the meaning of ritual

7/25/2019 The Meaning of RItual

1/32

REPRESENTATIONS AND THE MEANING

OF RITUAL CHANGE

The Case of Hadrumetum

Matthew M. McCarty

INTRODUCTION1

Ritual practices throughout the Mediterranean and beyond underwent a series of

important changes over the period of Romes hegemony. Yet while these changes

are often recognized, they are rarely discussed in depth, particularly for regions

outside of Italy; when they are treated, assumptions are made about how and what

ritual can mean or do, and frequently such assumptions differ based on the

region under discussion. By focusing on a particular case study, a sacrificial rite

that occurred in a relatively similar form over seven centuries in the North African

settlement of Hadrumetum (modern Sousse in the Tunisian Sahel; figure 1), I

want to reflect on how ritual and its transformations can be interpreted. This par-

ticular rite, usually involving sacrifice, often of an infant, the burial of the sacrifi-

cial remains in an urn, and the erection of a commemorative stele over this de-

posit, occurred in many Western Phoenician/Punic settlements throughout the

central Mediterranean from the Archaic period.2 In the Classical and Hellenistic

1 I am grateful to Simon Price for discussing the material with me, and to Angelos Chaniotis,

Teresa Morgan, Jo Quinn, and Charlotte Potts for their comments on portions of the text. I am

also deeply grateful for the assistance and hospitality offered to me by the Institut National du

Patrimoine in Tunisia, and in particular, M. Habib Ben Younes and Mme. Lamia Fersi, and to

Mme. Wafa Messaoudi for discussing her current dissertation research on the chronology of

the material from Hadrumetum. This research was conducted with a grant from the Tweedie

Exploration Fund.

2 On the rite in general: Le Glay 1966b, 297-358; Mosca 1975; Bnichou-Safar 1988 and 2004;

Ferjaoui 2007. The definition of Punic is, of course, problematic: Prag 2006. Whether or not

child sacrifice was actually practiced, or whether the urns represent the symbolic dedication

of pre-deceased children to a deity, remains hotly contested: cf. Moscati and Ribichini 1991,

with earlier bibliography; although more recent studies on the topic have appeared, these rare-

ly break new ground. While the ancient texts that describe child sacrifice may be engaging in

some form of derogatory othering similar charges were levelled against both Christians

and Jews at present, the nature of the osteological evidence precludes a firm conclusion

about the nature of this sacrifice. The inscriptions on stelae, however, may well point to child

sacrifice.


2/32

198 Matthew M. McCarty

periods, however, the rite ceased in most areas.3By contrast, from the second cen-

tury BCE, the practice spread to a range of sites along the North African coast and

in inland Tunisia and Algeria; over the Imperial period, it came into even wider

use, spreading further inland as a range of military and commercial networks de-

veloped and encouraged the movement of people, some of whom brought such

practices with them.4My argument is three-fold: in general, that there is a rela-

tionship between ritual forms and discursive religious concepts or meanings, visi-

ble when the archetypal form of a liturgy is altered; on the methodological front,

that understanding ritual change is best done by examining the frameworks used

to describe and represent ritual acts; and on the historical front, that incorporation

within the Roman Empire deeply altered the ways in which ritual communication

with the gods was conceived, at least in the region under examination.

Ritual lies at the heart of most recent accounts of the religion of the Urbs; in-

deed, for Scheid and others, Roman religion is ritual.5

Beard, North and Priceprovide an account of Roman religion focused largely upon practice that empha-

sizes the protean nature of any meanings fixed upon a rite by ancient participants

or modern scholars.6While drawing on ritual to paint a picture of Roman religion,

a particular relationship or lack thereof between gesture and significance is

supposed, often supported by contemporary anthropology; the recognition that

meaning can lie in reception, for example, has resulted in the awareness that the

same rituals can have a range of potentially divergent meanings for different par-

ticipants.7Such possibilities have created a distrust in pinning significance beyond

social function on any set of formal actions, and have led to an effort to strip ma-

ny of the conceptualized layers of ritual away, resulting in a presumed divorce

between ritual form and meaning beyond Scheids epistemological realism, or atleast a gap largely unbridgeable by the modern scholar.8Yet, as examination of

3 Outside of Africa, the rite is attested in Sicily at Motya from the late eighth to the early third

century BCE, although stelae seem to cease being produced around the time of the Greek

conquest in 397 (Moscati 1992, 19-21). In Sardinia, definite evidence for the rite appears at

Nora from the sixth century BCE to the Hellenistic period (Moscati and Uberti 1970, 43-45);

at Sulcis from the eighth century to the third century BCE (Moscati 1986, 81-84); at Monte

Sirai from the fourth century to the second century BCE (Moscati 1992, 27); and at Tharros

from the seventh to the third century BCE, although no stelae are attested in the very last pha-

ses of sanctuary use (Moscati and Uberti 1985). There are also more fragmentary remains

probably tied to this the rite in Classical Cagliari (Moscati 1981).4 Ben Abid Sadallah 2003, 103-109; McCarty forthcoming.

5 E.g., Scheid 2005; Scheid 2007. There are notable exceptions, including Bendlin 2001; Ando

2008 for Roman religion as knowledge (without ample consideration of what religious

knowledge might be and how it is constructed), but accepting many of Scheids premises.

On ritualism as modern area of enquiry and methodology that predetermines certain conclusi-

ons, Bremmer 1998.6 Beard, North, and Price 1998, 48, 125-134.

7 Cf. Beard, North, and Price 1998, 48; Rpke 2007, 110; Scheid 2007.

8 Cf. Chaniotis 2005, 144; Scheid 2005, for a minimalist view that ritual establishes a power

hierarchy. Rpke 2007, 97-106, tries to bridge the gap via structuralist categories and an idea

of ritual as communicative itself a problematic premise (cf. Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994,


3/32

Representations and the Meaning of Ritual Change: the Case of Hadrumetum 199

Hadrumetum shall show, such a divorce need not be absolute; instead, there are

clearly-observable relationships between ways of thinking and liturgical acts, and

ones which bespeak a discourse on ritual.

Ritual is far more rarely discussed in accounts of religion in the Roman Impe-

rial period beyond Italy, even in studies that are interested in looking at diachronic

cultural and religious shifts; instead, the deities and social frameworks of cult are

often given priority.9 When ritual change in the Roman provinces is discussed,

liturgical forms are often taken to have cultural weight, with changed rituals re-

flecting Romanization (or any number of roughly equivalent terms used to de-

scribe the process of cultural change) and continued rites from the pre-Roman into

the Imperial period demonstrating cultural stasis or resistance.10

Frequently, the

changes singled out are new actions added to and occasionally replacing the

types of rites that existed before; in the northwest provinces, for example, prac-

tices such as the dedication of arms in bodies of water seem to give way to ritualssuch as the erection of votive altars, while Derks argues that the Roman votumwas adopted as a new practice.11In North Africa, the dedication of votive statuary

in stone seems to represent a new ritual act in the Imperial period.12 Such new

features are often suggested to be evidence of Romanization in themselves.13

While such transformations are important, and may suggest much about the poten-

tial for additive extension in such a polytheistic system beyond the pantheon and

into the realm of cult practices, less frequently discussed are changes within re-

gionally-specific rites that continue in their basic form into the Imperial period.14

The sacrificial rite at Hadrumetum falls into this latter category. The supposed

continuity of this ritual has been used as evidence either for the permanence de

la psychologie religieuse des Africains or for cultural resistance.15 Underlying

72-76). For ancient Athens, Parker 2005, 155-159, 369-379, provides a nuanced view of what

ritual could accomplish in a social context.

9 As much as it might be explicitly disavowed, the basic thesis of Toutain 1907, which divided

gods into the categories based on origin, has been largely maintained in studies of Roman

provincial religion; deities are taken as most indicative of different religious and cultural

forms of expression. This deity-based approach most recently for North Africa: Seba 2005;

Cadotte 2007.

10 E.g., Derks 1998, with the votumas a Roman cultural form in the northwest, followed byvan Andringa 2002; Millett 1995, 99, suggesting ritual changes can demonstrate cultural

synthesis, and thus that individual forms are culturally marked in isolation; Fulford 2001,

looking at special deposits in Britain as a cultural practice with an assumed bond between ac-

tion and mentality.

11 Haynes 1997; Derks 1998, 217-231.

12 Schrner 2009, 257f.; it is worth noting though that small terracotta figurines have been

found in pre-imperial sanctuaries in Africa, the appearance of larger figures of three-quarters

lifesize to over-lifesize scale primarily in the first century CE may be tied to the more wi-

despread adoption of a statue habit which included the dedication other forms of statuary,

including honorifics.

