimensional statue, therefore our sphinx’s function as a throne armrest is difficult to accept.

Another possibility that should be considered is that the sphinx adorned the edge of a bench or an elongated architec-tonic element. One can see such an example in the sphinxes probably placed in both ends of the balteus61 in the late 1st century CE theater at Verona (Italy) (fig. 17:a–b).62 The posture of the Verona sphinx is similar to that of the Omrit sphinx and the connection to the vertical slab at its rear is similar as well.63

Another option is that the sphinx might be one of a guardian pair f lanking an entrance or a passageway. For example, Daniel N. Schowalter brings a comparison to a pair of sphinxes from Egypt in the British Museum, dated to the 2nd century

CE that could have originally been placed at the entrance to the tomb of a Greek inhabitant in Egypt (fig. 18).64

Finally, taking into account the pos-sibility that the earlier temple at the site was an Augusteum dedicated by Herod to Augustus and Rome, it is interesting that the sphinx carried a deep significance in Augustus’ time. As early as the 30s BCE the sphinx was considered as a symbol of hope. Under Julius Caesar it was depicted on coins and then by Octavian on his seal. After the battle of Actium it appeared on coins in the eastern part of the empire, as well as on Augustus’ armor in the statue

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 109

Fig. 17:aMarble Sphinx placed in the edge of the balteus in the theatre at Verona, end of the 1st century CE

Fig. 17:bHypothesis of a sphinx position in relation to the balteus in the theater at Verona.

from Prima Porta, following the triumph over the Parthians.65 If so, our sphinx, later in date, might hark back to an Augustean tradition.

Whatever the original meaning may have been, one last question must be asked: Did the later inhabitants of the site, who were Christian, see magic power or a threat in the hybrid creature and therefore threw it, defaced, into the fill of a pit once the temple lay in ruin? Was the decapitation an act of iconoclasm, known from other examples in the Byzantine period,66 or the result of different circumstances? The answer is still unclear.

To sum up, the Omrit sphinx should be dated to the second half of the 2nd century or the 3rd century CE. Made of Parian marble, it was most likely produced in one of the major art centers of Asia Minor, executed in the Asiatic classicistic spirit, and was probably shipped to the temple at Omrit

sometime in the 3rd century CE. It might have functioned as one of a pair that f lanked a furnishing of some kind, such as a bench, or guarded an entrance or a passageway. In any event, although the function and partic-ular meaning of the Omrit sphinx remains inconclusive it is still the largest sculptured find at Omrit yet found, and an outstanding and beautiful example of Roman sculpture in the East.

1 Photos: ©The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Vladimir Naikhin (figs. 2:a–d, 4, 5, 13); by Elie Posner (fig. 9); ©Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien (fig. 11); ©the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (fig. 12); ©The Archaeological Museum at the Roman Theatre, Verona, inv. no. 22157 (fig. 17:a); ©Silvia Rozenberg (fig. 18); Photo by the author (figs. 6, 7, 8:a–b, 10); after Nelson 2015. 85, fig. 1 (fig. 1) and 88, fig. 5A (fig. 3); after Wiegand, 1921, taf. 13 (fig. 16).

Drawings: ©The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, by Alexander Bogdanovsky (fig. 14); by Michael Smelansky (fig. 15); ©Margherita Bolla, Civic Archaeological Museum at the Roman Theater, Verona, by Daniele Vanzo (fig. 17:2).

I would like to thank the excavators of the Horvat Omrit expedition, J. Andrew Overman, Daniel N. Schowalter, and Michael C. Nelson, who granted me permission to publish the statue and kindly helped in any way needed; thanks are due also to David Mevorach and Silvia Rozenberg from The Israel Museum, Jerusalem who guided the research, to Moshe Fischer, Arie Nissenbaum, and Yannis Maniatis for their contribution of the Appendix dealing with the marble analysis and to Rina Talgam, Gaby Mazor, Daphna Ben-Tor, Adi Erlich, Lotem Pinchover and Rachel Caine-Kreinin, for their warm assistance. A preliminary report of the research was presented in a poster at the Tel Hai Conference “Tradition and Transition,” June 24–25, 2012, Tel Hai Academic College.

