Without Children Or Sacrifice: the Pozo Moro Relief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
doi: 10.2143/ANES.51.0.3038722 ANES 51 (2014) 263-277 ‘Child Sacrifice’ without Children or Sacrifice: The Pozo Moro Relief Joseph AZIZE Abstract In this study I consider a fifth-century BCE relief from Pozo Moro, Spain, which is often thought to depict Phoenician ‘child sacrifice’ (Fig. 1). First, I briefly discuss the excavations at Pozo Moro. Second, I contend that nothing depicted in the relief can reasonably be interpreted as a sacrifice and, furthermore, that there are no children in it. Third, I suggest that in fact it represents a parody of the Phoenician “presentation” scene exemplified on the Ahirom (also spelled Ahiram) sarcophagus from Byblos and sundry other artefacts. Finally, I note that it might be a forerunner of the artistic style known as the “grotesque”, a style which was previously thought to have originated in Hellenistic studios. Thus, one more piece in the chain of evidence for a regular practice of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians and Carthaginians disappears.* Introduction In a fairly recent article, I argued that, properly understood, the evidence establishes that the ancient Phoenicians and Carthaginians did not regularly sacrifice children, but rather offered animal sacrifices for the conception and for the wellbeing of their children, as depicted in the Krt poem from Ugarit, a related civilisation.1 The phenomenon of regular child sacrifice is not to be confused with the exceptional practice of sacrificing a noble youth during times of crisis, as found in 2 Kings 3:27.2 This study will not repeat those conclusions, but will consider an interesting banquet scene upon a relief from Pozo Moro which is often used as further evidence for the alleged practice of child sacrifice, although some scholars gainsay this view. Briefly, after describing the Pozo Moro relief, my argument proceeds in two parts: a negative and a positive. In the negative, I say what the relief is not. I argue that it cannot depict child sacrifice, as it does not depict any sacrifice and it is by no means clear that it depicts any children. The interpretation that it does depict such a practice is based on the a priori position that the Phoenicians and Carthaginians regularly practised such sacrifice. Kennedy asserts that the scene depicts sacrifice,3 but most of the details he uses to support this view are not attested by Phoeni- cian rituals. The most telling divergence is that when the Greek and Roman writers who alleged * The author wishes to acknowledge Marcelino Youssef for his edifying and erudite support of all things Phoenician. 1 Azize 2007. 2 There have been many commentaries on this passage, but in the context of human sacrifice, see Tatlock 2006, pp. 200–206. 3 Kennedy 1981. 997075.indb7075.indb 226363 110/09/140/09/14 009:499:49 264 J. AZIZE that the Carthaginians sacrificed children specified the deity to whom the sacrifices were offered, it was Kronos. Modern scholars have identified Kronos with Ba’al Hammon. The Pozo Moro relief clearly does not depict Ba’al Hammon, a god whose iconography is well attested. To sustain the “child sacrifice” interpretation of the relief, scholars have had to argue that it presents evidence of a hitherto unknown practice of sacrificing children to deified Death. In the positive limb of my thesis, I suggest that the relief is better interpreted as a parody of the presentation scene best known from the sarcophagus of Ahirom of Byblos, but also attested at other sites in the Middle East. The fact that it is a parody significantly extends our knowledge of Phoenician art. I also contend that certain of the relief’s features anticipate the style known as the “grotesque”. If so, this would place the origins of that style not in Hellenistic times but earlier and would be another example of the influence of Phoenician culture upon Greece. 1 The Excavations at Pozo Moro Almagro-Gorbea and several other scholars produced the first publication and study of the Pozo Moro reliefs, found in 1971, in the Spanish language.4 This was followed in 1983 by what must be regarded as the major publication, a book-length Spanish piece by Almagro-Gorbea in the Madrider Mitteilungen. This is the publication which I treat as the editio princeps.5 In 1971, archaeologists located a tower monument in the village of Chinchilla, Albacete province, 125 km inland from Valencia, at a height of about 1000 m.6 The site is quite isolated.7 Five levels were found. Level IV, where the tower is located, is preceded by Level V, upon the natural soil of which the monument was built. The later Level III is a “rich Iberian tumulus of cremations” spanning the middle of the fifth century BCE until the first century CE.8 Almagro-Gorbea saw the monument and its