5 IMAGES OF THE INVINCIBLE GODS 6
HOOFDARTIKELEN Nachtergael in particular have made significant contributions to their study, sometimes discussing groups of comparable panel paintings. But this long-awaited book by Vincent Ron- IMAGES OF THE INVINCIBLE GODS: dot, initially presented as a mémoire d’habilitation, is a PIETY AND PANEL PAINTINGS major step forward in their study, the first corpus of this IN ROMAN EGYPT*) material. The author’s engagement with these paintings grew out of Helen WHITEHOUSE his involvement with the Franco-Italian excavations at Teb- The Oriental Institute, tunis, one of the two Faiyum lakeland towns especially Oxford prominent in the cult of the crocodile-god Sobek, and also celebrated for the wealth of papyri that have been found in them.1) The papyri (and also ostraca) present a picture of a Abstract multicultural, bilingual society, where traditional religious practices and priestly knowledge are still embedded in tem- Less familar than the mummy-portraits of Roman Egypt are the ple libraries, but many aspects of real life and worship have painted wooden panels depicting divinities — images (eikones) changed; texts range from written instructions for the priests apparently created for personal devotion or votive dedication. 2 Intermittently discussed for a century or so, individually or as engaged in the daily ritual of the cult of Soknebtynis ) to the subject-types (notable amongst them, the ‘gods in uniform’), these more mundane accounts of provisions for the gatherings that rare examples of ancient framed pictures have grown in number took place in the dining-rooms that lined the dromos leading over time. The publication now of a well-documented corpus to his temple. It is a complex picture that gains new com- of over 50 panels, or fragments thereof, lifts the discussion to a new plexity from this corpus of paintings, one that the author, level, opening fresh avenues for investigation. Drawing on both who published the archaeological report on the site’s major hellenic and pharaonic iconography and mixing representational temple,3) is well placed to evaluate. The recovery there in conventions, these paintings reflect aspects of religion and culture 1989 of fragmentary painted panels with iconographic fea- in the first three centuries AD that have both local and general tures unlike those typical of mummy portraits (and additional significance. Divisible into several sub-categories within the cor- pus, they pose questions regarding the transmission of imagery, as to the better-preserved examples discovered in earlier archae- well as the identity of their subjects. ological work there), was a key element in the formation of this corpus, a lengthy and dedicated endeavour that has pro- duced en route some notable papers on individual paintings, Amongst the richesse of artefacts in organic materials that as well as a magisterial survey of religious practices in Ptole- Egypt has preserved so well, the portraits of Roman date maic and Roman Egypt for Thesaurus cultus et rituum painted on wooden panels have been particularly appreciated antiquorum VIII (2012). As we might expect from these, — ‘real people’, depicted in an artistic genre close to the Rondot has new discoveries and ingenious suggestions to roll norms of portraiture as practised in western art from out in this book, as well as further supporting arguments for the Renaissance on. In the last two decades or so, these (and occasionally, spirited defence of) proposals already ‘mummy portraits’ have been well promoted in both scholar- mooted. The title indicates the overall framework of his ship and display. The majority of them enjoy a good state of study and a timespan, the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, which, preservation, due not just to the Egyptian climate, but to their he readily admits, is to some extent provisional and could be funerary use in relatively protected contexts. Not so their extended back a century (pp. 35–6). It is also the period to poor relations, the painted panels of wood that were framed which the bulk of the papyri that have been recovered from for hanging, or incorporated into shrines, boxes, or coffered Tebtunis belong; the town went into a decline towards the ceilings, for use in domestic or cultic contexts; most of the middle of the third century. surviving examples depict deities, images relevant to piety The focus is on the images of deities of Egyptian, Greek, and protection at home, veneration perhaps in private shrines, and other extraction, worshipped throughout the Faiyum, the or dedication in temples. They have fared less well than the known or likely source of most of the panels. Foremost mummy portraits, in every way. Not only are they less well- among them is Sobek himself, in various guises; also fea- preserved — frequently fragmentary, in fact, and their tured are the Dioscuri, Isis and her son Harpocrates in their painted surfaces in poor condition — but their subject matter hellenized forms, and other goddesses with Isiac attributes is not so reassuringly recognizable, like that of the portraits; but not, Rondot argues, her specific identity; the Thracian precise identification of the overall picture, let alone finer rider-god Heron, and other ‘foreign’ gods of military aspect, details, is often difficult. None the less, these unusual and including a whole troop of such figures who appear as a sup- intriguing survivors have, since the early twentieth century, porting cast to some of the major subjects. The study, aided featured in the work of scholars with an interest in Roman on its way by a grant from the Getty Foundation, has pro- Egypt, beginning with Otto Rubensohn, excavator of two of ceeded in parallel with the research of Thomas F. Mathews the panels featured in this book, followed later by Franz and Norman E. Muller on these paintings, coming in the Cumont and Mikhail Rostovtzeff; amongst more recent reverse direction, as it were, from an interest in the genesis commentators, Klaus Parlasca, Zsolt Kiss, and Georges of Christian icons and expertise in the techniques of panel
*) Review article of RONDOT, V. — Derniers visages des dieux 1) For useful surveys, see S. Lippert and M. Schentuleit, eds, Tebtynis d’Égypte. Iconographies, panthéons et cultes dans le Fayoum hellénisé des and Soknopaiou Nesos. Leben im römerzeitlichen Fajum, Wiesbaden, 2005. IIe–IIIe siècles de notre ère (dessins d’Henri Choimet). Éditions du Louvre/ 2) J. Osing and G. Rosati, Papiri geroglifici e ieratici da Tebtynis, Flor- Presses de l’université Paris-Sorbonne, Paris, 2013. (28.5 cm, 405, ill.). ence, 1998. ISBN 978-2-35031-428-0/978-2-84050-857-1. € 30.00. 3) Tebtynis II. Le Temple de Soknebtynis et son dromos, Cairo, 2004.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 5 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 7 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2015 8