2 For more information about the temple complex at Omrit see Nelson 2015.

3 The statue, broken in three parts, was cleaned and restored by Victor Uziel, of the Israel Museum’s conservation laboratory. It is 58 cm high (including the base), 20 cm wide and 42 cm long. The plinth on which the statue stands is 3.5 cm high, 19.5 cm wide and 28 cm long; its front side is broken. The partly broken board at the rear is preserved to a height of 39 cm; it is 15.5 cm wide and 7 cm thick


Fig. 18Sphinx, sculpture, Upper Egypt, second century CE

and its vertical sides end with a bordering scotia profile.

4 See Schowalter, 2011, 76. The description is also based on discussions with the excavators.

5 See Schachter 1996; Kourou et al. 1997, 1149–1174; Reinach 1965, Vol. I, 6–7, 25, 28, 120, 123, 128, 617, Vol. II, 703–709, Vol. III, 206–207, 285, Vol. IV, 446–450, Vol. V, 403–408, Vol. VI, 146–148; Demisch 1977; Fink 1998, 197–198; Goodnick Westenholz 2004, 35–36.

6 E.g. the big Sphinx-Pharaoh crouching at Giza (2520–2494 BCE).

7 Keller 2005a; Keller 2005b; Keller 2005c; Russmann, 2005.

8 E.g. Aruz 2008, 142–146; Cluzan 2008, 369–371.9 Hesiod, Theogony 326. First mentioned in Greece

by Hesiod, the origin of the name Sphinx is vague. In Egypt the creature had no specific name. In Greece the name was related to the Greek verb sphingein which means grasp, hold, tighten, strangle.

10 Euripides, The Phoenician Women, 806–809, 1019–1025.

11 Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 391.12 Apollodorus, The Library 3. 5. 7–9. Apollodorus

(Pseudo-Apollodorus, 2nd century CE) and others wrote that the Sphinx was sent by Hera to punish Laios for his illegal love for Chrysippos. In other versions of the story the sphinx was sent by Ares, Dionysos or even by Hades to pester the Thebans (see e.g. Euripides, The Phoenician Women, 810).

13 Apollodorus, The Library 3. 5. 7–9.14 Apollodorus, The Library 3. 5. 8.15 On Roman copies discovered in the Land of Israel

see Gersht 1996.16 Sussman 1999, 116–117, fig. 4.17 Rahmani 1999, 61–62, figs. 177–178, cat. nos. 8,

18, pls. 4, 10. And see there one more lead coffin from the Hefer Valley decorated with sphinxes. There are more Roman sphinxes said to be from Israel, but without a clear archaeological context, see e.g. a marble sculpture of a female sphinx, of the 1st–2nd centuries CE (Archaeological Center Auction Catalogue 2011).

18 Strong and Claridge 1976, 200.19 Gärtner 2007, 220–231, fig. 586.20 The technique becomes rather common in friezes

and sarcophagi reliefs from the Antonine-Severan period, especially in the 3rd century CE, as for instance in the hair of the Oceanus masks on a sarcophagus from Rome dated to 164–182 CE

(Bober and Rubinstein 1986, 229–30, no.196), or in the hair of several figures depicted on the Meleager sarcophagus in the Louvre, dated around 190 CE (Zanker and Ewald 2012, figs. 51–52).

21 Aurenhammer 1990, 62–64, nos. 41–42; Gärtner 2007, figs. 704–705; Kenan 1989, 86, fig. 119.

22 The same hair technique was observed in several statues and reliefs from the ancient Land of Israel. Rivka Gersht attributed the technique to Asia Minor artists (Gersht 1982, 46; Gersht 1987, p. 21 no. 12, p. 24–25, no. 16, p. 37, no. 31, 123–124; see also Fischer and Grossmark 1996, 476, fig. 7).

23 M. Edip Özgür points out the unique sculptural style of Perge, characteristic in its hair style, skin rendering and facial features (Özgür, 2010, 12).

24 At the left elbow a rounded bulk was preserved that might be mistaken as part of the open wing, but is more likely to be a part of the fur on the lion’s hind legs.

25 Newby 2003, figs. 56–57.26 Strocka 1978, pls. CCX:23–24; CCXII:28–29. Fig.

8:a–b Photographed by the author at the Izmir Archaeology Museum.

