From Pella to Gandhara Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East Edited by Anna Kouremenos, Sujatha Chandrasekaranand Roberto Rossi with a foreword by Sir John Boardman. BAR International Series 2221 2011 Published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S2221 From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisation and I dentity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East Archaeopress and the individual authors 2011 I SBN 978 1 4073 0779 4 Cover image: Cybele Plate (silver and gold, d. 25 cm, c. 3rd B.C.) from Ai Khanum, the Temple with I ndented Niches. Afghanistan National Museum, Kabul. Mus. No: 04.42.7.After F. Hiebert and P. Cambon (eds.), Afghanistan, Hidden Treasures from National Museum, Kabul, cover image/ Pl. 11. Washington. (I SBN 978-1-4262-0295-7). Printed in England by Blenheim Colour Ltd All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England www.hadrianbooks.co.uk The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com i TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii Preface ................................................................................................................................ viii Anna KouremenosForeword ................................................................................................................................ x Sir John BoardmanIntroduction ............................................................................................................................ 1 Roberto RossiAlcibiades, a classical archetype for Alexander ............................................................... 11 Michael VickersHybridisation of Palatial Architecture: Hellenistic Royal Palacesand Governors Seats ...................................................................................................... 17 Maria KopsacheiliHellenising the Cypriot Goddess: Reading the Amathousian TerracottaFigurines ......................................................................................................................... 35 Giorgos PapantoniouThe Ruins on Mount Karasis in Cilicia ................................................................................ 49 Timm RadtA Hybridized Aphrodite: the Anadyomene Motif at Tel Kedesh ......................................... 65 Lisa Ayla akmakHybrid Art, Hellenism and the Study of Acculturation in the Hellenistic East:The Case of Umm el-Amed in Phoenicia ...................................................................... 85 Jessica NitschkeCultural interaction and the emergence of hybrids in the material cultureof Hellenistic Mesopotamia: An interpretation of terracotta figurines,ceramic ware and seal impressions ............................................................................... 103 Sidsel Maria Westh-HansenTemple Architecture in the Iranian World in the Hellenistic Period .................................. 117 Michael ShenkarCultural convergence in Bactria: the votives from the Templeof the Oxos at Takht-i Sangin ....................................................................................... 141 Rachel Wood ii From Gandharan Trays to Gandharan Buddhist Art: The Persistenceof Hellenistic Motifs From the Second Century BC and Beyond ................................. 153 Jessie PonsThe Places in Between: Model and Metaphor in the Archaeologyof Hellenistic Arachosia ............................................................................................... 177 Rachel MairsConclusion ......................................................................................................................... 