painting in western art; this will come to fruition in a sepa- principal types of painting in this corpus — framed pictures, rate publication but has likewise aleady generated some pub- and door-leaves — are then surveyed, with the measurements lished discussion, which is referenced, together with their of all items tabulated, and good technical drawings (as else- personal comments, in this book. where in the book) illustrating the two different types of The corpus numbers 53 items, whole panels or remnants framing used; a survey of terracotta reliefs showing framed thereof. Amongst them is a group of fragments that had been paintings adds an appropriate coda to this. The panels identi- separated on the antiquities market and ended up in two dif- fied as having once functioned as a pair of doors, or being ferent museums (in Cairo and Oxford); thanks to Rondot’s parts thereof (7 items of varying construction, with verifiable research, they have now been reunited on paper, at any rate heights ranging from 24.6 to 76 cm) are listed in a table on (pp. 96-102). Like several others in the corpus, the Oxford p. 43. They may have served to close stone or wooden fragment forming part of this reconstruction is now only shrines of varying size, niches containing divine images, or available for study via archival photographs: in addition to smaller portable shrines (well illustrated by a terracotta the vulnerability of these paintings in their archaeological showing such a naiskos being carried with doors open to contexts, further depletion of their modest number has show the divinity inside, p. 44 fig. 10). The tripartite nature occurred in more recent times, with the wartime loss of two of the ensemble that they might once have formed is stressed of the five panels in Berlin (including one of the two from by Rondot in a short discussion, pp. 44–5, in which support Otto Rubensohn’s work at Tebtunis); the unknown fate of is adduced from similar tripartite compositions seen in wall- the three panels acquired at the sale of the MacGregor col- paintings, with a central deity flanked by others on either lection by Sir John Beazley, then given to the Ashmolean side. A key feature in identifying them is the presence of Museum, but not seen again since consignment to wartime short projections at the top and bottom of one long side — storage; or the missing panel in Copenhagen, visibly the the pivots which enabled opening and closing of the doors, more fragile and depleted of the two there to judge by sometimes aided by the addition of knobs on the outside. the photographic record. Nineteen of the corpus have no A distinction also to be observed is the door panels’ profile: recorded provenance, and the ‘Faiyum’ attribution attached strictly rectangular, or with a batter to the outer (pivoted) to others acquired via the antiquities market should perhaps long side; the latter was the typical profile of stone-built be treated with caution, like the provenance ‘Akhmim’ given sanctuaries in pharaonic style, and the smaller shrines which to so many Late Roman-Coptic textiles. Twenty-one come mimicked them. Amongst the surviving examples of painted from excavated sites in the Faiyum (Karanis, Medinet Quta, wooden doors outside this corpus, the pair in Munich (pp. and Tebtunis — the total of 17 from the latter includes 43, 44 n. 62) is particularly significant: decorated outside 13 fragments recovered from the radim of earlier excava- with traditional imagery including the figures of gods, hiero- tions there), and one other may plausibly be linked to previ- glyphic inscriptions, and a cavetto cornice with frieze of ous work at Dimai (Soknopaiou Nesos, p. 81). cobras above, these doors are also painted inside (the pre- The remainder were found in temples at sites distant from sumed location of the paintings on the corpus door-leaves): the Faiyum: Deir el-Bahari (two fragments, seemingly from a sacred ibis on one, a falcon on the other, plus demotic separate panels; their discovery in the Northern Chapel of inscriptions. They are well illustrated in the exhibition cata- Amun was announced in print in 2001, but they await full logue Les empereurs du Nil (cited p. 43 n.22) together with publication); and Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab, in the Dakhleh a catalogue entry presenting the gist of the inscriptions, and Oasis of the W. Desert). Four carry inscriptions, briefly dis- suggesting that the naos to which the doors belonged, prob- cussed on pp. 33–4; the two most extensive and legible are ably with mummies or statuettes of the birds inside, was dedications ‘for benefit’ by named individuals on panels dedicated in a cult-chapel (an alternative suggestion made depicting Heron. In making clear the ultimate, if not neces- here, on the basis of a re-reading, that it was destined for sarily the initial, destination of these paintings, they could be funerary usage , is extended also to the Cambridge door- compared with the similar dedication inscribed in ink on a panel, p. 43 n. 22, depicting a jubilant male figure in a white limestone ‘trial piece’ dedicated in the second or third cen- garment). No further structural elements are preserved with tury AD at the rock-cut shrine of a deified individual in the the door-leaves in the corpus, but the small, undecorated Kharga Oasis.4) wooden shrines of Late Period–Ptolemaic date found at Saqqara, some complete or nearly so, and still with images The book is divided into four parts: the first, ‘Les tableaux of divinities inside, could usefully be cited here: the publica- et leurs contextes’, sets the scene for what follows, reviewing tion by Christine Insley Green5) includes informative line- the history of the panels’ acquisition and study, archaeologi- drawings of their construction, which, together with the frag- cal contexts where known, and the dating evidence that can ments of decorated shrines there catalogued, show the range be derived from context, palaeography, or numismatic com- of forms in use. It includes the type with a pair of shorter paranda. The Berlin tondo of Septimius Severus and his fam- doors above a single lower panel with cornice, allowing a ily, probably the most famous surviving Romano-Egyptian bust-like view of the occupant, analogous to the wooden panel painting, appears briefly here (p. 33), accompanied by mummy-cabinet in Berlin (cited here, p. 44 n. 23). The cult the observation of Mathews and Muller that it has been cut practices of which these Saqqara shrines were a part included down into this form from an earlier, larger format, possibly the dedication of metal or wooden statuettes of the gods or square or rectangular. The physical properties of the two their sacred animals within the sacred enclosure, commonly accompanied by inscriptions expressing the donor’s identity and votive intent — a possibility to be considered with 4) A. Hussein, Le sanctuaire rupestre de Piyris à Ayn al-Labakha, Cairo, 2000, p. 51 photo 66, with translation and commentary by G. Wagner, p. 74; the depiction on the carved slab, a ram-headed divinity 5) The Temple Furniture from the Sacred Animal Necropolis at Saqqara of traditional form, is unrelated to the iconography of the deified Piyris. 1964–1976, London, 1987, esp. pp. 5–14.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 6 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 9 IMAGES OF THE INVINCIBLE GODS 10