27 See e.g. the winged Victories depicted on the spandrels of the Severan Arch in Leptis Magna (Bandinelli et al. 1966, figs. 30, 36).

28 E.g. Kourou et al. 1997, nos. 31, 55, 58, 248, 268, 271–272, 280–281, 306; Gärtner 2007, fig. 674.

29 Moss 1988, cat. nos. A73, A75, A76, A90, all dated from the Augustan to the middle of the Julio-Claudian period.

30 Fig. 9: The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, see Rozenberg 2004.

31 Hill 1981, pl. X, Fig. 16. See also the Aphrodite from Sidon (Jidejian 2007, fig. 218).

32 See e.g. Moss 1988, cat. nos. A76, A90; Kourou et al. 1997, nos. 58, 59, 268.

33 See e.g. Aruz 2008, 143, fig. 46; Cluzan 2008, 369, cat. no. 235a; Solomidou-Ieronymidou 2001, 173, fig. 4:1–2, 176, fig. 5:1–5; Demisch 1977, figs. 25, 31, 32, 34, 42, 74, 96, 97, 138, 325, 344.

34 Avida 1986. A similar presentation was found in lamps from Dor (Rosental-Heginbottom 2012, 311–319) along with a marble paw and a small section of a wheel, presumably of a griffin statue from Dor (Rosental-Heginbottom 2010, 213–221).

35 Fig. 10: photographed by the author at the Antalya Archaeology Museum.

36 Kourou et al. 1997, 1173, no. 319. Fig. 11: Reconstruction in the Ephesus Museum, by courtesy of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien. (Original fragments inv. no. I 1536). Reconstruction

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 111

© Institut für Klassische Archäologie, Universität Wien.

37 Pausanias, Description of Greece, 5. 11. 1–2. See reconstruction in Aurenhammer 1990, s. 110, no. 148.

38 On Roman Sculpture in the Land of Israel: Foerster 2008; Gersht 2002, and see references there.

39 Variations of Classical types similar, for example, to the sphinx relief depicted on a sarcophagus lid from Sidon, dated to 425 BCE (Kourou et al. 1997, 1156–1157, no. 102; Jidejian 2007, fig. 66) were known in Hellenistic and Roman times.

40 Fig. 12: by courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. See Picón et al. 2007, 400–401, 497, no. 470. The sarcophagus was dated to 260–270 CE. Its provenance is unknown as it comes from a private collection, it was presumably found in Rome in the 18th century. The marble is from the Eastern Mediterranean.

41 Marble reached our region in the Roman period from six main quarries: Afyon/Aphrodisias, Pentelikon, Thasos, Paros, Hymettus/Carrara and Marmara, see Fischer 2009a, 402. The marble import came to a considerable peak during the years 190–220 CE (Fischer, 1998, 212).Evidence from sunken ships indicates that statues in various production states, partly or fully carved, were shipped from quarries or production centers to locations all around the Mediterranean (Gersht 1982, 44–47). See also Friedland (1997; 2012) methodological study of the marble sculptures from Panias – the Roman city located 4.3 km northeast of Omrit.

42 As concluded by Friedland in her research of the statues from Banias, see Friedland 1997, 45–47; 2012, 24 and references there.

43 Fischer 1998, 258.

44 Friedland 1997, 48–51; 2012, 24–25 and references there.

45 Friedland 1997, 54; Rockwell 2008. Inter-center influences and transfer of artists from one center to the other makes it rather difficult to characterize the differing styles of those centers.

46 Friedland 1997, 52–54; 2012, 24–25; Foerster 2000, p.138. See also the statue of Nemesis from Perge of the 2nd century CE (Özgür 2010, 61, no. 23), in which the hair-dress integrates above the neck support the same way it was probably done in the Omrit sphinx (fig. 14: Drawing after photo taken by the author at the Antalya Archaeology Museum).

47 Fig. 15: drawing designed at the Aydin Archaeology Museum, Turkey.

48 Gersht 1987, 120–121; Fischer 1998, 256–257.

49 Squarciapino 1991, 126.

50 de Chaisemartin 1999, 261.

