Animals from Motya: Depictions and Archaeological † Evidence in the Phoenician Town in Sicily

Home , Birgi (river), Elymians, Kernos, Marsala, Motya, Oliveri

arts

Article Animals from Motya: Depictions and Archaeological † Evidence in the Phoenician Town in Sicily

Francesca Oliveri 1,* and Maria Pamela Toti 2

1 Soprintendenza del Mare, Regione Sicilia, 90133 Palermo, Italy 2 Museo Whitaker, Motya, 91025 Marsala, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] This paper was ﬁrst presented at the “Animals in Ancient Material Culture” conference held at the Allard † Pierson Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 15–16 October 2015. Received: 26 May 2020; Accepted: 19 August 2020; Published: 17 September 2020

Abstract: This paper focusses on the animal presence in the archaeological records from the Phoenician island town of Motya (Sicily), which grew to prosperity from its settlement in the 8th century until its destruction in 397 bce.Offering a preliminary review of this material, the paper discusses fantastic beasts, animals of the land, sea and air, creatures from Egyptian tradition and the faunal remains. As such, the overview will be more descriptive than analytic. While osteological evidence confirms the presence of domestic animals, such as poultry, pigs and pets, depictions on all sort of artifacts represent sphinxes and griffins, centaurs and sea-monsters, dolphins and every kind of fish, lions, bulls, horses, deer, pigs and dogs, and many kinds of birds from quails to eagles. Egyptian amulets express the great attraction felt towards the mysterious Nile valley. The great variety of animals attested in the iconography, and the various traditions in which they were depicted, are testament to the diversity of the town’s human population as well as their interactions with the wider Mediterranean world.

Keywords: animals; monsters; Motya; Phoenician Sicily; iconography; archaeology

This paper focusses on the animal presence in the archaeological records from a small island town in the lagoon of Stagnone Lagoon off the western coast of Sicily, in the province of Trapani, called Motya in antiquity (present-day Mozia). The aim of the paper is to present a preliminary overview of this material, which has not thus far been studied together. The objective is therefore to correlate the knowledge around the topic of the representations of animals in the material culture and remains of ancient Motya. After briefly introducing ancient Motya and the Whitaker Museum on the island, we will review animals by their kind: starting with fantastic beasts, moving from animals of the sea to animals of the air and the land, then creatures from Egyptian magical and religious tradition, and finally the faunal remains. Perhaps the most fascinating feature of ancient Motya, well reflected in the present paper, is its wide cultural interaction with the wider Mediterranean world—particularly the Greeks and Egyptians, in addition to the Phoenicians and the indigenous Sicilians. Animal figures are found on countless artifacts from Motya. The representations of animals that we observe on artifacts created for everyday use may be decorative, figurative without an intended association with the human or animal world around them. Still, as the 3rd century anti-pope Novatian wrote: “in animals lies almost a mirror of human life, where you can see the images of individual actions.”1 We believe that animals are so commonly depicted on objects of different kinds because they constitute a kind of looking glass through which we can see aspects of ourselves that we would

1 Novat. De cib. Iud. III: 958a (ed. Migne).

Arts 2020, 9, 96; doi:10.3390/arts9030096 www.mdpi.com/journal/arts Arts 2020, 9, 96 2 of 30 otherwise not be able to conceive or represent. Human beings have always projected themselves in animals, making them become both monsters of brutality, worthy of the most atrocious punishments, and creatures so much like us that it is hard to believe that it is permissible to kill and eat them. Animals are similar enough to us to be the subject of comparison, yet distant enough that we can establish differences and separate identities. Consider, for instance, the tales of Aesopian type where there is a whole world of weak and strong, of fools and clever types, where if you combine a wolf and a lamb, it becomes a tale about arrogance and the eternal injustice of the strong over the weak. In this sense we agree with Bettini’s thought, echoing the famous statement of Lévi-Strauss, that “we need animals because they are good for thinking with.”2 Even monsters, fantastic and nonexistent creatures, confirm this rule of the intellectual use of animals—by becoming religious symbols. The renewed interest in animal studies, of which the special issue on “Animals in Ancient Material Cultures” is an example, inspires us to focus on a single archaeological site—rather than a single animal as is the more usual approach. Our review can, however, not be comprehensive, that is, including every single animal attestation in the evidence on or around the island. For, even after over a century of excavations (including annual campaigns since the 1960s), only part of the island has thus far been excavated. Underwater excavations in the lagoon and the shoreline at Birgi Vecchi, not to mention the harbor at the southern bay of the Stagnone (present-day Punta Alga at Marsala), will doubtless provide additional material. Moreover, even a comprehensive catalogue of all animal depictions and physical remains would produce a publication the length of a monograph. Phoenicians living across the Mediterranean, including Motya, left very few records of themselves. Little is therefore known about their history and religion beyond the archeological evidence, and the literary accounts by other ancient peoples, who wrote in Hebrew, Greek or Latin. There are consequently no surviving written sources that could explain how the inhabitants of ancient Motya felt towards animals or what they thought about the animal depictions on their artifacts. As the (zoo-) archaeological record remains incomplete, the written sources scarce, and the following presentation limited by its discrete division, any general conclusions—such as possible changes over time—would be meaningless. One more point of clarification might be in order, namely that beyond initial Italian excavation reports and/or the displays in the Whitaker Museum at Mozia, the material has not been presented to a wider audience before.

1. A Phoenician Town in Sicily Describing the Phoenician settlements in Western Sicily, the ancient Athenian historian Thucydides pointed out three main towns: Motya, Palermo and Solunto.3 The ﬁrst of these towns, on which we will concentrate in the present article, Motya, derives its name from the Phoenician term meaning port 4 or harbor (m.tw’). The town was founded by Carthaginian settlers in the 8th century bce on what mediaeval monks came to call San Pantaleo, a small island with a roughly circular shape (Figure1). 5 While its name would suggest its initial purpose was to serve as a trading station, over the centuries the settlement grew to reach its maximum expansion (ca. 45 ha. 111 acres), probably by the 5th century ≈ bce, occupying the entire surface of the island. In 397 bce, the Greek troops of Syracuse besieged and destroyed the town. Excavations demonstrate that the Siege of Motya disturbed the archaeological

2 Bettini(2013), p. 19. 3 Thuc. Hist. 6.2.6 (ᾤκoυν δὲ καὶ Φoίνικες περὶ πᾶσαν µὲν τὴν Σικελίαν ἄκρας τε ἐπὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἀπoλαβóντες καὶ τὰ ἐπικείµενα νησίδ ια ἐµπoρίας ἕνεκεν τῆς πρὸς τoὺς Σικελoύς: ἐπειδὴ δὲ oἱ ῞Ελληνες πoλλoὶ κατὰ θάλασσαν ἐπεσέπλεoν, ἐκλιπóντες τὰ πλείω Moτύην καὶ Σoλóεντα καὶ Πάνoρµoν ἐγγὺς τῶν ᾿Ελύµων ξυνoικήσαντες ἐνέµoντo, ξυµµαχίᾳ τε πίσυνoι τῇ τῶν ᾿Ελύµων, καὶ ὅτι ἐντεῦθεν ἐλάχιστoν πλoῦν Kαρχηδὼν Σικελίας ἀπέχει. βάρβαρoι µὲν oὖν τoσoίδε Σικελίαν καὶ oὕτως ᾤκησαν). 4 Huß(1985), p. 571. 5 For the history and archaeology of Motya, especially, see: preliminary excavation reports by the Missione archeologica a Mozia (MAM) published in the series Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica; available online: http://www.lasapienzamozia. it/Bibplio.php (accessed 27 June 2020); see also: Nigro(2004); Nigro and Rossoni(2004), pp. 11–36; Volpi and Toti(2015); Pappa(2015), pp. 33–35. Arts 2020, 9, 96 3 of 30 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 30

Syracuse besieged and destroyed the town. Excavations demonstrate that the Siege of Motya records, in that objects were evidently moved for defensive purposes; and deliberate destruction would disturbed the archaeological records, in that objects were evidently moved for defensive purposes; and further have broken disassociated objects from their context. deliberate destruction would further have broken disassociated objects from their context.

Figure 1. The site of Motya on the island of San Pantaleo in the Stagnone Lagoon, off the west coast Figure 1. The site of Motya on the island of San Pantaleo in the Stagnone Lagoon, oﬀ the west coast of of Sicily between Trapani and Marsala. All drawings courtesy of the Whitaker Foundation, Motya. Sicily between Trapani and Marsala. All drawings courtesy of the Whitaker Foundation, Motya.

Before his description of this “Siege of Motya” (397 BCE), the ancient Sicilian historian Diodorus Before his description of this “Siege of Motya” (397 bce), the ancient Sicilian historian Diodorus relates that due to the prosperity of the population the town by that time consisted of numerous, relatesbeautiful that due and to artistically the prosperity embellished of the houses. population6 That theis to town say that by thatin the time preceding consisted centuries of numerous, the 6 beautifulPhoenician and artistically trading port embellishedhad gradually houses.grown intoThat a flourishing is to say and that affluent in the town, preceding which even centuries coined the Phoenicianits own trading money port(featuring had gradually animals such grown as dolphins, into a flourishing crabs, eagles, and ahorsesffluent and town, dogs). which Motya even was coined its ownsurrounded money (featuringby a defensive animals city wall such enclosing as dolphins, a small crabs,sacred eagles,pool—with horses its own and shrines dogs). within Motya a was surroundedcircular enclosure— by a defensive industrious city wall factories enclosing and productive a small sacred workshops, pool—with sumptuous its own residential shrines areas, within a circularas well enclosure—industrious as a Tophet temple and factories the so-called and productiveSanctuary of workshops,the Cappiddazzu sumptuous (Italian for residential “big hat”; areas, as welldevoted as a Tophetto an unknown temple local and Phoenician the so-called deity). Sanctuary The town ofwas the connected Cappiddazzu to the shore (Italian of Sicily for to “big the hat”; north by a narrow artificial causeway, which still exists today, over which carts with large wheels devoted to an unknown local Phoenician deity). The town was connected to the shore of Sicily to could travel.7 Along the shores of the lagoon basins were constructed for mining salt by draining the the north by a narrow artificial causeway, which still exists today, over which carts with large wheels water with the power of windmills. One of the most interesting houses for our present purpose, and 7 couldto travel. which weAlong will return the shores regularly, of the is lagoon the co-called basins House were of constructed the Mosaics for located mining in the salt southeast by draining of the water with the power of windmills. One of the most interesting houses for our present purpose, and to which we will return regularly, is the co-called House of the Mosaics located in the southeast of the town. Its richly decorated floor mosaics of black and white pebbles depict a wide range of real and 6 Diod. Bilb. 14.48.2 (αὕτη δ᾽ ἡ πόλις ἦν ἐπί τινος νήσου κειμένη, τῆς Σικελίας ἀπέχουσα σταδίους ἕξ, τῷ fantasticδὲ animals. πλήθει καὶ τῷ κάλλει τῶν οἰκιῶν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν πεφιλοτεχνημένη διὰ τὴν εὐπορίαν τῶν κατοικούντων). 7 Oliveri (2015), p. 24; Pappa (2015), p. 35. 6 Diod. Bilb. 14.48.2 (αὕτη δ’ ἡ πóλις ἦν ἐπί τινoς νήσoυ κειµένη, τῆς Σικελίας ἀπέχoυσα σταδίoυς ἕξ, τῷ δὲ πλήθει καὶ τῷ κάλλει τῶν oἰκιῶν εἰς ὑπερβoλὴν πεϕιλoτεχνηµένη διὰ τὴν εὐπoρίαν τῶν κατoικoύντων). 7 Oliveri(2015), p. 24; Pappa(2015), p. 35. Arts 2020, 9, 96 4 of 30

As the Phoenician town was settled as a commercial center, Motya’s primary purpose was mercantile both in terms of trade and local manufacture. Motyan produce included terracotta figurines and ceramic vases (particularly Punic amphorae), textile dyeing and weaving (especially purple, for which the Phoenicians were famous). The population’s mercantile interests ranged from exchanges with the native Elymians on western Sicily (from whom they must have obtained their agricultural produce and other foodstuffs), Punic settlements along the western Mediterranean, Greeks in the larger Greek world, the original Phoenician cities in the Levant as well as Egypt. These interactions explain the regular attestation of Phoenician as well as Greek and Egyptian artifacts on the island.8 Indeed, the aforementioned House of the Mosaics also features a rich architectural display of Doric, Ionic and Corinthian elements. The island of Motya is probably best known today for the extraordinarily masterful life-size Greek marble sculpture dated to 5th century bce, affectionally called the “Motya Youth” (as his identity remains a mystery).9 An even larger, over life-sized limestone Egyptian statue dating from the 6th century bce, of which only its torso survives, may have once stood in a two-columned Egyptian-style nave.10 After the Siege of Motya, the town was resettled by the Carthaginians, though in reduced scale, while Lilybaeum (present-day Marsala) became the primary Punic settlement in western Sicily.11 Motya thus lost its prominence and, while some activity continued into the Roman period, the island gradually ceased to be frequented. In the early twentieth century, wine merchant Joseph Isaac Spadafora Whitaker (1850–1936) became the only owner of the entire island of San Pantaleo and launched the first archaeological excavations.12 For about twenty years he devoted himself passionately to the rediscovery of the ancient town, identifying some buildings of Phoenician-Punic Motya, which are still under investigation at present. To display the archaeological finds, Whitaker built a special room on the island, next to his home, thus creating one of the first museums linked to its territory. Displaying objects in the location where they were found is a current policy now but was extremely unusual for those times. In the museum, whose present arrangement dates to 2001, not only the finds of the Whitaker collection are on display, but also a selection of those objects coming from the excavations carried out by the many Italian and foreign archaeological campaigns since the postwar period.13 The island itself is now owned by the Whitaker Foundation.

2. Marvelous Monsters of Motya Our review of the artifacts depicting the animals of Motya begins with the fantasy world.14 The island lies at the center of the Western Mediterranean, at a crossroads of peoples and trades routes. Connecting Sicel-Italic, Greek, Egyptian and Punic-Phoenician traditions, it may be safely assumed that various beliefs, mythological tales and divine representations, belonging to people who were attending the settlement on the island, are represented and revered—even if in the process they changed part of their original meaning. How the people of Motya understood these fantastic beasts cannot be known, as Phoenicians left few literary sources about themselves—and no written accounts from Motya itself survive. Most of our information about the myths and religion of the Syro-Palestine peoples come from the texts of Ugarit.15 These Levantine myths describe the characters and deeds of a relatively small number of divine and monstrous ﬁgures, strongly and mutually linked by a series of positive relationships (love,

8 E.g., see: Burgersdijk et al.(2015), p. 37. 9 Burgersdijk et al.(2015), pp. 38–39; Volpi and Toti(2015), pp. 96–98, 116–25. 10 Burgersdijk et al.(2015), p. 37; Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 34. 11 Di Stefano(1993). 12 Whitaker(1921); Volpi and Toti(2015), pp. 49–53. 13 Toti(2008); Volpi and Toti(2015), pp. 95–113. 14 For mythic monsters in antiquity, see, e.g.: Wittkower(1942); Xella(1981); Kappler(1983); Fortunati(1995); Mazzocut-Mis (1995); Garbati(2012). 15 Xella(1981). Arts 2020, 9, 96 5 of 30

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 30 alliance, kinship) or negative ones (antagonism, resentment, alienation). Many deities have epithets number of divine and monstrous figures, strongly and mutually linked by a series of positive that connect them to animals and often the numinous and animal spheres are not clearly differentiated. relationships (love, alliance, kinship) or negative ones (antagonism, resentment, alienation). Many The divinedeities have and monstrousepithets that figuresconnect are,them nevertheless, to animals and described often the numinous in human and terms: animal they spheres behave are like humans,not clearly eat, drink, differentiated. experience The feelings divine and of joy monstrous or anger, figures and so are, on. nevertheless, described in human Theterms: most they commonlybehave like humans, depicted eat, monster drink, experience in Motya feelings is the sphinx,of joy or aanger, being and found so on. across different ancient culturesThe most (Figure commonly2). 16 depictedIn Egyptian mons representations,ter in Motya is the the sphinx, sphinx a isbeing portrayed found withacross a different male human headancient and a leoninecultures body,(Figure usually 2).16 In recliningEgyptian representations, with its front paws the sphinx in off eringis portrayed position. with It a ismale considered human the embodimenthead and of a royalleonine authority body, usually and the reclining guardian with of its thresholds. front paws17 inThe offering sphinx position. is closely It is relatedconsidered to death and dyingthe embodiment and the passage of royal into authority the afterlife. and the Itguardian is a protective of thresholds. being,17 not The asphinx frightful is closely figure. related By the to early 1st milleniumdeath and bcedying, Levantine and the passage Phoenician into the craftsmen afterlife. fashionedIt is a protective ivory being, inlays not depicting a frightful winged figure. stridingBy the early 1st millenium BCE, Levantine Phoenician craftsmen fashioned ivory inlays depicting winged sphinxes in profile—not seated or reclining.18 striding sphinxes in profile—not seated or reclining.18

FigureFigure 2. Winged 2. Winged sphinx sphinx (MGW (MGW inv.inv. no. no. 2509); 2509); limestone limestone relief relief block; block; ca. 6th–5th ca. 6th–5th century BCE century. All bce. All photographsphotographs courtesy of of the the Whitaker Whitaker Foundation, Foundation, Motya. Motya.