191 Sujatha Chandrasekaran 87 HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OFACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST:THE CASE OF UMM EL-AMED IN PHOENICIA1 Jessica L. Nitschke Georgetown University TheideathatHellenismwasresponsiblefortheendof PhoeniciancultureandidentityintheLevantisanold one,goingbacktothefirstmodernexplorationsofthe Phoenicianhomelandinthe19thcentury:1Linfluence grecquefutdebonneheureprdominanteSidon.Cette influenceavaitcommencsexerceravantAlexandre. Dslan400peuprs,Sidonshellnise.2This sentimenthaspersistedsincethenincontemporary scholarship;soGlennMarkoewrites,whiletheageof Alexander marked the beginning of the Hellenistic period in the eastern Mediterranean, the process of Hellenization had begun in earnest a full century before.3 Josette layi, perhaps the foremost scholar on Persian period Phoenicia, assertsthatthedominationoftheGreekswhoseculture hadattractedthePhoeniciansevenbeforeAlexanders conquest,wasmorepowerfulanduncompromisingthan theAchaemenid,anditprogressivelydestroyedthe Phoenician civilization.4 Nina Jidejians oft-cited surveys of the Phoenician cities and their culture largely discount anysenseofindependentPhoeniciancharacterinthe Hellenisticperiod:they[thePhoenicians]adapted themselvestotheinfluencesofHellenizationtosuchan extentthatitiswithdifficultythatadistinctioncanbe madebetweenGreeksandnativePhoenicians.5John 1Theideasandresearchreflectedinthispaperstemfrommy2007 doctoralthesis,PerceptionsofCulture:InterpretingGreco-Near EasternHybridityinthePhoenicianHomeland(UCBerkeley), currentlybeingrevisedinpreparationforpublicationasamonograph. Theresearchincludedinthispaperwouldnothavebeenpossible withoutagrantfromthegraduategroupinAncientHistoryand MediterraneanArchaeologyatUCBerkeleytofundthestudyofthis materialinParisandLebanon.IamgratefulalsotoSuzyHakimianat the National Museum of Beirut and the Director General of Antiquities in Lebanon for access to material, as well as to the Dunand Archives in GenevaforallowingmeaccesstowhatremainsofDunandsoriginal notes and documentation concerning the site of Umm el-Amed.2 Renan 1864, 398.3 Markoe 2000, 63. 4 layi 1980, 28. 5 Jidejian 1988, 128; echoed in Jidejian 1968, 1969, 1971a, 1971b, and 1973.Graingerpresentsacomparablecharacterizationinhis harshassessmentoftheimpactofMacedonianwar: Their[thePhoeniciansurvivors]culturalheritagewas alsosurelymutilatedbeyondrepair,leavinganimpove-rishmentwhichGreekculturecouldhopetofill.6The historianSebastoBondiarrivesatasimilarconclusion: withtheMacedonianconquestthehistoryofPhoenicia as a free country in reality comes to an end. It is true that a number of original cultural expressions and moments of true independence remained ... These were however flick-ersoflifeduemoretotheforceoftraditionthantothe rekindled vitality of the Phoenician world, whose histori-cal season finished against the background of the triumph ofHellenism.7Amongnon-specialistsPhoenicias hellenizedcharacterisoftenpresentedassimply establishedfact;soPeterGreenremarks(incorrectly)in his survey of the Hellenistic world: in the heavily Helle-nizedareasofSyria,Phoenicia,andPalestine,bilingual inscriptions are common.8 Stanley Burstein, in his essay onGreekidentityintheHellenisticperiod,assertsthat many ancient cities in the East took on a Greek identity, and that the majority were in Syria and Phoenicia.9 ButthenotionthatPhoeniciancivilizationintheLevant simplyendedwithAlexanderorsoonafterisincorrect andeasilydisproved.Thereissubstantialevidenceto suggestthatthecitizensofthePhoeniciancities conceivedofthemselvesashavingaseparateidentity, bothethnicandcultural,fromtheGreeksandwere perceivedinasimilarfashionbyGreeksaswellas Romansinreturn.Weneedonlylookatlaterwriters, suchasArrian,Lucian,Strabo,Pausanias,Pomponius Mela, Polybius, Diodorus, and others to find proof of the 6 Grainger 1991, 51. 7 Bondi in Moscati 1988, 44.8Green1990,313,givingnoexamples.Infact,Greekandbilingual Greek-PhoenicianinscriptionsthatcanbedatedtobeforetheRoman period are extremely rare in central Phoenicia.9 Burstein 2003, 240. FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 88 Fig. 1: Satrap Sarcophagus, from the Ayaa Necropolis, Sidon, c. 420 BC. Istanbul Archaeological Museum. (Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) continuityofthePhoeniciansasaculturalentitydistinct from other cultural or ethnic groups in the Mediterranean intheHellenisticperiodandbeyond.10Onceweaccept that the Phoenicians did continue on as a distinct identity in the centuries after Alexander, it is necessary to reframe thisquestionofsupposedhellenizationintosomething more tangible and precise. Did the particulars of cultural lifeinPhoeniciabecomeincreasinglysimilartothatof