6 5 4 3 2 1 lcaRodero Alicia egt–it etre C htwudrahiscia ntefit etr C Numerous BC. century fifth the in climax its reach period Orientalising would the that in roots BC) its centuries with (eighth–sixth development a urbanisation, of process the to cemeteries. linked or and Greece sanctuaries of in those statues stone with erecting shared of customs that practice religious with the relationship Iberian Etruria apparent Nonetheless, no world. had Greek that the cosmology of particular a of formalisation production, the ceramic and and metallurgical in specialisation trade, long-distance of intensification Keay & (Cunliffe context Mediterranean 1998). the Molinos within & population, personality Ruiz indigenous 1995; special the coast. the a with southern among with interaction Spanish changes it economic the strong investing provoked on a century presence establishments developed ninth Phoenician important the population The least founded Age BC at had Bronze centuries from who late first determined Phoenicians, the local be to the can sixth when roots the Its BC, from Peninsula. flourished Iberian which the that within as defined is culture Iberian Introduction culture. any Iberian forgive the certainly of can carvings complex One and workshop. BC. Keywords: elegant or the kind century craftsman in the fifth pride a with of lie denote the expression to to an seems to masons sculptor comparison of back by point used dating best signature their of symbols, markings religious southern visible or scarcely from letters of to series statues Unrelated a discovered limestone have authors well-known the mason, on modern a of help the With Chapa Teresa from statues stone Iberian on signatures Sculptors’ Ja eevd etme 08 cetd 7Nvme 08 eie:5Jnay2009 January 5 Revised: 2008; November 27 Accepted: 2008; September 5 Received: ANTIQUITY atr naui a napeibeices ntenme fsupos workshops sculptors’ of number the in increase appreciable an saw Eastern an structures, urban towards tendency a include culture Iberian the of features major The juntadeandalucia.es) pi Eal [email protected]) (Email: Spain ainlAcaooia uem .Srao1,Mdi,San(mi:[email protected]) (Email: Spain Madrid, 13, Serrano [email protected]) C. (Email: Museum, Spain Archaeological Madrid, National E-28006 Council, [email protected]) Research (Email: National Spain Spanish Seville, 41004 Seville, of University Geograf de Facultad Prehistory, of Department nvriyo atlaL aca lz ail,401Tld,San(mi:[email protected]) (Email: Spain Toledo, 45071 Padilla, Plaza Mancha, Castilla-La of University C n Spain) en, suoMsu,CleGnrlEchag General Calle Museum, astulo ´ ´ 3(09:723–737 (2009): 83 bra bra utr,Io g,supue tte,at artists art, statues, sculpture, Age, Iron culture, Iberian Iberia, 1 4 ,Mar atsaCepri Bautista , ´ aBel ıa Ipolca-Obulco en ´ 2 ,M.IsabelMart e2 30 iae,San(mi:bautista.ceprian.ext@ (Email: Spain Linares, 23700 2, ue ¨ ´ aeHsoi,UiesddCmltned ard 84 Madrid, 28040 Madrid, de Complutense Universidad Historia, e ıa an ´ 5 723 unPereira Juan & ´ ınez-Navarrete (, 6 3 ,

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 1. Location of Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain) and other sites cited on the text. pieces of sculpture have been discovered in the province of Jaen,´ some with works of great quality, such as the Pajarillo de (Chapa et al. 2006). However, the most important site in terms of the number and quality of pieces is that of Cerrillo Blanco de Porcuna,known as Ipolca to the Iberians and as Obulco in Roman times (Figure 1). The sculptures were cut in limestone and unfortunately they were recovered with no archaeological control. Most of them were discovered in a ditch dug at the edge of an Orientalising cemetery (Blazquez´ & Gonzalez´ Navarrete 1985; Gonzalez´ Navarrete 1987), although the sculptures can be dated by means of their style during the fifth century BC. A total of 1486 fragments of different sizes were recovered that were later partially pieced together at the Jaen´ Museum, where they are still held. The most complete study of these fragments was made by Negueruela (1990), although other interesting works have been published (Leon´ 1998; Olmos 2002). All the studied Ipolca sculptures were violently broken and dumped in the above- mentioned ditch, although some fragments appear to have been scattered over the surface of the surrounding hillside – some were even used as construction material in fourth-century graves. The destruction of these pieces has been related to the rejection of the elite groups that were represented, but it could also have been the result of a ritual transfer from the sanctuary to which they belonged, at the moment this monument was abandoned, renewed or moved to a new place (Zof´ıo & Chapa 2005).