MotyanMotyan sphinxes, sphinxes, however, however, are are commonly commonly depicted according according to toGreek Greek iconography. iconography. In Greek In Greek mythology, the sphinx is initially portrayed as a man or woman, indiscriminately, with or without mythology, the sphinx is initially portrayed as a man or woman, indiscriminately, with or without wings.19 From the 6th century BCE onwards, however, the Greek sphinx became codified as a winged 19 bce wings.figureFrom with thethe body 6th century of lion and theonwards, head of a however, woman, occasionally the Greek sphinxwith a female became torso, codified sitting asupright a winged figureon with its hind the bodylegs. Although of lion and the the sphi headnx is of already a woman, mentioned occasionally in the Homeric with a female epics, torso,it is only sitting Hesiod upright on itswho hind first legs. narrates Although its myth. the20 sphinx She is the is alreadydaughtermentioned of Typhon (Cha in theos) Homericand Echidna, epics, and it the is onlysister Hesiodof whothe first Nemean narrates lion. its Even myth. if 20notShe physically is thedaughter described ofby Typhonthe poet, (Chaos)she is called and “the Echidna, ruin of andCadmeans”, the sister of the Nemeani.e., the inhabitants lion. Even of if Thebes. not physically She was sent described by Hera by to theplague poet, the she region is called and kill “the all those ruin ofwho Cadmeans”, could i.e., thenot inhabitants solve her riddle. of Thebes. The answer She was was sent ultimately by Hera uncovered to plague by the Oedipus region an andd the kill sphinx all those promptly who could not solvejumped her off riddle. a cliff. TheThe answerGreek sphinx was ultimatelyis therefore uncovereda monstrous by being, Oedipus both cruel and theand sphinxenigmatic, promptly a jumpedsymbol off a perhaps cliff. The of Greekperverse sphinx and dangerous is therefore femininity. a monstrous being, both cruel and enigmatic, a symbol The oldest depiction of a sphinx found in Motya is on an alabastron (a small container for perhaps of perverse and dangerous femininity. ointments, unguents, or cosmetic powders), of Corinthian production, dating to the late 7th century The oldest depiction of a sphinx found in Motya is on an alabastron (a small container for ointments, unguents, or cosmetic powders), of Corinthian production, dating to the late 7th century bce.21 A very 16 Paris et al. (2013), pp. 127–37. 17 Donadoni (1966). 18 Uberti (1988). 16 Paris19 etEur al.. (Phoen2013),. pp.806; 127–37. Paus. Perieg. 9.26.2. 17 Donadoni20 Hom(1966. Od.). 11.273; Hes. Theog. 326; Ael., Nat. Anim. 12.7; Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.8. 18 Uberti (1988). 19 Eur. Phoen. 806; Paus. Perieg. 9.26.2. 20 Hom. Od. 11.273; Hes. Theog. 326; Ael., Nat. Anim. 12.7; Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.8. 21 Nigro(2007), 92, pl. 91; Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 111. Arts 2020, 9, 96 6 of 30

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30 humanized creature, wearing earrings and a fashionable headdress, the sakkos (a kind of cap to gather her hair)BCE.21 is A depicted very humanized on the creature, lid of a red-ﬁgurewearing earringsguttus and(a smalla fashionable spouted headdress, libation the vessel) sakkos dated (a kind to the late 5thof cap century to gatherbce her(Figure hair) is3). depicted Sphinxes on the are lid depicted of a red-figure on small guttus domestic (a small altars,spouted the libationarulae vessel), found in limestonedated orto the pottery, late 5th dating century between BCE (Figure the 3). 5th Sphinxes and 4th are century depictedbce on, small as well domestic as on altars, architectural the arulae reliefs,, found in limestone or pottery, dating between the 5th and 4th century BCE, as well as on architectural pointing to a religious, apotropaic function (Figure2, above). 22 reliefs, pointing to a religious, apotropaic function (Figure 2, above).22

Figure 3. Winged reclining female sphinx wearing a cloth headdress (sakkos) (MGW inv. no. 2320); Figure 3. Winged reclining female sphinx wearing a cloth headdress (sakkos) (MGW inv. no. 2320); red-figure libation vessel (guttus); ca. late 5th century BCE. red-figure libation vessel (guttus); ca. late 5th century bce. The sphinx depicted in profile, closer in appearance to the Phoenician iconography, is found on The sphinx depicted in profile, closer in appearance to the Phoenician iconography, is found on objects specifically related to religion, such as cake molds, to make the sacred bread offered to the objectsgods. specifically23 A similar related practice to is religion, attested in such the asBible, cake for, molds, while condemning to make the foreign sacred cults, bread the o ffprophetered to the 23 gods.JeremiahA similar mentions practice that isthe attested women in of the Jerusale Bible,m for, knead while cakes condemning for the Queen foreign of Heaven cults, the (to prophetbe Jeremiahidentified mentions with Astarte), that the womenthe engraved of Jerusalem image of kneadthe goddess. cakes24 for Still the in Queenthe 5th ofcentury Heaven CE, (toa particular be identified withpractice Astarte), of the divination engraved was image known, of consisting the goddess. of throwing24 Still in cakes the 5thin the century water thatce, awould particular float or practice not of divinationaccording was to known, the will consistingof the goddess. of throwing25 While depictions cakes in theof sphinxes water that on vases would may float have or been not dictated according to the willby purely of the decorative goddess. 25reasons,While the depictions representation of sphinxes of the monster on vases on objects may have of worship, been dictated such as molds by purely decorativeand arulae reasons,, involves the religious representation motives of that the are monster yet unknown. on objects of worship, such as molds and arulae, Another mythological being attested in Motya is the centaur—half man, half horse—almost involves religious motives that are yet unknown. always portrayed as short-tempered, violent, wild, rough and brutal, unable to tolerate wine. The Another mythological being attested in Motya is the centaur—half man, half horse—almost always centaur’s main mythic characteristic is to embody all the qualities and all the flaws of the human race, portrayedhowever as short-tempered,raised to the extreme. violent, He played wild, roughdiametrically and brutal, opposing unable roles, to of tolerate great wisdom—such wine. The centaur’s as mainChiron, mythic tutor characteristic of Achilles—or is to of embody incredible all brutality—such the qualities and as the all theparticipants flaws of in the the human wedding race, feast however of raisedthe to Lapiths. the extreme. Indeed, He centaurs played belong diametrically to a special opposing mythological roles, category, of great because wisdom—such they are not as Chiron,so much tutor of Achilles—orhybrids (combinations of incredible of comp brutality—suchosite parts) as as “doubles the participants (δίφροί)” inof theman wedding and horse feast at one of and the the Lapiths. Indeed,same centaurs time. As belong doubles, to they a special share with mythological men some category,qualities, such because as courag theye are and not strength so much and, hybrids at (combinationsleast in part, of some composite aristocratic parts) forms as “doubles of chivalry (δ ίandϕρo sociality.ί)” of man However, and horse the atequine one andfury, thethe sameusual time. As doubles,drunkenness they and share violence with men directed some mainly qualities, to thei suchr wives, as courage banish andthem strength from socially and, atacceptable least in part, behaviors and reconnect them instead to primitive forms of sexuality and to the world they lived in some aristocratic forms of chivalry and sociality. However, the equine fury, the usual drunkenness and the wild and mountainous slopes of Mt. Pelion in Thessaly. The figure of the centaur, like the sphinx, violence directed mainly to their wives, banish them from socially acceptable behaviors and reconnect is thus formed of a human element dominating an animal part and symbolizes, from the thempsychological instead to primitive point of formsview, the of sexualitymerging in and one to individual the world of theytwo opposing lived in the trends: wild the and strength mountainous of slopesthe of spirit Mt. Pelionof wisdom, in Thessaly. and the rush The of figure instincts of the as underlined centaur, like in thethe Mediaeval sphinx, is thusLiber Monstrorum formed ofa (ca. human element dominating an animal part and symbolizes, from the psychological point of view, the merging in one individual of two opposing trends: the strength of the spirit of wisdom, and the rush of instincts as underlined21 Nigro (2007), in the 92, Mediaeval pl. 91; VolpiLiber and Toti Monstrorum (2015), p. 111.(ca. 700 ce): “Centaurs have a shaggy head, to some 22 Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 74. 23 Mattazzi (2004), pp. 96–98. 24 Jer. 7:16–20 and 44:15–19 and 25; Famà (2009); Ackerman (2018). 22 Volpi25 Mattazziand Toti( 2015(2004),), p. pp. 74. 96–98. 23 Mattazzi (2004), pp. 96–98. 24 Jer. 7:16–20 and 44:15–19 and 25; Famà (2009); Ackerman(2018). 25 Mattazzi(2004), pp. 96–98. Arts 2020,, 9,, 96x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 7of of 30

700 CE): “Centaurs have a shaggy head, to some extent very similar to a human one, with which they canextent start very talking: similar but to their a human lips, unfit one, withfor human which sp theyeech, can cannot start talking: organize but any their sound lips, in unfit words” for human (1.7). speech,Some cannot representations organize any of sound centaurs in words” can be (1.7).found in Cassite-era depictions where an image of a wingedSome archer representations with the body of centaursof the horse can recalls be found the inindissoluble Cassite-era link depictions created wherebetween an the image warrior of a winged archer with the body of the horse recalls the indissoluble link created between the warrior and his horse.26 The first Greek images of centaurs are found in the region of Euboea, dating to the and his horse.26 The first Greek images of centaurs are found in the region of Euboea, dating to the Protogeometric (10th century BCE),27 while a monumental Greek amphora of the end of the 7th Protogeometric (10th century bce),27 while a monumental Greek amphora of the end of the 7th century century BCE. takes its name from the episode of Hercules’ killing of the centaur Nessus.28 The figure bce 28 was. widespread takes its name in fromthe ancient the episode Western of Hercules’ Mediterran killingean. ofThe the half centaur man, Nessus. half horseThe creatures figure wasare widespreaddepicted on insmall the Sardinian ancient Western bronzes Mediterranean. from the Nuragic The period half man, as well half as horse later creaturesin monumental are depicted Etruscan on 29 sculpture.small Sardinian29 bronzes from the Nuragic period as well as later in monumental Etruscan sculpture. A recliningreclining centaur centaur who who has has recently recently been been identified identified as Pholus as Pholus is depicted is depicted on two arulae on twodisplayed arulae 30 displayedin the museum in the of museum Motya (Figureof Motya4). (FigureThis 4). centaur,30 This gentle centaur, and gentle wise, and appears wise, in appears the fourth in the Labor fourth of LaborHeracles, of Heracles, the Erymanthian the Erymanthian Boar-Hunt. Boar-Hunt. To honor theTo hero,honor when the hero, visiting when the visiting centaurs’ the community, centaurs’ community,Pholus offers Pholus roast meats offers and roast wine. meats The and position wine. The assumed position by theassumed character by the on character the arulae onsuggests the arulae the suggestsbanquet. the The banquet. question The of why question a centaur of why is depicted a centaur on anis depicted object of worshipon an object in a Phoenicianof worship townin a Phoenicianmust at present town remain must at unanswered. present remain Conversely, unanswered. the presence Conversely, of a centaur the presence on an engravedof a centaur carnelian on an engravedscarab-seal, carnelian fashioned scarab in the-seal,a-globolo fashionedtechnique—a in the a-globolo style generallytechnique—a designated style generally as Etruscan-Italic—is designated as plausiblyEtruscan-Italic—is explained plausibly as the adoption explained of this as the figure adoption as a sign of this of personal figure as recognition a sign of personal by an inhabitant recognition of 31 byMotya. an inhabitantBut there of Motya. also are,31 But as mentioned, there also are, centaurs as mentioned, that have centaurs preserved that theirhave wildpreserved character, their aswild in bce 32 character,a Centauromachy as in a Centauromachy depicted on the depicted rim of a onlouterion the rim(lustral of a louterion basin), (lustral dating tobasin), the 5th dating century to the 5th. The choice of the scene here must have a purely decorative meaning, since it is a repetitive pattern, century BCE.32 The choice of the scene here must have a purely decorative meaning, since it is a well-suitedrepetitive pattern, to the circularwell-suited shape to ofthe the circular support. shape of the support.

FigureFigure 4. 4. TheThe reclining reclining centaur centaur Pholus (MGW inv. no. 500); terracotta altar ((arulaarula);); ca.ca. 5th5th centurycentury bceBCE..

On some arulae dating to the 5th–4th century BCEbce, scenes illustrate fightingfighting creatures, usually horses, attacked by a pair of griffins, griffins, creatures with the body of a lion, and the head and wings of an eagle, consideredconsidered symbols symbols of of divine divine power power and and guardians guardians of gods of gods (Figure (Figure5). 33 A5). similar33 A similar fighting fighting scene, scene, with a single griffin attacking a horse—derived from coroplastic models—is found in a panel

26 Baur(1912). 26 Baur (1912). 27 Baur(1912). 27 28 AcquaroBaur (1912).(2011 ). 2829 Acquaro(2011 (2011).). 2930 FamAcquaroà (2009 (2011).). 31 30 AcquaroFamà (2009).(2011). 32 Allegro(1982), p. 160. 31 Acquaro (2011). 33 Meijden(1993); Nigro(2011), pp. 98, 101, ﬁg. 3.95, pl. 4; De Vita(2011); Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 74. 32 Allegro (1982), p. 160. 33 Meijden (1993); Nigro (2011), pp. 98, 101, fig. 3.95, pl. 4; De Vita (2011); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 74.

Arts 2020, 9, 96 8 of 30

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 30 with a single griffin attacking a horse—derived from coroplastic models—is found in a panel of the mosaic pavement of the House of the Mosaics, where the decorations, made with black and white river of the mosaic pavement of the House of the Mosaics, where the decorations, made with black and pebbles, represent animals alone or fighting with each other.34 The iconography is well-represented in white river pebbles, represent animals alone or fighting with each other.34 The iconography is well- Punic hard-stone glyptics. It seems now generally accepted that the seals are emblemata of Carthaginian represented in Punic hard-stone glyptics. It seems now generally accepted that the seals are emblemata families involved in the management of civic and colonial power between the 6th–4th century bce. of Carthaginian families involved in the management of civic and colonial power between the 6th– We can thus safely assume that the imagery was chosen as part of the mosaic composition because 4th century BCE. We can thus safely assume that the imagery was chosen as part of the mosaic it is a public building of Punic tradition.35 An isolated griffin depicted on a scarab was also almost composition because it is a public building of Punic tradition.35 An isolated griffin depicted on a certainly an item used as a personal seal.36 scarab was also almost certainly an item used as a personal seal.36

Figure 5. Two wingedwinged grigriffinsﬃns attackattack aa horsehorse (MGW(MGW inv.inv. no.no. 513);513); terracottaterracotta altaraltar ((arulaarula);); ca.ca. 5th–4th century BCEbce.