13 E.g., Haynes 1993; Derks 1998, 231; Schrner 2009, 257.

14 Cf. Bendlin 1997.

15 E.g., Le Glay 1966b, 492; Bnabou 1976, 370-375; Ben Abid Sadallah 2003. Exceptions:

Rives 1995, 142-151, suggesting a process of change and Romanization driven by local eli-


4/32


both the accounts that see new rites as markers of Romanization and those that

see continued rites as evidence of resistance or localness is the premise that

ritual form is indicative of culture, loosely defined as a set of values, worldviews,

and their corollary actions. While few archaeologists would accept the addition of

Italian terra sigillata to a local repertoire as indicative of a deep cultural change,

somehow liturgical form has been seen as a fundamentally different form, capa-

ble of conveying mentalities or culture in itself.

The scholarship around religion at Rome and in the provinces thus moves in

two very different directions, based on the assumed meanings and significances

(or lack thereof) of ritual form. This is not entirely surprising given that anthro-

pologists, often cited in support of one view or another when interpreting ancient

material, are themselves divided over the potential of ritual and changes therein to

signify anything, ranging from Staals complete denial of meaning, to Humphrey

and Laidlaws view (particularly popular among Classicists) that ritualized actionis a semiotic blank upon which meanings are projected, to Rappaports more op-

timistic view that ritual is fundamentally a set of socially-encoded meanings.16

Without automatically denying that liturgical actions may lack any intrinsic

meaning, it is thus necessary to see how much can be said about the relationship

of ritual forms to ideas, either individual or social, to establish inductively the

possibility (or lack) of connection between forms and thought patterns or culture

in the Roman world. Looking at periods of change offers the best arena to do so,

for it is in dynamic shifts that such relational systems, in this case between form

and conception, become clearest. As a close examination of the material from

Hadrumetum shall show, ritual changes, when they affect the basic archetypal

structure of a liturgy, can be associated with wider changes in thought and culture.Demonstrating such a bond, even if loose, can pave the way for wider conclusions

about the historical significance of ritual forms and their transformations.

In order to examine this relationship, it is first necessary to survey the ar-

chaeological evidence from Hadrumetum. Then, it will be possible to make a first-

order interpretation of this material to reconstruct at least those ritual forms which

have left archaeological remains and to isolate diachronic changes and variations

in the rites. Finally, arguing that representation provides at least some evidence

for social knowledge and conceptualization, it will be possible to see the relation-

ships between ritual form and patterns of thought.

te; Schrner 2007a, looking at the changed contexts, such as timing, of the sacrificial rite in

the Imperial period.

16 Staal 1989; Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994; Rappaport 1999. It is worth noting, however, that

Humphrey and Laidlaw eagerly generalize about the universal aspects of ritual theory from

Jainism, whose fundamental supposition between the emptiness of external, personal ritual

gestures and the transformation of internal spiritual states is not at all commensurate with ge-

neral ideas about the nature of Roman religion put forth by those Romanists who cite Hum-

phrey and Laidlaw.


5/32


Figure 1. The major sites discussed in the text.

1 THE TOPHETAT HADRUMETUM

1.1 The site

Founded as a Phoenician colony along the east coast of modern Tunisia, probably

in the seventh century BCE if not before, the site of Hadrumetum served as an

important trade and military port throughout its history (figure 1). Although exca-

vations in the centre of the site have been piecemeal given modern occupation, the

nearby cemeteries and remains of monumental buildings offer some evidence for

the history and development of the site, particularly in the Imperial period when it

received the monumental accoutrements of a major urban centre, with a circus,

amphitheatre, theatre, and baths.17Yet perhaps the most distinctive and important

feature of the site is its stratigraphically-excavated tophet: the open-air sanctuaryin which the sacrificial rite described above took place.18Excavated in 1946 when wartime bombing cleared the site of post-antique

structures, the tophetshows evidence of use from at least the seventh century BCEto the second century CE. The deposits from the site could be divided into six

distinct chronological strata (figure 2), and thus offer a good picture of diachronic

17 Foucher 1964.

18 I use the term tophet, attested in the Hebrew Bible to denote a sanctuary outside of Jerusalemwhere children were sacrificed, only as a conventional descriptor for this type of sanctuary in

North Africa where burnt offerings were buried in urns.


6/32


change in ritual forms, or at least in those forms that entailed the manipulation of

the physical environment and objects in a lasting manner.19

The earliest excavated level in the tophet, Level 1, dated to the seventh/sixthcentury-fifth century BCE, contained a series of urns buried in small shelters built

from stones.20Inside the urns, the burned remains of infants, still with their nur-

sing teeth, were discovered. In addition, amulets and jewellery, many with Egyp-

tianizing motifs such as the Horus falcon, were placed in the vessels. The urns

were frequently covered with sherds of pottery before deposition.

Figure 2. The stratigraphy of the Hadrumetum tophet (after Cintas 1948).

The second level in the tophet, Level 2, was separated from Level 1 by a levelof stone paving slabs, laid probably in the late fifth century BCE, and layer of

black earth in which urns were deposited; this level continued until the third cen-

tury BCE. The urns, which still contained infants but also began to include lambs

either with the children or alone, contained less jewellery. The vessels were fre-19 The description of the site will follow the data presented in a summary fashion in Cintas

1948; although Cintas claims to have deposited his original fieldbooks in the Archives du

Service des Antiquits et Arts de Tunisie (3 note 11), archival research has failed to locate

them. I am grateful to my colleagues at the INP for helping me try to find them.

20 The chronology of the tophetat Hadrumetum is currently undergoing revision thanks to newresearch into the ceramics assemblages by Wafa Messaoudi, which will hopefully offer more

precise dates for the transitions at the site, particularly in the earlier phases. Until her thesis is

complete, Cintas dating must remain in place, but I am grateful to Mme. Messaoudi for her

preliminary thoughts. Fortunately, for the arguments put forth here, the relative chronology

matters more than the absolute chronology, and this remains unchanged from Cintas report.


7/32


quently topped with ceramic incense burners, rather than the broken sherds of

Level 1. In addition, a series of carved stelae were discovered; at least two were

found in situ, their bases planted over the deposits. These stelae will be discussedin detail later, but it is worth signalling some of their decoration in broad terms:

one stele shows a worshipper approaching an enthroned deity; two others show

figures before large incense burners.

At some point in the third century BCE, the ground level in the sanctuary was

again raised and levelled, this time with a layer of yellow sand and then a black,

sandy fill, creating Level 3, which appears to have been in use until the early sec-

ond century BCE. Urns continued to be deposited in this layer, still topped with

incense burners, although jewellery was no longer offered, and animal remains

became as common as human.21The stelae erected in this level were much larger,

and for the first time, a series was inscribed with dedications in Punic; most fol-

lowed a well-known formula in use also at Carthage and a tophet in Cirta, begin-ning with an invocation to the deity, continuing with the formula !ndr([that]which vowed) and the name of the dedicant with patronymics, and often ending

with some variation of the phrase k!m ql brk (because he heard [his] voice, heblessed [him]).

22It is worth noting that these stelae were found at a slightly hig-

her elevation than the numerous anepigraphic stelae of the level, and it may thus

be possible to speak of two distinct phases within the same stratum, 3a and 3b.

Those of level 3b were also carved from a different stone than the earlier stelae.

At the base of one of the stelae were discovered a small lead spoon and candela-

brum atop which a lamp or incense burner could be placed.

Then, in the early second century BCE, the ground level was raised substan-

tially as a very thick layer of sand, topped with ash, probably the remains fromritual pyres, was spread through the sanctuary, sealing Level 3 and creating a new

set of deposits in Level 4. Urns containing burned bones continued to be buried in

this level, although the proportion of small mammals came to nearly equal that of

infants. Stelae, generally of smaller dimensions than in Level 3, were placed

above the deposits; Cintas suggested that some showed signs of having been re-

worked from Level 3 stelae, especially to make them exactly the same height as

the increasingly standard-sized stelae of Level 4.23The stelae in this level were

frequently inscribed, and decorated with a limited range of motifs, including bot-

tles, baetyls, and the so-called sign of Tanit, in very low relief or painted on

stucco. In addition to the now tightly-packed rows of relatively homogenous-sizedstelae, a 4x4m area of burned earth was discovered, devoid of stelae. The charring

of the ground suggests that a pyre (or series of pyres) had been constructed there.

21 It is worth noting that Stagers excavations in the tophetat Carthage suggested the exact op-posite trend, with more infants later: Stager 1982. While this could point to regional variation,

it may also suggest that any report on the contents of the Hadrumetum urns, never published

in full, was incomplete or not entirely accurate.