724 5-) h in tde eeaenneirpi ak,adi stefis iete are they time first the is it and sculpture. marks, Iberian 1990: any non-epigraphic (Untermann on are name from recorded a here being pieces as studied the interpreted signs was of that be The one inscription might 658-9). only possible these now, a that have Until propose to marks. We known workshop pieces. was some or of sculptor surface as the interpreted on noted were marks engraved h ehiu fIeinsupuehsbe h ujc fol e ai tde (Negueruela studies 2006), basic Palagia few a 1998; only of Bl (Jockey subject possible 1990-1991; the sculpture, viewpoints been the has these Roman sculpture from Iberian and and of well-studied technique monuments, Greek the been Unlike at have destruction. which located of or were both deterioration pieces methods cutting their finished the behind the and processes tools where the design, places their employed, in transport the taken and decisions used, the extraction determine stone to is of aim systems The the piece. finished the production. of to local stone introduction the the of the of as foundations basic considered the be changing can without Orientalising sculptures styles the and Iberian techniques on of new Greek times. searched development with Similarities pre-Iberian the be iconography. and along in must religion art Phoenician present sculpture with already stone links strong Iberian was with period, of sculpture origins of the type Therefore, this indicates 2006) Morillo hwn la heiiniflec nteTresa ilg fCroa(Bel Carmona of village Tartessian the in influence Phoenician clear showing cltr a t w atsadfrua,adi eea osntcicd rprywith properly 1994: (Boardman coincide features not technical Iberian does nor areas. subjects Marcad general its two in 69; of and terms these in formulae, between models and Hellenic dependency supposedly tastes have direct own who of its authors has lack those sculpture the However, indicate workshops. Ionic them especially compared Greek, eastern and Iberian h rsn okwr aeo hs figures. these on made were work present the grso obln osee eitn utn rat fageso.Te r fgreat of are They aggression. of static the acts be of or to finest hunting appear the These depicting are recovered. scenes they been since to interest also belong have to bulls, or context and religious figures griffins, lambs including a animals, wolves, fantastic with and dogs, accordance real people of birds, in representations these of what solemn, number large determine appear A to 3). activities (Figure difficult his their to very close although it rams the makes doing, two of holding sculptures are is One the other sanctuary. the of a and fracture shoulder, at left The be body. her to on group appear snake second a that A carrying figures 2). is (Figure feminine women traced and Ionic be masculine with can of features parallels composed share exact is to no although described 407), been been 1994: has has (Rolley are piece figures art who the the others of occasions one killing different only warriors On of well-armed conserved. head some the Unfortunately, to battle. corresponds for prepared these 1987, inadequately (Blanco of distinguished One be to b). groups & different 1988a allowed has sculptures these of study The marks their and sculptures The uigtedtie xmnto fthe of examination detailed the During u ups st nls h auatr fteeIeinsupue,fo h selection the from sculptures, Iberian these of manufacture the analyse to is purpose Our odt,rsac a enfcsdo cngah n tl,srsigtelnsbetween links the stressing style, and iconography on focused been has research date, To 97 risn 98.Mroe,tercn icvr fasoesculpture stone a of discovery recent the Moreover, 1998). Croissant 1997; e ´ nuz&Rold & anquez ´ n1994). an ´ eeaChapa Teresa Ipolca 725 cltrs h intr ak icse in discussed marks signature The sculptures. Ipolca tal. et cltrsudrae yorteam, our by undertaken sculptures n&Garc & en ´ Ipolca ´ ıa

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 2. Two sculptures from the group of warriors.

Figure 3. Sculpture group known as the ‘priests and priestesses’.