51 See discussions on this subject: Gersht 1982, 44–47; Gersht 1987, 120–121; Fischer 2009b.

52 Goodnick Westenholz 2004, 35–36.

53 Kourou et al. 1997, 1174.

54 Moss 1988, 18–19; Richter 1966, 112–113. Also, in wall paintings from the Pompeii area sphinxes can be seen supporting water basins and fountains in a manner that resembles the table supports. See e.g. the wall painting at the House of Ceius Secundus (Jashemski 1979, 70, fig. 113).

55 Schowalter 2011, 77.

56 Demisch 1977, 222.

57 Richter 1966, 99–101.

58 Gubel 1987, 37–75.

59 Metzger 1985, pl. 118:1218. Fig. 16: The National Museum in Istanbul, photo after Wiegand, 1921, taf. 13.

60 This regional influence is exhibited in the Temple at Kedesh as well (Ovadiah and Turnheim 2011, 25–34).

61 A wall separating three rows of seats for eminent members of the audience on the orchestra from the standard rows of seats in the cavea.

62 Fuchs, 1987, fig. 57, no. 4, AIIa6. 7, s. 116; Bolla 2010, 14–16, 43–45, figs. 26–27, 73–79. Fig. 17:a–b by courtesy of the Archaeological Museum at the Roman Theatre, Verona, inv. no. 22157.

63 A similar use was observed in the public garden of the Triangular Forum at Pompeii, in which a lion’s paw with a bird’s wing adorns the end of a bench. It also stands on a plinth that is attached to a rear board (Farrar 1998, 37).

64 Schowalter 2011, 77. Fig. 18: Photo taken at The British Museum, London, EA 1604. Another example comes from a Hellenistic tomb in the cemetery of Mustapha Pasha in Alexandria, where at the entrance to room 8 were two sphinxes (Grimm 1998, 94–95, fig. 93).

65 Zanker 1988, 269–272.

66 Tsafrir and Foerster 1997, 128–130.


Bibliography

Primary Sources

Apollodorus The Library. Loeb Classical Library, Vol. I.

Trans. J. G. Frazer. Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1939.

Euripides The Phoenician Women. Trans. P. Burian and

B. Swann. New York and Oxford, 1981.

Hesiod Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia. Loeb

Classical Library, Vol. I. Trans. G. W. Most. Cambridge, Mass. and London (2006).

Pausanias Description of Greece. Loeb Classical Library,

Vol. II. Trans. W. H. S. Jones and H. A. Ormerod. Cambridge, Mass. and London (1966).

Sophocles

Ajax, Electra, Oedipus Tyrannus. Loeb Classical Library, Vol. I. Trans. H. Lloyd-Jones. Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1994.

Secondary Sources

Archaeological Center Auction Catalogue2011 Archaeological Center, Auction No. 51,

October 17th, 2011, Tel Aviv, lot no. 523.

Aruz, J.2008 Ritual and Royal Imagery. In Beyond

Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., eds. J. Aruz, K. Benzel, and J. M. Evans, 136–150. New Haven and London.

Aurenhammer, M. 1990 Die Skulpturen von Ephesos Bildwerke aus

Stein Idealplastik I. Vienna.

Avida, U.1986 Griffin. In Treasures of the Holy Land -

Ancient Art from the Israel Museum, ed. P. J. O’Neill, 234, no. 120. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Exh. Cat., New York.

Bandinelli, R. B., Caffarelli, E. V., and Caputo, G. 1966 The Buried City: Excavations at Leptis Magna.

London.

Bober, P. P., and Rubinstein, R.1986 Renaissance Artists & Antique Sculpture:

A Handbook of Sources. London.

Bolla, M.2010 Il Teatro Romano di Verona e le sue Sculture.

Verona.

Cluzan, S.2008 Cyprus: An International Nexus of Art and

Trade. In Beyond Babylon: Art, Trade, and Diplomacy in the Second Millennium B.C., eds. J. Aruz, K. Benzel, and J. M. Evans, 311–386. The Metropolitan Museum of Art Exh. Cat., New Haven and London.

de Chaisemartin, N.1999 Technical Aspects of the Sculptural

Decoration at Aphrodisias in Caria. In Archéomatériaux: marbres et autres roches: actes de la IVème Conférence internationale de l ’Association pour l ’ étude des marbres et autres roches utilisés dans le passé (Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity IV, Bordeaux-Talence, 9–13 Octobre 1995), ed. M. Schvoerer, 261–267. Bordeaux.