22 On the epigraphic stelae, Fantar 1995.

23 Cintas 1948, 35.


8/32


The penultimate level, Level 5, sat atop Level 4. A coin of Germanicus, struck

as part of a restitution series under Titus, was discovered among finds for this le-

vel, offering a terminus post quem for the closing of the stratum in the late firstcentury CE.24Urns continued to be buried in this phase of the tophets use, butcontained only animal remains; infant bones disappear at this point. The deposits

were also packed more densely, with each stele sitting over several urns. The ste-

lae themselves in this level tended to be smaller and thinner, and most showed

evidence of fire damage. Although the basic iconographic repertoire included mo-

tifs used in the earlier levels, six stelae from this layer represent an entirely new

subject: sacrifice at an altar. Numerous bronze coins of the Demeter/horse type,

attested in use at other sites through the first century CE, along with a series of

round, coin-sized lead cut-outs were found all through this level, seemingly pla-

ced around the stelae.25

The fire damage on the Level 5 stelae may be indicative of a disaster whichled to the creation of the final ancient level found at the site, Level 6. Over Level

5, a series of large paving stones were laid, sealing the level, at some point after

the late first century CE. The paving stones also included broken and damaged

stelae from an earlier level, perhaps part of a taboo that demanded such offerings

be kept within the sanctuary, a phenomenon visible elsewhere across the region.26

In areas, Level 5 was preserved with stelae and offerings in situ under the pave-ment; elsewhere, any remains of Level 5 were cleared away first, leaving Level 6

right above Level 4. Stelae were planted on this pavement, around which were

deposited numerous small unguentaria; no urns were buried at this level, nor were

bones found. The stelae, squatter in form than those of Level 5, some of which

were recarved from earlier levels, frequently depict single animals, especiallybulls and rams.

The six strata from the site clearly reveal a series of changes in ritual; yet how

much can be said about the liturgical forms from this data?

24 Cintas 1948, 77.

25 Coins were found in small quantities at the Cirta tophet across the slope of the hill where the

tophet was presumably located: Berthier and Charlier 1955, 229f. Likewise, coins seem tohave been a regular part of the offering ritual around the stelae at Henchir el-Hami: Ferjaoui

2007, 57-59; notably, the coins at Henchir el-Hami, many of which can be linked to what we-

re probably first century BCE/first century CE deposits, are older Punic coins, including at le-

ast two struck before the First Punic War, that may have stayed in circulation or have been

chosen for a specific reason (e.g., giving an air of Punic antiquity to the rites) for use within

the sanctuary: Alexandropoulos 2007; Alexandropoulos and Ferjaoui 2007. On the type:

Candellieri 1989.

26 Favissae in which such offerings were collected are a common feature of such sanctuaries. Inthe pre-imperial period, they are found at Carthage itself, although a fair distance from the Sa-

lammb tophet (Bnichou-Safar 1989), and at Cirta (Berthier and Charlier 1955). In the Im-

perial period, suchfavissae were formed within the sanctuary at Thugga (Le Glay 1961, 210)and at Ammaedara (Le Glay 1961, 323-331), while at Thamugadi and Henchir el-Hami, ste-

lae were reused for later buildings of the sanctuary: Le Glay 1966a, 133; Ferjaoui 2007, 25.


9/32


1.2 Identifying ritual actions: archetypes, changes, and variations

A few caveats are necessary before moving to the interpretation of ritual forms

from the archaeological evidence at hand. First, although the archaeological re-

cord preserves only the lasting effects of those ritual actions which manipulated

physical objects and environments, and cannot offer evidence for the full range of

both physical and verbal acts which must have accompanied any single deposit,

much can still be said about the basic forms of the rites practiced at the site.

Secondly, the remains from Hadrumetum have only been studied in conjunc-

tion with remains from a similar site at Carthage, the tophetat Salammb, activefrom the eighth century BCE until at least 146 BCE, making any local distinctions

in practice nearly invisible since the data sets have often been pooled.27Neverthe-

less, the basic similarities in form do allow the Salammb evidence, used careful-

ly, to fill in certain gaps in knowledge at Hadrumetum. Likewise, a relatively si-milar modality of offering was practiced at Henchir el-Hami, located in inland

Tunisia, from the second century BCE to the second century CE in a sanctuary

that has been recently excavated and well analyzed; again, while there were cer-

tainly differences in the rituals practiced at this site, other aspects are similar

enough for Hr. el-Hami to offer an important point of comparison against which

Hadrumetum might be interpreted.28

Thirdly and finally, with the loss of Cintas field journals and photographs,

the account of the archaeological remains offered above distorts and homogenizes

the variegated nature of the deposits discovered by Cintas. The ritual practiced at

Hadrumetum, as at Carthage and Henchir el-Hami, varied considerably; of course,

all rituals however canonical allow a certain number of permutations.29Thesevariations will be left to one side for the moment, for the strong number of simila-

rities points to the existence of a basic, archetypal ritual form, practiced at Ha-

drumetum from the seventh century BCE through at least the first century CE. 30

Of course, on a related note, the rites which come across as continuous in the

archaeological record across this time span may have suffered from any number

of short-term disruptions or disturbances; the textually-attested three-year hiatus

from Jewish sacrifice at the altar in front of the Temple in Jerusalem during which

pigs were offered would unlikely be strongly marked in the archaeological re-

cord.31Yet understanding the basic ritual form is first necessary before it is possi-

ble to analyze the potential significance of changes.

27 Bnichou-Safar 1988.

28 Ferjaoui 2007.

29 Rappaport 1999.

30 Archetypal is here understood as an external, canonical form of a particular set of gestures,

akin to how it is defined in Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994, 158, as opposed to a more universa-

lized sense of archetype.

31 Chaniotis 2005, 150. A similar hiatus may also be observable in a North African sanctuary

which is often pointed to as evidence for cultic continuity from the pre-imperial period into

the High Empire, Thugga; analysis of the ceramics recorded suggests that there is no evidence


10/32


Ritual sacrifice and deposition must have been the most important event if

not the only one to take place in the tophet at Hadrumetum. The arrangement ofthe stelae in tightly-packed rows from at least Level 4, and especially in Levels 5

and 6, limited the amount of open space available for circulation or gathering in

the sanctuary. While Cintas excavations uncovered only a portion of the tophet,and excavations in Carthage have not revealed the full extent of the Salammb

sanctuary, the amount of free space seems to have been limited by the proliferati-

on of stelae and deposits; as a point of comparison, Henchir el-Hami seems to

have consisted solely of space for the stelae and urns to be deposited, and perhaps

a dump for sacrificial waste including excess bones and ash further away.32

Furthermore, these spatial limitations suggest that each individual sacrificial event

was hardly a grand spectator occasion, but involved only a small number of parti-

cipants in the ritual. Up until at least the second century CE, when many open-air

stele fields had temples built over them, these sites were hardly multi-purposesanctuaries, but were created and maintained for the purpose of one particular

ritual process: sacrifice, deposition, and stele erection.33

Little can be said about the preparations made for the sacrifices that took pla-

ce. The archaeological documentation begins at the pyres upon which the sacrifi-

cial victims were incinerated; whether any processions were involved (as seems

unlikely given the spatial restraints), how the victims may have been prepared or

decorated, the prayers and music which may have accompanied the acts cannot be

known. The inscribed stelae offer some hint of a preliminary action by referring to

a ndra vow. But what exactly taking such a vow involved is unclear. Such a ndrmay well have been undertaken to achieve a specific goal, as Kleitarchos suggests

in his third century BCE comments on Carthaginian child sacrifice, and certainlyinvolved the promise of a victim.34Presumably, once this goal had been met, the

of cult at the site in the first through the late second centuries CE: Krandel-Ben Younes 2002,

171.

32 The only real open spaces detected at Salammb were a series of paths designed to allow the

circulation, in a relatively limited manner, of people through the sanctuary, rather than for

large processions; the largest of these was only 1.5 m wide: Icard 1922, 205; Lapeyre 1935,

83. At Henchir el-Hami, although the space was not delimited by a temenos wall, the rows of

stelae left little room in the sanctuary space for circulation, nor were there discernable traces

of contemporary activity beyond the confines of the stele field: Ferjaoui 2007, 20.

33 Over the course of the first and second century CE, a series of built temples was constructed

that gradually replaced the tophets. At Thinissut, a built sanctuary can be dated to the firstcentury CE thanks to the presence of terracotta vaulting tubes, which came into use only in

the Augustan period: Merlin 1910, 14f., 27; I am grateful to Lynn Lancaster, pers. comm., for

the dating. At Henchir el-Hami, the tophet went out of use and rites moved to an altar and

building in the late second century: Ferjaoui 2007. At Thugga, a temple was built in CE

194/5: Khanoussi and Maurin 2000, no. 38 = CIL VIII 26498; a similar temple was construc-ted at Ammaedara between 198 and 208 CE:LAnne pigraphique1912, 209.