The marks found to date appear only on certain pieces representing animals, although since many of the sculptures are incomplete it cannot be ruled out that they were also made on other types of figure. The marks were engraved with a very fine-pointed instrument and are hardly visible without special lighting. Although these works have been held at the Jaen´ Museum for over 25 years, the mentioned marks have hitherto gone undetected by researchers. They were first noticed by Francisco Aguilera, an experienced quarryman

726 onso otdfcl cesfrtesupo n hrfr hs es iil othe to visible least those therefore and – the visible. at sculptor still but the are polished, marks for carefully chisel was of access – stone hindquarters observer difficult the the of most if surface of reinforced an The shows be points conserved. and surely been expressive would had extraordinarily that animal is the piece, quality the limestone, of entire a face of The volume, and teeth. block snake of its body single the understanding sunk the a of has on from snake head pairs cut its the in The was turning where repeated body. which represent violently marks its to of of around appear series process would itself a the lion-griffin wrapped but in preserved, its has is been confirm that and not to snake palmette has tending a half griffins, confront a on of to and claws typical head monster. wings this its prey lacks of rests feature of beast main animal bird The a The as griffin. a ambiguity a emphasised of of sculptor beak a the mark Anyway, identity. for the the feline not than – it neck were rather its lion teeth a of has be back clearly the would down that running animal crest an represents sculpture This 4). (Figure hr olw ecito ftepee arigtemrsadtemrsthemselves. marks the and marks marks. the signature carrying immediately be pieces to the Aguilera them of suggested Mr description experience, techniques inspection, a own the follows his On There on assess sculptures. based to and the museum marks, of the the noticed production to the us accompanied in who employed Porcuna from sculptor and snake. a by attacked being Lion-griffin 4. Figure 1. ingifi ihplet n snake and palmette with Lion-griffin eeaChapa Teresa hih .7m egh05m it 0.26m) width 0.56m, length 0.779m, (height 727 tal. et

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 5. Wolf attacking a lamb.

The engraved sculptors’ marks are found on the back of the lion-griffin’s neck, and are formed by interconnecting lines at angles to one another. The maximum width of the mark is 75mm and its maximum height 80mm. The impacts sustained during the destruction of the piece caused the deterioration of the surface, and some of the lines making up these signatures are truncated at certain points. 2. Wolf attacking a lamb (height 0.77m, length 0.55m, width 0.39m) (Figure 5). This piece remains incomplete, despite a good part of it having been reconstructed from various fragments found at the site, and represents a lamb being bowled over by a charging wolf. The wolf, with its jagged mane about its neck, has sunk its fangs into the upper part of the lamb’s back and has dragged them backwards, leaving marks in the lamb’s flesh and pulling back the victim’s skin. The wolf’s pupils express the tension of the situation, while its frown lines indicate the violence of the attack. Again, expressivity is the main argument of the sculpture, the sculptor clearly having undertaken a careful study of a complex position and attitude.

728 o’ ih hudrbae ept t n rcn ti h otesl bevdo all of observed easily most the is it tracing fine its Despite blade. shoulder right structures dog’s similar with contact made frieze. figure sides a the the of like while part something ground lower produce the the to width. suggesting in in them, placed 20mm hide been dog’s to about have the attempt marks might no chisel of been clear remains the have show and to what work appears 0.14m) of by the There (thickness part of revealed backplate large 0.16m) the is a height Both scene and (maximum tongue. the base panting foot, a of right shows energy his which at with The mouth, recovered along open legs. missing, fragments and still eight independent head is dog’s is from head figure the reconstructed hunter’s human the been the but has of site, work part the This upper the background. while any relief, of in produced was piece this ie rnaigi.Oc gi,temr svr n n lotivsbewtotadequate without invisible almost horizontal and lower fine the the very of affected is One mark destruction the its continuous. illumination. again, of more Once process are it. the its truncating 55mm, in obliquely, line, of piece little the length contrast, a by In maximum Lying suffered ‘A’. discontinuous. a impacts somewhat letter with are the 50mm, lines, of of horizontal one height its maximum reminds a shape with Its lines, skin. vertical the lifted has bite iue6 utrwt dog. with Hunter 6. Figure h nrvdsupos ak(aiu egt8m,wdh5m)le nthe on lies 55mm) width 80mm, height (maximum mark sculptors’ engraved The 3. wolf’s the where area the to next side, left lamb’s the on found is mark engraved The utrwt aeaddog and hare with Hunter hih .0,wdh06m Fgr ) h oe atof part lower The 6). (Figure 0.60m) width 0.80m, (height eeaChapa Teresa 729 tal. et