Indeed, the image of the grigriffinffin persisted continuouslycontinuously for some six thousand years in the Mediterranean andand MiddleMiddle East. East.3737 This This iconographic iconographic continuation, continuation, it it may may be be suggested, suggested, was was due due to itsto formalits formal aspect, aspect, which which rendered rendered the gri theffin griffin a suitable a su anditable unambiguous and unambiguous symbol ofsymbol aristocratic of aristocratic authority, namelyauthority, the namely combination the combination of elegance of and elegance force, embodiedand force, byembodied the two by most the representative two most representative animals of poweranimals and of power nobility and on landnobility and on in land the air and respectively— in the air respectively—viz., the lionviz and., the eagle.lion and The the image eagle. of The the griimageffin of even the lentgriffin itself even very lent well itself to servingvery well as to an se allegoryrving as foran allegory the dual for nature the dual of Christ, nature divine of Christ, and human;divine and and human; this explains and this the explains popularity the ofpopularity this theme of alsothis intheme Christian also in symbolism. Christian 38symbolism.38 In ancient Mesopotamia, the grigriffinffin was a frequent religious andand decorativedecorative motif.motif.3939 Besides the eagle-headed type that became widespread, there alsoalso existed a lion-headed type, with the paws and wings ofof an an eagle. eagle. The The gri ffigriffinn could could be employedbe employed as a decorativeas a decorative pattern, pattern, without without a necessary a necessary religious orreligious naturalistic or naturalistic reference. 40reference.From Mesopotamia40 From Mesopotamia the motif spread the motif to Syria spread and to Palestine, Syria and Anatolia Palestine, and thenAnatolia Greece. and Thethen fantastic Greece. The beast fant featuresastic beast notably features among notably the wall among paintings the wall of paintings the Palace of of the Knossos, Palace Crete,of Knossos, appearing Crete, among appear theing struggle among ofthe man struggle with theof man animal with world. the animal The splendid world. The marble splendidtrapezophoros marble (ornamentaltrapezophoros table(ornamental support) table of Aphrodisia,support) of Aphrodisia, dated to the dated late 4th to the century late 4thbce century, from aBCE tomb, from in a Ascoli tomb in Ascoli Satriano (Apulia), depicts two griffins devouring a deer in highly artistic detail, which illustrates a similar motif—in the round—as the arulae from Motya. 34 TusaTwo(1997 demon); Fam à (heads1997); Volpi with and horns Toti(2015 and), pp.a lion’s 56–57 andsnout 59. are probably associated, however distantly, 35withAcquaro Near-Eastern(2011). iconography. Nonetheless, the scene in which they are depicted—a partially 36 Acquaro(2011). 37 Frugoni(1973) (with refs.) 38 Cattabiani(2000), esp. pp. 441–53. 34 Tusa (1997); Famà (1997); Volpi and Toti (2015), pp. 56–57 and 59. 39 Dalley(2000), pp. 203–17. 35 40 DalleyAcquaro(2000 (2011).), pp. 220–27. 36 Acquaro (2011). 37 Frugoni (1973) (with refs.) 38 Cattabiani (2000), esp. pp. 441–53. 39 Dalley (2000), pp. 203–17. 40 Dalley (2000), pp. 220–27.

Arts 2020, 9, 96 9 of 30

Satriano (Apulia), depicts two griffins devouring a deer in highly artistic detail, which illustrates a similar motif—in the round—as the arulae from Motya. Two demon heads with horns and a lion’s snout are probably associated, however distantly, Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 30 with Near-Eastern iconography. Nonetheless, the scene in which they are depicted—a partially preserved coroplastic mold—is evidently connected wi withth Greek myth and iconography, iconography, as it portrays the second Labor of Heracles, the killing of the Lernaean Hydra (Figure6). 41 The latter monster, whose the second Labor of Heracles, the killing of the Lernaean Hydra (Figure 6).41 The latter monster, whoselair was lair the was swamp the swamp of Lerna of inLerna Argolis, in Argolis, has the has form the of form a large of snakea large equipped snake equipped with a singlewith a viper’s single viper’stail and tail multiple and multiple heads, of heads, which of only which one only was one immortal. was immortal. The monster The wasmonster so poisonous was so poisonous that its breath that itsand breath even and its smell even couldits sm kill.ell could The headskill. The could heads also could regenerate also rege whennerate cut, when so the cut, only so the way only to makeway to it 42 makeharmless it harmless was to cauterizewas to cauterize the neck the immediately neck immediately after beheading after beheading it. The it. oldest42 The imagesoldest images of the Hydra of the Hydradate from date the from end the of Orientalizingend of Orientalizing period andperiod are and probably are probably related to related remote to oriental remote figuresoriental in figures which 43 inahuman which fightsa human and killsfights snake-tailed and kills snake-tailed monsters. Themonsters. monster43 The only monster appears only in scenes appears referring in scenes to its referringdeath at theto its hands death of at Heracles. the hands In of connection Heracles. In with connection the Hydra with and the Pholus Hydra (mentioned and Pholus earlier),(mentioned it is earlier),interesting it is to interesting note that the to note episodes that ofthe the episodes Labors of Heraclesthe Labors occur of Heracles frequently occur among frequently the artifacts among of theMotya—evidence artifacts of Motya—evidence of the hero’s great of the local hero’s popularity; great local a hero popularity; who shared a hero many who similar shared aspects many with similar the aspectsPhoenician with Melqart. the Phoenician Melqart.

Figure 6. PartiallyPartially preserved preserved scene depict depictinging the killing of the Lernae Lernaeanan Hydra (MGW inv. no. 3193); 3193); terracotta mold; ca. 6th 6th century century BCEbce..

3. Creatures Creatures of of the the Deep Deep Monsters of these remote ages did not only dwell among men on land, they also inhabited the abyss. The The surviving Ugarit texts further document many monstrous figures. figures. From From these, we learn that Baal foughtfought againstagainst thethe “70 “70 sons sons of of Athirat”, Athirat”, the the primordial primordial mother mother goddess goddess with with strong strong ties ties to the to themarine marine world, world, who who is wife is wife and an companiond companion of El, of from El, from whom whom are born are born divine divine generations generations along along with withchaotic chaotic and monstrous and monstrous creatures creatures that populate that populate the universe the universe and that and must that be must annihilated be annihilated or confined or confinedwithin limits within so aslimits to become so as to harmless become harmless to the cosmos. to the44 cosmos.In the myth44 In the ofthe myth struggle of the betweenstruggle Baalbetween and BaalYam and (the Yam sea), (the the centralsea), the motif central is themotif struggle is the stru betweenggle between the two the entities two againstentities chaos.against Similarchaos. Similar figures figurescan be foundcan be in found Biblical in passages, Biblical passages, in which marinein which monsters marine represent monsters chaos represent and require chaos beingand require tamed beingso as nottamed to endanger so as not theto endanger order of the the natural order of world. the natural world. In Greek myth, Okeanos, the divine dark sea, the progenitor of the gods as well as the sea of death, the “river” encircling earth’s continents, was also the abode of fantastic beasts with the bleak appearance41 Falsone and of Zona monsters, K.(1989); evil Mammina spirits and that Toti may(2011 );have Volpi originally and Toti(2015 represented), p. 103. both an effective metaphor 42 for Forthe variationsdangers ofof the navigation, tale, see: Hes. orTheog a possible. 310 sqq .;protecti Apollod.onBibl for. 2.5.2; those Strab. terribleGeogr .voyages. 8.3.19; 17 Hyg. WhileFab .in 30 the and Archaic pref. 151; Paus. Perieg. 2.37.4 and 5.5.9; Serv. Comm. Aen. 6.287; Ogden(2013), pp. 27–30. period43 Bisi( 1965the ).various monsters act separately, from the Hellenistic age onwards these figures form the so-called44 Xella(1981 sea), p.thiasos, 56. or the entourage of sea gods, reminiscent of the procession of Bacchus’s thiasos. Among the female figures are the Nereids, always depicted as graceful young girls, sometimes with

41 Falsone (1989); Mammina and Toti (2011); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 103. 42 For variations of the tale, see: Hes. Theog. 310 sqq.; Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.2; Strab. Geogr. 8.3.19; 17 Hyg. Fab. 30 and pref. 151; Paus. Perieg. 2.37.4 and 5.5.9; Serv. Comm. Aen. 6.287; Ogden (2013), pp. 27–30. 43 Bisi (1965). 44 Xella (1982), p. 56.

Arts 2020, 9, 96 10 of 30

In Greek myth, Okeanos, the divine dark sea, the progenitor of the gods as well as the sea of death, the “river” encircling earth’s continents, was also the abode of fantastic beasts with the bleak appearance of monsters, evil spirits that may have originally represented both an effective metaphor for the dangers of navigation, or a possible protection for those terrible voyages. While in the Archaic period the various monsters act separately, from the Hellenistic age onwards these figures form the so-called sea thiasos, or the entourage of sea gods, reminiscent of the procession of Bacchus’s thiasos. Among the female figures are the Nereids, always depicted as graceful young girls, sometimes with green hair, although according to Pliny the Elder they were not immortal, they usually died on the beach like cetaceans and possessed a monstrous body with fish scales.45 The retinue of Okeanos does make occasional appearances in the Motyan evidence. In any case, in their human form, they for their part used as mounts several marine animals, both fantastic and real. Among the first at Motya, we find the pistrix or cetus (from the Greek κῆτoς), a marine monster in the shape of a sea serpent with the head of a dog and the tail fin of a fish. The pistrix was occasionally called “sea dog”, but the literary descriptions insist especially on the crested head, the power of the flaming gaze and the terrible saw-like teeth.46 In myth, the pistrix appears in two similar episodes: a girl (Hesione or Andromeda) is tied by her father to a rock and offered as a sacrifice to a sea monster.47 From ancient Greek nautical maps to the Renaissance, the pistrix was used as a symbol of the fear of the unknown.48 At Motya pistrices are found in a less violent scene on the rim of a louterion, as mounts for the Nereids, who carry weapons to a hero (Figure7). This scene must be understood as a reference to the story of the armor of Achilles, for indeed it was the Nereid who delivered the weapons sent by his mother Thetis.49 The most famous depiction of a pistrix is the one preserved in the Archaeological Museum of Naples, in a group of sculptures, dating to the 1st century bce, from Vedio Pollio’s Villa in Posillipo, in which the pistrix is similarly used as a mount by a Nereid. On the rim of the same louterion we also find dolphins together with the pistrices and Nereids. On the rim of another Roman marble louterion these marine mammals are shown in pairs while jumping out of the waves50; and on a bottle made in the workshops on the island of Lipari in the first half of the 3rd century bce (Figure8)—probably a cosmetics container, as a yellow powder inside proved to be goethite, a mineral used in ancient times for eyeshadow.51 In ancient myth, the dolphin was always considered a friendly animal, often the savior of sailors and castaways, as in the myth of Arion or the foundation of Delphi, named in honor of a dolphin.52 It was also believed that the souls of drowned sailors would return to live in the form of a dolphin, regaining possession of that vital force that the sea had taken from them.53 Their connection with Dionysus is well-known (Hom. Hymn 7)—starting with the tale of the Tyrrhenian pirates; the association with wine consumption and the sea world is illustrated by the mammals (many of them as musicians) painted on cups, kraters, dinoi and other sympotic vases, as well as by the representations of maenads holding fish, from the Archaic period onwards. A terracotta dolphin was among the votives of the 15th century BCE sanctuary at Aya Irini on Keos, offered to a god generally recognized as Dionysus.54

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 30 force that the sea had taken from them.53 Their connection with Dionysus is well-known (Hom. Hymn 7)—starting with the tale of the Tyrrhenian pirates; the association with wine consumption and the sea world is illustrated by the mammals (many of them as musicians) painted on cups, kraters, dinoi and other sympotic vases, as well as by the representations of maenads holding fish, from the Archaic periodFigure onwards. 7.7. Nereids A terracotta carrying dolphin armor onon was seasea among creaturescreatures the (MGW(MGW votives inv.inv. of no.no. the 768); 15th ceramiccentury pouring BCE sanctuary vesselvessel at Aya ((Irinilouterionlouterion on );Keos,); ca.ca. 550–500 offered bceBCE to.. a god generally recognized as Dionysus.54

On the rim of the same louterion we also find dolphins together with the pistrices and Nereids. On the rim of another Roman marble louterion these marine mammals are shown in pairs while jumping out of the waves50; and on a bottle made in the workshops on the island of Lipari in the first half of the 3rd century BCE (Figure 8)—probably a cosmetics container, as a yellow powder inside proved to be goethite, a mineral used in ancient times for eyeshadow.51 In ancient myth, the dolphin was always considered a friendly animal, often the savior of sailors and castaways, as in the myth of Arion or the foundation of Delphi, named in honor of a dolphin.52 It was also believed that the souls of drowned sailors would return to live in the form of a dolphin, regaining possession of that vital

45 Plin. Nat. Hist. 9.9. 46 Plin. Nat. Hist. 32.1. 47 Apollod. Bibl. 2.4.3 (Perseus and Andromeda) and 2.5.9 (Heracles and Hesione). 48 Also see the great Italian humanist Luodovico Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, 6.36: “pistrici, fisiteri, orche e balene/escon del mar con mostruose schiene (pistrices come forth from the sea with monstrous armies).” 49 Hom. Il. 18.478–608; Allegro (1982), p. 160. 50 Cf.FigureFigure Oliveri 8.8. (2009), Leaping p. 336 dolphinsdolphins (for the (MGW(MGW same type inv.inv. of no. vessel). 3138); 3138); cerami ceramicc cosmetic vessel; made in aa LiparianLiparian 51 Gamberiniworkshop;workshop; (forthcoming, ca.ca. earlyearly 3rd3rd 2013).centurycentury bceBCE.. 52 Hdt. Hist. 1.23–4; Hyg. Fab. 194. AA particularparticular typetype ofof plate,plate, knownknown asas thethe “fish“fish plate”,plate”, isis characterizedcharacterized byby thethe depictiondepiction ofof almostalmost allall knownknown fishfish speciesspecies inin thethe MediterraneanMediterranean onon itsits basin,basin, aa typicaltypical productionproduction ofof southernsouthern ItalianItalian 55 potterypottery painterspainters ofof thethe 4th4th centurycentury bceBCE..55 The shape (a basin on lowlow footfoot withwith aa projectingprojecting rimrim andand smallsmall centralcentral depression)depression) startsstarts withwith decorateddecorated plates, produced in Attica in the late 5th century BCEbce, exportedexported forfor aboutabout twentytwenty yearsyears fromfrom oneone endend ofof thethe MediterraneanMediterranean toto thethe otherother andand thenthen adaptedadapted byby potterypottery workshopsworkshops inin SicilySicily and southern Italy, whichwhich continuedcontinued productionproduction untiluntil thethe lastlast decadesdecades ofof thethe 4th4th century.century. Fish reproduced on these platesplates areare thosethose commonlycommonly caughtcaught andand eateneaten inin thethe MediterraneanMediterranean area,area, although,although, asas thethe potterypottery painterspainters certainlycertainly diddid notnot havehave thethe intentionintention toto writewrite aa handbookhandbook onon ichthyology,ichthyology, onlyonly inin somesome casescases familiesfamilies oror generagenera butbut notnot thethe particularparticular speciesspecies cancan clearlyclearly bebe distinguished.distinguished. On examples of Sicilian manufacture, various species of bream, wrasse, serranidsserranids andand torpedoestorpedoes oror racesraces cancan bebe recognized.recognized. Such fish fish plates are found at Motya as well, produced by the Painter of Bastis and the group of Morgantina, all dating to the first half of the 4th century BCE (Figure 9).56 55 McPheeHowever, and Dale the Trendall link between(1987). the depiction of fish on the vase, and the actual function of this object as “dish for fish” is uncertain, because the fish bones found on a few dishes of the necropolis of Palermo and taken as evidence of usage of the dish for fish could be related instead only to funerary offerings and not to daily life.57 It is true, however, that the species depicted are even now used in soups and for couscous seasoning and, assuming culinary usage, it has been speculated that the central “cup” or depression would serve for holding the sauces. Sauces were most probably held in co-called salt cellars, small containers in black paint, often found in association with the dishes. We also have evidence of molds to make fish, perhaps for cultic bread: some fragments of a mold, depicting the tail of a fish, come from the Area K, the industrial area north of the town of Motya.

53 Lallemand (2002), p. 24. 54 For the dolphin from Aya Irini and the problem of the identification of the deity worshipped there, see Caskey (1962), p. 280, pl. 101e; Caskey and Caskey (1986); Burkert (2010), pp. 319–20. 55 McPhee and Trendall (1987). 56 Toti (2014); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 102. 57 Palermo Punica (1998).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 12 of 30 produced by the Painter of Bastis and the group of Morgantina, all dating to the ﬁrst half of the 4th century bce (Figure9). 56 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 30

Figure 9. Dish painted with striped perch, wrasse andand torpedo ray (MGW(MGW inv. no.no. 2277); red-ﬁgurered-figure ﬁshfish plate; attributed to thethe BastisBastis Painter;Painter; ca.ca. early 4th century bceBCE..

