• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

BABESCH 93 (2018), 49-74. doi: 10.2143/BAB.93.0.3284845 The Chapelle Cintas Revisited and the Tophet of Carthage between Ancestors and New Identities Adriano Orsingher Abstract One of the most interesting contexts investigated so far at Carthage is the so-called Chapelle Cintas, located within the area of the Tophet sanctuary, which comprises some scant architectural remains and two mostly ceramic assemblages. However, the relationship between this evidence and the sacred area has often been ques- tioned, along with other issues such as the chronology and interpretation of the architecture and the finds. After exploring the archaeological data, I argue that the newcomers to Carthage deliberately chose to found this sanctuary in an area where previous architectural remains and other evidence were still visible, according to a pattern also known from the Tophets at Sulky, Motya and Tharros. On this occasion, and again later, special rituals were performed in this part of the sanctuary, where some cult instruments were also buried. This low mound not only emerges as an appropriate space to emphasize a connection with the ancestors and the home- land, but also to negotiate and build the identity of the community and its newcomers.* TRENDS IN THE URNFIELD: AN INTRODUCTION example is represented by the late adoption - from the late 5th-early 4th century BC - in the A particular type of open-air sanctuary is attested Tophet repertoire of Greek cooking types (i.e. the in some Phoenician settlements of the central lopas and the chytra), which were already locally Mediterranean (e.g. Carthage and Sousse in Africa, produced and used in the residential quarters of Sulky, Tharros, Nora, Bithia and Monte Sirai on Western Phoenician settlements from the final Sardinia, Motya on Sicily, and Rabat on Malta). decades of the 6th century BC onwards.5 The distinctive ritual performed in these sacred Nevertheless, a few exceptions stand out in the areas entailed the cremation of human and/or Tophet of Carthage (fig. 1),6 also known as Sal- animal (usually sheep and goat)1 remains, which ammbô 7 or the Precinct of Tanit.8 Specifically, the were collected in urns and then buried2 in an two well-known assemblages discovered by Pierre open space in the sanctuary. Therefore, the urn- Cintas along with some architectural remains, field - where stone markers may have also been known as Chapelle Cintas. erected - is the most recognizable part of these In this paper, I wish to provide an overall re- sacred areas, which modern scholars named examination and interpretation of the archaeo- Tophets after Biblical references to a valley near logical evidence from the Chapelle Cintas and of Jerusalem where children were passed through early examples of unusual urns from the Tophet fire. The so-called Tophet sanctuaries could also of Carthage, in the light of some recent studies on include shrines, aediculae, fixed installations, and identity construction in the Phoenician West. cult furnishings.3 Some features emerge from the ceramic reper- THE CHAPELLE CINTAS: toire found in the urnfield of the Tophets. First, ARCHITECTURE AND FINDS the vessels used in the depositions were usually storage, dining, and cooking wares locally made.4 A long series of excavations followed the discovery Therefore, imports, ritual pottery, and non-ceramic of the Tophet of Carthage in December 1921.9 Both vessels are rare finds in the urnfield. Furthermore, Paul Gielly and François Icard in 1922 and Count these pots do not usually show signs of use, as Byron Khun de Prorok in 1924 dug small trenches attested by the lack of traces of burning on cook- in the northern part of the sacred area, where a joint ing wares. Thus, they may have been used for Franco-American expedition directed by Francis W. cult purposes only. Finally, the urnfield pottery Kelsey also excavated in 1925. In 1934-1936, Father repertoire was usually not open to foreign influ- Gabriel-Guillaume Lapeyre extended the investiga- ences and non-local ceramics. The best-known tions to the hitherto unexplored southern sector of 49 Fig. 1. Carthage, Tophet: plan of the sacred area, redrawn by Gaia Ripepi after Cintas 1948, 7; Brown 1991, fig. 4; Hurst 1999, fig. 7; Bénichou-Safar 2004, pl. VIII and based on the description in Lapeyre/Chabot 1935, 82-83; Lapeyre 1939, 294-295. Thus, the position of the path, the urnfield and the favissa discovered by G.