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 7. Bird or harpy. those inspected. In fact, its presence was mentioned in an internal report regarding the consolidation and restoration of these sculptures, although this was never mentioned in any later archaeological studies. The mark consists of interlocking lines forming three rhomboids of unequal size, the one on the right-hand side being the smallest and the one on the left remaining incomplete. A small vertical line 10mm in length extends upwards from the tip of the central rhombus. 4. Body of a bird with outstretched wings (maximum height 0.70m, maximum width 0.98m) (Figure 7). The back of this piece has been left unfinished, indicating that it was to be viewed from below. The piece has been reconstructed from five fragments, but the head and feet are missing. The two large wings are outstretched, each showing two clear sets of feathers separated by engraved bands. The bird’s body is large, leading to interpretations of it representing an eagle, but the possibility that it is intended as a harpy cannot be rejected. The surface shows signs of erosion, with many impacts and scratches. However, a potential signature mark can be seen on the left side of the body near the insertion of the wing: two straight incisions that meet to form a ‘V’ shape which appears to have the same characteristics as those described above. In the area where the lines meet the piece has suffered much surface damage, which makes it impossible to determine whether these lines extended any further. 5. Hock of a horse with human face and inscription (height 0.17m, width 90mm, thickness 115mm) (Figure 8). The surface of the piece was smoothed down to allow the facial features to stand out, which consist of some roughly hewn eyes and mouth, and a nose flattened horizontally at the level of the nostrils. This figure, made after the horse’s leg itself was completed, shows an inscription in a vertically-arranged frame divided into two unequal parts. The finely engraved signs within were studied by Untermann (1990: 658-9), who identified them as belonging to the Southern Iberian alphabet, and to possibly reflect a person’s name, perhaps that of the sculptor. However, the preservation of these lines is very poor as they have suffered at the hands of erosion, and their reading and meaning are very doubtful (de Hoz 1995: 168).

730 hyhv in htrpeetslalspu testa ersn niiulpoee.An phonemes. individual period represent Iberian that and the others south i.e. plus during semi-syllabic, the syllables writing are represent In Both of that Iberian’. 9A). signs ‘Southern forms have (Figure and two Iberian’ they writing ‘Levantine were 210): Iberian there 1997: of Peninsula Hoz (de forms Iberian different the of the east in used letters the 1958), the of (Laroche review sculptors the of a favour context. signatures 67), not epigraphic the clearly 1990: revealed did a has Stewart within East area always 113; Middle that 1978: the from (Siebert available of materials artists structure individual social the of and in tomb recognition political a theocratic, at such the found Peninsula, Eucherios, that Iberian Medell to the attributed of in kylix site arrived (Marcad fragmented Orientalising objects BC Italy signed sixth-century pre-Roman imported the and of as Greece number could in small jewellery-makers A both and 1975). products, goldsmiths their client painters, the sign Potters, to also transferable 2006). Greek prestige Duplouy personal period, of 1992; same mark (Viviers a the work, During their signatures productions. the signed the cultural sometimes on sculptural to sculptors the different noticed Mediterranean clearly within been are other carefully marks have in The interpreted signs belong. recorded be they such to which time to need contexts first they material the and and is sculptures, this Iberian stated, of previously surface been has it As the on marks the Interpreting inscription. and face human with horse a of Hock 8. Figure oee,temrsegae ntesuidIeinpee ontcrepn elto well correspond not do pieces Iberian studied the on engraved marks the However, ´ n(lo 00 6) ute,atog ti omnysaid commonly is it although Further, 261). 2000: (Olmos ın eeaChapa Teresa Ipolca 731 sculptures tal. et 97 Colonna 1957; e ´

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 9. A) Iberian writing signs: 1) proposed Phoenician model; 2) South-western writing/Southern; 3) Iberian; 4) Eastern or ‘Levantine’ Iberian (modified from de Hoz 1997); B) painted pottery of the Tartessian sanctuary at Montemol´ın (Seville) (de la Bandera 2002); C) ivory combs from Cruz del Negro (Carmona) (Moret & Rouillard 1997). area of the south-east was also home to a Greek-Iberian alphabet that used the Ionic Greek alphabet for writing in Iberian (de Hoz 1995). However, the present signs do not match any known letters in these alphabets. The majority of preserved Iberian inscriptions have