However,Finally, a hippocamp, the link between a mythological the depiction creature of fish with on the the vase, upper and part the of actual a horse function and the of lower this object body asand “dish tail forof a fish” fish, is received uncertain, the because honor theof a fish panel bones of his found own on in a fewthe House dishes ofof thethe necropolis Mosaics (Figure of Palermo 10). andThere, taken the asartist evidence used a of red usage pebble of the to dishindicate for fish the couldeye and be relatedthen make instead it stand only out to funerary against the offerings black andbackground not to daily of the life. animal’s57 It is true, body, however, perhaps that to thebetter species characterize depicted it. are The even iconographic now used in motif soups refers and for to couscousglyptic schemes seasoning and and,coin assumingtypes, such culinary as the usage,litra of itDionysius has been I speculated of Syracuse, that which the central we know “cup” to be or depressionassociated with would coin serve finds for holdingin Motya the dating sauces. to Saucesthe 5th were century most BCE probably.58 The heldtypical in co-calledshape ofsalt seahorses cellars, smallwas certainly containers known in black by paint, ancient often populations, found in association who thought with thethey dishes. were Wedivine also animals. have evidence It is no of moldscoincidence to make that fish, Greek perhaps myths for assigned cultic bread:the creation some of fragments the horse ofto athe mold, sea god depicting Poseidon, the tailwho of isa often fish, comedepicted from with the a Area chariot K, thedrawn industrial by seahorses. area north So, ofthe the seahorse town of is Motya. usually represented in art the way it looksFinally, in reality, a hippocamp, or as a blending a mythological of land and creature sea creatures, with the a horse upper with part a of fish a horse tail, just and as the in the lower Motyan body andcase. tail of a fish, received the honor of a panel of his own in the House of the Mosaics (Figure 10). There, the artist used a red pebble to indicate the eye and then make it stand out against the black background of the animal’s body, perhaps to better characterize it. The iconographic motif refers to glyptic schemes and coin types, such as the litra of Dionysius I of Syracuse, which we know to be associated with coin finds in Motya dating to the 5th century bce.58 The typical shape of seahorses was certainly known by ancient populations, who thought they were divine animals. It is no coincidence that Greek myths assigned the creation of the horse to the sea god Poseidon, who is often depicted with a chariot drawn by seahorses. So, the seahorse is usually represented in art the way it looks in reality, or as a blending of land and sea creatures, a horse with a fish tail, just as in the Motyan case.

56 Toti(2014); Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 102. 57 Museo Archeologico Nazionale Antonio Salinas(1998). 58 Mammina(1997).

Figure 10. Horse-fish creature (hippocamp) in a mosaic panel; drawing of a scene from the House of the Mosaics; ca. 6th–5th century BCE.

58 Mammina (1997).

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 30

Figure 9. Dish painted with striped perch, wrasse and torpedo ray (MGW inv. no. 2277); red-figure fish plate; attributed to the Bastis Painter; ca. early 4th century BCE.

Finally, a hippocamp, a mythological creature with the upper part of a horse and the lower body and tail of a fish, received the honor of a panel of his own in the House of the Mosaics (Figure 10). There, the artist used a red pebble to indicate the eye and then make it stand out against the black background of the animal’s body, perhaps to better characterize it. The iconographic motif refers to glyptic schemes and coin types, such as the litra of Dionysius I of Syracuse, which we know to be associated with coin finds in Motya dating to the 5th century BCE.58 The typical shape of seahorses was certainly known by ancient populations, who thought they were divine animals. It is no coincidence that Greek myths assigned the creation of the horse to the sea god Poseidon, who is often depicted with a chariot drawn by seahorses. So, the seahorse is usually represented in art the way it Arts 2020,looks9, 96 in reality, or as a blending of land and sea creatures, a horse with a fish tail, just as in the Motyan 13 of 30 case.

Figure 10.FigureHorse-ﬁsh 10. Horse-fish creature creature (hippocamp) (hippocamp) inin aa mosaic panel; panel; drawing drawing of a ofscene a scene from the from House the of House of the Mosaics;the Mosaics; ca. 6th–5th ca. 6th–5th century centurybce BCE. .

4. Animals from the Natural World Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 30 58 Mammina (1997). Let us leave the creatures of the sea and turn to the winged animals of the air. Representations of 4. Animals from the Natural World birds on vessels seems to be related only to simple decorative reasons. On some Corinthian alabastra (perfume flasks)Let us of leave the latethe creatures 7th century of thebce sea, we and find turn ato rooster the winged and aanimals swan, of the the latter air. Representations also on a red-figured guttus datingof birds from on vessels the early seems 4th to century be relatedbce only, while to simple a bird decorative (perhaps reasons. a quail) On is some depicted Corinthian on a lekythos alabastra (perfume flasks) of the late 7th century BCE, we find a rooster and a swan, the latter also on (oil jug) of the first half of the 4th century bce. This vessel, conventionally called a “Pagenstecher-type a red-figured guttus dating from the early 4th century BCE, while a bird (perhaps a quail) is depicted lekythos”on (from a lekythos thename (oil jug) of theof the scholar first half who of identifiedthe 4th century this ceramicBCE. This class vessel, in conventionally the early twentieth called century),a was used“Pagenstecher-type to contain rose oil.lekythos59 At” (from Motya the birds name were of the represented scholar who on identified two fragmentary this ceramicmarble class in sculptures,the connectedearly to twentieth the building century), that was in used Roman to contain times rose was oil. built59 At over Motya the birds remains were represented of the Phoenician-Punic on two Sanctuaryfragmentary of Cappiddazzu marble sculptures, (it is unclear connected whether to the that building monument that in was Roman still times used was as a built place over of worshipthe at remains of the Phoenician-Punic Sanctuary of Cappiddazzu (it is unclear whether that monument that time). The first is a badly worn body of a bird in the round, with the detailing of its feathers still was still used as a place of worship60 at that time). The first is a badly worn body of a bird in the round, very wellwith preserved the detailing (Figure of its feathers 11). Onstill very the remainswell preserved of a pedestal,(Figure 11). with60 On athe human remains foot of a shodpedestal, in sandal, there arewith two a bird’shuman clawsfoot shod with in a sandal, part of there its tail are (Figuretwo bird’s 12 ).claws Unfortunately, with a part of the its twotail sculptures(Figure 12). do not allow reliableUnfortunately, identification the two sculptures of the animals, do not allow and reliab theyle do identification not appear of to the be animals, part of and a single they do monument. not If even inappear Roman to be times part of the a single Cappiddazzu monument. complex If even in was Roman not times used the as aCappiddazzu sacred area, complex it is possible was not that the two birdsused were as a connectedsacred area, with it is possible the worship that the of two a local birds deity. were connected with the worship of a local deity.

Figure 11.FigureWorn 11. Worn body body of of a birda bird (probably(probably an an eagle) eagle) with with carefully carefully rendered rendered feathers (MGW feathers inv. (MGW no. inv. 2776); marble sculpture; Roman period. no. 2776); marble sculpture; Roman period. It seems almost certain that the small marble sculpture depicts an eagle (Figure 11), as it resembles that bird as depicted in other Roman sculpture, while the claws on the marble pedestal 59 Pagenstechercould represent(1912). a quail (Figure 12). The latter bird can be connected with other evidence found at 60 Tusa(1968Motya,), p. for 8, pl.the 3.1. quail was sacred to the Phoenician counterpart of Hercules, Melqart.61 Still, the bird could also be understood as a rooster, typically connected to Asclepius, the god of health and healing.62 Additionally, it may be relevant that the dedication of a church in the Middle Ages over the ruins of the sanctuary was made to the patron saint of physicians, San Pantaleo. For this could validate the hypothesis that the Phoenician-Punic sanctuary and subsequently the Roman building were places of worship of gods of health. Next, a fragment of cake mold is decorated with the figure of a flying bird, its tail feathers spread out and the tips of its wings open.63 Comparison to specimens from Ibiza enables us to understand the iconography as that of a bird carrying a snake in its beak.64 Several pots in the shape of birds were

59 Pagenstecher (1912). 60 Tusa (1968), p. 8, pl. 3.1. 61 Acquaro (2017). 62 Pievatolo (2014), “Un gallo per Asclepio,” 115a–118a. 63 Mattazzi (2004), p. 102 (with prev. lit.) 64 Poma (2016), p. 222.

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 30

found in the House of the Mosaics, sometimes rendered very naturalistically and painted carefully.65 Arts 2020One, 9 ,probably 96 represents a duck, others show only the outline of the bird, such as the achromatic vase14 of 30 from Birgi (Figure 13) or a black painted vase from Lilybaeum.66

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 30 FigureFigure 12. Two 12. Two claws claws with with part part of of bird’s bird’s tail tail beside beside humanhuman foot foot in in sandal sandal (MGW (MGW inv. inv. no. no.5419); 5419); marble marble sculptural pedestal; Roman period. sculptural pedestal; Roman period. found in the House of the Mosaics, sometimes rendered very naturalistically and painted carefully.65 One probably represents a duck, others show only the outline of the bird, such as the achromatic vase It seems almost certain that the small marble sculpture depicts an eagle (Figure 11), as it resembles from Birgi (Figure 13) or a black painted vase from Lilybaeum.66 that bird as depicted in other Roman sculpture, while the claws on the marble pedestal could represent a quail (Figure 12). The latter bird can be connected with other evidence found at Motya, for the quail was sacred to the Phoenician counterpart of Hercules, Melqart.61 Still, the bird could also be understood as a rooster, typically connected to Asclepius, the god of health and healing.62 Additionally, it may be relevant that the dedication of a church in the Middle Ages over the ruins of the sanctuary was made to the patron saint of physicians, San Pantaleo. For this could validate the hypothesis that the Phoenician-Punic sanctuary and subsequently the Roman building were places of worship of gods of health.

Next, a fragment of cake mold is decorated with the ﬁgure of a ﬂying bird, its tail feathers spread Figure 13. Flask in the shape of bird (MGW inv. no. 3192); achromatic ceramic vase; from Birgi, out and the tips of its wings open.63 Comparison to specimens from Ibiza enables us to understand the Trapani; ca. 4th century BCE. iconography as that of a bird carrying a snake in its beak.64 Several pots in the shape of birds were found in theA kernos House (a ofvessel the composed Mosaics, sometimesof a clay ring, rendered connecting very smaller naturalistically cups, joined and to the painted ring through carefully. 65

One probablyholes drilled represents on the bottom, a duck, and others reserved show for only offerings the outline during ofreligious the bird, ceremonies such as theor funerals) achromatic was vase frompart Birgi Figureof (Figure a set 12. of Two 13 vessels) claws or a uneart blackwith parthed painted of inbird’s the vase tailnecropolis beside from huma Lilybaeum. of Motya.n foot in67 sandal66 In the (MGW Punic inv. area no. of5419); the marbletown such vesselssculptural often portray pedestal; animal Roman protomes,period. as in this case the head of a ram (Figure 14).68 Of another vessel, dating between the late 2nd and the early 1st century BCE, only the ram-shaped head remains. A small goat-shaped container from the necropolis of Birgi is almost complete (Figure 15). The imagery of caprines is also found in a panel of the House of the Mosaics (Figure 16). Although only partially preserved, the depiction is special because it is made in contrast with the others of the same building, using black pebbles for the animals and white ones for the background. The motif of rampant caprines derives from Near-Eastern figurative patterns, used in Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearics, through a Phoenician intermediary.69

65 Famà and Toti (2005). 66 Object on display in the local museum. Figure 13. Flask in the shape of bird (MGW inv. no. 3192); achromatic ceramic vase; from Birgi, Figure67 Tusa 13. (1968).Flask in the shape of bird (MGW inv. no. 3192); achromatic ceramic vase; from Birgi, Trapani; Trapani; ca. 4th century BCE. ca.68 4th Volpi century and Totibce (2015),. p. 100. 69 Famà (1997). A kernos (a vessel composed of a clay ring, connecting smaller cups, joined to the ring through

holes drilled on the bottom, and reserved for offerings during religious ceremonies or funerals) was 61 Acquaro(2016). part of a set of vessels unearthed in the necropolis of Motya.67 In the Punic area of the town such 62 Pievatolo(2014), “Un gallo per Asclepio,” 115a–118a. 68 63 Mattazzivessels(2004 often), p. portray 102 (with animal prev. lit.) protomes, as in this case the head of a ram (Figure 14). Of another 64 Pomavessel,(2016 dating), p. 222. between the late 2nd and the early 1st century BCE, only the ram-shaped head remains. 65 FamAà smalland Toti goat-shaped(2005). container from the necropolis of Birgi is almost complete (Figure 15). The 66 Objectimagery on display of caprines in the local is also museum. found in a panel of the House of the Mosaics (Figure 16). Although only partially preserved, the depiction is special because it is made in contrast with the others of the same building, using black pebbles for the animals and white ones for the background. The motif of rampant caprines derives from Near-Eastern figurative patterns, used in Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearics, through a Phoenician intermediary.69

65 Famà and Toti (2005). 66 Object on display in the local museum. 67 Tusa (1968). 68 Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 100. 69 Famà (1997).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 15 of 30

A kernos (a vessel composed of a clay ring, connecting smaller cups, joined to the ring through holes drilled on the bottom, and reserved for oﬀerings during religious ceremonies or funerals) was part of a set of vessels unearthed in the necropolis of Motya.67 In the Punic area of the town such vessels often portray animal protomes, as in this case the head of a ram (Figure 14).68 Of another vessel, dating between the late 2nd and the early 1st century bce, only the ram-shaped head remains. A small goat-shaped container from the necropolis of Birgi is almost complete (Figure 15). The imagery of caprines is also found in a panel of the House of the Mosaics (Figure 16). Although only partially preserved, the depiction is special because it is made in contrast with the others of the same building, using black pebbles for the animals and white ones for the background. The motif of rampant caprines derives from Near-Eastern ﬁgurative patterns, used in Sicily, Sardinia and the Balearics, through a Phoenician intermediary.69 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30

Figure 14. Head of a ram between cups (MGW inv. no. 3138); ceramic drinking vessel (kernos); ca. FigureFigure 14. Head 14. Head of aof ram a ram between between cups cups (MGW (MGW inv.inv. no. 3138); 3138); ceramic ceramic drinking drinking vessel vessel (kernos); (kernos); ca. ca. 650–600 BCE. 650–600650–600bce. BCE.

Figure 15. Container in the shape of goat (MGW inv. no. 2450); ceramic vessel; from Birgi, Trapani; Figure 15. Container in the shape of goat (MGW inv. no. 2450); ceramic vessel; from Birgi, Trapani; Figureca. 15. 3rd–2ndContainer century in BCE the. shape of goat (MGW inv. no. 2450); ceramic vessel; from Birgi, Trapani; ca. ca. 3rd–2nd century BCE. 3rd–2nd century bce.

Bovine ﬁgures are often shown in combination with other animals, such as a monumental sculpture with two felines attacking a bull, made by an artist from Selinunte and dated to the 6th century bce (Figure 17).70 Among the panels of the House of the Mosaics, a bull is likewise portrayed as the victim

67 Tusa(1968). 68 Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 100. 69 Famà (1997). 70 Mertens-Horn(1993); Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 34.

Figure 16. Rampant goats in a mosaic panel; drawing of a scene from the House of the Mosaics; ca. Figure 16. Rampant goats in a mosaic panel; drawing of a scene from the House of the Mosaics; ca. 6th–5th century BCE. 6th–5th century BCE. Bovine figures are often shown in combination with other animals, such as a monumental Bovine figures are often shown in combination with other animals, such as a monumental sculpture with two felines attacking a bull, made by an artist from Selinunte and dated to the 6th sculpture with two felines attacking a bull, made by an artist from Selinunte and dated to the 6th

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 30

Figure 14. Head of a ram between cups (MGW inv. no. 3138); ceramic drinking vessel (kernos); ca. Arts 2020, 9, 96650–600 BCE. 16 of 30 of an attack by a feline.71 Vases in the shape of cows are quite common in the Punic world; in Motya a small bull, dated to the 6th century bce, with a mantle painted in red, is part of the grave goods of the necropolis (Figure 18).72 The head of a bull wounded by another animal (probably a lion) is preserved on an arula fragment, produced in Magna Grecia, uncovered in the Inhabitation Area A.73 An isolated bull is represented in proﬁle on another arula found in the same area of the settlement.74 Bull’s heads appear frequently as protomes on Hellenistic braziers, or coal basins, which likely had a cultic function.75 The bull, incidentally, was intimately associated with the god Dionysus, as his preferred manifestation (epiphaneia) took the form of a bull (tauromorphos).76 From Aeschylus, Euripides, Nonnus and especially Athenaeus we know that the god’s common appellations (epitheta) included Dionysos Tauros and Theos Tauros (Dionysus “the Bull” and the “Bull God”, respectively), as well as

Taurokeros and Taurogenes (“Bull-Horned” and “Bull-Born”, respectively); likewise in Orphic religion, Dionysus wasFigure called 15. ContainerTaurokephalos in the shape, Taurokranos of goat (MGWand Taurometopeinv. no. 2450); ceramic(all meaning vessel; from “Bull-Headed”). Birgi, Trapani; 77 ca. 3rd–2nd century BCE.