respect to the individual framed panels in this corpus, too, female figures who are not divinities but conceivably donors even if uninscribed; as Rondot observes (pp. 367–8), we do or commemorated deceased.6) not know exactly how these functioned within the religious framework of the Faiyum. The documentary core of the book is Part 2, ‘Descriptions The Munich doors have some extra pertinence in relation des tableaux’, which provides detailed accounts of what can to the disputed Getty Museum ‘triptych’ Malibu 74.AP.21– be seen on the panels, prefaced by their provenance and cur- 22: Rondot (pp. 203–7, 261–5) argues firmly for the separa- rent location (nearly all are in museums), dimensions, and tion of the side panels depicting Serapis and his consort from full bibliography. Within the descriptions, iconographic the central and stylistically different funerary portrait with details may be clarified or paralleled by reference to other which they have been associated. He proposes that they panels in the corpus, but there is no wider discussion at this formed part of a tripartite structure in which they acted as the point. Some of these panels are still in their ancient frames; guardians of a third divinity, possibly an image of their regu- others, even if fragmentary, have unpainted margins, and lar associate, Harpocrates; the thick bands of black paint sometimes pin-holes, indicative of the original framing. Most above and below the deities’ busts — a feature so far unpar- of them are not single pieces of wood but composites, formed alleled — may, he suggests, represent the metal reinforce- of several narrow longitudinal boards secured together, the ments that would be found on actual doors. Conceived as frame being an active part of this fixing. Where only some images on the interior of the doors (as well as projecting of these components have survived (often in a fragmentary pivots, these leaves have small central holes to take knobs on state, too), Rondot is particularly interested in the possibility their plain, outer sides), they would be revealed when seen of gauging the size of the panel when complete, and hypoth- in conjunction with the inner figure. In this view, the direc- esizing from this the lost pictorial content, using an averaged tion of their gazes, upward and outward, might be considered ratio of 1:1.213 (width to height), as explained in Part 1, a problem, as noted (and rejected) on p. 265: but the sacred pp. 40-2, so each description begins with a note of the phys- birds on the Munich panels, too, would face outwards when ical properties of the panel/piece(s) of panel, and closes with the doors were open, and the winged Victory on the shrine an estimate of the original dimensions, where relevant. The door found at Dura Europos (p. 23, fig . 1), while extending information thus extrapolated forms a significant element in a wreath towards the interior, also looks outwards. the later analysis of these pictures. The door-leaves, which This first part closes with a presentation of two sources of can also be composite in structure, require different and indi- comparanda which will be fruitfully exploited throughout the vidual structural assessment. book: terracotta figures, well represented in the Faiyum and Each description is accompanied by a photograph, in col- a good source of information on local preferences in divini- our wherever possible, with a facsimile drawing at the same ties and the familiar poses in which they were depicted; not, size, on the facing page; an excellent aid for the reader. Con- however, a medium in which the finer details of iconography veying the content of polychrome paintings in black-and- are clear. Especially valuable for comparison with poly- white line-drawings is tricky, and the artist Henri Choimet chrome panel paintings are wall-paintings and textiles; has opted for a more informative method of half-tones, Rondot makes only limited use of the latter, but presents an reserving narrow black lines for the contours of the panels, excellent conspectus of the wall-paintings of divinities in and — as broken lines — for the indication of missing areas. Faiyum temples and other structures of more equivocal status (Rondot and Choimet have had the benefit of viewing the (domestic shrines?), with brief characterizations of their panels at first-hand, and it is perilous to offer suggestions on location and subject-matter to accompany the extensive sup- the basis of photographs alone, but — above the head of the ply of illustrations. Amongst the many examples of his assid- Dioscurus on Cairo JE 87191, pp. 112–14, is there not uous pursuit of all relevant information for this study is the the star on a stem which distinguishes the brothers in other discovery and publication here of photographs of some of representations?) Illustrations of details are added where Mme. Pierre Jouguet’s watercolour copies of the paintings needed, and for the lost items, archival photographs in black uncovered by her husband in the temple of Heron at Mag- and white are reproduced. In truth, a sharply-contrasted print dola, material that was never fully published; the author and in this format could assist (as a couple do on pp. 78–9) in the Agnès Cabrol deserve everyone’s thanks for tracking these visual appraisal of details on some of the other panels, too; down in Lille. A lone comparandum from a different part of colour images can, at times, be less explicit, particularly Egypt — the graffito (Harpocrates?) in the propylon of the when the painted surface is not in a good state of preserva- temple of Hathor at Deir el-Medina — is added to this group, tion, and a few of those published here are rather murky. with a brief note (p. 53); but without the published descrip- Technical and analytical assessment of the painting per se, tion by Ch. Heuron to hand, the reader may struggle to make its support, and the pigments used, is not provided here, out the details of this image. As is the case with painted the study of these being reserved for future publication by panels, the survival of comparable wall-paintings outside the Muller (p. 38). Faiyum is rare, but fragmentary evidence of some has The author himself describes this as the first catalogue emerged from the temple of Tutu at Kellis, findspot also of raisonné of this material, but the catalogue as such is pro- a piece of panel painting: fragments of painted wall-plaster vided in this descriptive section, and the raisonnement that had fallen from above the doorway leading into the mud- follows in the commentaries which form the third part of brick mammisi include part of at least one horse, and the the book. In writing a comprehensive catalogue entry, it is lower part of a military figure wearing a fringed red cloak and metal greaves that are surmounted by lion-heads and 6) C.A. Hope, ‘The excavations at Ismant el-Kharab from 2000 to attached to the leg with straps. Little more of these images 2002’, in G.E. Bowen and C.A. Hope (eds), The Oasis Papers III. Proceed- can be pieced together, but related fragments more amenable ings of the Third International Conference of the Dakhleh Oasis Project to reconstruction show a goddess and full-length male and (Oxford, 2004), pp. 207–89, esp. 225–6.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 7 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 11 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2015 12