732 perdo eai ae rmtli bet r uhyugr(h n ftetidcentury studied third the the have of than that end latest) (the texts the been younger few much at has are the BC objects pattern However, metallic possibilities. no or vases these although ceramic of content, on appeared any or confirm origin property, can that of demonstrated signs as interpreted (Flores brooches are and these looms weaving 1997), Soria & (Mata recipients associated 10). studied (Figure its the terms to of other those animal in with interpreted iconography, this coincide be Orientalising not linking must do which in features therefore, sculptures, used marks, symbolic These frequently as rituals. are interpreted and deities be motifs part important should floral an they and are and therefore Ingots and figure. body, bull’s the the as carefully of on are well motifs engraved as These profoundly forehead, 56-7). Figures and and 37-40, shoulders designed 1960: the (Blanco of hindquarters on finding its motifs on the floral lines before shows deep years piece recovered The was at Blanco. iconography At widespread Cerrillo Orientalising 2005). the was clear (Chapa that showing culture motif bull Iberian a a of engraved of phases ingot, an initial ox-hide wear the an area in resembles previously Mediterranean and Tartessos that the Spanish forehead with the the parallels from on some bulls rectangle shows stone and Some period examples. Tartessian cited Orientalising the marks. in signature roots Cat. be to 221, appear instructions 2007: they do assembly (Stucky case even no or tridracnae In indicators, on 2005). symbolic motifs, (Millard anatomy, as decorative the as well of interpretation their representations as favour kinds stylised position supports these and where typology similar their Mediterranean, 95-8), However, on 330). eastern 2005: appear the Buchholz Rouillard with 1947; marks & links (Kantor (Moret of strong Collection world Bonsor have Phoenician the objects the of These especially combs 9B-C). ivory Montemol drawn (Figure Tartessian the lions 5) and on the bulls 1997: or from the II), of vases Lam. bodies the 152, ceramic on 2002: of seen be sides can or the signs of on individuals number A particular way. different to a in related think the signs to As tend lapidary BC. we represent letter, century to Iberian third any likely the with workshops. more match before are not writing Iberian they do of of sculptures that development the use usual on exceptional the engraved and that an marks ceramic seems only on it those made Indeed, while studied. societies contemporaneous – not sculptures thus fall stone and War not Punic the Second do with the clearly than funerary later marks or generally transactions are present supports commercial the other to which linked into usually are – and contexts supports lead on found been ooMr 50B)twri laee hc ie bv orlosa t onr,shows corners, its at lions the four are above The study rises monuments. of which stone Albacete, object Iberian in our some tower to on BC) Closer stonemasons (500 sculptures. and Moro Pozo quarrymen the the of by surface made the the marks given on elusive noticed been remains entail. have meaning still also languages actual could Iberian The of it translation 335). but and by’, 1992: reading ‘made the Hoz that mean (de difficulties to interpreted of’ been ‘property sometimes mean has and supports, these eti ae bra bet r nw ocryietfigmrs uha ceramic as such marks, identifying carry to known are objects Iberian later Certain unmistakeable has BC, century sixth the in dated sculpture, Iberian stone oldest The but signs, of use made also period Orientalising previous the of iconography the Certainly, nsmay oeo hs xmlspoiea dqaeepaainfrtemrsthat marks the for explanation adequate an provide examples these of none summary, In Ipolca eeaChapa Teresa cltrs h word The sculptures. 733 tal. et ´ nsntay(el Bandera la (de sanctuary ın ‘ekiar’ tal. et per rqetyon frequently appears Ipolca 99.Generally, 1999). h sculpture the , Ipolca