34 The Phoenicians, and especially the Carthaginians, honouring Kronos, whenever they seek to

obtain some great favour, vow one of their children if they are especially eager to gain suc-

cess, dedicating it (kathagien) to the deity. Kleitarchos,Die Fragmente der griechischen Hi-storiker 137 F 9 ed. Jacoby.


11/32


votary had to keep his (or, more rarely attested, her) end of the deal, and offer the

sacrifice.

Due to the fascination of modern scholarship with child sacrifice, the infant

remains from Hadrumetum have been studied far more closely than the remains of

the animals, and so more can be said about the treatment of the former. 35Specific

sites seem to have been left clear for the building of temporary pyres, which re-

ceived no monumental or lasting structure; the 4x4 m patch of charred earth found

in Level 4 at Hadrumetum would have been one such site.36The even burning of

the bones suggests that the children were already dead at the time of their crema-

tion, and that they were placed on the pyres on their backs.37As the burning went

on, portions of lambs or goats, usually new-born, could be thrown onto the pyre;

their bones, slightly less calcified than the infants, were found associated with

approximately 15-20% of the sacrificial remains that were examined from Ha-

drumetum and Carthage.38

In addition, small animals could also be cast onto thepyre.39The remains of the pyre were then cooled with water, resulting in longitu-

dinal fractures on the bones from the sudden change in temperature.40The bones

were collected and placed in an urn; even small bones were collected, with very

little ash in most cases, suggesting that this process also involved sieving the pyre

remains.

After sacrifice came deposition. In the earliest phases, Levels 1 and 2, jewel-

lery and beads could be offered along with the victim, set in the urn. The vessel

was then sealed; the incense burners used for such a purpose in Levels 2-4 suggest

that at some point prior to this phase, perhaps during the burning, sieving or in

some intermediate step, they were used to provide pleasing odours. The urn was

then buried in the sanctuary; the organization of stelae bespeaks some form ofsanctuary authority responsible for overseeing placement.

Other rites followed the deposition. A stele had to be carved and erected. It is

unclear whether the stelae were set up immediately following sacrifice and urn

deposition or at a later date; if the former, the worked stone monument would ha-

ve had to have been commissioned well in advance of the sacrificial rite.41Further

offerings were made and rites conducted around the stelae, above the deposits.

The discovery of numerous lamps at the base of the stelae has long suggested that

35 Bnichou-Safar 1988; the new study from Henchir el-Hami looks far more closely at the

animal remains: Bdoui and Oueslati 2007.

36 A similar space was discovered at Salammb: Bnichou-Safar 2004, 56.

37 Bnichou-Safar 1988, 60.




41 The personalization of many of the stelae strongly suggest that they were not bought off-the-

rack, at least at Carthage. Some of the stelae, for example, represent aspects of the dedicants

profession, such as the hammer and tongs, presumably for a metalworker, on Corpus Inscrip-tionum Semiticarum I, 735. That being said, several display features which may suggest the

possibility that they were purchased pre-made, with only the names filled in by the stonecut-

ter; for example, Mendleson 2003, 21 no. Pu6, ends with the name of the dedicant, Amot-

melqart, daughter of, without any evidence that the fathers name had ever been added.


12/32


these rituals took place at night, although a more symbolic use of such parapher-

nalia should not be excluded.42

Likewise, the bronze stand and incense (?) spoon

discovered in Level 3 suggests the use of incense again at this stage, and the scat-

tering of either coins or substitutes from Level 5 onwards. Given the limitations of

archaeological chronologies, it is only possible to say that such events took place

after the erection of the stelae, not how long after. Such post-stele offerings may

represent a continuation of a single set of actions begun with the building of a

pyre, or the repeated use of the deposition site as a locus of ritual observance on

further future occasions.

Many of the details offered by the archaeological record are hazy, but still al-

low a general picture of the ritual practice at the site to be developed. This des-

cription of what happened at the Hadrumetum tophetoffers a kind of ideal, arche-typal ritual form. Assuming that there was such an ideal, as there must have been

to create such observably similar archaeological deposits resulting from the repeti-tion of particular acts, the variations to this basic form require comment.

Such variations might affect the course of the ritual, and the type of traces it

left, without changing its fundamental form or significance of the ritual. For ex-

ample, in his discussion of Ndembu ritual, Turner describes how certain colours

were key to the ceremony; new objects or features of the rite could be added or

substituted as long as they fit into the basic structural scheme of colour-coding.43

Similarly, Humphrey and Laidlaw describe how within a fixed liturgical form of

Mongolian sacrifice, the requisite sheep was unavailable so a goat was used in-

stead, without altering the nature or perceived significance of the ritual.44Variati-

ons might mean nothing at all.

On the other hand, variations might well have communicated something.Rappaport argues discursively that while the invariant part of a ritual encoded

canonical social knowledge through the very structure it provided, the variations

in ritual could present self-referential messages about the actors.45Before conside-

ring the potential meaning (or lack thereof) of any such variation in forms, it is

worth first trying to isolate the different variables that did change.

There are a series of permutations in the rites that occur within the same le-

vels. Up until the beginning of Level 6, the basic liturgical structure of vow-

sacrifice-deposition-stele erection-further offerings remained relatively constant.

The two clearest variations across the entire span of the sites use are in the num-

ber and type of victims offered. Many of the stelae, particularly from Levels 3-5,sat atop multiple urns, each containing a burned victim. The number of urns va-

ried, suggesting multiple victims offered within a short time span before the erec-

tion of the stele; the same is true both at Carthage and at Henchir el-Hami.46The

42 Gielly 1927, 14, remarking that many of the stelae had smoke-blackened bottoms, suggesting

lit lamps at their feet; Cintas 1948; Le Glay 1966b; Ferjaoui 2007.

43 Turner 1967, 59-92.

44 Humphrey and Laidlaw 2007, 265.

45 Rappaport 1999, 50-56.

46 Bnichou-Safar 2004; Ferjaoui 2007, 50.


13/32


rhetoric of the inscriptions on the stelae over the deposits makes clear that these

were offerings made by individuals; none of the published inscriptions from Ha-

drumetum marks a joint dedication, and these are extremely rare at Carthage and

other tophetsas well.47The variable marked by the greater numbers of offeringswas not necessarily the participation of more offrands, but instead some aspect of

the status of the individual sacrificant involved or the situation that occasioned the

act. Such a difference in number of victims may well have carried with it some

social or religious significance, but this almost certainly had to do with the speci-

fic circumstances of the offering; for example greater desperation in seeking the

gods favour or greater wealth or standing may well have encouraged larger sets

of offerings. What is clear from the multiple deposits is that, at least in those

aspects of the liturgy which left physical traces, the same rite occurred as with

single offerings, but simply expanded to include more victims. Such variation,

then, represents not a change in the structure of the ritual, but something specificabout the circumstances in which a particular offering was made.

Another aspect of the ritual seems to have been variable at first, but then to

represent a change in liturgical form: the victims offered. While there appears to

have been a mixture of animals and infants in the offerings deposited in Levels 2-

4, this ratio gradually changed until Level 5, when only animals were discovered

in the urns. This change certainly did not mark the kind of natural evolution away

from barbarism that Le Glay casts it as, nor can this be seen directly as interventi-

on from Rome, the result of the oft-discussed Tiberian edict banning human sacri-

fice; a similar practice of infant deposition continued well into the second century

CE at Henchir el-Hami.48 In the early phases, when the two types of offerings

were made side-by-side, the lambs may have been the kind of substitution sacri-fice they are often cast as, akin to the dedication of coin-shaped lead sheets in-

stead of real coins in Level 5.49

It may be impossible to say what specific factors

led to the diachronic change in victims. Yet perhaps the most notable aspect of

this change is not the cessation of infant sacrifice itself, but the movement from

what was originally a liturgical variable to a canonical sacrifice of animal victims

alone.

In addition, at several points over the course of the sites history, features of

the liturgical practice changed, and phases of the action either done away with or

added. In Levels 2-3, the deposition of jewellery in the urns stopped, something

cast by some as a change in eschatological views but which could equally be re-presentative of changes in social patterning and treatment of valuables.50

In Level

47 Only one joint dedication from Carthage is attested in CIS: I 384. None are found at Cirta. Afew more are attested in the Imperial period on votive stelae without find contexts from a li-

mited number of sites, including Cuicul and Nicivibus, often made by husbands and wives.

48 Le Glay 1966b, 314; Ferjaoui 2007, 98-102. Rives 1994 convincingly argues that evidence

for such an enforced ban on the practice is lacking, and the references in Tertullian are rheto-

rically motivated.