difficult to strike the balance between objective description ally found in Dionysiac scenes? An equally small version of and subjective interpretation; Rondot states at the outset this creature, with jaws agape and a floral garland around its (p. 71) that his intention is to provide the former only at this neck, appears with Dionysus in the large eponymous hanging point, and he sticks firmly to this aim, giving an ample in the Abegg Stiftung, Riggisberg.7) account of what can be objectively observed on each panel. These two paintings seem to belong to a different genre This rigorous division does, however, lead to a few incon- than the rest of the corpus (cf. the author’s observations on sistencies between descriptions within this part, and gives the the background of the Harpocrates-Dionysus panel, p. 347), reader the odd surprise with the occasional disjunction and one other, a small panel (pp. 190–1), stands out for its between the bare account of a feature in the description here, compactness and singular subject: it shows the Nemesis grif- and its significant identification in the later commentary: for fin within a naos, an image similar to that on the reverse of instance, the ‘haste’ held by Soknebtynis in two panels coins minted in Egypt under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, as (pp. 80, 126), which terminates in a conjoint point and hook, noted on p. 273. It is suggested that it had some different not described, later becomes the distinctive harpe, attribute function in woodwork, perhaps as a panel for insertion in a of Kronos (more accurately described, and named, as shown box (or maybe a coffered ceiling?). Its dimensions (c. 25.5 in a third panel, pp. 196–8, where the hook has been added × 23 cm) are close to those of later painted wooden squares to a bladed spear). with a more clearly ornamental, rather than devotional, In devising the order in which the panels are described purpose,8) which suggests a standardized and ongoing type here, Rondot has eschewed sorting by type or content and of decorated product in wood. The small, incomplete panel adopted a pragmatic system which divides them into four depicting Harpocrates in a naos (pp. 157–8, 251) could also groups, three by present location in museums (in Egypt, be considered in this category. Europe, and America, respectively), and a fourth comprising Setting aside these divergent cases, the majority of the those from more recently excavated contexts: Deir el-Bahari panels depict gods and goddesses, plus divinized individuals (as noted, pp. 30–1, but not further described here), Kellis, (two youthful examples, pp. 89–91, 186–9, with further dis- and Tebtunis. A numbered list of the items in these four cussion pp. 258–60), as busts, full-length figures standing, groups precedes the descriptions (pp. 72–3), but the numbers alone or in pairs, or seated on thrones, holding inanimate are not further utilized after this, the museum locations/site attributes or animals related to their cult, accompanied by names and inventory numbers that head the descriptions subsidiary individuals or files of armed figures. Some, like (arranged in alphabetical order in each of the four groups) the people depicted in mummy portraits and shrouds, hold in being used as the key identifiers throughout the rest of the their left hands a folded pink-petal wreath, or a spray of book. Amongst a scattering of small omissions, errors, or greenery, sometimes both, sometimes a short cylindrical typos in the book that could have been eliminated in copy- object like a papyrus roll. Their iconography is Graeco- editing (nothing seriously awry, although Roger Bagnall is Egyptian, and a number of them are characterized by a solid- twice renamed ‘Robert’), ‘[perdu]’ should be added to nos 6 ity of colour and line, a preference for frontality in composi- (Oxford panel), 12, and 18 in the list on p. 72, to complete tion (but with the feet in profile orientated towards the focal the data. point), and a tendency to render visual details schematically The panels are quite a diverse body of material: that they (the solid lines described as ‘decoration’ on the overtunic seem to reflect a wider range of executive competence or worn by one of the figures, pp. 92–5, and also seen on style than that displayed in the mummy portraits is, in part another, pp. 178–9, might be considered a schematic render- at least, due to the fact that the greater number of depictions ing of the draping of fabric as it is gathered in by a girdle or show full-length figures, standing, moving, or seated, so that falls in pleats over the knees). These characteristics give the painters are dealing with many more aspects of represen- them a flat and emphatic aspect, by contrast with those paint- tation than those required for the head-and-shoulders format ings that employ a more varied battery of illusionistic effects. of the portraits; only the full-length depictions on painted shrouds, which sometimes combine ‘contemporary’ portray- The book’s third part, ‘Vers un panthéon’, is a wide-rang- als of a deceased person with other figures conceived accord- ing and speculative commentary, analysing this body of ing to traditional Egyptian funerary imagery, engage with material by reordering the panels into five new categories, some comparable issues. There is a sharp distinction in the set out on pp. 238–9: ‘Dieux et déesses de l’Égypte pharao- skill of the executants, and the iconographic and technical nique’ (but hellenized), includes four of the six or seven conventions within which they are working: eleven or so of variants of the crocodile-god in this corpus, here conceived the panels (excluding some too fragmentary to judge) are as Soknebtynis and Sobek-Ra; plus Harpocrates, Isis lactans distinguished by their more fluent and painterly execution, (the only image of this goddess that Rondot admits as indis- using effects such as highlights, contrasting outlines, and putably representing her), and a similar goddess here rein- strokes of hatching and cross-hatching in various tones, to stated in the pantheon as Hathor (pp. 255-6, her plumed model limbs and bodies, indicate the draping or fall of tex- crown and the identity of deceased women in transfigured tiles, and give expression to faces. Two in particular amongst state as ‘Hathor’ being adduced in support, and also suggest- these stand out from the rest: the Moscow panel depicting an ing a funerary use for the door-leaf to which this large frag- amorous couple, generally (though not indisputably) identi- fied as Ares and Aphrodite (further discussion prudently kept 7) S. Schrenk, Textilien des Mittelmeerraumes aus spätantiker bis früh- to a minimum here, pp. 279–80); and the Cairo panel islamischer Zeit, Bern, 2004, pp. 26–34, with colour illustration on p. 30; (pp. 84–8) showing a reclining, garlanded child with the the comparable Boston tapestry cited in n. 61 has perhaps been confused with this one in the allusion at the close of p. 249. attributes of Harpocrates and Dionysus, clutching a bunch of 8) M.-H. Rutschowscaya, La peinture copte. Catalogue, Département grapes and accompanied by a frisky dog with garlands des Antiquités égyptiennes, Musée du Louvre; Paris, 1992, pp. 63–4 around its neck: a surrogate for the spotted feline more usu- nos 41–2, col pls facing p. 10.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 8 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 13 IMAGES OF THE INVINCIBLE GODS 14