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

Figure 10. Orientalising stone bulls: 1) Porcuna, with floral motifs engraved on the body and forehead; 2) Monforte del Cid, with an ‘ox-hide’ ingot sign on the forehead. marks on some of its ashlars. Even though they were only finely engraved, they are perfectly visible from a certain distance (Figure 11), and were probably intended to indicate the exact position of the blocks (Almagro-Gorbea 1983: Lam. 31). We could then turn to the world of specialised stoneworkers in order to find an adequate context for these expressions. In medieval times, quarrymen, stonemasons, sculptors and donors often ‘signed’ their work for personal recognition or the identification of their workshop, generally for economic reasons. However, engravings were also made for practical purposes, such as transport information, or to denote the position of a piece in a monument (Esquieu & Hartmann-Virnich 2007). The most outstanding features of the Ipolca marks are their non-epigraphic character and the fineness of their traces, which would not have left them noticeable to a cursory look. These facts show that their main goal was to leave a very personal signature only detectable by their author and maybe other specialists that were familiar with the sculptural process. We cannot discard also economic reasons, as the marks identify authorship, and thus justify payment, but very often traditional stonemasons and sculptors engrave hidden marks on their works just as a sign of self- and peer-recognition. Ancient sculptures that carry the signatures of their makers are naturally in the minority, even in the Greek world. Certainly, the ideological and social contexts of Iberian groups seem to have considered the social status of sculptors better as manual workers than artists. As far as we know, neither their signature, nor that of the client, was considered appropriate to appear on the surface of the sculpture. The scarce use of a formal script among the population reinforced this tendency. Nevertheless, the makers of these magnificent sculptures probably wanted to leave their mark on their work. The question remains as to whether this situation reigned in other pre-Roman Mediterranean contexts. Certainly up to now, recognisable authors’ signatures to which attention has been paid have always been clearly visible. However, it is possible that other

734 A B n cltrfo ocn,woeeprec n aaiyldt h icvr fanwapc fteIberian the of aspect new a of discovery the to their led for sagacity Zapatero and stonemason Ruiz experience Aguilera, sculpture. Francisco Gonzalo whose to Porcuna, and indebted from Chapman deeply sculptor feel Robert their authors and and Professors the Finally, signs to comments. engraved encouraging the and about and language, advice helpful thorough Iberian his the for Hoz with de relation Javier Professor acknowledge to want also We References Ja the of Director the to Ministry grateful Spanish deeply the are by We funded Innovation. HUM2007-60074, Project and Research Science the of within developed been has paper This the Acknowledgements from sculptures other discovery. many awaiting Perhaps marks similar works. carry sculptors’ Mediterranean identify pre-Roman to used Almagro-Gorbea were from (modified formulae marks position with ashlars and (Albacete) Moro Pozo from 1983). tower Funerary 11. Figure agrt S Margarita EL LMAGRO EN ´ oi-utrlyssprllse aarquitectura ib la funeraria en paralelos sus y socio-cultural contexto su orientalizante, monumento Mitteilungen Statuette. einer Neufund Zu dem Statuen. mit Stadt Eine Carmona. Tartessische 177-392. ,M.&M.C.G -G nhz epro h Ja the of Keeper anchez, ´ ORBEA erica. ´ 7 43-58. 47: .18.Pz oo El Moro. Pozo 1983. M. , ardrMitteilungen Madrider ARC ´ IA M ORILLO Madrider nMsu,frhligu ndfeetwy hl esuidtesculptures. the studied we while ways different in us helping for Museum, en ´ 06 Das 2006. . 24: eeaChapa Teresa 735 B 98.Lseclua ePrua I.Animalia. III. Porcuna. de esculturas Las 1988b. – y Hierofantes II. Porcuna. de esculturas Las 1988a. – de Estatuas I. Porcuna. de esculturas Las 1987. – LANCO tal. et Arqueolog Bolet 1-27. 185: cazadores. 405-45. 184: guerreros. 206-34. .16.Oinai II. Orientalia 1960. A. , ´ nd aRa cdmad aHistoria la de Academia Real la de ın ´ ıa Bolet Bolet 3 3-33. 33: nMsu,FacsaHro and Francisca Museum, en ´ ´ nd aRa cdmad aHistoria la de Academia Real la de ın ´ nd aRa cdmad aHistoria la de Academia Real la de ın rhv Espa Archivo o de nol 185: ˜

Research Sculptors’ signatures on Iberian stone statues from Ipolca-Obulco (Porcuna, Ja´en, Spain)