theGreekcities,ordidtheyremainculturallydistinct? DidthedailylifeofthePhoenicians,includingtheir beliefs,customs,habits,theirart,andtheirphysical space,transform,eithergraduallyorabruptly,intowhat we understand as a Greek, Hellenistic way of life? Or, to put the question in a simpler but more pointed way: Was there anything particularly Phoenician (at least in terms ofhowscholarshavetypicallyappliedthatlabel)about being a Phoenician in the Hellenistic Age?Thisisalargequestionthatpresentsmanydifficulties, not least of which is that of methodology, and how we are toevaluatethepresenceofforeignculturalinfluences andtheirultimateimpactonPhoeniciancultureand identity. It is a question made all the more difficult by the natureofouravailableevidence.Wehavelittleinthe way of surviving written testimony from Phoenicia or by the Phoenicians themselves.11 As such, the preponderance 10E.g.,Diod.Sic.33.5,Strabo16.2.25,Heliod.Aeth.10.41.3,Arr. Anab. 2.16, Lucian Syr. D., Pomp. Mela Chor. 1.12, Paus. 7.23. 11Mostlyintheformofbriefvotiveandfuneraryinscriptions.Thata PhoenicianhistoricaltraditiondidexistissuggestedbyJosephuswho claimsto,haveconsultedPhoenicianrecordsincompilinghisaccount (Euseb.Praep.evang.1.9.23-24,1.10.5,1.10.36,1.10.42-43;Joseph. Ap.1.106;AJ.1.107).PhiloofByblos(early2ndcenturyAD)likewise makesclaimtoearlyPhoenicianwriters,withmanyscholarsbelieving that he drew on a Hellenistic source, although this is controversial. Philo ofevidencethatcanspeaktopossibleforeigncultural inputintoPhoeniciaisarchaeologicalinnature.The presenceinparticularofGreekstyles,materials,and methods in stone sculpture that has emerged from coastal Syria and Lebanon dating to the late 5th and 4th centuries BChasgiventheimpressionofanincreasingly hellenizedsocietyinPhoenicia.12 Themostspectacular examplesofthisarethefourwell-knownroyal sarcophagifromSidon,nowintheIstanbulMuseum.13 (Figs.1and2)AGreektrainedhandaswellasGreek marble (mostly Parian, but also Pentelic) can be found in othersculpturefromPhoeniciainthisperiodaswell, suchasthestoneanthropoidsarcophagifound as a source for an authentic Phoenician voice for the Hellenistic or any earlier periods is problematic. Much ink has been spilt on this topic; see especially Baumgarten 1981, Barr 1976, Eissfeldt 1952, and Oden 1978. LiteraryfiguresdoemergefromPhoeniciainthelaterHellenistic period,namelyMeleagerofGadara(ca.13660),AntipaterofSidon (ca. 170 100), and the philosopher Zeno of Sidon (3rd century BC); of the latter two we know very little, and virtually nothing about their life inPhoeniciaitself.Whileitisclearfromthesefiguresthatthe Phoenician cities were cosmopolitan enough to produce individuals that could reach literary achievement in the Greek world, the strong western overseas association in the biographies of these writers suggests in fact that the Phoenicians cities were not major centers of Greek learning and literatureintheHellenisticperiod.Onthisquestion,seefurtherAvi-Yonah1978,184-186.SeeNitschke2007,160-187foradiscussionof the written evidence for Greek and Greeks in central Phoenicia. 12Renansstatement(quotedabove)wasareactiontohisdiscoveryof thePhoeniciananthropoidsarcophagi.Seealsodiscussionsofthe presenceofGreekartamongthePhoeniciansinMarkoe2000,layi 1988,Gubel1986.Theprominencegiventomaterialevidencefor evaluatinghellenizationisevidentnotjustinthescholarshipof specialistsinmaterialculture,butofhistoriansaswell:e.g.,Millar 1983, 68, Sartre 2005, 277.13 Hamdy Bey 1892; Kleemann 1958; Schmidt-Dounas 1985; Fleischer and Schiele 1983; Messerschmidt 1989; von Graeve 1990; Ferron 1993; Ferron 1996. J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 89 Fig. 2: Mourning Women Sarcophagus, from the Ayaa Necropolis, Sidon, c. 390-380 BC.Istanbul Archaeological Museum. (Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) predominantly in the region of Arados and Sidon, votive sculptureandarchitecturalfragmentsfromBostanech-SheikhnearSidon,inadditiontoisolated,accidental finds from elsewhere in Lebanon.14 The Greek element in the handling of the marble and the naturalistic style of the figuralrepresentationinthissculptureaswellasthe presenceofGreekmotifsandiconographyintheroyal