Demisch, H. 1977 Die Sphinx: Geschichte ihrer Darstellung von

den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Stuttgart.

Farrar, L.1998 Ancient Roman Gardens. Gloucestershire.

Fink, G. 1998 Who‘s Who in der Antiken Mythologie.

Trans. H. Livnat. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Fischer, M.L., and Grossmark, T. 1996 Marble Import and Marmorarii in Eretz-Israel

during the Roman and Byzantine Period. EI, no. 25: 471–483 (Hebrew).

Fischer, M.L. 1998 Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the

Marble Trade, with Contributions by Z. Pearl and T. Grossmark. Konstanz.

1999 “…On Parian pillars” (The Book of Esther 1:6): Bible, Midrash and Real Marble in the Ancient Near East. JJS 50, no. 2: 235–245.

2009a Marble from Pentelicon, Paros, Thasos and Proconnesus in Ancient Israel: An Attempt at a Chronological Distinction. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity, Thassos 15– 20 September, 2003 (Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity VII). BCH Suppl. 51. ed. Y. Maniatis, 399–412. Athens.

2009b Sculpture in Roman Palestine. Import and Local Production: an Overview. In Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux: techniques, styles et iconographie, eds. V. Gaggadis-Robin, A. Hermary, M. Reddé and C. Sintes (Actes du Xe Colloque International sur l’art Provincial Romain, Aix-en-Provence et Arles, 21–23 Mai 2007), 401–415. Arles.

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 113

Foerster, G.2008 Marble Sculpture of the Roman Period in

the Near East and its Hellenistic Origins. In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East: Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power, eds. Y. Z. Eliav, E. A. Friedland and S. Herbart, 69–90. Leuven, and Dudley, Massachusetts.

Friedland, E.A. 1997 Roman Marble Sculpture from the Levant: The

Group from the Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi (Panias). Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

2012 The Roman Marble Sculptures from the Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi/Panias (Israel). ASOR Archaeological Reports, no. 17. Boston.

Fuchs, M. 1987 Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung römischer

Theater in Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum. Mainz.

Gärtner, J. 2007 The Architectural Sculpture in Roman Public

Buildings from the Time of Augustus to the End of the Second Century A.D. in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine. Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Gersht, R. 1982 Roman Sculpture in Eretz Israel. M.A. thesis.

Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

1987 The Sculpture of Caesarea Maritima. Ph.D. diss., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

1996 Roman Copies Discovered in the Land of Israel. In Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, eds. R. Katzoff, Y. Petroff, and D. Schaps, 433–450. Ramat Gan.

2002 ‘Imperial’, ‘Local’ and ‘Provincial’ – Their Definition and Reflection in Roman Sculpture Uncovered in Eretz-Israel. Michmanim 16: 61–73 (Hebrew).

Grimm, G. 1998 Alexandria: die erste Königsstadt der hellenis-

tischen Welt. Mainz.

Gubel, E.1987 Studia Phoenicia VII, Phoenician Furniture.

Leuven.

Goodnick Westenholz, J. 2004 Fabulous Flying Beasts. In Dragons, Monsters

and Fabulous Beasts, ed. J. Goodnick Westenholz, 32–37. Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, Exh. Cat., Jerusalem.

Jashemski, W. F.1979 The Gardens of Pompeii, Herculaneum and the

Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius. New Rochelle.

Jidejian, N.2007 Sidon Through the Ages. Beirut.

Keller, C. A.2005a Two Colossal Sphinxes of Hatshepsut.

In Hatshepsut From Queen to Pharaoh, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, ed. R. H. Catharine, 164–165, no. 88. New Haven and London.

2005b Hatshepsut as a Maned Sphinx. In Hatshepsut From Queen to Pharaoh, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, ed. R. H. Catharine, 166, no. 89. New Haven and London.

2005c Relief with Hatshepsut as a Sphinx. In Hatshepsut From Queen to Pharaoh, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, ed. R. H. Catharine, 166–167, no. 90. New Haven and London.