ment apparently belonged); the two divinized men of ments with details so scanty as to defy particular identifica- unknown identity, and a couple of the Tebtunis fragments tion. not so easy to categorize — one with part of figure that could This is a rich and thought-provoking array of information, be an enthroned goddess, and the other, a female figure analysis, and hypotheses. The discussion of each panel is wearing the kind of decorated stole that has been noted on helpfully accompanied by a drawing at one-fifth scale, other images commonly identified as worshippers of Isis. which, in the case of those only partly preserved, shows them Next, ‘Dieux et déesses du monde hellénistique’ includes placed within their hypothetical full extent. The analysis of Serapis and his female consort viewed as ‘Les agathodé- the subjects’ dress, attributes, and accompanying figures is mons’, well-attested in their snake form in the Faiyum (so, well supported with iconographic comparanda plus supple- the consort is deemed to be Hermuthis, in Rondot’s rigorous mentary illustrations, and also epigraphic and textual evi- policy of re-examining images that are generally labelled dence, and there is a good deal of tabulated matter to clarify ‘Isis’); the Dioscuri, the Nemesis griffin and a female figure the discussion. Questions are raised as well as answered, and taken to be ‘Nemesis’, Kore/Demeter, ‘Ares and Aphrodite’, the author’s perplexity on some points candidly acknowl- and a ‘Scène d’apothéose’. Two figures who have featured edged. Inevitably, it provokes more questions and specula- in Rondot’s earlier papers are then accorded a section of their tion, and some specific points are revisited at the end of this own, shared with an analogous and well-known depiction of review. a rider-god brandishing a double-axe: ‘Héron, Lycurgue et le cavalier d’Hartford’ subjects the iconography of Heron The fourth and final part is the shortest, and is followed and his companion, plus the identity of the Hartford horse- by a brief Conclusion, pp. 367–72, and the customary appa- man, to detailed scrutiny (although listed on p. 239 with ratus — informative tables of the plates and figures in the Heron et al., the small figure wielding a double-axe in the book, a succinct bibliography, and an index. The first chapter fragmentary panel Copenhagen 711 is more appropriately of Part 4, ‘Questions d’iconographie’, deals briskly with discussed in the following section). The author restates his selected features, beginning with the types of background case for seeing Heron’s angry-featured companion as the seen in these panels — mostly blank, in fact, save for those Thracian Lycurgus; the absence of his name from epigraphic with a high plinth or column at one side, a device seen in and documentary sources in the Faiyum is readily admitted, many terracottas and reliefs, too. A couple of examples have but his translation to Egypt with ‘Arab’ modifications en a ‘cadre architectural’ comprising the features of a Graeco- route is posited (pp. 298–300). A lengthier discussion of the Egyptian style naos, so that the painting presents within itself ‘dieux des Arabes’ (pp. 336–40), speculating on the ethnicity what is seen three-dimensionally in the rare painted wooden and location of the ‘Arab’ designation, and the presence in, shrine housing the portrait of a schoolboy, Cairo CG33269, or interaction with, Roman Egypt, of those so described, dated to the first half of the third century.10) There follows a closes the commentary on the last major section: ‘Dieux et resumé of the types of floral and foliar wreaths seen on heads déesses d’origine étrangère dans la compagnie de dieux en in this corpus, and the nimbuses, in both radiate and plain armes’. This expands upon Rostovtzeff’s 1933 paper, ‘Klein- form, seen on many of them — Rondot summarizes the cur- asiatische und syrische Götter im römischen Ägypten’,9) rent state of discussion on the nimbus, and observes that, adding a further nine panels or fragments thereof to the while solar in its primary meaning, it may have become a paintings there discussed (they included the Cairo and Oxford convenient ‘shorthand’ marker of divinity. The clothing, fragments now united by Rondot, but not then recognized as crowns, and sceptres of the deities, male and female, and the belonging together). Foreign traits are identified both in the sacred animals associated with them, are reviewed, and dominant deities in these depictions (some of them identified the thrones, often with footstools, on which they sit are dis- here as Sobek or Sobek-Horus syncretized with an imported cussed at some length. Two forms are seen in these paint- god) and in the troops of smaller, armed figures that may ings; both have turned legs (painted yellow, and when accompany them, either in a register below or, in one sharply highlighted in white or cream, to be seen as gilded?), instance, in double registers on a pair of doors (Berlin 17957, but the simpler type has a rectangular frame with added tex- pp. 132–8; in both cases, the compositional device of regis- tile at the back, the grander a panelled back finished with the ters could be seen to have good Egyptian pedigree). Some entablature typical of temple doorways (a cavetto cornice are distinguished with nimbuses, all are here conceived as plus a frieze of uraei), and also of traditional Egyptian naoi. gods. Their weaponry is various, and occasionally one of Two concluding paragraphs muse on the apparent absence them leads a horse or a dromedary (but can the latter really from these pictures of the ‘orant’ figure, the supplicant or be the animal whose rear is depicted beside the lone figure offerer interacting with the deity: an absence which could be on Cairo JE 31570, pp. 92–5, 311? The decorated haunch- taken to validate their status as early icons. It also touches, strap there shown is a strictly equine feature, related to the however, on the role of the single subsidiary figures seen in kind of saddle used on Roman army horses, as well illus- some, noted at greater length in the preceding sections, in the trated on the Hartford horseman in this corpus, col. pl. on discussions of the iconography of Heron and Lycurgus p. 201; the detail on the Cairo panel seems rather to be a (pp. 291–4, 296: Heron’s ‘serviteur noir’, equipped in one clumsy view of a horse’s nearside haunch as it moves to the representation with a pink wreath at the ready, a sprig of viewer’s right, behind the figure — cf. the horse in the Thea- greenery, and a cloth — for ritual purification? — over his delphia painting of Heron, fig. 21 on p. 56, which likewise shoulder; and the wreathed woman with Lycurgus), and the has a second strap with pendent ornaments below the studded armed gods (pp. 309–11, 320–7): also the ‘lady with the lit- one). The final, fifth, category rounds up half-a-dozen frag- tle dog’ (defined as a goddess by Rondot, pp. 309–10) who