sarcophagi is striking. It is difficult for a viewer raised in awesterntradition,wheretheconnectionbetweenwhat we regard as Greek ideals and culture and what we cate-gorizeasGreekartissostrong,tolookatsuchmaterial andnotseeaGreekwayoflife,orevenaHellenic identitybehindit.Soitisperhapsunderstandablethat mostsuchobservers,withforeknowledgeofthisfourth-centurymaterial,assumethattheadventofGreco-Ma-cedonian rule in the Levant could only mean an increase intheGreeknessinthecultureofthePhoenicians,and hence a corresponding loss of Phoenicianess.However,thePhoeniciansdidnotjustsimplyimport Greekart,andlittleofthehellenizingsculpturethatis attributed to fourth-century Phoenicia, including the royal sarcophagi just mentioned, the anthropoid sarcophagi, the infant statues from the Temple of Eshmun near Sidon, or theso-calledtribuneofEshmun,15canbeconsidereda 14 See Lembke 2001 for a catalog of the anthropoid sarcophagi; see also Josettelayisimportantdiscussion(layi1988b).Foracatalogand discussionofthematerialfromtheTempleofEshmunatBostanech-Sheikh near Sidon, see Stucky 1984, 1993, and Stucky et al. 2005.15 See above note for references. direct copy of any single object found in the Greek cities. Rather,theyallinsomewaymixgenre,motifs,and/or stylesfromdifferentartisticcanons.Relyingonartistic hybridityasconcreteevidenceofshiftsincultural identityisathornymatter.Hybridartdoesnot necessarilypointtohybridityinallotheraspectsofa culture, much less to a hybrid identity. From a Phoenician pointofviewthehellenizingaspectsoftheirartlikely had a quite different meaning than it does for us. Without averbalrecordtotellusexactlywhatthePhoenicians thought about such shifts in artistic style, it is essential to considerthewidermaterialcontextofsuchhellenizing elements. Rather than identifying and isolating works that exhibitGreekcharacteristicsandthusconcludinga processofhellenizationofthecultureandpeople,we shouldconsidertheseobjectsbothwithrespectto documentedhistoricaltrendsinPhoenicianartandin relation to contemporary non-Greek material in continued use. Only then can we address the question of whether or notthisconstitutesevidenceofgreateracculturationor evenachangeinculturalidentity,astheinhabitantsof the Levant came into increasingly closer contact with the Greeks. Whatweknowfromtheevidenceoffourth-century sculptureinPhoeniciaisthatatthetimeofthe Macedonianconquest,theoccupantsofthePhoenician citiesnotonlyhadknowledgeofandaccesstoGreek artisticmaterialandtechniques,theyhadalsostartedto incorporateitintotheirownmaterial.Conventional FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 90 wisdomwouldhaveitthatintheperiodofGreco-Macedonianrule,withthewidespreadinfluxofGreeks intonewandexistingcitiesintheEast,theculture (includingartisticoutput)ofthelocalpopulationshould onlybecomemoreGreek.16However,theevidenceof Ummel-Amed,asmallsiteaboutseventeenkilometers southofTyre,suggeststhatthesituationismore complicated than that.UMM EL-AMED ThesanctuarytownofUmmel-Amedgivesussomeof the best-contextualized evidence in the Hellenistic period fortheartandarchitecture notonlyofPhoeniciabutthe entireLevantineregion,allowingustoglimpsethe originalphysicalsettingforsomeoftheformsofGreek art and architecture adopted by the inhabitants.17 Umm el-Amed (mother of the column) is located on the coast of southern Lebanon, between Tyre and Ptolemais-Akko, on apromontoryoverlookingthemainNorth-Southcoastal road running from Laodikeia to Ptolemais-Akko. (Fig. 3) Themajorfeaturesofthesiteincludetwosubstantial enclosedsanctuarycomplexes(theTempleof Milkashtarteandtheso-calledEastTemple)and numerousoliveoilpressinstallations.Inscriptionsfrom thesite(allofwhichareinPhoenician,madeby individualswithPhoeniciannames;thereisnoevidence to suggest the migration of Greeks into the area) identify thenameofthesiteinantiquityasHammon,18Aside fromapossiblereferenceinthebookofJoshua(19:28), there is no mention of a town with this name in our extant literary sources, including the fourth-century BC account of Phoenicia by Pseudo-Scylax.19 16HencethedatingofmaterialstylisticallyEgyptianizingaspre-Hellenistic, even if found in a good Hellenistic context. See