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 30

century BCE (Figure 17).70 Among the panels of the House of the Mosaics, a bull is likewise portrayed as the victim of an attack by a feline.71 Vases in the shape of cows are quite common in the Punic world; in Motya a small bull, dated to the 6th century BCE, with a mantle painted in red, is part of the grave goods of the necropolis (Figure 18).72 The head of a bull wounded by another animal (probably a lion) is preserved on an arula fragment, produced in Magna Grecia, uncovered in the Inhabitation Area A.73 An isolated bull is represented in profile on another arula found in the same area of the settlement.74 Bull’s heads appear frequently as protomes on Hellenistic braziers, or coal basins, which likely had a cultic function.75 The bull, incidentally, was intimately associated with the god Dionysus, as his preferred manifestation (epiphaneia) took the form of a bull (tauromorphos).76 From Aeschylus, Euripides, Nonnus and especially Athenaeus we know that the god’s common appellations (epitheta) included Dionysos Tauros and Theos Tauros (Dionysus “the Bull” and the “Bull God”, respectively), as wellFigure as Taurokeros 16. Rampant and Taurogenes goats in a mosaic(“Bull-Horned” panel; drawing and “Bull-Born”, of a scene from respectively); the House likewiseof the Mosaics; in Orphic ca. Figurereligion, 16. RampantDionysusgoats was incalled a mosaic Taurokephalos panel; drawing, Taurokranos of a sceneand Taurometope from the House (all ofmeaning the Mosaics; “Bull- ca. 6th–5th century BCE. 6th–5thHeaded”). century77 bce. Bovine figures are often shown in combination with other animals, such as a monumental sculpture with two felines attacking a bull, made by an artist from Selinunte and dated to the 6th

Figure 17. Two felines attacking a bull (MGW inv. no. 2520); limestone sculpture; from Selinunte, Figure 17. Two felines attacking a bull (MGW inv. no. 2520); limestone sculpture; from Selinunte, Sicily; ca. 6th century BCE. Sicily; ca. 6th century bce. Equally common are representations of felines on a variety of objects. The oldest surviving depiction of a lion, on a black-figure lekythos, dates to the 5th century BCE and illustrates the first Labor 71 Famàof(1997 Hercules,); Volpi andthe Nemean Toti(2015 ),Lion p. 59. Hunt. The archives of the Whitaker foundation show that this vessel 72 Famàwasand Totifound(2005 in). a tomb of the town’s necropolis, “in the presence of the Commendatore Whitaker.”78 73 Toti(2002Big ),cats, p. 327. that is, lions and panthers, are painted on gutti, while naturalistic lion-headed protomes are 74 Toti(2002), p. 328. used as spouts of black-painted gutti (Figure 19), and a superb lion is engraved on a scarab in green 75 Toti(2002), pp. 327–28. 79 76 Iozzojasper.(2013), p. 6.A lion or lioness accompanied by a human figure is depicted in profile on a partially 77 Iozzopreserved(2013), p. 6 (withcake prev.mold lit.)from the Sanctuary of Cappiddazzu.80 The fragmented condition makes it

70 Mertens-Horn (1993); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 34. 71 Famà (1997); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 59. 72 Famà and Toti (2005). 73 Toti (2002), p. 327. 74 Toti (2002), p. 328. 75 Toti (2002), pp. 327–28. 76 Iozzo (2013), p. 6. 77 Iozzo (2013), p. 6 (with prev. lit.) 78 Hand-written caption by Joseph Whitaker (Whitaker Foundation Archives). 79 Acquaro (2016). 80 Mattazzi (2004), pp. 99–100.

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30

Arts 2020difficult, 9, 96 to fully understand the relation of the human and leonine figures, although it could be17 of 30 related to the theme of the lion hunt depicted on Phoenician metal bowls.

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 30 difficult to fully understand the relation of the human and leonine figures, although it could be related to the theme of the lion hunt depicted on Phoenician metal bowls.

FigureFigure 18. Container 18. Container in thein the shape shape of of cow cow (MGW (MGW inv. no. 4386) 4386) together together with with two two other other vessels; vessels; ceramic ceramic vessel; ca. 6th century BCE. vessel; ca. 6th century bce.

Equally common are representations of felines on a variety of objects. The oldest surviving depiction of a lion, on a black-figure lekythos, dates to the 5th century bce and illustrates the first Labor of Hercules, the Nemean Lion Hunt. The archives of the Whitaker foundation show that this vessel was found in a tomb of the town’s necropolis, “in the presence of the Commendatore Whitaker.”78 Big cats, that is, lions and panthers, are painted on gutti, while naturalistic lion-headed protomes are used as spouts of black-painted gutti (Figure 19), and a superb lion is engraved on a scarab in green jasper.79 A lion or lioness accompanied by a human figure is depicted in profile on a partially preserved cake 80 mold from the Sanctuary of Cappiddazzu. The fragmented condition makes it di fficult to fully understand the relation of the human and leonine figures, although it could be related to the theme of Figure 18. Container in the shape of cow (MGW inv. no. 4386) together with two other vessels; ceramic the lion hunt depicted on Phoenician metal bowls. vessel; ca. 6th century BCE.

Figure 19. Lion-headed spout (MGW inv. no. 2326); black ceramic pouring vessel (guttus); ca. 4th–3rd century BCE.

A small number of lion-headed protomes, of different size, material and dating, share the common purpose as water pipes. One life-size gargoyle was found in Motya “in the ruins of buildings”; it is made of tufa limestone and dates to the second quarter of the 5th century BCE; it is doubtless of Greek manufacture, probably from Agrigento, Sicily.81 One terracotta example still retains part of the cylindrical tube (Figure 20). It should be understood as a water conduit for a fountain, as it is often found on scenes of Attic pottery. Usually this type of object is made of metal, but there are also some examples of terracotta.82 A feline is probably depicted in a small hollow sculpture; terracotta paws, originally from Lilybaeum, are likely feline; just as bull’s heads, lion’s heads could also be represented on Hellenistic braziers; great cats are depicted, too, in a panel of the House of the Mosaics; and one group shows lions attacking a bull.83 A small limestone sculpture, dating to the 6th–5th century BCE, found in Motya, shows two seated lions flanking an enthroned,

Figure 19. Lion-headedLion-headed spout (MGW inv. no. 2326); 2326); black black ceramic ceramic pouring vessel (guttus); ca. 4th–3rd

century BCEbce. 81 Mezzolani (2011), p. 117. 82 Mezzolani (2011), p. 113. A small number of lion-headed protomes, of different size, material and dating, share the A83 small Objects number on display of in lion-headed the local museum; protomes, Famà (2009). of diﬀ erent size, material and dating, share the common purposecommon aspurpose water pipes.as water One pipes. life-size One gargoyle life-size was gargoyle found in was Motya found “in thein Motya ruins of “in buildings”; the ruins it of is buildings”; it is made of tufa limestone and dates to the second quarter of the 5th century BCE; it is doubtless of Greek manufacture, probably from Agrigento, Sicily.81 One terracotta example still retains78 Hand-written part of captionthe cylindrical by Joseph Whitaker tube (Figure (Whitaker 20). Foundation It should Archives). be understood as a water conduit for a fountain,79 Acquaro as(2016 it ).is often found on scenes of Attic pottery. Usually this type of object is made of metal, 80 butMattazzi there are(2004 also), pp. some 99–100. examples of terracotta.82 A feline is probably depicted in a small hollow sculpture; terracotta paws, originally from Lilybaeum, are likely feline; just as bull’s heads, lion’s heads could also be represented on Hellenistic braziers; great cats are depicted, too, in a panel of the House of the Mosaics; and one group shows lions attacking a bull.83 A small limestone sculpture, dating to the 6th–5th century BCE, found in Motya, shows two seated lions flanking an enthroned,

81 Mezzolani (2011), p. 117. 82 Mezzolani (2011), p. 113. 83 Objects on display in the local museum; Famà (2009).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 18 of 30 made of tufa limestone and dates to the second quarter of the 5th century bce; it is doubtless of Greek manufacture, probably from Agrigento, Sicily.81 One terracotta example still retains part of the cylindrical tube (Figure 20). It should be understood as a water conduit for a fountain, as it is often found on scenes of Attic pottery. Usually this type of object is made of metal, but there are also some examples of terracotta.82 A feline is probably depicted in a small hollow sculpture; terracotta paws, originally from Lilybaeum, are likely feline; just as bull’s heads, lion’s heads could also be represented on Hellenistic braziers; great cats are depicted, too, in a panel of the House of the Mosaics; and one Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 30 Artsgroup 2020 shows, 9, x FOR lions PEER attacking REVIEW a bull.83 A small limestone sculpture, dating to the 6th–5th century18 ofbce 30, found in Motya, shows two seated lions ﬂanking an enthroned, headless female ﬁgure, undoubtedly headless female figure, undoubtedly Cybele, the Anatolian Mother Goddess, Mistress of Animals headless female figure, undoubtedly Cybele, the Anatolian Mother Goddess,84 Mistress of Animals Cybele, the84 Anatolian Mother Goddess, Mistress of Animals (Figure 21). (Figure(Figure 21).21).84

FigureFigure 20.20. Lion-headedLion-headed waterspout waterspout (gargoyle) (gargoyle) (MGW(MGW inv.inv. no.no. 3123); 3123); terracotta; terracotta; [n.d.]. [n.d.].

Figure 21. Enthroned Cybele flanked by seated lions (MGW inv. no. 5427); limestone sculpture; ca. Figure 21. Enthroned Cybele flanked ﬂanked by seated lions (MGW inv. no. 5427); 5427); limestone limestone sculpture; sculpture; ca. ca. 6th–5th century BCE. 6th–5th century BCEbce.

MovingMoving from from felines felines to to canines, canines, we we would would like like to to mentionmention smallsmall CorinthiCorinthi Corinthiananan potterypottery fromfrom Motya,Motya, datingdating tototo the thethe 6th 6th6th century centurycenturybce BCEBCE, that,, thatthat are areare decorated decorateddecorated with withwith four-legged four-leggedfour-legged animal animalanimal ﬁgures, figures,figures, which whichwhich probably probablyprobably depict 85 86 depictdepict dogs.dogs.85 From From thethe timetime ofof Homer,Homer, thethe dogdog waswas anan importantimportant elementelement inin GreekGreek dailydaily life.life.86 TheThe animal’sanimal’s basicbasic functionsfunctions werewere herding,herding, protectingprotecting andand servingserving asas pleasantpleasant companycompany toto humans.humans. Perhaps its chief role in human life was hunting; consider that the same term for hunting, one of the Perhaps81 Mezzolani its chief(2011), role p. 117. in human life was hunting; consider that the same term for hunting, one of the major82majorMezzolani activitiesactivities(2011 ), ofof p. 113.thethe GreeGreekk societysociety ofof anyany time,time, isis kynegesiakynegesia,, thatthat isis “leading“leading thethe dog”.dog”. AnotherAnother 83 87 importantObjects on role display of the in the dog local in museum; human Fam lifeà was(2009 ).funerary.87 important84 role of the dog in human life was funerary. Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 33. 88 AnAn antelopeantelope isis easilyeasily distinguisdistinguishablehable onon aa bluish-greenbluish-green faiencefaience alabastronalabastron (Figure(Figure 22).22).88 TheThe ointmentointment jar,jar, datingdating fromfrom aroundaround thethe mid-7thmid-7th centurycentury BCEBCE,, waswas partpart ofof thethe goodsgoods ofof aa cremationcremation burialburial inin thethe necropolisnecropolis ofof Motya,Motya, alongalong withwith silversilver jewelryjewelry andand hard-stonehard-stone scarabs,scarabs, unfortunatelyunfortunately notnot 89 identifiedidentified anyany furtherfurther amongamong thethe matematerialsrials ofof thethe WhitakerWhitaker Collection.Collection.89 To To datedate wewe knowknow ofof aa dozendozen

84 84 Volpi Volpi andand TotiToti (2015),(2015), p.p. 33.33. 85 85 Neeft Neeft (1987),(1987), pp.pp. 149149 andand 155155 (conical(conical aryballoiaryballoi type).type). 86 86 Mainoldi Mainoldi (1984),(1984), pp.pp. 113–20;113–20; IozzoIozzo (2013),(2013), pp.pp. 7–9;7–9; KitchellKitchell (2020).(2020). 87 87 IozzoIozzo (2013).(2013). 88 88 Volpi Volpi andand TotiToti (2015),(2015), p.p. 90.90. 89 89 Whitaker Whitaker FoundationFoundation Archive.Archive.

Arts 2020, 9, 96 19 of 30 dogs.85 From the time of Homer, the dog was an important element in Greek daily life.86 The animal’s basic functions were herding, protecting and serving as pleasant company to humans. Perhaps its chief role in human life was hunting; consider that the same term for hunting, one of the major activities of the Greek society of any time, is kynegesia, that is “leading the dog”. Another important role of the dog in human life was funerary.87 An antelope is easily distinguishable on a bluish-green faience alabastron (Figure 22).88 The ointment jar, dating from around the mid-7th century bce, was part of the goods of a cremation burial in the necropolis of Motya, along with silver jewelry and hard-stone scarabs, unfortunately not Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 30 identiﬁed any further among the materials of the Whitaker Collection.89 To date we know of a dozen vessels of this type, preserved in various museums around the world, from diﬀerent archaeological vessels of this type, preserved in various museums around the world, from different archaeological sites, but almost certainly all coming from workshops of the island of Rhodes.90 sites, but almost certainly all coming from workshops of the island of Rhodes.90

Figure 22. AntelopeAntelope in in landscape landscape (MGW (MGW inv. inv. no. 865); 865); faie faiencence ointment ointment jar jar (alabastron); (alabastron); perhaps perhaps from Rhodian workshop; ca. mid-7th century BCEbce..

Some other animals appearappear onlyonly sporadicallysporadically among among the the artifacts artifacts of of Motya. Motya. For For instance, instance, a boara boar is isdepicted depicted on on a fragmenta fragment of of a aguttus guttus,, of of the the late late 5th 5th century centurybce BCE,, comingcoming fromfrom thethe town’stown’s Inhabitation Area A91,, while while a a small small vase vase from Roman Lilybaeum has the shape of aa pig.pig.9292 AA deer and slightly oversized rabbits are shown on another guttus..93 WhileWhile there there are are relatively relatively few few depictions depictions of of horses, horses, they do feature in scenes on arulae, where they are always the victim of other animals’ attack, and in genre scenes, such as the chariot race, on the rims of of louterialouteria;; in in a a panel panel of of the the House House of of the the Mosaics, Mosaics, and unusually on a stele from the sanctuary of the Tophet (about(about whichwhich moremore below).below).9494

5. The Realm of Egyptian Magic 85 NeeftThis(1987 overview), pp. 149 of and the 155 animal (conical iconography aryballoi type). from Motya ends with depictions derived from ancient 86 Mainoldi(1984), pp. 113–20; Iozzo(2013), pp. 7–9; Kitchell(2020). Egypt.87 Iozzo Egyptian(2013). artifacts, not infrequently centuries older than their archaeological context have been excavated88 Volpi and across Toti(2015 the), p. Mediterranean. 90. Their vast dispersal serves as an apt demonstration not only of the89 Whitakerenduring Foundation attraction Archive. of the mysterious culture of the Nile valley, but also the wide 90 Hill(1976). interconnectedness91 De Cesare(2002), p. 150. of the ancient world. Among the objects that are directly connected to Egypt, first in92 lineLeibundgut are scarabs. Wieland( 2001Although), p. 266. beyond the Nile Valley they may lose their religious or magical 93 significance,De Cesare(2002 they). could also be used as seals by impressing the flat, engraved side on wax or clay, as 94 Moscati and Uberti(1981), p. 260. a sign of personal identification.95 These scarabs can be quite naturalistic and detailed; they are often made of glass paste, and could be used as personal adornment or as amulets—to be suspended from a cord as the holes in some specimens indicate (Figure 23). A terracotta cake mold also shows a scarab,

90 Hill (1976). 91 De Cesare (2002), p. 150. 92 Leibundgut Wieland (2001), p. 266. 93 De Cesare (2002). 94 Moscati and Uberti (1981), p. 260. 95 Matthiae Scandone (1972); Matthiae Scandone (1975); Matthiae Scandone (1978); Melandri (2012); Toti (2015); cf. Vlad Borrelli (1998), p. 155 (“Egypt, as a link of facts and knowledge between East and West, since ancient times was considered the best keeper of magical practices and of a miraculous pharmacopoeia”).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 20 of 30

5. The Realm of Egyptian Magic This overview of the animal iconography from Motya ends with depictions derived from ancient Egypt. Egyptian artifacts, not infrequently centuries older than their archaeological context have been excavated across the Mediterranean. Their vast dispersal serves as an apt demonstration not only of the enduring attraction of the mysterious culture of the Nile valley, but also the wide interconnectedness of the ancient world. Among the objects that are directly connected to Egypt, first in line are scarabs. Although beyond the Nile Valley they may lose their religious or magical significance, they could also be used as seals by impressing the flat, engraved side on wax or clay, as a sign of personal identification.95 These scarabs can be quite naturalistic and detailed; they are often made of glass paste, and could be used as personal adornment or as amulets—to be suspended from a cord as the holes in Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30 some specimens indicate (Figure 23). A terracotta cake mold also shows a scarab, demonstrating its 96 demonstratingcontinued cultic its importance. continued culticIn Egypt,importance. the scarab96 In Egypt, was associated the scarab with was the associated solar cult, with particularly the solar cult,the rising particularly sun. Indeed, the rising the sun. habit Indeed, of the dungthe habit beetle of the of rollingdung beetle balls of dungrolling reminded balls of dung the Egyptiansreminded 97 theof the Egyptians solar cycle. of the solarThe divinecycle.97 personification The divine personification of the rising of sun the wasrising called sun was Khepri called in Khepri Egyptian, in a scarab-headed deity, whose name (Hprỉ) refers both to the beetle (hprr) and the act of coming into Egyptian, a scarab-headed deity, whoseˇ name (Ḫprỉ) refers both toˇ the beetle (ḫprr) and the act of being (hpr), all of which was written with the hieroglyphic sign of the scarab (𓆣 ). comingˇ into being (ḫpr), all of which was written with the hieroglyphic sign of the scarab (𓆣).