49 Le Glay 1966b, 332-340.

50 Eschatological view: Bnichou-Safar 2004, 164.


14/32


5, coins were incorporated in rites around the stelae, a feature also found at the

contemporary tophetat Henchir el-Hami.51The most important changes appear to have occurred in Level 6, however,

when the archetype of the liturgy underwent a major transformation. The act of

gathering ashes from a pyre in an urn and burying that urn ceased; no such depo-

sits were found in Level 6. This has frequently been used to argue that sacrifice as

a whole ceased at the site, a view which will be challenged below; the only chan-

ge directly observable in the archaeological record is this lack of deposition. 52

Stelae continued to be set up, however, and offerings of unguentaria, presumably

at least some of which held perfumed oil, were made around the stelae. This re-

presents perhaps the largest change in ritual form seen at the site.

Did such shifts matter, changing the significance of the ritual, or can they be

given cultural labels, tied to broader systems of ideas, outlooks, and values? Are

such dynamics in the rituals simply evidence that even within a fixed and empha-tically traditional structure, variations could occur, perhaps at most altering any

nuance of meaning that could be attached to the rites by participants? Answering

such questions, and understanding the import of changes in ritual form, requires a

few words about the interpretation of ritual.

2 INTERPRETING RITUAL: FORM, MEANING AND CULTURE

The basic problem in treating ritual in any context is the fundamental gap between

form and meaning, a problem not confined to the Classical world, but key to the

anthropological discourse surrounding ritual more generally. Yet unless somerelationship between ritual form and conceptual systems can be established, such

changes in ritual form cannot be used as evidence for cultural change.

If culture is understood as a dynamic set of understandings about the world

and a system of knowledge, interpreting the cultural weight of ritual requires

some grasp of how rituals might create and disseminate these forms of knowl-

edge: itself a highly problematic area. The recognition that meaning can lie in

reception has resulted in the awareness that the same rituals can have a range of

potentially divergent meanings for different participants.53

Likewise, as Maurice

Bloch argues from his work on ritual in Madagascar, the form of a ritual can

change without entailing any change in significance; likewise, significances canchange without any corresponding adjustment of liturgical form.54

And while

Humphrey and Laidlaw push for a substantial division between the shared ritual

forms and personal understandings of meaning, a perspective which has been used

to substantiate such a division in the Roman world, other anthropologists have

been less ready to jettison the possibilities of cultural understandings through rit-

51 Ferjaoui 2007, 57.

52 Le Glay 1961, 256; Foucher 1964, 66f.

53 Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994, 31-57; Beard, North, and Price 1998, 43.

54 Bloch 1986.


15/32


ual.55Most notably, Rappaport suggests that form and significance cannot be fully

divorced in ritual.56

The canonical, invariant form of a rite might create meaning-

ful content via, at a minimum, its ordering of actions, while variables could dem-

onstrate something about the particular circumstances, especially the social con-

texts, of the rite enacted.57Such accounts at least raise the possibility that changes

in ritual can suggest wider changes in thinking. The problem, of course, is still

moving from actions to interpretation without presupposing some model of how

behaviours might encode any meaning. Since access to the full system of conven-

tions and signs which may have been shared by the worship community at Had-

rumetum is impossible, firmly defining any ideational content of the rituals also

remains elusive. Instead, then, of looking at the potential content of ritual mean-

ing, it may perhaps be better to look at the ways in which the act itself was de-

scribed, for in such descriptions, a relationship between thought and ritual action

might become clear.The best way, then, to understand the significance of ritual change at Hadru-

metum is to look not only at the shifts in liturgical forms, but in the range of ways

they were explained. Unfortunately, we lack texts from or about these rites, but do

have the range of sculpted stelae erected as part of the rites, many of which dis-

play images tied to the ritual practice. Such representations are not necessarily

documentary, as will be shown, but instead represent a selective and ideal de-

scription of the rites.58And descriptions, far from objective, can reveal different

sets of conceptual priorities. Furthermore, such stelae were publicly displayed in

the sanctuary, visible to all who participated in rites there. Through their descrip-

tions and emphases, the stelae not only represent the perspectives of individual

carvers and/or patrons on the ritual, but may also have played an active role inshaping the perceptions of all viewers about such rites. Indeed, the representations

on the stelae were part of social knowledge, and can offer a perspective on the

importance of the different types of changes in the ritual form marked above.59

1.2 Identifying ritual actions: archetypes, changes and variations

The documented, figured stelae on the site begin in Level 2, with three stelae

largely unparalleled in the Punic world.60The first (figure 3) presents, within an

architectural frame topped with a winged sun-disk, a bearded male figure with

55 Humphrey and Laidlaw 1994, 2007; Scheid 2005, 280; Scheid 2007.

56 Rappaport 1999.

57 Rappaport 1999, 69-106.

58 On the meaning of ritual representations, cf. Gordon 1989.

59 On social knowledge and religion: Durkheim 1994, 98.

60 Unfortunately, the collection of stelae from the site has not been published in its entirety;

Cintas only singled out a few representative examples, and the rest, most of which were depo-

sited in the Muse de Sousse, can no longer be firmly associated with specific archaeological

contexts. I am grateful to Wafa Messaoudi, currently in the process of cataloguing the pieces,

for discussing the 400 known stelae with me.


16/32


conical hat seated upon a winged sphinx-throne. In his left hand, he holds a tall

sceptre; his right is outstretched, palm open. Before him, on a smaller scale,

stands a second figure with long hair, left hand at side, right extended outward,

palm open. The image has little to do explicitly with sacrifice and rites at the to-phet, but it does present the relationship between a deity and a worshipper, and anideal about how that relationship should be perceived. The gesture, which is fre-

quently emphasized on contemporary stelae from Carthage by displaying a frontal

open palm, is one of verbal prayer and benediction, part both of a set of ritual ges-

tures shared across the Mediterranean and especially common in the Phoenicio-

Punic world.61The votary approaches the larger god, seated on a throne in a way

that emphasizes the unequal power relationship between the two, in prayer, and

the god, represented as present, responds.62Placed over an urn offered to fulfil a

vow, presumably after receiving the gods favourable intervention, the

relationship between votary and deity is thus made explicit on the stele. Theaspect of the rite emphasized is the verbal one, of prayer/vow and response,

alongside the presence of the deity. The act of sacrifice is not highlighted at all.

The two other stelae from Level 2 present scenes very similar to each other;

only one is illustrated here (figure 4). In each case, a tightly-wrapped figure is

seated at right, extending a round object forward; in the example shown, the fig-

ure raises its right hand in the prayer/blessing gesture. In front of the figure stands

a tall, narrow object, topped with a ball, above which appears a crescent and disk,

two motifs again common on most Punic stelae for their heavenly evocations. The

seated posture suggests the divine nature of these two figures; in Phoenicio-Punic

art, only gods (or god-like kings) are shown seated.63The object at left has been

suggested to be a thymiaterion(incense burner), probably a correct identificationbased on comparison with surviving pieces in bronze from within the Phoenicio-

Punic world as well as a relief from Adloun (in Phoenicia) showing a similar sce-

ne with smoke clearly rising from the burner.64The iconography focuses again on

the deity, and, in the case of the relief illustrated, the deitys response of benedic-

tion. It is worth noting that this was the phase in which incense began to figure

more prominently in the rite, as urns began to be topped with incense burners.

61 There is, unusually in Carthaginian iconography, basic consensus about this motif as one of

prayer and blessing: Hours-Miedans 1951, 32; Picard 1976, 116; Brown 1991, 134-136. See

also the article of M. Lopez in this volume (p. 47).

62 The representation is unlikely to be a cult statue; there is very little evidence, save exaggera-

ted literary accounts from Greek and Latin authors, for large-scale cult statues in the Punic

world prior to the first century BCE; indeed, two of these accounts (Diodoros 20.14.6; Pliny,

Naturalis historia36.39) focus on the bronze statue from which infants were dropped ontothe pyre in rites of sacrifice, a possibility ruled out by the regular calcification pattern of the

burned bones: Bnichou-Safar 1988, 60f. No statue bases are attested, and the norm seems to

have been, at largest, 3/4 life-size statuary, and mostly much smaller, if the naiskos(?) basesfrom the sanctuary at Kerkouane are any guide: Fantar 1986, 154.

63 E.g., Gubel 1997, 60; Gubel 2002, 74f. no. 75.

64 For similar thymiateria from sites with a Phoenicio-Punic presence, Fontan et al. 2007, 164f.;Gubel 2002, 122f. no. 119, shows a similar thymiaterionwith wisps of smoke rising from it.


17/32


Figure 3 (left). Baal of Sousse, limestone stele, late 5th-early 3rd century BCE (Cintas 1948, fig.

49).

Figure 4 (right). Limestone stele with goddess, late 5th-early 3rd century BCE.