BLAZQUEZ´ ,J.M.&J.GONZALEZ´ NAVARRETE. 1985. ESQUIEU,Y.&A.HARTMANN-VIRNICH. 2007. Les The Phokaian sculpture of Obulco in Southern signes lapidaires dans la construction medi´ evale:´ Spain. American Journal of Archaeology 89: etudes´ de cas et probemes` de methode.´ Bulletin 61-9. Monumental 165(4): 331-58, 413-4. BLANQUEZ´ PEREZ´ ,J.&L.ROLDAN´ GOMEZ´ . 1994. FLORES, R., A. JIMENO,F.MORALES &L.M.GOMEZ´ . Nuevas consideraciones en torno a la historiograf´ıa 1999. Marcas y f´ıbulas anulares de Numancia, in F. y tecnolog´ıa de la escultura iberica´ en piedra (1a Burillo Mozota (ed.) IV Simposio sobre los Celt´ıberos. parte). Revista de Estudios Ib´ericos 1: 61-84. Econom´ıa. Homenaje a Jos´e Luis Argente Oliver: BOARDMAN, J. 1994. The diffusion of Classical art in 387-94. Zaragoza: Institucion´ ‘Fernando el antiquity. London: Thames & Hudson. Catolico’´ (CSIC). BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 2005. Beobachtungen zur GONZALEZ´ NAVARRETE, J. 1987. Escultura Ib´erica de nahostlichen,¨ zyprischen und fruhgriechischen¨ Cerrillo Blanco, Porcuna, Ja´en.Jaen:´ Instituto de Lowenikonographie:¨ Ugarit – Forschungen. Cultura. Internationales Jahrbuch fur¨ die Altertumskunde JOCKEY, P. 1998. La sculpture en pierre dans Syrien-Palastinas¨ 37: 27-215. l’Antiquite:´ de l’outillage au processus, in M.C. CHAPA, T. 2005. Las primeras manifestaciones Amouretti & G. Comet (ed.) Artisanat et escultoricas´ ibericas´ en el oriente peninsular. Archivo mat´eriaux. La place des materiaux dans l’Histoire des Espanol˜ de Arqueolog´ıa 78: 23-47. Techniques 4: 153-78. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’UniversitedeProvence.´ CHAPA,T.,M.MOLINOS,A.RUIZ,J.PEREIRA &V. MAYORAL. 2006. The Iron Age Iberian sanctuary of KANTOR, H. 1947. The shoulder ornament in Near ‘El Pajarillo’ (Huelma, Jaen)´ and its sculptural Eastern lions. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6(4): narrative. Studia Celtica 40: 1-22. 250-64. ´ COLONNA, G. 1975. Firme archaiche di artefici LAROCHE, E. 1958. Etude sur les hierogliphes´ hittites. nell’Italia Centrale. Mitteilungen des Deutschen Syria 35: 252-83. Archaologischen¨ Instituts. Romische¨ Abteilung 82(2): LEON´ , P. 1998. La sculpture des Ib`eres.Paris: 181-92 (Tf. 51-4). l’Harmattan. CROISSANT, F. 1998. Note sur le style des sculptures de MARCADE´, J. 1957. Recueil des signatures des sculpteurs Porcuna, in Actas del Congreso Internacional: Los grecs.Paris:Boccard. Iberos, Pr´ıncipes de Occidente. Estructuras de poder en – 1997. Art grec et art iberique.´ Dossiers d’Arch´eologie la sociedad ib´erica: 283-6. Barcelona: Fundacion´ La 228(97): 22-7. Caixa. MATA PARRENO˜ ,C.&L.SORIA COMBADIERA. 1997. CUNLIFFE,B.&S.KEAY. 1995. Social complexity and the Marcas y ep´ıgrafes sobre contenedores de epoca´ development of towns in Iberia: from the Copper Age iberica.´ Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina 22: to the second century AD (Proceedings of the 297-374. British Academy 86). Oxford: Oxford University MILLARD, A. 2005. Maker’s marks, owner’s names and Press. individual identity, in C.E. Suter & Ch. Uehlinger DE HOZ, J. 1992. Estudio epigrafico,´ in Estudios de (ed.) Crafts and images in contact. Studies on Eastern Arqueolog´ıa Ib´erica y Romana. Homenaje a Enrique Mediterranean art of the first millenium BCE: 1-10. Pla Ballester (Serie de trabajos varios 89-90): Gottingen:¨ Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht & Fribourg: 330-44. Valencia: Servicio de Investigacion´ Academic Press. Prehistorica,´ Diputacion´ Provincial de MORET,P.&P.ROUILLARD. 1997. Les Iberes.` Dossiers Valencia. d’Arch´eologie 228: 4-13 – 1995. Ensayo sobre la epigraf´ıa griega de la Pen´ınsula NEGUERUELA, I. 1990. Los monumentos escultoricos´ Iberica.´ Veleia 12: 151-79. ib´ericos del Cerrillo Blanco de Porcuna (Ja´en). – 1997. Die Iberische Schrift, in Die Iberer: 207-19. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura. Bonn: Kunst-und Ausstellungshalle des – 1990-1991. Aspectos de la tecnica´ escultorica´ iberica´ Bundesrepublik Deutschland. en el siglo V a.C. Lucentum 9-10: 77-83. DE LA BANDERA ROMERO, M.L. 2002. Rituales de OLMOS, R. 2000. Copa atica´ con un busto de Zeus, in origen oriental entre las comunidades tartesias, in P. Cabrera Bonet & C. Sanchez´ (ed.) Los Griegos en E. Ferrer Albelda (ed.) Ex Oriente Lux: las religiones Espana.˜ Tras las huellas de Heracles: 261. Madrid: orientales antiguas en la Pen´ınsula Ib´erica (SPAL Ministerio de Educacion´ y Cultura. Monograf´ıas 2): 141-58. Sevilla: Fundacion´ El Monte. – 2002. Los grupos escultoricos´ del Cerrillo Blanco de Porcuna (Jaen).´ Un ensayo de lectura iconografica´ DUPLOUY, A. 2006. Le prestige des ´elites. Recherches sur convergente. Archivo Espanol˜ de Arqueolog´ıa 75: les modes de reconnaisance sociale en Gr`ece entre les X 107-22. etVsi`ecles avant J.-C. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.