Figure 23. EgyptianizingEgyptianizing scarab beetle (MGW inv. no. 3119) 3119) and and modern modern imprint; imprint; terracotta terracotta mold; mold; ca. ca. 5th century BCEbce.

The presence of other zoomorphic amulets in Moty Motya,a, made of various mate materialsrials (such as as glass, plaster and bone), are also explainedexplained byby theirtheir EgyptianEgyptian connotation.connotation.9898 For Egyptian gods often took the likeness of animals. Among Among the the most most popular popular amul amuletsets was the falcon, the sacred bird of the solar deity Horus, the archetype of Pharaonic kingship (Figure 2424).). Equally Equally common common are are bovine amulets, amulets, representing the celestial cow Hathor, the goddess of love and fertility—often shown in the act of breastfeeding her calf (symbolizing motherhood); or amulets amulets of of the the hippopotamus hippopotamus goddess goddess Taweret; Taweret; additionally, amulets appear in the shape of the ibis and the baboon, the sacred animals connected with the lunar deity Thoth, the scribal godgod ofof wisdom.wisdom.

95 Matthiae Scandone(1972); Matthiae Scandone(1975); Matthiae Scandone(1978); Alhaique(2012); Toti(2015); cf. Vlad Borrelli(1998), p. 155 (“Egypt, as a link of facts and knowledge between East and West, since ancient times was considered the best keeper of magical practices and of a miraculous pharmacopoeia”). 96 Mattazzi(2004). 97 Quillard(2013). 98 Fresina and del Museo J(1980); Verga(1981).

Figure 24. Horus-falcon figurine (MGW inv. no. 1865); faience amulet; ca. 4th century BCE(?).

We conclude this overview with the uraeus, the royal cobra, sacred to the serpentine goddess Wadjet, one of the two protective deities of the pharaoh, and representative of Lower (Northern)

96 Mattazzi (2004). 97 Quillard (2013). 98 Fresina (1980); Verga (1981).

Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 30 demonstrating its continued cultic importance.96 In Egypt, the scarab was associated with the solar cult, particularly the rising sun. Indeed, the habit of the dung beetle of rolling balls of dung reminded the Egyptians of the solar cycle.97 The divine personification of the rising sun was called Khepri in Egyptian, a scarab-headed deity, whose name (Ḫprỉ) refers both to the beetle (ḫprr) and the act of coming into being (ḫpr), all of which was written with the hieroglyphic sign of the scarab (𓆣).

Figure 23. Egyptianizing scarab beetle (MGW inv. no. 3119) and modern imprint; terracotta mold; ca. 5th century BCE.

The presence of other zoomorphic amulets in Motya, made of various materials (such as glass, plaster and bone), are also explained by their Egyptian connotation.98 For Egyptian gods often took the likeness of animals. Among the most popular amulets was the falcon, the sacred bird of the solar deity Horus, the archetype of Pharaonic kingship (Figure 24). Equally common are bovine amulets, representing the celestial cow Hathor, the goddess of love and fertility—often shown in the act of breastfeeding her calf (symbolizing motherhood); or amulets of the hippopotamus goddess Taweret; Artsadditionally,2020, 9, 96 amulets appear in the shape of the ibis and the baboon, the sacred animals connected21 of 30 with the lunar deity Thoth, the scribal god of wisdom.

Figure 24. Horus-falcon figurine ﬁgurine (MGW inv. no. 1865); faience amulet; ca. 4th century BCEbce(?).(?).

We conclude this overview with the uraeus, the royal cobra,cobra, sacred to thethe serpentineserpentine goddess Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 30 Wadjet, one of the two protective deities of the pharaoh, and representative of Lower (Northern) Egypt. At Motya, Motya, the the uraeusuraeus isis depicted depicted on on a a gold gold roundel, roundel, intricately intricately decorated decorated with with granular granular details, details, consisting of two pendant and upright cobras, each crowned with a solar disc, flanking what would 96consisting of two pendant and upright cobras, each crowned with a solar disc, flanking what would signify Mattazzi the sun(2004). in Egyptian iconography (but here represented by a granulated mass), tipped with 97signify Quillard the sun(2013). in Egyptian iconography (but here represented by a granulated mass), tipped with a a recumbent lunar sickle enclosing a lunar disc; above the scene appears a winged disc, with rays 98recumbent Fresina (1980); lunar Verga sickle (1981). enclosing a lunar disc; above the scene appears a winged disc, with rays beaming upward and downward; two sinuous lines adorn the upper part of the wings (Figure 25).99 beaming upward and downward; two sinuous lines adorn the upper part of the wings (Figure 25).99 To bebe sure,sure, thisthis pendantpendant isis notnot ofof EgyptianEgyptian manufacture.manufacture. Apart for the roundel, we findfind the uraeus mainly asas a a decorative decorative frieze frieze on architectureon architecture or more or exactlymore inexactly the transposition in the transposition of temple architectureof temple architectureupon some stelaeupon ofsome the sanctuarystelae of the of thesanctuary Tophet, of as the finalTophet, element as the of final a painted element or carvedof a painted building or 100 carvedfaçade. building façade.100

Figure 25. Egyptianizing scene with two cobras (uraei) (MGW(MGW inv.inv. no.no. 1870);1870); goldgold pendant;pendant; ca.ca. 4th century BCEbce.

6. Traces of Animal Remains 99 QuillardCats, (2013dogs,), p. 38.and other domestic animals undoubtedly wandered around the streets and 100 Wagner(1980); Volpi and Toti(2015), p. 111. courtyards of the city of Motya. However, they did not always leave their traces among the archaeological remains. It seems safe to assume that every Motyan household possessed poultry and perhaps some sheep, just as any other farming family, to meet their daily demands. Larger livestock, such as cattle, sheep and goats, were bred and herded on the Sicilian mainland, where there was plenty of pasture and water. It should be noted that the osteological material (viz., animal bones) from excavations in Motya has been regularly documented only since the early 21st century (Figure 26).101 It is very likely that the results tabulated here will be modified over the coming years and decades. From these results, there does not seem to be a marked difference in the relative numbers of main domesticated species between the sacred areas (the remains of sacrifices) and domestic contexts. In the sacred areas, however, a markedly wider spectrum of species is attested, including categories of smaller animals, such as fish, birds, molluscs and tortoise. Wild animals, such as deer, do not appear to have been staples of the Motyan diet, as they are absent in the faunal assemblages from the inhabited areas. During his excavations, Joseph Whitaker did identify bones, probably belonging to cows, given their size. He put a set of bones on display in the museum, further including the skull of

99 Quillard (2013), p. 38. 100 Wagner (1980); Volpi and Toti (2015), p. 111. 101 e.g., Alahaique (2005, 2007, 2012); Russo (2011).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 22 of 30 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 30 a6. rabbit Traces and of Animal shells of Remains molluscs found in the excavations at the domestic site of the House of the Mosaics.102 In the caption, he described them as “remains of meals.”103 Cats, dogs, and other domestic animals undoubtedly wandered around the streets and courtyards When identified according to age groups, it appears that about a quarter (ca. 22%) of the cattle of the city of Motya. However, they did not always leave their traces among the archaeological remains. was slaughtered at a young age (as calves) for their meat (veal). It would therefore seem that most It seems safe to assume that every Motyan household possessed poultry and perhaps some sheep, just cows (ca. 77%) survived into adulthood, so that their human owners could take advantage of their as any other farming family, to meet their daily demands. Larger livestock, such as cattle, sheep and milk and of the labor of oxen. Still, human food consumption of their meat must count as an important goats, were bred and herded on the Sicilian mainland, where there was plenty of pasture and water. factor in a comprehensive economic evaluation of this main domestic species. The only proof for the It should be noted that the osteological material (viz., animal bones) from excavations in Motya has processing of animal bones, thus far, was discovered in the “House of the Domestic Shrine”, in the been regularly documented only since the early 21st century (Figure 26).101 It is very likely that the form of fragments of cattle horns and two goat horns, purposely sawn and detached from the skull results tabulated here will be modiﬁed over the coming years and decades. in order to remove the horn for use in manufacturing.104

Figure 26. PercentagesPercentages of of animal animal remain remainss per type, as excavated in different diﬀerent areas of Motya.

AFrom substantial these results, number there of caprine does not bones seem (sheep to be or a goat) marked has dibeenfference documented. in the relative As for numberstheir age of death,main domesticated it has been possible species to between note that the only sacred about areas a (thequarter remains of the of total sacrifices) were slaughtered and domestic within contexts. the firstIn the six sacred months areas, of their however, life (as a markedly lambs); the wider majority spectrum survived of species into istheir attested, third includingor fourth categoriesyear. Sheep of andsmaller goats animals, will have, such naturally, as fish, birds, been molluscs exploited and not tortoise. only for Wild their animals, meat, but such also as deer,their domilk not and appear wool. to Findshave been of antlers staples and of thedeer Motyan bones diet,are quite as they frequent, are absent too. in105 the While faunal it may assemblages be assumed from that the venison— inhabited huntedareas. During in the Sicilian his excavations, mainland—satisfied Joseph Whitaker a need did for identify food, religious bones, probably deployment belonging during to certain cows, given rites maytheir also size. have He put occurred, a set of as bones their on remain displays have in the been museum, found in further sacred including areas. the skull of a rabbit and 102 shellsAs of for molluscs porcine found bones, in theit should excavations be mentioned at the domestic that the site excavated of the House areas ofof thethe Mosaics.town have Inso thefar 103 yieldedcaption, few he described pig remains. them Instead as “remains porcine of meals.” bones have been unearthed in greater quantities from sanctuaryWhen areas, identified that is, according where the to animal age groups, was sacrificed it appears to thatcertain about deities. a quarter106 As a (ca. side22%) note, of we the would cattle waslike to slaughtered emphasize at that a young such ritual age (as offerings calves) forof pigs their do meat not (veal).imply Itwhether would or therefore not Phoenicians seem that might most havecows had (ca. food77%) taboos survived about into pork. adulthood, Until quite so that recent theirly, human a belief owners in Phoenician could take food advantage taboos, however, of their hasmilk been and ofso themuch labor rooted of oxen. in academic Still, human studies food as consumption to influence of the their archaeological meat must count research as an itself. important107 To befactor sure, in there a comprehensive are few references economic to Near-Eastern evaluation of pig this farms main in domestic the ancient species. sources; The onlyyet, it proof is also for true the processing of animal bones, thus far, was discovered in the “House of the Domestic Shrine”, in the

102 As these excavated remains were not catalogued according to current zooarchaeological standards, they cannot be included in the tabulations. 103101 e.g., Hand-written Alahaique( 2005caption, 2007 by, 2012 Joseph); Russo Whitak(2011).er (Whitaker Foundation Archives). 102 104 AsAlahique these excavated (2007). remains were not catalogued according to current zooarchaeological standards, they cannot be included in the tabulations. 105 103 Hand-writtenAlahique (2005). caption by Joseph Whitaker (Whitaker Foundation Archives). 106 Alahique (2005); Alahique (2012). 107 Campanella and Zamora (2010).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 23 of 30 form of fragments of cattle horns and two goat horns, purposely sawn and detached from the skull in order to remove the horn for use in manufacturing.104 A substantial number of caprine bones (sheep or goat) has been documented. As for their age of death, it has been possible to note that only about a quarter of the total were slaughtered within the first six months of their life (as lambs); the majority survived into their third or fourth year. Sheep and goats will have, naturally, been exploited not only for their meat, but also their milk and wool. Finds of antlers and deer bones are quite frequent, too.105 While it may be assumed that venison—hunted in the Sicilian mainland—satisfied a need for food, religious deployment during certain rites may also have occurred, as their remains have been found in sacred areas. As for porcine bones, it should be mentioned that the excavated areas of the town have so far yielded few pig remains. Instead porcine bones have been unearthed in greater quantities from sanctuary areas, that is, where the animal was sacrificed to certain deities.106 As a side note, we would like to emphasize that such ritual offerings of pigs do not imply whether or not Phoenicians might have had food taboos about pork. Until quite recently, a belief in Phoenician food taboos, however, has been so much rooted in academic studies as to influence the archaeological research itself.107 To be sure, there are few references to Near-Eastern pig farms in the ancient sources; yet, it is also true that boars were hunted, their meat consumed, and their bones found in Motya. Moreover, unlike the cattle or sheep and goats, pig breeding provides only meat. Although they may of course provide some useful by-products such as leather, pigs do not provide dairy products, wool or labor. The animal remains unearthed in the sanctuary of the Tophet deserve special mention.108 Votive offerings were deposited within this open-air sanctuary in vases consisting of both the cremated remains of animals and human beings. The cremated remains are all fragmentary and often reduced to mere flakes, so that very few parts are still recognizable. Morphological analysis of the bone remains confirms their very young age, perhaps newborn.109 Literary sources do indicate the Tophet as the site where Phoenicians offered child sacrifices to the deity.110 Research carried out on the cremated remains, however, indicates that human sacrifice was less frequent than that of animal sacrifices, which were practiced throughout the period that the sanctuary was in function, from the 8th through the early 3rd century bce.111 Some unburnt shells of marine molluscs (Cardium sp., Mytilus sp., Patella sp. and Cerithium sp.) were found in funerary urns—a single shell per urn, perhaps to ritually “seal” the cremated remains. For a better understanding of the sacrifices practiced in the Tophet sanctuary of Motya, let us also consider the rituals performed at other Punic sites, such as Tharros in Sardinia, as well as Carthage and Sousse in North Africa112, for the ratios between human and animal remains at Motya are the reverse compared to these sites. Finally, we would like to review some of the more unusual finds. The island’s Administrator Giuseppe Lipari Cascio wrote down all the finds made on Motya and its surroundings in the Entry Registry of the Whitaker Collection, which are included in the museum holdings (Whitaker Foundation Archives). In addition to the vessels and the metal objects, he also registered a list of bones. Chronologically, the first bone discovery consisted of “two elephant tusks found on 3 February 1911, in Contrada Chinisia, which overlooks the island of Motya.”113 These two elephant tusks, identified

104 Alahique(2007). 105 Alahaique(2005). 106 Alahaique(2005); Alhaique(2012). 107 Campanella and Zamora(2010). 108 Ciasca(1992). 109 Di Salvo(1996). 110 D’Andrea(2018). 111 Analysis indicates a low frequency of infant human remains (less than 15%), in most cases mixed with the cremated remains of immature sheep and goats (nearly 70%); other remains include sea shells (nearly 10%), snails (7%), birds (nearly 5%), ﬁsh and pigs (each about 2.25%). 112 D’Andrea(2018). 113 Hand-written caption by Joseph Whitaker (Whitaker Foundation Archives). Arts 2020, 9, 96 24 of 30

as belonging to the species Loxodonta africana, probably arrived in Sicily during the period of the Punic Wars, when these pachyderms played an important part in the Carthaginian military force. Unfortunately, the registry does not provide information on whether the tusks were found with a full skeleton or whether they were associated with other objects or material. Fragments of tortoise shell have so far only been found in the context of sacred areas. This may hint perhaps to a ritual sacrifice of the animal, as suggested by the scenes on some Sardinian seals.114 The use of ostrich eggs in burials may be interpreted as Punic funerary practices.115 In May 1921 a “toothed fish skull” was fished “from a moat in the sea surrounding Motya.” It concerns a dolphin skull, about 60 cm long. Dolphins were thus not only a decorative motif on vases, but a real presence in Motya. One more fascinating example of the physical traces of the animal life in Motya is saved for last. During excavations in the 1970s in the so-called Place of Cremation, actually an area characterized by the pottery kilns and other craft installations, four vertebrae were found of the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), the largest of the toothed whales.116 Three of these were used to close off a pit each, together with small stones and clay wedges; the fourth has a bronze spear point embedded in one side and is on display at the Whitaker Museum of Motya (Figure 27).117 Arts 2020, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 24 of 30

Figure 27. One of thethe spermsperm whalewhale vertebrae, vertebrae, with with a bronzea bronze spearpoint spearpoint (MGW (MGW inv. inv. no. no. 3263), 3263), from from the “Placethe “Place of Cremation”, of Cremation”, on display on display at the at Whitakerthe Whitaker Museum. Museum.