Kenan, T.E. 1986 Aphrodisias: City of Venus Aphrodite. London.

1989 Aphrodisias: Ein Führer durch die antike Stadt und das Museum. Istanbul.

Kourou, N., Komvou, M., Raftopoulou, S., Krauskopf, I., and Katakis, S. E.

1997 Sphinx. LIMC 8: 1149–1174. Zurich.

Metzger, M.1985 Königsthron und Gottesthron: Thronformen und

Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vorderen Orient im dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung für das Verständnis von Aussagen über den Thron im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Moss, C. F.1988 Roman Marble Tables. Ph.D. diss., Princeton

University, Princeton.

Nelson, M. C.2015 The Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit 1:

The Architecture. Brill Reference Library of Judaism, no. 45. Leiden.

Newby, Z.2003 Art and Identity in Asia Minor. In Roman

Imperialism and Provincial Art, eds. S. Scott and J. Webster, 192–214. Cambridge.

Ovadiah, A., and Turnheim, Y.2011 Roman Temples, Shrines and Temene in Israel.

Rome.

Özgür, M. E. 2010 Sculptures du Musée d’Antalya. Ankara.


Picón, C. A., Mertens, J. R., Milleker, E. J., Lightfoot, C. S., and Hemingway, S. 2007 Art of the Classical World in The Metropolitan

Museum of Art: Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome. New Haven and London.

Rahmani, L. Y.1999 A Catalogue of Roman and Byzantine Lead

Coffins from Israel. Jerusalem.

Reinach, S. 1965 Répertoire de la Statuaire Grecque et Romaine

I‒VI. Rome.

Richter, G. M. A.1966 The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and the

Romans. London.

Rockwell, P.2008 The Sculptor’s Studio at Aphrodisias: The

Working Methods and Varieties of Sculpture produced. In The Sculptural Environment of the Roman Near East -Reflections on Culture, Ideology, and Power, eds. Y. Z. Eliav, E. A. Friedland and S. Herbart, 91–115. Leuven, and Dudley, Massachusetts.

Rosental-Heginbottom, R.2010 The Cult of Nemesis: The Griffin in Marble

and Clay. In Excavations at Dor Figurines, Cult Objects and Amulets 1980–2000 Seasons, ed. E. Stern, 213–221. Jerusalem.

2012 Lamps from Tel Dor (Dora) – Local Production and Egyptian Iconographic Inf luence. In Le Luminaire antique. Lychnological Acts, no. 3. Monographies Instrumentum, no. 44, ed. L. Chrzanovski, 311–319. Montagnac.

Rozenberg, S.2004 Table Support in the Shape of a Sphinx.

In Dragons, Monsters and Fabulous Beasts, ed. J. Goodnick Westenholz, 156, no. 121. Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem, Exh. Cat., Jerusalem.

Russmann, R. E.2005 Sphinx of a Queen of Thutmose III. In

Hatshepsut From Queen to Pharaoh, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, ed. H. C. Roehrig, 32–33, no. 11. New Haven and London.

Schachter, A.1996 Sphinx. The Oxford Classical Dictionary,

3rd ed., 1435. Oxford.

Schowalter, D. N. 2011 Small Finds and Inscriptions from Omrit.

In The Roman Temple Complex at Horvat Omrit: An Interim Report. BAR International Series, no. 2205, eds. J. A. Overman and D. N. Schowalter, 73–84. Oxford.

Solomidou-Ieronymidou, M.2001 The Discovery of Six Unique Cypro-Archaic

Statues at Tamassos. Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 2001: 166–182.

Squarciapino, M. F.1991 La scuola di Aphrodisias (dopo 40 anni). In

Aphrodisias Papers 2, The Theatre, a Sculptor’s Workshop, Philosophers, and Coin-Types, JRA Supplementary Series no. 2, eds. R. R. R. Smith and T. K. Erim, 123–126. Ann Arbor.

Strocka, V. M. 1978 Die frühesten Girlandensarkophage -

Zur Kontinuität der Reliefsarkophage in Kleinasien während des Hellenismus und der frühen Kaiserzeit. In Studien zur Religion und Kultur Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Friedrich Karl Dörner zum 65.Geburtstag am 28. Februar 1976. eds. S. Şahin, E. Schwertheim, and J. Wagner, 905–913, pls. CC–CCXV. Leiden.