The stelae from Levels 3-4 display a range of abstract motifs, many of which

particularly in Level 3 can also be found in contemporary Carthage; not, per-

haps, surprising, given that Hadrumetum seems to have been closely allied with

Carthage during this period and served in 203 BCE as Hannibals winter quar-

ters.65

These include the so-called sign of Tanit, the open palm, series of baetyls,

the caduceus, and the so-called sign of the bottle.66What each of these might

represent is debated; given that they appear to be arbitrary symbols, their precise

associations may be impossible to reconstruct. Nevertheless, all seem to bear

some relation to the gods the sign of Tanit appears almost exclusively in sanc-

tuary contexts or at thresholds, perhaps as a kind of apotropaic symbol, suggesting

its divine power.67The baetyls have long been recognized as serving as aniconic

testaments to the presence of a deity.68

While a range of interpretations have beenput forward for the caduceus, the most convincing is that these objects represent

some kind of cult paraphernalia, probably a sort of standard that would again

65 Polybios 15.5.3; Livy 30.29; Appian,Bella Civilia, 33.66 For these symbols at Carthage with bibliography, Brown 1991, 119-145.

67 Brown 1991, 123-131, offers the range of earlier interpretations, arguing that the symbol

represents a divinity. For the symbol beyond stelae: Fantar 1985, on the thresholds of resi-

dences at 3, 6, and 25 rue de lApotropaon; Niemeyer 2000, within a small sanctuary in

Carthage.

68 Cf. Mettinger 1995.


18/32


highlight the divine nature of the god or the objects associated with the caducei,

frequently baetyls.69

After all, these caducei frequently appear inserted into trian-

gular bases. Finally, the so-called bottles have been suggested to represent the

urns carrying sacrificial remains given to the deity, but are more probably other

types of aniconic indicators of the god, for they are frequently shown placed on

pedestals and sometimes also, like the baetyls, flanked by caducei.70Thus, as with

the stelae from Level 2, the primary focus of the iconography is indicating the

deity in some way, even if the nature of the representation has changed. The epi-

graphy, more frequently incorporated as part of the stele-monument in this phase,

likewise frequently focuses on the gods, beginning with an invocation to them,

stressing the role of the presumably verbal ndr, and often ending with the formulaof prayer and blessing, again drawing attention to the gods agency and the verbal

nature of the relationship.

Figure 5 (left). Limestone stele with sacrificial scene, first century CE.Figure 6 (right). Limestone stele with sacrificial scene, first century CE.

69 Brown 1991, 131-134, with earlier bibliography, suggesting that the caduceus is the Greco-Roman symbol appropriated for Carthaginian art; Lipinski 1995 makes a more convincing ca-

se that it is a cultic standard, based on the bases it appears with and the ribbons often shown

streaming from it.

70 Cintas 1948, 60-62; Brown 1991, 138-141.


19/32


Yet in Level 5, an important group of stelae demonstrate a very different ico-

nography, and one otherwise unattested at the site or at other tophetsprior tothe Roman Imperial period.71These all show narrative scenes of sacrifice. On one

stele (figure 5), a group of three tunicate men appears at right, carrying a lamb

between them. At left, the legs of another figure are visible below a break: this is

probably a scene of bringing the animal to sacrifice. And it is notable that the vic-

tim is emphasized in this manner, given that no reference is made to the animal

victims in the previous levels. Moreover, unlike the earlier inscriptions, the act is

cast as communal: three people are involved, not just the single dedicant named in

the Punic epigraphs. Two other stelae show similar scenes of groups of people

moving towards altars.72

Three additional stelae represent other moments of a sacrifice underway. The

first (figure 6), heavily weathered and partially illegible, shows a square altar at

centre, with a large figure at left reaching over it to make a preparatory offering;to the right stand two smaller figures, reaching upward and holding other offer-

ings. The second (figure 7), fragmentary, shows an altar at right, draped with a

garland. To the left, a figure stands in profile, wearing a short mantle that falls in

thick folds down his side; he extends his right hand over the altar, perhaps to drop

incense onto it. Behind him, positioned frontally, stands a smaller figure in a

short, belted tunic. In his left hand, he supports a tray; in his right, he holds a

bucket. The third stele (figure 8), presents a similar scene. Atop a raised platform

stands a flaming altar; to the left, a striding man, clad in toga pulled over his head

as a veil, drops incense onto the altar with his right hand while carrying a smallincense box in his left. On the other side of the altar, a smaller figure approaches,

tray held over left shoulder, bucket in right hand.

Figure 7. Limestone stele with sacrificial scene, first century CE. Sousse (Cintas 1948, fig. 136).

71 There are three notable exceptions: below, note 73.

72 Cintas 1948, figs. 130f.


20/32


Figure 8. Limestone stele with sacrificial scene, first century CE (Cintas 1948, fig. 134).

Finally, the stelae from Level 6 demonstrate a final, major shift in iconogra-

phy: smaller, rougher, they show only animals, frequently set in an architectural

frame, as in figure 9. Here, a ram is represented between two columns that support

a pediment.

Figure 9. Limestone stele with ram, first century CE.


21/32


The stelae from the first century BCE/first century CE Level 5 mark a radical

departure from those of the previous levels. Indeed, the visual focus is shifted

from aniconic displays of the deitys presence and presumably through his pres-

ence, his efficacy at accomplishing the favour sought in the vow to the ritual act

of sacrifice. If marking and prioritizing any ritual act as metonymous for the set of

rites practiced, the earlier stelae focused on verbal communication with the deity

rather than sacrifice. In inscribed stelae, both the ndr, always mentioned, and thefrequent use of the formula he heard his voice, he blessed him on stelae from

Hadrumetum and Carthage draw attention to this verbal rapport between votary

and god.73 Although much earlier, the Level 2 Baal stele demonstrates a very

different relationship between god and votary than the stelae of Level 5, one that

is both epiphanic and still primarily verbal, as both figures raise their right hands

in gestures of prayer and speech. Similarly, three mid-second century BCE stelae

from the Salammb tophet (out of thousands of contemporary examples), al-though they show scenes of figures at an altar, represent the sacrifice as a fait ac-compli, the sacrificial bulls head burning on the altar, the sacrificant raising hishand in such a gesture of verbal prayer.74The stelae of Level 5 thus demonstrate a

new emphasis on the act of sacrifice, rather than the god or prayer. This change in

priority suggests a shift in how the rites were viewed and which elements came to

be prioritized as metonymous for the whole range of activities conducted, even if,

at this point, the basic archetype of the rites themselves remained relatively un-

changed.

Of course, the one major archetypal change attested in Level 5, the shift from

victim as variable to victim as canonical, may receive a certain amount of recogni-

tion on the stelae. Certainly in the procession to sacrifice stele, the victim ishighlighted in a new way. Yet this is only one of the many stelae from the level; it

was only in Level 6 that animal victims came to prominence in the representations

on the site.

It has been suggested that such visual changes mark no more than the appro-

priation of images from Rome or some other centre like Carthage a new, and

potentially meaningless, visual veneer for what were old and unchanging rituals.75

The basic theme preliminary rites of libation or incense-offering at an altar is

familiar from numerous reliefs and altars of the Imperial period in Italy, especially

the elaborate state monuments.76Yet the stelae from Hadrumetum demonstrate no

mere copying of a model, but do, in fact, suggest active choice, a re-conceptuali-zation and new description of the series of rites performed by the participants in

these rituals at Hadrumetum.

73 Fantar 1993, 127.

74 These stelae are collected in Chabot 1916. The dating is uncertain; only one has a provenance

from the Ste. Mariefavissain Carthage, whose stelae are probably attributable to the mid 2ndcentury BCE: Bnichou-Safar 1989.

75 E.g., Schrner 2006, 2009. It should be noted, of course, that no visual appropriation was

meaningless.

76 Ryberg 1955.


22/32


Direct iconographic borrowings for religious monuments are, of course, at-

tested in North Africa and elsewhere. Both the relief of Tellus, now in the Lou-

vre, and the relief showing Mars, Venus and Divus Iulius in Algiers, both found in

Carthage, reproduce images from the Urbs in the former, the famous figure from

the Ara Pacis, in the latter, most probably the cult statues from the Temple of

Mars Ultor.77Likewise, the famous carved imperial cult altar from Carthage, pro-

bably dedicated by P. Hedulus in the Julio-Claudian period, repeats a series of

images from Rome and reproduced in other provincial capitals like Augusta Eme-

rita: the Lupercal, Aeneas fleeing Troy, Roma seated atop arms, and a scene of

sacrifice.78 The sacrificial scene on the altar is particularly close to Italian ex-

amples (figure 10): it shows a togate sacrificant, head veiled, holding an incense

box in his left hand and dropping incense onto a flaming portable altar. To his left

stands an assistant (victimarius), clad in a limus (an apron-like garment), mallet

over his shoulder, holding a sacrificial bull. Two camilli(temple attendants) standon the other side of the altar with sacrificial paraphernalia, while a tibicen(flutist)plays the double-flute behind the altar.