Few whaleboneswhalebones havehave actually actually been been excavated excavated in pre-Hellenisticin pre-Hellenistic contexts: contexts: some some in Greece; in Greece;118 one118 onein the in Phoenicianthe Phoenician seasonal seasonal colony colony on an on island an isla oppositend opposite the town the of town Mogador of Mogador on the Atlanticon the Atlantic coast of coastMorocco; of Morocco;119 and these119 and four these in the four Phoenician in the Phoenician city of Motya. city 120of Motya.The presence120 The ofpresence whalebones of whalebones in ancient insettlements ancient settlements can be accounted can be accounted for in one for of in three one ways:of three as ways: a washed-up as a washed-up carcass, carcass, as a beached as a beached whale whalethat was that subsequently was subsequently killed bykilled humans, by humans, or as the or resultas the ofresult human of human hunting hunting activities. activities.121 While121 earlierWhile earlierboth of both the ﬁrstof the two first ways two were ways suggested were suggested to account to account for the whalebones for the whalebones in Motya, in122 Motya,more122 recently more recently Oded Tammuz has interpreted the evidence as supporting the third possibility, that is, through whale hunting.123 Indeed, the lodged spear point in one of the whale vertebrae does seem to belong114 Nigro to(2012 a ).harpoon, which would thus confirm the third possibility. The Mediterranean whale population115 Savio(2004 has). evidently decreased since the Middle Ages, although several species still occur in 116 considerableTusa(1972), pp.numbers 18–19; id in. Tusa modern(1973), p.times. 43. 124 It may further be assumed that in antiquity whales were 117 Reese(2005). more118 Renfrew numerous et al.(1968 in); Papadopoulos the western and RuscilloMediterranean(2002), pp. 200–1.than in the eastern littoral. Thus, when the Phoenicians,119 Aubet(2001), well-known p. 301. for their fishing expeditions, came to settle in Motya, they may well have 120 exploitedReese(2005 their), pp. skill 108–9. in whaling.125 121 Renfrew et al.(1968), pp. 119 and 121, pl. 59, ﬁg. 1.; Papadopoulos and Ruscillo(2002). 122 Reese(2005), pp. 108–9; Papadopoulos and Ruscillo(2002), pp. 197–98. 7. The Animal World of Motya As we return to the iconographic aspects of the animal world in ancient Motya to summarize our findings, we wish to reiterate that our overview has been more descriptive than analytic. Mythic creatures, such as the sphinx, griffin and the centaur Pholus, appear on arulae, locally manufactured terracotta altars, which by their nature point to a domestic religious, ritual purpose. The Phoenician sphinx is also found on ritual cake molds. Still, sphinxes, griffins, hippocamps, pistrices, or centaurs may also occur in more decorative contexts on architectural sculpture, floor mosaics, or ceramic vessels of Hellenic tradition. We have encountered references to the Labors of Heracles in Motya,

118 Renfrew et al. (1968); Papadopoulos and Ruscillo (2002), pp. 200–1. 119 Aubet (2001), p. 301. 120 Reese (2005), pp. 108–9. 121 Renfrew et al. (1968), pp. 119 and 121, pl. 59, fig. 1.; Papadopoulos and Ruscillo (2002). 122 Reese (2005), pp. 108–9; Papadopoulos and Ruscillo (2002), pp. 197–98. 123 Tammuz (2019). 124 Notarbartolo di Sciara (2002). 125 Isiah 27.1; Job 40–41; Arist. His. Anim. 519a, 540b; Plin. Nat. hist. 9; St. August. Epist. 102.31 (“huge sea monster’s ribs which are fixed in a public place in Carthage”); Kinnir-Wilson (1975), p. 11; Katzenstein (1983), p. 599; Aubet (2001); Gannier et al. (2002), pp. 281–93; Spanò Giammellaro (2004); Tammuz (2019).

Arts 2020, 9, 96 25 of 30

Oded Tammuz has interpreted the evidence as supporting the third possibility, that is, through whale hunting.123 Indeed, the lodged spear point in one of the whale vertebrae does seem to belong to a harpoon, which would thus conﬁrm the third possibility. The Mediterranean whale population has evidently decreased since the Middle Ages, although several species still occur in considerable numbers in modern times.124 It may further be assumed that in antiquity whales were more numerous in the western Mediterranean than in the eastern littoral. Thus, when the Phoenicians, well-known for their ﬁshing expeditions, came to settle in Motya, they may well have exploited their skill in whaling.125

7. The Animal World of Motya As we return to the iconographic aspects of the animal world in ancient Motya to summarize our findings, we wish to reiterate that our overview has been more descriptive than analytic. Mythic creatures, such as the sphinx, griffin and the centaur Pholus, appear on arulae, locally manufactured terracotta altars, which by their nature point to a domestic religious, ritual purpose. The Phoenician sphinx is also found on ritual cake molds. Still, sphinxes, griffins, hippocamps, pistrices, or centaurs may also occur in more decorative contexts on architectural sculpture, floor mosaics, or ceramic vessels of Hellenic tradition. We have encountered references to the Labors of Heracles in Motya, including the Nemean Lion, the Lernaen Hyrda and the gentle centaur Pholus. These references may point to the great popularity of the Greek hero, as well as to the probable assimilation with the Phoenician god Melqart. Scenes of Greek myth or epic might also have been appreciated without a Punic interpretation, such as that of Thetis and the Nereids with the armor of Achilles. Of the aquatic creatures, we further find depictions of dolphins in Motya. The “fish plates” may well have been related to common meals, even though fish bones have rarely survived in the osteological records. Various kinds of birds are attested, for instance on Hellenic-type ceramic vessels or even vessel in their shape, and additionally on cake molds. Two Roman marble sculptural fragments interpreted as representing an eagle and a quail may perhaps have been associated with religious worship of local deity. Land animals such as lions, bulls, horses, goats and sheep occur on a great number of artifacts: in the form of protomes (as spout of a vessel, water pipe or handle); containers in their shape; mosaic panels; on altars and braziers; cake molds and occasionally sculpture. While most of these objects served everyday, domestic purposes, ritual cakes and altars again indicate religious functions. The lions flanking the Cybele statue naturally expresses religious devotion. Often animals fight in a Near-Eastern motif transmitted to the Western Mediterranean through a Phoenician intermediary. Less frequently, animals such as antelope, deer, boar, pig, rabbit, or dog can be seen on objects from Motya. Creatures from an entirely different realm, that of Egyptian magic and religion, are best understood as a separate category. The shape of seal scarabs represents the beetle-headed solar god Khepri. To what extent the ancient peoples outside of Egypt understood this religious significance cannot be known, yet scarab seals have been unearthed across the Mediterranean. They will likely have retained their amuletic importance for their owners, but by their nature could also serve as a personal signet—even if the owner had no knowledge of the hieroglyphic inscriptions engraved on the obverse. How and why the owners came into their possession can often only be guessed (heirloom, commission, exchange, purchase, etc.) Countless other zoomorphic amulets have been found on Motya with Egyptian associations, such as falcon (Horus), cow (Hathor), hippopotamus (Taweret), baboon and ibis (Thoth) and the cobra (uraeus). Even if some of these artifacts were locally produced, their allusion to Egypt remains obvious. Most interesting, certainly in light of cultural interactions on Motya, is the appearance of this latter sacred emblem, the uraeus, as apotropaic decorative element on the town’s Tophet.

123 Tammuz(2019). 124 Notarbartolo di Sciara(2002). 125 Isiah 27.1; Job 40–41; Arist. His. Anim. 519a, 540b; Plin. Nat. hist. 9; St. August. Epist. 102.31 (“huge sea monster’s ribs which are ﬁxed in a public place in Carthage”); Kinnir-Wilson(1975), p. 11; Katzenstein(1983), p. 599; Aubet(2001); Gannier et al. (2002), pp. 281–93; Spanò Giammellaro(2004); Tammuz(2019). Arts 2020, 9, 96 26 of 30

The inhabitants of Motya doubtless lived with animals in and around their house—pigs and chickens, cats and dogs—which would have roamed about the streets and courtyards of the town. The faunal remains excavated in Motya do reflect the presence of domestic animals in everyday life—including poultry, sheep and pigs, as well as pets (even though little evidence survives of cats and dogs and evidence of fish consumption is almost nonexistent).126 Material from places of worship offers information about temple offerings—not only child sacrifices, but also small animals such as birds and piglets. Cemeteries provide further testimony of funerary customs such as offering shells in human burials. We wish to emphasize the wide diversity not only of the attested species (actual and iconographic), but also of the cultural and artistic traditions in which they were depicted. This is likely related to the cultural diversity of the town’s human population. These interconnections are further illustrated by the origin of imported artifacts, from Selinune and Lipari, Magna Graecia and the Aegean, Corinth and Rhodes, as well as the Levant and Egypt. Certain motifs were associated with religious functions—such as depictions on small altars and amulets as well as sculpture; other motifs served a more aesthetic purpose—such as zoomorphic vessels and vase paintings, mosaic panels and architectonic decoration. While no written sources survive to elucidate how the Motyans thought and felt about the animals around them, the everyday life of the inhabitants of Motya some 2500 to 3000 years ago was fully surrounded with animals—both in actuality as in artistic representations. Their life seems rich with references to the animal world, including fantastic beasts and mythic monsters. Even their decorative presence reveals a deep attention to, respect for and engagement with their natural environment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.O. and M.P.T.; Investigation & research, F.O. and M.P.T; Formal analysis, F.O. and M.P.T; Writing—original draft, F.O. and M.P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest.

References

Ackerman, Susan, ed. 2018. “And the Women Make Cakes for the Queen of Heaven” Jeremiah 7 and 44. In Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (Harvard Semitic Monographs, 46). Leiden: Brill, pp. 5–35. Acquaro, Enrico, ed. 2011. Ricerche a Mozia punica. In Scavi e Ricerche a Mozia II. Lugano: Agorà, pp. 5–12. Acquaro, Enrico. 2016. Gli scarabei in pietra dura della collezione Whitaker di Mozia. Byrsa 27–28: 1–8. Acquaro, Enrico. 2016. La quaglia di Eracle/Melqart: Un’inusuale escatologia funeraria punica in rasoi di Cartagine? Gerión Revista de Historia Antigua 35: 11–17. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/GERI.56952 (accessed on 9 March 2020). Alahaique, Francesca. 2005. Catalogo dei reperti faunistici della Zona C. In Mozia XI: Zona C: Il Tempio del Kothon (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 2). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 521–32. Alahique, Francesca. 2007. Catalogo dei reperti faunistici della Zona D. In Mozia XII: Zona D: La “Casa del Sacello Domestico”, il “Basamento Meridionale” e il Sondaggio Stratigraﬁco I (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 3). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 327–32. Alhaique, Francesca. 2012. Resti faunistici dalla Favissa F. 2950. In Alle sorgenti del Kothon: Il rito a Mozia nell’Area sacra di Baal ‘Addir–Poseidon–Lo scavo dei pozzi sacri nel Settore C Sud–Ovest (2006–2011). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro and Federica Spagnoli. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 33–34. Allegro, Nunzio. 1982. Louteria a rilievo da Himera. In Secondo Quademo Imerese (Studi e materiali dell’Instituto di Archeologie dell’Universtià di Palermo 3). Edited by N. Allegro, O. Belvedere, N. Bonacasa, J. de Waele, C. A. di Stefano, A. Guli, V. Tusa and A. Tusa Cutroni. Rome: “L’Erme” di Brettschneider, pp. 115–66.

126 Spanò Giammellaro(2004); Campanella and Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas(2005). Arts 2020, 9, 96 27 of 30

Aubet, Maria Eugenia C. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies and Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baur, Paul V. C. 1912. Centaurs in Ancient Art: The Archaic Period. Berlin: Curtius, Available online: https: //archive.org/details/centaursinancien00bauruoft/page/n4/mode/2up (accessed on 9 March 2020). Bettini, Maurizio. 2013. I mostri sono buoni per pensare. In Mostri, Creature Fantastiche Della Paura e del Mito. Edited by Rita Paris, Elizabetta Setari and Nnunzio Giustozzi. Milano: Electa, pp. 18–31. Bisi, Anna Maria. 1965. L’Idra: Antecedenti figurativi orientali di un mito greco. In Mélanges de Carthage (Cahiers de Byrsa 10). Tunis: Musée Lavigerie, pp. 21–42. Burgersdijk, Diederik, Richard Calis, Jorrit Kelder, Alexandra Sofroniew, Sebastiao Tusa, and René van Beek. 2015. Sicily and the Sea. Zwolle: WBooks. Burkert, Walter. 2010. Griechische Religion der archaischen und klassischen Epoche. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. (First edition 1977). Translated by Giampiera Arrigoni. 2010. La religione greca di epoca arcaica e classica. Milan: Jaca Books. Tranlated by John Raffan. 1985. Greek Religioni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Campanella, Lorenza, and Ana Maria Niveau de Villedary y Mariñas. 2005. Il consumo del pescato nel Mediterraneo fenicio e punico: Fonti letterarie, contesti archeologici, vasellame ceramico. In Daidalos 7: Greci Fenici e Romani: Interazioni Culturali nel Mediterraneo Antico. Edited by Sandro Filippo Bondì and Maddalena Valozza. Viterbo: Università degli Studi della Tuscia, pp. 27–67. Campanella, Lorenza, and Jorge A. Zamora. 2010. Il maiale presso le comunità fenicie e puniche di Sardegna: Leggi tabù e consuetudini alimentari tra culture a contatto. In Bollettino di Archeologia Suppl. A/A3/6: Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean. Rome: International Congress of Classical Archaeology, pp. 48–57. Caskey, John L. 1962. Excavations in Keos, 1960–1961. Hesperia 31: 263–83. [CrossRef] Caskey, Miriam E., and John L. Caskey. 1986. Keos II: The Temple at Ayia Irini, 1: The Statues. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Cattabiani, Alfredo. 2000. Volario. Simboli, Miti e Misteri Degli Esseri Alati: Uccelli, Insetti, Creature Fantastiche. Milano: Mondadori. Ciasca, Antonia. 1992. Mozia: Sguardo d’insieme sul tofet. Vicino Oriente 8: 113–55. D’Andrea, Bruno. 2018. Bambini nel Limbo: Dati e Proposte Interpretative sui Tofet Fenici e Punici. Roma: Ecole Francaise de Rome. Dalley, Stephanie. 2000. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 203–27. De Cesare, M. 2002. Ceramica figurata. In Mozia: Gli scavi nella Zona A dell’abitato. Edited by Maria Luisa Famà. Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 141–56. De Vita, Paola. 2011. Culti Dionisiaci a Mozia. In Scavi e ricerche a Mozia II. Edited by Enrico Acquaro. Lugano: Agorà, pp. 13–24. Di Salvo, Rosaria. 1996. Saggio preliminare sugli incinerati del tofet di Mozia. Vicino Oriente 10: 317–45. Di Stefano, Carmela A. 1993. Lilibeo Punica. Marsala: Centro socio-culturale Luigi Sturzo. Donadoni, S. 1966. Sfinge. In Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica. Rome: Treccani. Falsone, Gioacchino, and Mozia Zona K. 1989. La quarta campagna di scavo. Sicilia Archeologica 71: 51–63. Famà, Maria Luisa. 1997. Il mosaico a ciottoli di Mozia dopo il restauro. Paper Presented at AISCOM: Atti del IV Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico, Palermo, Italy, 9–13 Dicembre 1996; Edited by Federico Guidobaldi and Rosa Maria Carra Bonacasa. Ravenna: Girasole, pp. 147–58. Famà, Maria Luisa. 2009. Arule, oggetti di uso domestico e oscilla figurati. In Il Museo Regionale “A. Pepoli” di Trapani: Le collezioni archeologiche. Edited by Maria Luisa Famà. Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 257–76. Famà, Maria Luisa, and Maria Pamela Toti. 2005. Materiali inediti della Collezione “G. Whitaker” di Mozia. Paper Presented at Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici, Marsala–Palermo, Italy, 2–8 Ottobre 2000; Edited by Antonella Spanò Giammellaro. Palermo: Punto Grafica, pp. 615–30. Fortunati, Luigi. 1995. I Mostri Nell’immaginario. Milano: Angeli. Fresina, Adriana, and Amuleti del Museo J. 1980. Whitaker di Mozia. Sicilia Archeologica 1980: 27–50. Frugoni, Carlo. 1973. Historia Alexandri Elevati per Griphos ad Aerem: Origine, Iconografia e Fortuna di un Tema. Roma: Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo. Arts 2020, 9, 96 28 of 30