Strong, D., and Claridge, A.1976 Marble Sculpture. In Roman Crafts, eds. D.

Strong and D. Brown, 195–207. New York.

Sussman, V.1999 Oil Lamps. In The Sdot-Yam Museum Book

of the Antiquities of Caesarea Maritima in Memory of Aharon Wagman, ed. R. Gersht, 115–138. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).

Tsafrir, Y., and Foerster, G. 1997 Urbanism at Scythopolis-Bet Shean in the

Fourth to Seventh Centuries. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51: 85–146.

Wiegand, T.1921 Baalbek: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und

Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905. Band 1. Berlin and Leipzig.

Zanker, P.1988 The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus.

Ann Arbor.

Zanker, P., and Ewald, B. C. 2012 Living with Myths: The Imagery of Roman

Sarcophagi. Oxford.

IMSA 8 • 2016–2017: 97–115 115

1 They were presented at the ASMOSIA X confer-ence (Rome, May 2012) together with other items from Hellenistic and Roman Palestine, and will be published in the Conference Proceedings (M. Fischer, with contributions by A. Nissenbaum and Y. Maniatis, forthcoming).

Appendix: Marble Analysis of the Omrit Sphinx

Horizontal: δ13C = about +4.4Vertical: δ18O = -1.8

The conclusive characterization of the sphinx sample is based on isotopic analysis (Arie Nissenbaum), in combination with the maximum grain size and marble structure (Yannis Maniatis); the latter has been defined as having very good crystallization, a high transparency and a highly calcitic texture. The marble sample taken from the sphinx seems to originate from Marathi, one of the many known quarries of the Island of Paros. The quarries of Marathi are known to have been in operation throughout Hellenistic times and up to the 1st and probably 2nd centuries CE.

The marble analysis graph was produced by Arie Nissenbaum and by Yannis Maniatis. The results were interpreted by Moshe Fischer and Yannis Maniatis.1

116 M. Fischer, A. Nissenbaum, and Y. Maniatis : Marble Analysis of the Omrit Sphinx

Moshe Fischer, Tel Aviv UniversityArie Nissenbaum, Weizmann Institute of ScienceYannis Maniatis, Demokritos Institute, Athens, Greece

170

Information for Contributors

IMSA is a peer-reviewed journal. All manuscripts submitted to IMSA will be reviewed by the editorial board and by outside readers. Preference will be given to articles related to objects in the Israel Museum’s archaeological collections or presented in the depart-ment’s exhibitions. Manuscripts should be submitted in a PC format computer file using Word, accom-panied by three copies of all illustrations, also as computer files, and of an abstract (100 words or less), to: The Editor, Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology, Bronfman Wing, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, P.O.B. 71117, Jerusalem 91710, Israel. A cover letter providing the title, author’s name, affiliation, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address should accompany all submissions.

When an article is accepted for publication, the author will be asked to provide a revised version of the manu-script that incorporates, where necessary, suggestions made by the editors and the readers and conforms to IMSA ’s reference system (described below). One hard copy of the revised manuscript and one electronic copy (f lash drive or email attachment) in Word should be re-submitted. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by original high-quality, camera-ready illustrations (photographs or drawings), numbered consecutively on the back. It is the responsibility of the author to obtain permission to reproduce any material protected by copyright. The revised manu-script should also be accompanied by a complete list of figures with captions and credit information and a full list of references used.

Authors should indicate any special problems, such as charts, diagrams, specific typesetting requirements, and provide computer files of any special fonts used. After design the final text and final figures/plates of the article will be sent to the authors for approval. At that stage, changes other than printer’s errors may not be allowed. Upon publication, authors will receive a pdf version of their article as printed.

Reference System

Reference lists should be prepared according to the following guidelines:

Book by a single author

Rahmani, L. Y.1999 A Catalogue of Roman and Byzantine Lead

Coffins from Israel. Jerusalem.

Book with a main title and subtitle

Galavaris, G.1970 Bread and the Liturgy: The Symbolism of

Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps. Madison, Milwaukee, and London.