10) W. Seipel, ed., Bilder aus dem Wüstensand. Mumienportraits aus 9.) Aegyptus 13, pp. 493–513. dem Ägyptischen Museum Kairo, Vienna, 1998, pp. 176–7 no. 58.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 9 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 15 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2015 16
appears twice, neither she nor the animal readily explicable; bewigged crocodile head (not seen elsewhere in this corpus), and the priest (pp. 310–11, also shown twice) in white garb and sits enthroned but turning to offer ‘life’ (he seems to and sandals with distinctive high straps — perhaps the ‘white have an ankh-sign in his extended hand) to a standing figure, sandals’ donned by the priests entering the temple to perform the deified Pharaoh Maa-Re (Pramarres) shown in canonical the daily ritual of Soknebtynis11) looked like these? These profile view. In Alexandria 22978 (pp. 75–80), Soknebtynbis figures seem to introduce a performative element into the sits beside a standing figure of the ithyphallic god Min of paintings, which is also present in the depictions of Heron, Akhmim, the documentary evidence for whose cult in the and the two divinized youths, pouring libations from a patera Faiyum has been noted by Rondot in an earlier publication. on to an altar; one of the youths holds a situla and a spray of A little more might be said about Min’s garment, a loose, greenery, the other a folded pink wreath and greenery (the sleeveless robe, with a decorated neckband and an opening identity of the figure on the right in Berlin 15978 might be which allows his erection to be displayed; the lower part of reconsidered in comparison with these two ‘divinisés’). his body is lost, but there is no indication that the robe stops Rondot dismisses earlier theories that the small figures rep- short. To the parallels in terracotta cited here (p. 243) for this resent donors; their identification as servants or attendants in puzzling ‘chiton sans manche ou chlamyde?’ can be added cult functions seems likely, but it is worth noting the simi- a more distant one, the Egyptianizing statue of Min in larly miniature figure in the Magdola temple wall-painting Munich.13) This black marble Min is clothed in a short- (p. 51 fig. 18, watercolour copy), garbed in white and hold- sleeved, clinging garment which extends to the ankles and ing a folded wreath and spray of greenery, seemingly active has a raised neckband and a vertical border down the front in putting incense on to a blazing altar; he stands in proxim- which is interrupted by the genitals (shown in normal state), ity to the tabula ansata enclosing the dedicatory inscription towards which the figure’s left arm (lower half missing) is of the man who was probably the donor of these paintings directed; the raised right arm (wrist and hand missing) would that depict ‘the great invincible gods’.12) have held an attribute now lost (the customary flail, as rec- A second chapter, ‘Questions de style’, reviews the mix- ognized by Rondot in the painted panel?). The statue, pos- ture of representational conventions, Egyptian and Greek, sibly but not demonstrably from Hadrian’s Villa, certainly seen in these pictures, and the formal differences they dis- showing the traits of Hadrianic creations after Egyptian mod- play; refuting Cumont’s old charge of ‘provincial dauber’ els, presents a modified, more ‘decent’ version of a hel- levelled at the painter of the Brussels panel showing Heron lenized image of Min to which the Tebtunis panel also testi- and his companion, Rondot none the less gives due consid- fies, and thus alerts us to a shared pantheon of hellenized eration to the differences that suggest some subjects carried images, from which ‘Egyptianizing’ creations outside Egypt their own representational canon with them, and there may might take their lead. be a corpus-within-the-corpus. Perhaps the discussion of Amongst the remarkable material that has come to light as ‘Les yeux exorbités’ (pp. 335–6: the wide-eyed look con- a result of this corpus are two further fragmentary depictions ferred on several of the gods in these panels, including the of an unusual headdress in which the heads of a falcon and ‘Lycurgus’ figure and the crocodile-god of the conjoint a crocodile poke out on either side of a foliar wreath, worn Cairo-Oxford panel) could have been appositely sited here as above wildly curling hair and secured with ribbon ties, lem- a stylistic feature worth further discussion. Rondot notes the niskoi, fringed or beaded at the ends, which fall in a fold over parallel with the overlarge eyes, the irises completely sur- the wearer’s shoulder. A fragment in London, UCL 16312 rounded by white, seen in the celebrated Sophilos mosaic, (pp. 160–1) shows the upper left side of a curly head wearing presumed to show Berenice II as the personification of Alex- this feature, with the falcon, while a small part of a right side, andria (the flying, fringed ribbons of her headdress are ech- with the crocodile snout, has been recognized on Cairo JE oed in the lemniskoi seen descending more tamely on to the 38250 (pp. 108–11), worn by a mostly lost male figure who shoulders of some of the gods in this corpus, see below); was shown beside the better-preserved bust of a goddess the heightened expression they confer is also reminiscent identified by Rondot as Aphrodite-Hathor. The ‘motif diffi- of the startling effect that inlaid eyes in sculpture can give. cilement interprétable’ at his shoulder seems to be a more The particular association of these panels with the Faiyum substantial version of the yellowish lemniskoi seen on the is stressed in the concluding pages that consider their wider shoulder of the incomplete male bust with this headgear on significance in the ostensibly separate spheres of traditional Cairo JE 31571b (pp. 103–7), where he is accompanied by a Egyptian religion and hellenized culture, to which they give file of smaller armed figures below. The curious headdress the lie (as do the Greek translations of ritual texts and hand- was noted by Rostovtzeff, the first to compare it with the books found amongst the papyri), and also examines the evi- wreath worn by a seated god, fully preserved from his hem- dence they contribute to our understanding of the syncretiza- hem-crown to his ankle boots, shown on a limestone relief in tion of deities. These paintings do indeed present some Cairo, CG 27569, where he is flanked by subsidiary figures, remarkable, and unexpected, visual evidence for a mélange plus a troop of armed ones in a separate register below. The of cultural and cultic influences, and syncretic forms. Two of relief has been the object of considerable and ongoing dis- the most interesting panels, both remarkable for their confi- cussion (including here, pp. 304-7, 320-7, figs 52, 56-8), and dent handling of painterly effects in combination with adap- most recently a stela honouring a deity with the same attrib- tations of pharaonic imagery, show different manifestations utes has been found at Dimai, and is briefly noted here pend- of the crocodile god interacting or in company with another ing its publication by Paola Davoli. Amongst the figures divine figure. In Moscow 6860 (pp. 166–9), Sobek-Re has a flanking the god on the Cairo relief are two already men-