736 S S P S R R TUCKY TEWART IEBERT ALAGIA OLLEY UIZ ae C)&Lno:Yl nvriyPress. University Yale London: & (CT) Haven vi 08:292.Prs .Smg Eds. Somogy A. Paris: 219-23. – 2008): 2007 Novembre Avril Paris, Arabe, Monde du l’Institut otn(ed.) Fontan 111-31. l’Antiquit dans fabricants Iberians abig:Cmig nvriyPress. periods University Classical Cambidge and Cambridge: Archaic the in techniques and umle uVsi V du milieu au Tyr ,A.&M.M .1994. C. , ..20.Lstridacnes Les 2007. R.A. , .17.Sgaue ’rits ’riase de et d’artisans d’artistes, Signatures 1978. G. , Carthague a ` .2006. O. , .1990. A. , abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: . aM La OLINOS aSupueGeqe .Dsorigines Des 1. Grecque. Sculpture La re cltr.Fnto,materials Function, sculpture. Greek re cltr:a exploration an sculpture: Greek Ctlged ’xoiinde l’Exposition de (Catalogue ` ecle. ´ editerran 1998. . ai:Pcr Ed. Picard Paris: classique. e ´ ´ e e Ph des een h rhelg fthe of archaeology The ad ` crgrav ecor ´ Ktema ´ nces De eniciens. ,i E. in e, ´ eeaChapa Teresa 3: .New . 737 U V Z OF IVIERS NTERMANN tal. et ´ tl Cit la et ipncrmII i brshnishitnaus Spanien inschriften iberischen die III: Hispanicarum hlro,Aristokl Philergos, lnod ocn (Ja Porcuna de Blanco destrucci Belgique. IO ,S.&T.C .1992. D. , isae:Reichert. Wiesbaden: . ´ ed’Ath ndlcnut escult conjunto del on .1990. J. , ´ HAPA ` enes ehrhssrlsaeir esculpteurs de ateliers les sur Recherches ` es 05 nerre aao la pasado: el Enterrar 2005. . .Brussels:Acad ouet Linguarum Monumenta al’ ` ´ pqearcha epoque en). ´ Verdolay rc e Cerrillo del orico ´ meRyl de Royale emie ¨ ´ qe Endoios, ıque: :95-120. 9:

Research