the catalog entries for Egyptianizing material from Umm el-Amed in Caubet et al. 2005andDoumet-Serhal1998.Kaoukabani1973dividesthefigurines intopre-HellenisticEgyptianizingtypesandpost-Hellenistic Hellenizing types simply by virtue of the belief that non-Greek must be pre-Alexander, not by any stratigraphic criterion.17FortheprincipalcitiesofthePhoenicianhomeland,i.e.Arados, Byblos,Sidon,Tyre,andBeirut,wearewoefullyill-informedwith respect to the Hellenistic periods, archaeologically; we have nothing for Tyre, Arados, or Sidon proper. The material from Byblos is limited and largelyunpublished;seeSalles2003foradiscussion.Therecent salvageexcavationsinBeiruthavebeenmoreforthcoming,butthis materialhasbeenpublishedonlypreliminarily.SeeAubert2003fora briefpreliminaryinterpretation,andessaysinAram13-14,2001-2002. RegardingHellenisticlevelsofPhoeniciansitesonCyprus,thesiteof Amathushasbeenextensivelyinvestigated;seePapantoniou,this volume, for references and for a discussion of some of this material.18InscriptionsnamingHammon:fivefromtheTempleof Milkashtarte(Dunandsnos.2[CISI,8],3[CISI,9],13,and14). DrawingsandtransliterationsofalltheinscriptionsfromUmmel-Amed can be found in Dunand and Duru 1962, ch. 8. 19JoshuamakesreferencetoaHammonaspartofthedomainofthe tribe of Asher. This is dismissed by Dunand and Duru as a reference to anentirelydifferentBronzeAgesettlement.ButasMaespointsout (Maes 1991, 210), the book of Joshua may have been composed as late as the Persian period, perhaps an identification should not be ruled out. DunandandDuru conducted onesmalldeepsounding inthecourtyard of the Temple of Milkashtarte, finding deep below the temple platform evidenceofearlierbuilding,whichtheydatetothePersianperiodor earlierbasedonthepresenceofafewfragmentsoffifth-andfourth-centuryAtticpottery;thedetailsprovidedbytheexcavatorsarescanty (seeDunandandDuru1962,20);otherwisethelevelsbelowthe Hellenistic period temples have not been explored. Fig. 3: Map of Phoenicia. (J. Nitschke) Knowntoseveraleighteenth-andnineteenth-century explorersoftheLevant,Ummel-Amedsfirstreal investigationswereundertakenandrecordedbythe FrenchexplorerErnstRenan.20Thesitessmallsizeand apparentlylatedatemadeitoflittleinteresttoRenan, who spent less than a month there; he removed a group of sculptureandarchitecturalfragmentsthataretoday dividedbetweentheMuseduLouvreandtheNational Museum of Beirut.21 The principal excavations of the site werecarriedoutinthemid-20thcenturybyaFrench missionledbyMauriceDunandandRaymondDuru, from1943to1945.22Theirinvestigationsincludeda detailedstudyofbothsanctuaries,excavationofaselect few private dwellings and industrial shops, and a cursory 20Renan1864,695-749.However,itwasCountdeVogwhofirst recognized the site as Hellenistic in date, with temples mixing Egyptian, Persian,andGreekinfluences.Forearlierexplorersaccountsofthe site, see Dunand and Duru 1962, pp 1-4. 21PublishedinCaubetetal.2002andDoumet-Serhal1998, respectively.22 Dunand and Duru 1962. J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 91 Fig. 4: Plan of the Temple of Milkashtarte (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 90) investigationofnearbyrock-cuttombs.Fromthe evidenceoftheinscriptionsandsmallfinds(principally ceramics and coins), Dunand and Duru concluded that the dwellings,installations,sanctuaries,andassociatedfinds (i.e.sculpture)datetotheHellenisticperiod;the sanctuariesinparticularwerefoundedineitherthelate 4thor3rdcenturiesBCandfelloutofuseoratleast entered a period of major decline and neglect around the timeoftheRomanannexationofPhoeniciainthe1st century BC.23 In the Byzantine period the western part of thesitewasreoccupied,andachurchwasbuilt incorporatingtheruinedelementsofthetempleof Milkashtarte, including the cella. 