11) Rosati, Papiri ...da Tebtynis, p. 114. 13) A. Grimm, in M. Kunze (ed.), Die Wiederentdeckung der ägyp- 12) Text and discussion: E. Bernand, Recueil des inscriptions grecques tischen Kunst im 18. Jahrhundert, Stendal, 2003, pp. 127-9 no. III.3; the du Fayoum, III, Leiden, 1981, pp. 54–7. inapposite head is an eighteenth-century restoration.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 1010 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 17 IMAGES OF THE INVINCIBLE GODS 18
tioned above in connection with the subsidiary figures on the yellow bands, could be a cubit rod rather than a sceptre; but panel paintings: the ‘goddess’ with the little dog (who also it had some kind of terminal at the top (mostly lost, p. 275), appears beside the head of the god on Cairo panel JE and the shafts of sceptres typically have added decoration in 31571b), and the priest (here, too, wearing the distinctive various forms (for instance, those held by Kore and Demeter sandals seen on the others: there are indications in faint relief at the left in the Karanis wallpainting, fig. 29 on p. 63, and on his feet of the straps that would be appropriate to the soles the decorated shaft seen beside the goddess on the Malibu clearly indicated under them, fig. 56). A chain of connections door-panel, p. 204). The small figure of a male child with is beginning to form for the god for whom Rondot suggests nimbus, floral wreath and sidelock (‘Harpocrates’) who the designation ‘Sobek-Horus, coiffé à la manière d’Apollon’. occupies the top left-hand corner of the Copenhagen panel Apart from their often fragmented state, the painted sur- holds a very slender, undecorated black shaft with his right faces of these panels are sometimes so badly preserved that hand; a situla is looped over his left wrist, and worn cross- making even a general identification of their pictorial content ways over his chest like a bandolier is a pink floral garland, is difficult. Some bold interpretations are offered here, followed by a black stole, the fringed end of which hangs amongst them the suggestion that Ann Arbor 23976 (pp. 182– down the front of his white garment. This garland and stole 3), a very murky fragment from Karanis, is the remains of a combination, also seen on the chest of Harpocrates in the ‘scène d’apothéose’ with an eagle. At the bottom is some- Karanis C65 wallpainting (p. 62 fig. 28), is identified on sev- thing plausibly identified as the leg of a bird (‘un rapace’, eral other figures in this corpus, too (pp. 81, 204, 263–4, p. 280), above which are foliage-like strokes in different 266; but where the ‘stole’ is simply black paint along the directions (rather like those in isolated patches of painted lower profile of the pink band, it might rather be understood surface on Copenhagen 711); they are taken to indicate as shading to indicate the volume of the petal garland). More feathers, but a suggested parallel for this depiction of plum- pertinent is the parallel cited on p. 275: the male figure on a age, the monumental sculpted eagle of the 5th century BC, painted shroud,18) wearing the pink floral bandolier and from Thasos,14) is rather distant in medium and time. The black stole, and holding in his left hand a ‘bunch of herbs’, scene of apotheosis amongst the Magdola temple paintings in his right ‘a long rod speckled black and white’, as noted (p. 50 fig. 15, watercolour copy), cited in support, attests to by the excavator but largely passed over by subsequent com- the fact that the kind of soaring group found as a motif in mentators. Christina Riggs’s characterization of the deceased Roman paintings elsewhere was known in Egypt, perhaps as man on the Dublin shroud as ‘...a participant, perhaps a priest a result of the transition of imperial apotheosis imagery into or a synod member, in the popular cults devoted to Isis and wider funerary use noted by E. Schwinzer,15) but what kind the youthful Horus...’ (cited on p. 275 with reference to the of composition might include this hypothetical bird, appar- bandolier and stole) prompts further thought about the status ently standing firmly at the bottom of the panel? Perhaps of the woman depicted on Copenhagen 685 — perhaps, after something like the Alexandrian coin reverses showing Zeus all, ‘une mortelle’ as Rondot had earlier apprehended reclining on the outspread wings of an eagle (cf. pp. 280–1, (p. 274)? fig. 46).16) Distinctive features of dress and accoutrements figure As noted earlier, the figures in these paintings occasion- prominently in the lengthy analysis of the ‘foreign’ armed ally share details in common with the mummy-portraits, and gods, the group in this corpus that seems most resistant to in a few cases they might be dated, like these, using the clarification or identification, though Rondot offers a range criteria of dress, hairstyle and jewellery: one such is Copen- of hypotheses. Their clothing, footwear, armour (notably hagen 685 (pp. 146–8), the panel with a female figure greaves), and weapons (bow, double-axe, mace, as well as depicted at more than bust length, but bearing comparison more standard items) are seen as significant markers of dif- with some mummy-portraits (as noted by Rondot, pp. 65–6, ference. A good number of these figures, however, both indi- 274). She lacks distinguishing headgear, but her compact viduals and those in troops (Cairo JE 31570, Oxford hairstyle has a pronounced central parting, and also seems to 1922.237, Paris Y 19919; Cairo + Oxford, and Berlin 17957) be divided into two sections, gathered into a chignon at the are shown in quite a simple outfit, defined as the ‘basic back while at the front, darker strokes over a lighter brown model’ in Rondot’s discussion (pp. 327–9, with variants in seem to suggest loose curls nearer the face; the description detail tabulated). It consists of a long-sleeved undertunic and also notes uncertain coloured traces of further decoration a short-sleeved overtunic, both sparingly decorated, belted overlying the hair. The hairstyle resembles that seen on quite high, and topped by a cloak that in actual wear would mummy portraits of Hadrianic date — Berlin 31161/11, for probably be fastened on the right shoulder, but is mostly instance, where the woman wears a single necklace similar shown on these figures fastened centrally. Similar narrow- to that on the Copenhagen woman.17) Rondot’s identification sleeved, wide-bodied tunics with coloured vertical bands of her as Nemesis rests on the suggestion that the black shaft (clavi) on the body and others decorating and edging the in her right hand, decorated at regular intervals with double sleeves were being worn throughout the Roman world during the period in which these paintings were made, even by the military.19) 14) J.-Y. Empereur, A short guide to the Graeco-Roman Museum Alex- The more traditional military garb of some other figures andria, Alexandria, 2000, pp. 15–16, inv. no. 39367. 15) Schwebende Gruppen in der pompejanischen Wandmalerei, Würz- (p. 288) is in essence Hellenistic, but shows a specific affin- burg, 1979, pp. 48–9. 16) A. Geissen, Katalog Alexandrinischer Kaisermünzen der Sammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde der Universität zu Kőln, 4 vols, Opladen 18.) Dublin 1911.442: W.M.F. Petrie, Roman Portraits and Memphis IV, 1974–1983, I, pp. 184–5 no. 628, Trajan; II, pp. 100–1 nos 1023–5, 284–5 London 1911, p. 15, pl. XII. nos 1559-61, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, respectively. 19.) Perhaps these are the sticharia, ‘[striped] tunics’, attested later in 17) B. Borg, Mumienporträts. Chronologie und kultureller Kontext, lists of clothing provision for the army: J.A. Sheridan, Columbia Papyri Mainz am Rhein, 1996, pp. 44, 107, pls 15, 63.2. IX: The Vestis militaris Codex, Atlanta, 1998, pp.73-–80, esp. 75–7.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 1111 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37 19 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS LXXII N° 1-2, januari-april 2015 20