Figure 10. The Gens Augusta altar. Augustan.

The connection between such an image and the sacrificial scenes from impe-

rial monuments in Rome and central Italy is striking, particularly when set along-

side a scene such as that from the imperial cult shrine on the forum in Pompeii

77 The bibliography on both monuments is vast; on the Carthage Tellus, Simon 1967, 323f.;

Zanker 1988, 314. On the Algiers relief: Doublet 1890, 84f.; Zanker 1970, 20; Krause 1979.

78 Altar and sanctuary: Cagnat 1913; Poinssot 1929; Seba 2005, 271-274. Augusta Emerita

Aeneas group and references to other attestations: de la Barrera and Trillmich 1996. On the

spread of these images: Boschung 2003.


23/32


(figure 11): the focus on the togate sacrificant making preparatory offerings, the

reference to the coming blood sacrifice through the presence of bull and victi-marius, the associated attendants holding a range of paraphernalia, and the pres-ence of a musician to make sure that no untoward sounds disturbed the rite. The

most notable difference is the lack of architecture background on the Carthage

altar, possibly attributable to its slightly earlier date. Such a close appropriation of

Italian models, however, is not surprising perhaps in the provincial capital, carved

from marble imported from Italy and commissioned to adorn a temple to the im-

perial cult set up by a man with important business connections in Italy.79

Yet

such close and clear appropriations of sacrificial scenes are otherwise rare in the

region; the only other such scenes attested are a fragmentary sacrificial procession

involving a pig from an elite tomb at Utica, and another fragmentary procession

akin to that on the Ara Pacis found in Carthage.80

Indeed, such close examples

simply serve to throw into contrast the difference between these scenes and thestelae from Hadrumetum, which do not demonstrate such a close appropriation of

Italian or cosmopolitan models while still representing a similar set of concerns to

such pieces.

Figure 11. Imperial cult altar from Pompeii. First century CE.

79 The only other references to Publius Hedulus are a series of brick stamps found in and around

Carthage with his name: CILVIII 22632.72. On two bricks, his stamp appears alongside thatof C. Iulius Antimachus (CILVIII 22632.65), whose stamp also appears on bricks distributedin Italy (CILXV 1202). The greater spread of Antimachus stamps suggests he was engagedmore heavily with distribution, and thus the officinator, but also indicates that Hedulus had

business connections in Italy. Most recently on double-stamped bricks: Steinby 1993, 139.

80 Gauckler et al. 1910, 72, cat. no. 1173; Lund 1998; Schrner 2009.


24/32


The image of the three men carrying a ram to sacrifice (figure 5), for example,

is unprecedented in Roman art. The moment chosen for representation is distinctly

different: these are not preparatory rites for the blood sacrifice at an altar, nor a

formal procession, but instead a group shown presenting their offering. The em-

phases are, however, commensurate with those on the Carthage altar or Italian

monuments: the victim is highlighted, the communal side of the rite is accentuated

in contrast to the earlier stelae from Carthage and the Baal of Sousse stele. The

two well-preserved stelae showing sacrifice at an altar similarly demonstrate a

similar focus on certain elements of the rite that goes beyond the mere appropria-

tion of visual forms. The moment chosen for representation is the same as that

selected for both state monuments and a range of personal votive altars in Italy

and elsewhere, the preparatory offerings either before (or instead of) blood sacri-

fice.81

The way that ritual was described and represented at Hadrumetum thus

changed in a manner that used its own, local terms to highlight moments and as-pects of the ritual favoured in representations in many parts of the empire.

Finally, Level 6 demonstrates another change in visual priorities and ways of

describing the rituals that took place at Hadrumetum. The lack of urns deposited

in this level has often been taken to mean that sacrifice ceased at the siteusually

itself taken as evidence of the impoverishment of the worship community and its

decline.82

The latter certainly is not true; not only was Hadrumetum experiencing

the same second-century economic boom as the rest of Africa, attested by the

building of major public amenities and the rich decor of the few excavated resi-

dences there, but the repaving of the sanctuary at the beginning of Level 6 be-

speaks a major, costly project and the vitality of the community.83Lack of urns is

not evidence for lack of sacrifice, but as discussed above, only for evidence of achange in the ritual archetype: collection of remains and deposition was no longer

practiced. Comparison with other tophet sites still active in the first/second cen-tury CE suggests an alternative explanation: that the rites had shifted from private

sacrifice in fulfilment of a vow to communal sacrifice around an altar, possibly

followed by a sacrificial meal.

Such a shift is visible at at least two other sites, and probably more, if not as

explicitly. At Henchir el-Hami, for example, the tophet-style deposition ceased inthe late second century CE, in favour of a more public rite celebrated around a

monumental built altar which involved the use of perfumed oils; the number of

81 Personal altars: Schraudolph 1993.

82 Foucher 1964, 56.

83 This prosperity is evidenced by the sites elevation to a coloniaunder Trajan one of the firstcities in Africa to be given this honour: CIL VIII 1687. In addition, Pliny the Elder (Naturalishistoria 18.94-95) speaks of the prosperity of the region as a whole and its wheat production.Among other things, the constructions of a vast public water supply apparatus and cisterns in

the early Imperial period: Foucher 1964. Most of the Roman houses explored in Sousse were

equipped with baths or at least fountain displays, again suggesting their wealth and command

of precious resources: Foucher 1964, 137 note 427. Unexcavated public amenities of the Ro-

man period, but impossible to date more precisely, included a circus, a theater, probably an

amphitheatre, and public baths.


25/32


unguentaria discovered at its base probably bespeaks the wide participation in this

rite, rather than the more individual modality of offering represented by the urn

deposits and the offerings made around individual stelae.84Similarly, a range of

cookware and fineware fragments, almost entirely lacking in the tophetphase ofthe site, were discovered, suggesting communal dining.85Likewise, at Thinissut,

the building of a temple in the first century CE limited access to the hillside upon

which urns had previously been deposited.86

Although urn deposition may have

continued a bit longer, and stelae were set up (perhaps curated rather than newly-

carved) in a side room of the sanctuary, a monumental altar surrounded by a por-

ticoed courtyard for participants demonstrates the new focus of the sanctuary. 87

Likewise, at a slightly later date, a dump room was created at the rear of the

sanctuary, accessible through a small window, in which bones, ash, and dining

wares were thrown: sacrificial remains were not being deposited, but dined upon,

by a community.88

Related changes may likewise be observable at other sites,where altar and temple complexes replaced or were added to stele-fields. 89While

the limited excavation at the Hadrumetum tophetdoes not allow the confirmationof this hypothesis, it seems probable that rites there underwent a similar change;

deposition ceased, but animal sacrifice, emphasized by the subject matter of the

stelae, did not. Instead, this aspect of the ritual act the offering of an animal vic-

tim was highlighted in a new way on the Level 6 stelae.

The representations on the stelae, themselves indicative of how the ritual

might be thought about and whose public presence was capable of shaping social

knowledge about ritual practice, thus demonstrate a series of connections with the

changes in ritual form observed at the site. The images used on the stelae were

actively chosen by the carvers and/or patrons, and can demonstrate how, within asocial setting, such actions may have been perceived.

Not all changes in liturgical form can be linked to corresponding changes in

representations on the stelae; a number of variations, which may have been the

result of the specific circumstances in which the ritual was enacted, are not often

marked by the stelae. Similarly, the disappearance of jewellery and the addition of

coin-offerings, for example, do not change in any noticeable way the manner in

which the whole collection of gestures is visually described. This is not to deny

potential significances of these changes, but only to emphasize that these are not

reconstructable.

Far more marked is the way that changes to the archetypal form of the liturgy(ndr-sacrifice-deposition-stele erection-further rites) are manifest in the stele rep-resentations. There is a basic re-orientation visible on the stelae in Level 5 from

an idea of communication with the gods that is based around a verbal exchange to

84 Ferjaoui 2007.

85 Campisi 2007a; Campisi 2007b.

86 Merlin 1910.

87 Merlin 1910, 29.

88 Merlin 1910, 14.

89 E.g., at Ammaedara and Thugga.


26/32


one based around sacrifice at an altar, from individual rites to communal ceremo-

nies. Such a change may be visible in Level 6, as the rites probably did move to a

communal altar sacrifice in a shift commensurate with that observable at other

related sites. Such a changed emphasis led to a change in how the rites were con-

ducted; the deposition portion of the liturgy was dropped, perhaps in favour of

communal dining on animal victims. Likewise, as the variability of victims chan-

ged to become canonical, this shift was referenced on at least one stele from Level

5, and certainly in Level 6, where the victims become the sole focus of the stele

representations. The changes in conception and description of the rites were not

necessarily contemporary with such changes in archetypal form, but they do, at

least to an extent, map onto each other.