23 Dunand and Duru 1962, 21 and 234 ff. This is a conclusion arrived at onthebasisofthediagnosticsmallfinds,namelythefollowing:the preponderanceofHellenisticcoins(earliestissuesbelongtoPtolemyI andincludePtolemaic,Seleukid,andTyrianmints;thesedropoff noticeablyinquantityinthe1stcenturyBC;coinspickupagaininthe lateRomanperiod;nofindspotisgivenforanyofthesecoins),see DunandandDuru1962,ch.12;ceramics,bothlocalandimported, datingfromthelate4thtothe1stcenturiesBC(ch.9);lamps(ch.10); andRhodianstampedhandles(ch.11).Theonlypre-fourth-century diagnosticmaterial(pottery)wasfoundinadeepsoundingmadebyDunandandDurubelowtheplatformoftheTempleof Milkashtarte.THE SANCTUARY OF MILKASHTARTE TheTempleofMilkashtarteandtheEastTempleare broadlysimilarinplan;forreasonsofspace,the discussion here will focus for the most part on the former, whichisthelargerandmoreelaborateofthetwo.24The TempleofMilkashtarte,identifiedonthebasisof inscribeddedications,consistsofasacredenclosureon top of an artificial terraced platform. (Fig. 4) The plan of thesanctuaryincludesalargepavedcourt,withalong, narrow,rectangular,podiumstructureisolatedinthe center,identifiedasacella.25Surroundingthecourtand incorporatedintotheenclosurewallareacolumnedhall (four rows of six columns), columned porticos bordering 24 A fuller reconsideration and analysis of the surviving and documented evidencefromthesesanctuariescanbefoundinNitschke2007,200-222;thefocushereisonthemostnoteworthyanddemonstrative material.25Thedimensionsofthecourtyardareapproximately45metersfrom easttowestand24metersfromnorthtosouth;theentirecomplex coversanarea61by56metersinsize(DunandandDuru1962,22) large in comparison to known Phoenician temples in the Levant up until thisperiod.Thepodiumfoundationofthecellarises1.2metersabove thesurfaceofthecourt,andmeasures24metersinlengthand8.5 meters in width (Dunand and Duru 1962, 23).FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 92 the eastern half of the courtyard, and a series of auxiliary rooms.26Archaeologicalremainsdonotprovideprecise informationregardingthefunctionofthelast,butgiven the number and spatial arrangement they likely served as dwellings, storerooms, and/or auxiliary chapels purported to support the functioning of the cult.27 The main entrance tothesanctuaryisfromtheeast,throughadoorwayin thesouthernpartoftheeastportico,off-axiswiththe cella. What remains of the cella suggests that this building was frontedbyaporchandstaircaseaccessedfromtheeast; therewasasupplementarysmallstaircasewithentrance onthelongnorthside.28Thislateralstaircasewasalso approached from the east, and was placed adjacent to the porch, leading to a door that would have opened into the cellachamberproper.Theoriginalsuperstructurewas destroyedandthecellaeventuallyconvertedintoa churchintheByzantineperiod.29However,portionsof thesuperstructurehavesurvivedofthecomparablecella intheEastTemple.Thisstructureissimilarlyfronted by a porch, with frontal and lateral staircases. At the back oftheporchisamonumentaldoorway(whichwas surmountedbyalintelwithwingedsun-disk;moreon thisbelow),andbeyondthedoorwaythereisan arrangement of three rooms: a larger one in the front, and two in the back; the front room alone was finely paved in a similar manner as the courtyard, perhaps suggesting that thischamber wasatleast partiallyopento thesky.30The excavators propose an Ionic prostyle facade for the cellae forbothsanctuaries,withfourIoniccolumnsacrossthe front. This is hypothetical, as no fragments of capitals or anentablature wereexcavatedthatwouldseemtofitthe dimensionsrequiredforsuchareconstruction.31 Nonetheless,adecorativefacadeofsometypeis expected32andfragmentsofsmoothcolumnshaftswere identifiedthatcouldfit;33giventhedimensionsofthe porchareconstructionofeitheratetrastyleprostyle facadeordistyleinantisisnotunreasonable,although withoutconcreteevidencethe styleofany decorationon the facade remains in question (see further below for the 26 See Dunand and Duru 1962, 27-47 for a detailed description of these remains. 27DunandandDuru(1962,44-46and236-7)prefertoidentifyrooms on the southwest end of the courtyard as subsidiary chapels on the basis offragmentsofarchitecturalornamentationfoundinthevicinity, although there is nothing to indicate what god(s) these might have been for.Seefurtherbelowregardingthesefragmentsandasecondarycult chamber in the East Temple.28 Dunand and Duru 1962, 24-27, pls. 9-11. 29SeeDunandandDuru1962,ch.5foracursorydescriptionofthe Byzantine remains. 