ity with the outfit associated with Alexander the Great, the reel, wave-band, wavy ribbon, scrolls, dentils, and guilloche, salient features of this being an apparently composite cuirass, that could have been lifted from the repertoire common to including some scale-armour, with prominent shoulder pieces both mosaicists and weavers (and also used in a range of framing a Gorgoneion, a sash tied around the torso (the decorative art). Were these painters trying to conjure up the model for those high-placed girdles on later figures?), two appearance of ‘exotic’ clothing from more familiar local tiers of protective strips (pteryges) as a skirt below, similar resources? There is no close parallel which would help to ones over the shoulders, and high laced boots.20) The three place these outfits, although certain features (trellis-pattern/ representations of booted Dioscuri in this corpus show vari- quilting on coats and trousers, fringes, and richly ornamented ants of this outfit, Cairo JE 87191 the closest (though with a tunics) appear in Parthian and Sasanian images.22) white skirt that looks more like textile), while amongst the representations of Heron, Berlin 15979 (upper body only) The reader of this richly illustrated assemblage of informa- and Brussels E 7409 have the Gorgoneion on a background tion and ideas cannot but begin thinking of further hypoth- of scales on the chest, and pteryges over the shoulders, and eses, and different answers to some of the questions the the latter has a skirt marked in strips and wears greaves author poses. In themselves these panels, which are in above short boots. Neither is as impressively detailed as the the main quite idiosyncratic, are an astonishing body of painting of Heron, standing, from the temple at Theadelphia, material. Like the mummy portraits, they had a particular p. 55 fig. 20 (though Heron on horseback, from the same function in their time, and together with them they offer us location, wears a simplified outfit, p. 56 fig. 21). This selec- a controlled glimpse into an area of ancient art — poly- tive use of elements from a ‘heroic’ uniform (worn over chrome paintings on wood, linen, papyrus, parchment — that commonplace long-sleeved tunics, it seems), which is not is otherwise largely lost to us. We look forward to reading quite that of contemporary images of the imperial/military the observations of Mathews and Muller, too, in due course. victor, poses questions about the models used for these It was a brave enterprise indeed to undertake the compilation armed gods, and the evolution of their iconography. In the and study of this challenging and imperfectly-preserved Étampes panel, this seems to have reached a further stage, material, but Rondot has succeeded in providing a fundamen- with Heron’s outfit marked in heavy linear detail, horizontal tal and well-furnished corpus that can be used by others and vertical, similar to that seen on the Liverpool statue of a approaching the material from many different angles. The bearded imperial figure with a defeated foe (illustrated by arrangement of this book may tax their patience a little: the Rondot, ThesCRA VIII, pl. 30.2 ); this also has shoulder reference system used for the panels, in preference to simple pieces framing an image — in this case, a roundel with a bust catalogue numbers, requires some weaving back and forth on of Serapis, and another showing Harpocrates further down the reader’s part to locate specific items, compounded by the (cf. on p. 52 Jouguet’s description of the figure in the Mag- fact that Parts 2 and 3 tackle them in a different order (though dola wall-paintings that stood to the left of the one illustrated in Part 3 the relevant page references for the documentary in fig. 18, his tunic ornamented with ‘deux medaillons’ section are helpfully provided in the headings); amalgamat- depicting male and female busts of ?divinities). ing the first three categories of ‘Descriptions’ into a single The woollen tunics woven in Roman Egypt seem to have alphabetical listing could have made for easier reference. The become increasingly colourful and ornamented as time went ample index, however, will help the reader to cut down the by,21) but not to the extent of the extraordinary patterned time spent searching — and no-one will have cause to regret garments worn by a few of the armed gods in these panels. time spent with this ground-breaking publication, which The outfits of Lycurgus, in Brussels E 7409, and the Hartford opens up new avenues for exploration, touching upon so horseman seem to be derived from some equestrian culture many topics in and beyond the study of Roman Egypt, and beyond Egypt where the boots and trousers (chaps?), fringed providing the data, tools, and stimulus to pursue them. Merci along one side and lattice-patterned as though quilted (as also mille fois à l’auteur. the sleeves), would be the practical norm; the baggy, flaring upper garment that they wear, copiously decorated and some- Oxford, February 2015 times showing a jagged outline like a thick fringe down the side, is seen also on the figures on the pair of door-leaves (Berkeley 6.21384-5) and the partly-preserved figure in Tebtynis 215. It has a frontal feature, left as a white blank on the Hartford rider but shown in criss-cross black lines on the others as though it were lacing (cf. the similar feature at the centre of the inner garment worn by the crocodile god in Cairo + Oxford). On the incomplete figure in one of the Magdola wall-paintings (p. 51 fig. 18, watercolour copy) this is replaced with a mosaic-like band of poised squares: a pat- tern not unknown in woven textiles. Indeed, the greater part of the decoration on this figure’s clothing (which includes ornamented trellis-pattern on his sleeve), and that of some others in this group, incorporates patterns such as bead-and-
20) T. Hölscher, Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christ, Würzburg, 1973, pp. 127–45, esp. 137. 22) B. Goldman, ‘The later pre-Islamic riding costume’, Iranica Antiqua 21) F. Pritchard, Clothing Culture: Dress in Egypt in the First Millen- 28, 1993, pp. 201–46; ‘Pictorial graffiti of Dura-Europos’, Parthica. Incon- nium AD, Manchester, 2006, pp. 45–82. tri di culture nel mondo antico 1, 1999, pp. 19–106.
998048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd8048_Bior2015_1-2_01.indd 1212 221/05/151/05/15 15:3715:37