Book by more than one author

Ovadiah, R., and Ovadiah, A.1987 Hellenistic, Roman, and Early Byzantine

Mosaic Pavements in Israel. Rome.

Book with editor as author

Tsafrir, Y., ed.1993 Ancient Churches Revealed. Jerusalem.

Book in more than one volume

Note that the name of the book and the name of the volume are italicized, but not the volume number. Volume numbers for books should be given in either Arabic or Roman figures, depending on how they appear on the volume.

Buchanan, B., and Moorey, P. R. S.1988 Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the

Ashmolean Museum III, The Iron Age Stamp Seals. Oxford.

When a volume in a multi-volume work has two or more parts

Fugmann, E.1958 Hama II.1, L’architecture des périodes pré-

hellénistiques. Copenhagen.

Book in a series

Bagatti, B.2001 Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee. Studium

Biblicum Franciscanum. Collectio Minor, no. 37. Jerusalem.

Chapter or titled part of a book

Welles, C. B.1938 The Inscriptions. In Gerasa: City of the

Decapolis, ed. C. H. Kraeling, 355–494. New Haven.

Journal article

Rahmani, L. Y.1988 Roman Lead Coffins in the Israel Museum

Collection. The Israel Museum Journal 7: 47–60.

Entry in a reference work (encyclopedia, lexicon, dictionary)

Volume numbers for books should be given in either Arabic or Roman figures, depending on how they appear on the volume.

Stager, L. E.1993 Ashkelon. The New Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land 1: 103–12. Jerusalem.

Ph.D. The Herodian Architectural Decoration, in

Light of the Finds from the Temple Mount Excavation. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew).

IMSA 171

Notes should be prepared as endnotes according to the system shown here:1 Welles 1938, 484, no. 326.2 Rahmani 1999, 43–44, figs. 123, 137;

cf. Rahmani 1988, pl. II:3.3 For a somewhat similar depiction of an arched

ciborium over a cross, with a surrounding Greek inscription reading: “Blessing of the Lord on us,” see Galavaris 1970, 119, fig. 64 (from the Byzantine Museum, Athens). The provenance of the stamp, dated to ca. 600 CE, is unknown.

Abbreviations

AASOR The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. Amman

AJA American Journal of Archaeology. Archaeological Institute of America. Boston

‘Atiqot ‘Atiqot. Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem

BAR Biblical Archaeology Review. Biblical Archaeology Society. Washington, DC

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Boston

BCH Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique

CdE Chronique d’Égypte. Turnhout

EI Eretz-Israel. Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies. Israel Exploration Society, in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem

ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem

HA Hadashot Arkheologiyot. Excavations and Surveys in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem (Hebrew)

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal. Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem

IMJ The Israel Museum Journal. Jerusalem

IMSA Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology. The Israel Museum, Jerusalem

JdI Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts. Berlin

JGS Journal of Glass Studies. The Corning Museum of Glass. Corning, New York

JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies. Cambridge

JJS Journal of Jewish Studies. Oxford

JMA Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology. Sheffield

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Chicago

JPOS The Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society. I–XXI. Jerusalem, 1920–1948

JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology. Portsmouth, Rhode Island

JSOR Journal of the Society of Oriental Research. Chicago

Levant Levant. The Council for British Research in the Levant. London

LA Liber Annuus. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum. Jerusalem

LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae. I–VIII. Zurich-Munich, 1981–1997

MAAR Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Rome

New Enc. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Israel Exploration Society. Jerusalem

PalJb Palästinajahrbuch des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts für Altertumswissenschaften des Heiligen Landes zu Jerusalem. Berlin. 1905–1941

PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome. London

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quaterly. Palestine Exploration Fund. London

Qadmoniot Qadmoniot. A Journal for the Antiquities of Eretz-Israel and Bible Lands. Israel Exploration Society and the Israel Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem (Hebrew)

QDAP The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine. I–XIV. London, 1932–1950

Qedem Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem

RB Revue Biblique. L’École Biblique et Archéologique Française. Jerusalem

RM Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Römische Abteilung). Mainz am Rhein

SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan. Amman

ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Leipzig

ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. Bonn

israel museum studies in archaeology volume 8...

Documents