reliefs as providing further evidence for the role of the Phoenicians in stimulating the development of higher civilisation in the Iberian peninsula, and the development “de barbarie a civilización.”9 The tower is built on a square plan measuring 3.65 m each side. The tower comprised some 10 or 12 courses, with a total height of 5 m.10 Inside was a clay base, coloured red from firing. Kennedy concludes that this was the bustum, where ashes and bone remains provided direct evidence of cremation.11 There was evidence of objects of gold, silver, bronze, iron and bone, including remnants of an Attic kylix and a lekythos. The furnishings, in conjunction with the known development of the interior of the peninsula, allowed Almagro-Gorbea to date the 4 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, n.2, pp. 178-179. 5 Almagro-Gorbea 1983. 6 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, pp. 177–179; Kennedy 1981, p. 209. 7 López Pardo 2006, p. 25. 8 Kennedy 1981, p. 209. 9 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, p. 177. The site at Pozo Moro is evidently not considered an important settlement, as it is not even mentioned in Bierling (2002), a monograph on the Phoenicians of Spain, nor shown on the map on p. xii. Aubet Semmler (1999) does not mention Pozo Moro in her article on Phoenician and Punic Spain, but does show it on the first map on p. 280. 10 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, pp. 191–193; Kennedy 1981, p. 210. 11 Kennedy 1981, p. 210. 997075.indb7075.indb 226464 110/09/140/09/14 009:499:49 ‘CHILD SACRIFICE’ WITHOUT CHILDREN OR SACRIFICE: THE POZO MORO RELIEF 265 monument to about 500 BCE, as did López Pardo.12 Kennedy, relying upon the Greek pottery, offered a more precise date of 490 (±10) BCE.13 The tower rests upon the three stepped levels, and upon the top level, built into the exterior of the tower, are four figures of lions. These figures stand at each corner of the tower, serving as corner blocks, and there are fragments of two smaller lions on the north and east sides.14 As Almagro-Gorbea observes, the lions are shown in a terrifying aspect, and were doubtless meant to be apotropaic defenders of the tower and the person or persons interred there.15 These lions are also reminiscent of the sarcophagus of Ahiram from Byblos.16 Almagro-Gorbea was undoubt- edly correct to see in the art of this tower evidence of Syrio-Phoenician influence on Pozo Moro in an orientalising epoch.17 López Pardo complements rather than contradicts this view by point- ing to indirect Neo-Hittite artistic influence.18 The Pozo Moro reliefs and sculptures have not fared well over time. Of the few remnants sufficiently well preserved to be interpreted, we must note especially what is called “the smiting god”.19 It is perhaps a Reshef figure,20 either a three-headed creature which Almagro-Gorbea calls a “hydra”, or three feline heads superimposed one over the other. In any case, the heads are either emitting from their mouths something such as fire, or perhaps roaring, as Almagro-Gorbea sug- gests.21 If the latter, then the roaring is depicted as if it were material, something like the way a cartoonist might illustrate a yell. There is also a frieze depicting a portion of a female head, with a double lotus flower next to it, which, Almagro-Gorbea contends, belongs to a divinity, perhaps Anat.22 Perhaps the most striking of all the reliefs, however, barring only the banquet scene, is one depicting a male and female in obvious if not exultant coitus. Almagro-Gorbea suggests that it may correspond to the hieros gamos, but the evidence for this attribution is non-existent,23 and there is no evidence that the Phoenicians practised sacred marriage. The most recent monograph on the subject does not mention Phoenicia, and the Ugaritic material, presented in an appendix, is not sufficient to allow the author to speculate that the institution was known there.24 Overall, the tower art exhibits considerable diversity. The “banquet scene” from the southeast corner of the tower, which we shall consider here,25 is reproduced in Fig. 1. As can be seen, a two-headed monster is enthroned on the left side. In one hand, it holds a bowl out of which something is peering and in the other, a portion of a pig. 12 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, p. 188; López Pardo 2006, p. 29. 13 Kennedy 1981, p. 210. 14 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, pp. 192–193, with a sketch on p. 192; Kennedy 1981, p. 210. 15 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, p. 193. 16 Noted by Almagro-Gorbea (1983, p. 194). 17 Almagro-Gorbea 1983, p. 195; Kennedy (1981, p. 210) states that “the organizing principle of the monument came from the Near East.” For the “orientalising” epoch in general, there have been many treatments, but see Burkert (1992).