3 CONCLUSIONS

The archaeological and visual evidence from Hadrumetum offers a rare look at the

range of connections between ritual forms and ways of expressing those forms: a

chance to see how the act of describing ritual via visual representation changed

alongside the actual transformations in the rites, and to hint at the potential and at

least partially-recoverable bond between liturgical form and conceptualization.

Within a set of rites that involved child or animal sacrifice and culminated in

the erection of a carved stone stele, a range of changes in ritual form can be seen

at Hadrumetum, as can the ubiquitous variations that may have reflected the spe-

cific circumstances of an offering. Jewellery might no longer be offered, coins

might be added as a post-sacrifice offering, all the while maintaining a similarritual archetype at least for those actions which have left traces in the archaeo-

logical record. Yet not all of these changes carried the same significative weight;

those which left the basic ritual archetype unaltered may have added nuance or

confirmed the meanings of other actions, but are not easily relatable to the broad

changes in representation. As a result, the basic visual means of commenting on

and representing the ritual stayed largely the same from Level 2 to Level 4 on the

site (late fifth century BCE-first century BCE), emphasizing the presence of the

deity and the verbal prayers of the dedicant, despite some changes in the ritual

form. Level 5 (first century BCE-first century CE) saw little change in the arche-

typal rite, although coins were added as part of the set of offerings made in thetophet. The one major shift was the change in victims offered: no longer was thisa variable feature of the rite, but became a canonical one. Such a new focus on the

victims appears in representations of the ritual.

This basic picture confirms that in antiquity, changes in ways of thinking

about ritual were not always immediately paralleled by changes in ritual form, a

relationship already well-documented for other cultures by Blochs work among

others: not an entirely surprising conclusion, nor a novel one. Yet it also shows

that conceptions and changes in ritual archetype were not completely divorced: in

Level 5, ways of perceiving the rites were reconfigured in a manner commensu-

rate with the change in victims, advertising and encouraging the new use of exclu-


27/32


sively animal sacrifice. Likewise, although it took time, the new focus on sacrifice

as the key moment by which to metonymously represent both the ritual act and

perhaps more broadly the relationship between votary and god found in the stelae

of Level 5 eventually found expression in the reorganization of sacrificial rites in

Level 6 (after first century CE), which probably became communal and based

around an altar. Such connections at least raise the possibility that, if done care-

fully, analysis of changed ritual forms in the ancient world on the archetypal level

could reveal much about changed patterns of cognition and culture.

This is, in some ways, a minimalist conclusion in demonstrating only a weak

link, and a link not necessarily in any signified content of ritual action, but in the

ways of treating the ritual itself. But the material from Hadrumetum does never-

theless point to the existence of such a connection and to the shared, social ele-

ment of the knowledge related to the sacrificial liturgy. It may thus be possible to

move beyond the realm of entirely personally-constructed and projected meaningsof liturgical acts and towards broader frameworks of social knowledge in ritual.

It must also be noted that the shifts observed at Hadrumetum point to a range

of social changes in the worship community at the site. Indeed, the movement

away from individually-offered deposits towards the communal sacrifice scenes

on the stelae of Level 5, and what may have been a more group-based ritual

around an altar by Level 6, bespeaks a re-structuring of the cult community.90

Whether this was a result which the ritual worked to create, or the ritual a mani-

festation of this external social re-ordering, is impossible to say. But such social

change is certainly one aspect of a broad range of cultural changes that occurred

in the region over the course of the first century BCE-first century CE in North

Africa revealed in the dynamics of ritual change.Finally, a word about the cultural weight of such changes, since the cultural

weight of changes in ritual archetypes has been established. Even within a rite

whose final outcome erection of a stele was part of a long tradition specific to

parts of North Africa, the basic set of changes observed, both in terms of liturgical

forms and in terms of ways of representing them, demonstrate incorporation into

the wider sphere of the Roman Empire, and close ties to Italy in particular. Such

communal sacrifice around an altar that can be suggested by the remains in Level

6 was a ritual form not previously attested in this cult, yet by the second century

CE, this manner of relating to the gods had been adopted in several stele sanctuar-

ies: liturgical acts known and used in other cults in Africa and across the Mediter-ranean were transferred for use in a new context. Such transfers even included

details of dress: on one of the Level 5 sacrifice scenes, the sacrificant is shown

with his head veiled in a manner typical of Roman rites, appropriating an idea

about the proper costume for such an act, probably from public, civic cults.Simi-

90 The argument in Schrner 2007b, that these rites were based around a family group, may well

apply to the earlier material and some later sites; there is little, however, to suggest that many

of the later tophetsfocused their expressions of communality around family units; indeed, thesacrificial scenes in Level 5 at Hadrumetum suggest otherwise: they do not show the neat and

easily-recognizable family groups of Classical Greek votive reliefs, for example.


28/32


larly, although the images used for representing sacrifice did not directly emulate

those of Italy, the visual means of describing and making sense of the rites was

similar to the representations from Italy. Indeed, it may even be possible to tenta-

tively suggest the development of an empire-wide mode of discourse, although

with strongly local aspects, in thetreatment of rites that emphasized many of thesame aspects and features of rites; Schrner suggests a similar local shift in the

representation of sacrifice in Asia Minor.91Such changes may suggest that incor-poration into the Roman Empire didaffect the basic formulations used to relate tothe gods and think about ritual on a local level in Africa and elsewhere in the em-

pire, even within such continued cults.

Nevertheless, it is also striking that stelae did continue to be erected in Level

6, even though their basic raison dtreto mark a sacrificial depositwas nolonger present. Despite the changes in the archetypal ritual practice at the site, the

lasting markers that guaranteed the accomplishment of the vow continued to beerected. This may have occurred for any number of reasons the prestige value

associated with commissioning a stone monument (although this seems less likely

at Hadrumetum than elsewhere in the Imperial period, since the dedicants are

never named or figured), the importance of leaving a lasting testament to the ful-

filment of a vow, the weight of tradition itself. At other sites, a similar phenome-

non is attested although urn deposition seems to have ceased in the first or sec-

ond century CE in the sanctuaries at Thinissut, Henchir el-Hami, and Ammaedara,

for example, the findspots of stelae seem to suggest that they were still curated

and displayed, if not commissioned, well into the third century.92Even if, at all of

these sites, the archetypal rites fundamentally changed, and roughly similar shifts

to those at Hadrumetum in ways of representing ritual action can be observed, thestelae still had a role to play in the cult, clothing the new archetypes with lasting

monuments that set these new rites in line as part of a recognizably old practice.

The discourse surrounding ritual, evident in representations, may have changed

dramatically over the course of the Imperial period and driven later changes in the

archetypal form of the liturgies, but maintaining an idea of tradition remained a

key aspect of both the acts and the descriptions of them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Alexandropoulos, J. (2007) Les monnaies, in Ferjaoui 2007, 434-449.

Alexandropoulos, J. and A. Ferjaoui (2007) Catalogue des monnaies, in Ferjaoui 2007, 402-433.

Ando, C. (2008) The Matter of the Gods, Berkeley.Beard, M., J. North, and S. Price (1998)Religions of Rome, Cambridge.Bdoui, H. and T. Oueslati (2007) Les incinrations votives humaines et animales du sanctuaire, in

Ferjaoui 2007, 450-468.

91 Schrner 2006, 2009, although pushing for more direct appropriation of imperial images in

Africa.

92 The latest known newly-carved stele was erected in 323 CE, datable by the consular year in

the inscription: Beschaouch 1968.


29/32


Ben Abid Sadallah, L. (2003) Le culte de Baal Hammon dans la province dAfrique: entre tradi-tion et romanisation. PhD dissertation, University of Tunis.

Bnabou, M. (1976)La rsistance africaine la romanisation, Paris.

Bendlin, A. (1997) Peripheral Centres Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in theRoman Empire, in Cancik and Rpke (eds.) 1997, 35-68.

(2001) Rituals or Beliefs? Religion and the Religious Life of Rome, Studia Classica Israeli-ca 20, 191-208.

Bnichou-Safar, H. (1988) Sur lincinration des enfants aux tophets de Carthage et de Sousse,

Revue de lhistorie des religions 205, 57-68.

(1989) Les stles dit de Sainte-Marie Carthage, in H. Devijver and E. Lipinski (eds.),

Punic Wars, Leuven, 353-364.(2004)Le tophet de Salammb Carthage: essai de reconstitution, Rome.Berthier, A. and R. Charlier (1955)Le sanctuaire punique del-Hofra Constantine, Paris.Beschaouch, A. (1968) Une stle consacre Saturne le 8 novembre 323, Bulletin archologique

du Comit des travaux historiques et scientifiques4,

the meaning of ritual

Documents