-G. Lapeyre is approximate and it has to be considered the author’s proposal, as is the extension of the urnfield. the sanctuary, in the property purchased by Louis Ben Jerbania from the Institut National du Patri- Carton, while Cintas, between 1944 and 1947, moine conducted a rescue excavation and opened dug seven trial trenches in an area further south, some trial trenches to the east of the Hervé plot, the so-called Hervé plot. in a private garden and under the roadside of The American Schools of Oriental Research Rue Jugurtha and Rue de Numidie. resumed - under the guidance of Lawrence Stager During the excavations at the Tophet of Carthage, - the exploration of the northern part of the sacred in spring 1947, Cintas discovered, within the col- area, where a long trench aligned in roughly lapsed walls of a structure, two pits containing northwestern-southeastern direction was care- mostly ceramics. He interpreted one, named fully excavated in 1976-1979. ‘caveau’, as the ‘Sancta Sanctorum’10 and the During 1994-1996, Henry Hurst, on behalf of other, called ‘cachette’, as a foundation deposit11 the University of Cambridge, carried out field- for the building (fig. 2). In the upper part of the work focused on the Roman and late-antique first pit, there were a double-spouted lamp and phases in the Tophet of Carthage. In 2012, Imed an amphoroid krater, which contained ashes,12 a 50 Fig. 2. Carthage, Tophet: schematic north-south section of the Chapelle Cintas, showing the position of the ‘caveau’/Assemblage 1 and the ‘cachette’/Assemblage 2 (adapted after Bénichou-Safar 2004, pl. XXXVI). Fig. 3. Carthage, Tophet: assemblage 1 of the Chapelle Cintas: 1. cut-rim jug (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 4, d); 2. phormiskos (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 3, a); 3. bird-askos (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 3, b); 4. trefoil- rim juglet (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 4, a); 5. trefoil-rim juglet (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 4, b); 6. trefoil-rim juglet (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 4, c); 7. kotyle (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 5, b); 8. kotyle (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 5, a); 9. one-handled cooking pot, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1948, fig. 17; Cintas 1970, pl. X, 31); 10. red slip bowl, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1948, fig. 16; 1970, pl. X, 30); 11. red slip bowl, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1948, fig. 15; 1970, pl. X, 29); 12. double-pinched lamp, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1970, pl. X, 27); 13. red slip amphoroid-krater, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1970, pl. X, 28). few flint chips and possible parts of a necklace (a the shape of a seated cat; two of them were in a gold twisted wire, an ivory Black African amulet, silver box). Both these containers were placed on some beads and three faience amulets of Bastet in top of a clay layer sealing a group of finds (here 51 importance of these ceramic assemblages, due also to their chronology and outstanding number of Greek-type pottery vessels, has been emphasized many times with reference to several topics, such as the foundation date for Carthage,16 the coexistence of various ethnic groups during the earliest stages of the settlement17 and, in particular, the possibility of a Euboean presence at Carthage.18 The studies carried out during the last sixty years clarified at least two issues raised by this context. First, all the vessels - as initially argued by William Culican19 and, recently, by Christoph Briese,20 Roald Docter and Nota Kourou21 - were local products, since they were made with the typically Carthaginian clay fabric: the so-called ‘Karthago-Ton-Struktur’ (KTS).23 Next, according to the analysis of Greek-type pottery, these assem- blages echoed both Late Geometric and Early Proto-Corinthian wares. Pithekoussai offers com- parisons for some vessels and reliable stratigraphic evidence for their dating: the two small kotylai Aetos 666 can be easily assigned to Late Geomet- ric I (ca 750-725 BC), otherwise the trefoil-rim jugs and, especially, the cut-rim jug belong to the Late Geometric II/Early Proto-Corinthian (ca 725-700 BC). Therefore, these assemblages can be assigned to an early phase of the Early Proto-Corinthian: the most reliable dating is still the period 730-710 BC proposed by Nicolas Coldstream.23 Since these wall remains were lost due to adverse weather conditions,24 later investigations were unable to verify the excavator’s observations. Thus, despite the numerous studies, Cintas’ exca- vation documentation (e.g. the report, plans, sec- tions, and photos)25 remains the starting point for Fig. 4. Carthage, Tophet: assemblage 2 of the Chapelle the analysis of this context. Cintas: 1. single-pinched lamp, not to scale (redrawn after Cintas 1950, 492, fig. 22); 2. amphora with rope The Architecture handles (redrawn after Briese 1998, fig. 2). The architectural remains (fig. 5) discovered in called assemblage 1: fig. 3): eleven vessels (an this area of the Carthaginian Tophet have usually askos, a phormiskos, three oinochoai, one cut-rim been neglected in the debate on the Chapelle Cin- juglet, two kotylai, two red slip bowls and one tas.26 Indeed, although these structures represent cooking pot) and a carved ivory spatula with a an essential part of the context, only a few schol- handle shaped like a swan’s head and neck.13 The ars have commented on their features and ques- second pit, which was dug at the base of a wall tioned their function.

Load more

  26

Copy Link