Gamberini, Maria Cristina. 2013. Phoenicians Preferred Red Pigments: Micro-Raman Investigation on Some Cosmetics Found in Sicily Archaeological Sites. In RAA2013: 7th International Congress on the Application of Raman Spectroscopy in Art and Archaeology, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2–6 September 2013. Edited by Cecilia Baraldi, Giada Freguglia, Elsa Van Elslande, Pamela M. Toti, Pietro Baraldi, Maria Cristina Gamberini and Claudia Pelosi. Ljubljana: Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, pp. 54–55. Forthcoming. Gamberini, Maria Cristina. Forthcoming. A far belle le donne: Unguentari dell’isola di Mozia e il loro contenuto. Sicilia Archeologica. in press. Gannier, AAlexandre, Violaine Drouot, and John C. Goold. 2002. Distribution and Relative Abundance of Sperm Whales in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Report Series 243: 281–93. [CrossRef] Garbati, Giuseppe. 2012. Immagini e funzioni, supporti e contesti: Qualche riflessione sull’uso delle raffigurazioni divine in ambito fenicio. In Archeologia e Antropologia a Confronto: Rappresentazioni e Pratiche del Sacro, Atti dell’Incontro Internazionale di Studi, Roma, Italy, 20–21 Maggio 2011. Edited by Valentino Nizzo and Luigi La Rocca. Roma: ESS, pp. 767–78. Hill, D. K. 1976. An Early Greek Faience Alabastron. American Journal of Archaeology 80: 420–23. [CrossRef] Huß, Werner. 1985. Geschichte der Karthager. Munich: Beck. Iozzo, Mario. 2013. The Dog: A Dionisiac Animal? Rivista di Archeologia 36: 5–22. Kappler, C. 1983. Demoni, Mostri e Meraviglie Alla Fine del Medioevo. Firenze: Sansoni. Katzenstein, H. J. 1983. The Phoenician Term Hubur in the Report of Wen-Amon. In Atti del I Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e Punici Roma, II (Collezione di studi fenici, 16). Edited by Piero Bartolini. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale Della Ricerche, pp. 599–602. Kinnir-Wilson, J. V. 1975. A Return to the Problems of Behemoth and Leviathan. Vetus Testamentum 25: 1–14. Kitchell, Kenneth F. 2020. Seeing the Dog: Naturalistic Canine Representations from Greek Art. Arts 9: 14. [CrossRef] Lallemand, Suzanne. 2002. La Circulation des Enfants en Société Traditionnelle. Paris: L’Harmattan. Leibundgut Wieland, D. 2001. Zur Produktion von hellenistischen plastischen Gefäßen der Magenta-Klasse. In Zona Archaeologica, Festschrift für Hans Peter Isler zum 60. Geburtstag (Abhandlungen zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen und provinzial-römischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte des Altertums, 42). Edited by Sabrina Buzzi. Bonn: Habelt, pp. 259–70. Mainoldi, Carla. 1984. L’image du loup et du chien dans la Grèce ancienne d’Homère à Platon. Paris: Ophrys. Mammina, Giuseppina. 1997. Note preliminari sulla documentazione numismatica dell’abitato di Mozia ‘Zona A’. Paper presented at Seconde Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima, Atti del Convegno, Gibellina, Italy, 22–26 October 1994; Edited by the Scuola Normle Superiore di Pisa. Pisa: Edizioni Normale di Pisa, pp. 1049–57. Available online: http://lsa.sns.it/index.php?id=115 (accessed on 9 March 2020). Mammina, Giuseppina, and Maria Pamela Toti. 2011. Considerazioni sulla coroplastica votiva del Tofet di Mozia (Marsala, Italia). Sardinia, Corsica, Baleares 9: 31–50. Mattazzi, Paolo. 2004. Le matrici decorate puniche in terracotta di Mozia. In Studi Iconografici nel Mediterraneo Antico: Iconologia e Aspetti Materici. Edited by Enrico Acquaro and Ggigliola Savio. Sarzana (La Spezia): Agoraà, pp. 91–124. Matthiae Scandone, Gabriella. 1972. Gli scarabei egiziani ed egittizzanti delle necropoli di Mozia. In Mozia VII: Rapporto Preliminare della Missione Congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale (Studi semitici, 45). Edited by Antonia Ciasca, Vincenzo Tusa and Maria Luisa Uberti. Rome: CNR, pp. 121–32. Matthiae Scandone, Gabriella. 1975. Materiali egiziani ed egittizzanti del Museo di Mozia. Rivista di Studi Fenici 3: 65–73. Matthiae Scandone, Gabriella. 1978. Gli scarabei della necropoli arcaica. In Mozia IX: Rapporto Preliminare della Missione Congiunta con la Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale (Studi semitici, 50). Edited by Antonia Ciasca. Rome: CNR, pp. 99–109. Mazzocut-Mis, Maddalena, ed. 1995. Anatomia del Mostro: Antologia di Scritti di Étienne e Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Florence: La Nuova Italia. McPhee, Ian, and Arthur Dale Trendall. 1987. Greek Red-Figured Fish Plates (Antike Kunst Suppl., 14). Basel: Vereinigung der Freunde Antiker Kunst. Meijden, Hellebora van der. 1993. Terrakotta-Arulae aus Sizilien und Unteritalien. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Arts 2020, 9, 96 29 of 30

Alhaique, Francesca. 2012. Uno scarabeo in Egyptian Blue dalla Favissa F.2950 nell’area sacra del Kothon. In Alle Sorgenti del Kothon: Il rito a Mozia nell’ Area sacra di Baal ‘Addir-Poseidon (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, CM 2). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro and Federica Spagnoli. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 16–19. Mertens-Horn, Madeleine. 1993. Due leoni che abbattono un toro: Il gruppo scultoreo monumentale di Mozia. In Studi sulla Sicilia Occidentale in onore di Vincenzo Tusa. Edited by Juliette de la Genière. Padua: Bottega d’Erasmo, pp. 139–42. Mezzolani, Antonella. 2011. Elementi architettonici. In La Collezione Whitaker II. Edited by Lorenzo Nigro. Palermo: Punto Grafica, pp. 93–180. Moscati, Sabatino, and Maria Luisa Uberti. 1981. Scavi a Mozia: Le stele. Roma: CNR. Museo Archeologico Nazionale Antonio Salinas. 1998. Palermo Punica: Catalogo Della Mostra. Palermo: Sellerio. Neeft, Cornelis W. 1987. Protocorinthian Subgeometric Aryballoi (Allard Pierson Series, 7). Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum. Nigro, Lorenzo. 2004. Trent’ anni a Mozia (1964–1993): Gli scavi di Antiona Ciasca al Tofet e alle mura. In Mozia X: Zona C. Il Kothon, Zona D. Le pendici occidentali dell’Acropoli, Zona F. La Porta Ovest (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 1). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 7–16. Nigro, Lorenzo, ed. 2007. Mozia XII: Zona D. La “Casa del Sacello Domestico”, il “Basamento Meridionale e il Sondaggio Stratigrafico I. (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 3). Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia. Nigro, Lorenzo, ed. 2011. Mozia XIII: Zona F. La Porta Ovest e la Fortezza Occidentale. (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 6). Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia. Nigro, Lorenzo. 2012. Offerte votive nel pozzo P. 1660. In Alle Sorgenti del Kothon: Il rito a Mozia nell’Area Sacra di Baal ‘Addir-Poseidon–Lo Scavo dei Pozzi Sacri nel Settore C Sud-Ovest (2006–2011). Edited by L. Nigro and F. Spagnoli. Rome: CNR, pp. 51–52. Nigro, Lorenzo, and Garbiele Rossoni, eds. 2004. “La Spienza” a Mozia: Quarant’ Anni di Ricerca Archeologica, 1964–2004. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia. Notarbartolo di Sciara, Giuseppe. 2002. Cetacean Species Occurring in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. In Cetaceans of the Mediterranean and Black Seas: State of Knowledge and Conservation. Edited by Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara and Alex Aguilar. Monaco: Accobams. Ogden, Daniel. 2013. Drakon: Dragon Myth and Serpent Cult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oliveri, Francesca. 2009. Le raffigurazioni di delfini. In Il Museo Regionale “A. Pepoli” di Trapani: Le Collezioni Archeologiche. Edited by Maria Luisa Famà. . Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 335–38. Oliveri, Francesca. 2015. Sicily’s Submerged Structures. In Sicily and the Sea. Edited by Diederik Burgersdijk. Zwolle: WBooks, pp. 24–25. Pagenstecher, Rudolp. 1912. Schwarzefigurige Vasen des Vierten und Dritten Jahrhunderts. Bulletin de la Societé Archéologique d’Alessandrie 1912: 229–35. Papadopoulos, John K., and Deborah Ruscillo. 2002. A Ketos in Early Athens: An Archaeology of Whales and Sea Monsters in the Greek World. American Journal of Archaeology 106: 187–227. Pappa, Eleftheria. 2015. Phoenicians in Sicily. In Sicily and the Sea. Edited by Diederik Burgersdijk. Zwolle: WBooks, pp. 32–37. Paris, Rita, Elisabetta Setari, and Nunzio Giustozzi, eds. 2013. Mostri: Creature Fantastiche Della Paura e Del Mito. Milano: Electa. Pievatolo, Maria Chiara. 2014. Il Fedone di Platone (Ipertesti: Bollettino telematico di filosofia politica). Available online: https://btfp.sp.unipi.it/dida/fedone/index.xhtml (accessed on 8 March 2020). Poma, Luana. 2016. Alcuni temi iconografici greci sugli “stampi per focaccia” punici. In Lo mio Maestro e’l mio Autore: Studi in Onore di SANDRO Filippo Bondi (Studi Fenici, 46). Edited by Massimo Botto, Stefano Finocchi, Giuseppe Garbati and Ida Oggiano. Roma: Quasar, pp. 219–32. Quillard, Brigitte. 2013. Bijoux Carthaginois III: Les Colliers–L’apport de Trois Décennies (1979–2009). Paris: Boccard. Reese, David S. 2005. Whale Bones and Shell Purple-Dye at Motya (Western Sicily, Italy). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 24: 107–14. Renfrew, J. M., P. H. Greenwood, and P. J. Whitehead. 1968. The Fish–Bones. In Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos. Edited by J. D. Evans and Colin Renfrew. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 118–121. Arts 2020, 9, 96 30 of 30

Russo, Rossella. 2011. Catalogo dei reperti faunistici della Zona F. In Mozia XIII: Zona F. La Porta Ovest e la Fortezza Occidentale (Quaderni di Archeologia Fenicio-Punica, 6). Edited by Lorenzo Nigro. Rome: Missione archeologica a Mozia, pp. 427–34. Savio, Gigliola. 2004. Le Uova di Struzzo Dipinte Nella Cultura Punica. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia. Spanò Giammellaro, A. 2004. Pappe, vino e pesce salato: Appunti per uno studio della cultura alimentare fenicia e punica. Kokalos 46: 417–64. Tammuz, Oded. 2019. Job 40:30–31 and the First Whalers. In “Isaac Went out to the Field”: Studies in Archaeology and Ancient Cultures in Honor of Isaac Gilead. Edited by Haim Goldfus, Mayer I. Gruber, Shamir Yona and Peter Fabian. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 295–301. Toti, Maria Pamela. 2002. Arule. In Mozia: Gli Scavi Nella Zona A Dell’abitato. Edited by Maria Luisa Famà. Bari: Edipuglia, pp. 327–28. Toti, Maria Pamela. 2008. Dallo scavo al Museo: La formazione della Collezione Whitaker. In La Collezione Whitaker I. Edited by Rossana De Simone and Maria Pamela Toti. Palermo: Punto-Grafica, pp. 45–64. Toti, Maria Pamela. 2014. I piatti da pesce di Mozia. In Progetto Scuola–Museo: Una Scuola d’aMare. Edited by Angela Accardi. Palermo: Aiello & Provenzano, pp. 23–34. Toti, Maria Pamela. 2015. Le testimonianze egizie ed egittizzanti della città fenicia di Mozia. In Magia d’Egitto: Mostre Archeologiche e Convegni in Sicilia. Edited by Maria Luisa Famà, Ivana Inferrera and Pietro Militello. Trapani: Museo regionale Agostino Pepoli, pp. 144–51. Tusa, Vincenzo. 1968. Il “Cappiddazzu”: Lo scavo del 1968. In Mozia IV: Rapporto Preliminare della Missione Archeologica della Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Occidentale e dell’Università di Roma. Edited by Antonia Ciasca, Giovanni Garbini, Paulinus Mingazzini, Bice Olivieri Pugliese and Vincenzo Tusa. Roma: Istituto di studi del Vicino oriente, pp. 7–13. Tusa, Vincenzo. 1972. La necropoli arcaica ed adiacenze: Lo scavo del 1970. In Mozia VII: Rapporto Preliminare Della Missione Archeologica Della Soprintendenza alle Antichità Della Sicilia Occidentale e dell’Università di Roma (Studi semitici, 40). Edited by Fernanda Bevilacqua, Antonia Ciasca, Gabriella Matthiae Scandone, Sabatino Moscati, Lorenzo Nigro and Vincenzo Tusa. Roma: CNR, pp. 7–79. Tusa, Vincenzo. 1973. Il luogo di arsione: Lo scavo del 1971. In Mozia VIII: Rapporto Preliminare Della Missione Archeologica Della Soprintendenza alle Antichità Della Sicilia Occidentale e dell’Università di Roma (Studi semitici, 45). Edited by Antonia Ciasca, Vincenzo Tusa and Maria Luisa Uberti. Roma: CNR, pp. 33–56. Tusa, Vincenzo. 1997. I mosaici di Mozia. Paper Presented at AISCOM, Atti del IV Colloquio dell’Associazione Italiana per lo Studio e la Conservazione del Mosaico, Palermo, Italy, 9–13 Dicembre 1996; Edited by Rosa Maria Carra Bonacasa and Federico Guidobaldi. Ravenna: Girasole, pp. 137–46. Uberti, Maria Luisa. 1988. Gli avori e gli ossi. In I Fenici. Edited by Sabatino Moscati. Milan: Bompiani, pp. 404–21. Verga, Silvana. 1981. Considerazioni in margine al significato magico-religioso e alla tipologia dei “ugiat” conservati nel Museo J. Whitaker di Mozia. Sicilia Archeologica 45: 15–23. Vlad Borrelli, Licia. 1998. Metalli, minerali, alchimia tra Antico Egitto, Medioevo e oltre. Paper presented at L’Egitto in Italia: Dall’Antichità al Medioevo, Atti III Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Roma CNR, Pompei, Italy, 13–19 November 1995; Edited by Nicola Bonacasa, Maria C. Naro, Elisa Chiara Portale and Amadeo Tullio. Roma: CNR, pp. 155–65. Volpi, Aldo, and Maria Pamela Toti. 2015. Motya in the World of the Phoenicians (Towns and Sites of Europe, 3). Marsala: Medusa. Wagner, Peter. 1980. Der Ägyptische Einfluss auf die Phönizische Architektur. Bonn: Habelt. Whitaker, Joseph I. S. 1921. Motya, a Phoenician Colony in Sicily. London: G. Bell and Sons. Wittkower, R. 1942. Marvels of the East. A Study in the History of Monster. Journal Warburg and Courtauld Institute 5: 159–97. [CrossRef] Xella, Paolo. 1981. Gli Antenati di Dio. Divinità e Miti Della Tradizione di Canaan. Verona: Essedue.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).