30DunandandDuru1962,57-61.Thetwobackroomshadafloor surfaceconsistingofalimemortar,similartothatwhichwasusedto dress the local stone throughout the site. 31 Durand and Duru 1962, 25-26 and fig. 10.32 This would be in keeping with earlier known examples of Phoenician shrines, such as those at Amrit and Ayn el-Hayat (see Dunand 1985 and Renan1864,69)aswellasthenaiskoistelai,modelsofsmallroofed shrines, with either two antae or two columns in facade surmounted by an entablature, typically a cavetto cornice. See Caubet et al. 2002, 82-84 for examples.33 Dunand and Duru 1962, 25-26. Also, as no roof tiles have been found on the site (nor fragments of pediments), the flat roof as proposed by the excavators is most likely. evidenceofarchitecturaldecorationthroughoutthe sanctuary).The excavators characterized the plan of the sanctuary of MilkashtarteasWestSemiticinnature,andthus traditionaltotheregion.34Thisisonlypartiallycorrect. Aspects of the spatial arrangement, including an enclosed sacredspacefocusedonacourtyard,subsidiary chambers,andanoff-axisentrance,arecertainlytypical ofancientSyrianandLevantinereligiousarchitecture generallysincetheBronzeAge.35Butsomeaspectsof thisplandeviatefromearlierexamplesofthistradition. First, the inclusion of a columned hall is unprecedented in sacredarchitectureintheLevant.Theonlypossible parallelistheIronAgesanctuaryatKition,whichwas renovatedinthe9thcenturyBCtoincludearectangular hallwithfourrowsofpillars,althoughquestionsremain aboutthefunctionofthatplan,i.e.ifitwasusedasthe sanctuaryitselforasapillaredcourtyardleadingtothe sacred chamber. Our columned hall here, with one row of columnsinfaadeborderingonacourtyard,ismore reminiscentofthemorecontemporaryAchaemenid Persianapadana.Achaemenidstylearchitectural fragments areattested elsewhere in Phoenicia, such as at Sidon(Figs.15and16),anddemonstratethatthe Phoenicianswerewellacquaintedwiththatcanon.36At anyrate,thepurposeofsuchacolumnedhallinthis sacredsettingatUmmel-Amedisunclear.Aspointed outbytheexcavators,thehalliscarefullyconstructed anditsfoundationswerelaidatthesametimeasthe temple platform, indicating that this structure was part of the original design of the sanctuary.37 At the same time, it is clearly in a subsidiary position in the sanctuary. Does it reflectasecondarycult?Orisitmeanttoprovidea monumentalspaceforotherceremonialand administrative activities for the clergy of the sanctuary as well as perhaps the citizens of the town and countryside? The latter seems likely, particularly if it is an echo of the Achaemenidapadana,whichitselfservedaceremonial function for the king and upper administration.Thesecondatypicalfeatureoftheplanofthistempleis the cella. A long, rectangular, elevated cella isolated in a courtyard,withbothfrontandsidestaircase,isunusual fortheLevantuptothispointintime.Squarecellae enclosedinandsetofffromaprecinctareknownfrom earlierPhoenicianarchitecture,suchasthecellaofthe 34 Dunand and Duru 1962, 27 and 234: le plan des temples ne doit rien auxusagesdelaGrce.Leurconomieeststrictementconformeaux pratiques architecturales cultuelles des Smites occidentaux.35E.g.,TheBronzeAgeTempleoftheObelisksatByblosandthe PersianperiodtempleatAmrit(shrine,courtyard,andenclosurewall) thePersian-HellenisticSolarShrineatLachish(Tufnell1953,pl.121); Hazor Lower City Area F Double Temple from the Middle Bronze Age II(focusonacentralcourtsurroundedbycorridorsandchambers; Yadin1972,figs.23,24);thelateBronzeAgeBaal-Anattemple complexatKamidel-LozintheBeqaavalley(courtyardleadingtoa four-columned facade; see Hachmann 1978, 27ff, fig. 1) For off-axiality of entrance and approach as a feature especially of Palestinian temples, see Wright 1985, 237-238.36 Beirut, National Museum, no 2078; Stucky, et al. 2005, nos. C1- C24. 37DunandandDuru1962,28and238.Theirsuggestionthatthis columned hall is an evolution of the Hittite beit-hilani type structure of Anatolia is not convincing.J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 93 templeofAmritinthePersianperiodandtheLate BronzeAgeTempleoftheObelisksatByblos.But these are problematic as prototypes. Both sanctuaries are farsimplerthantheTempleofMilkashtarte,andthe ObeliskTempleisoverathousandyearsearlierindate. InthecaseofthetempleatAmrit,thecellawasnot intended to be regularly accessed, since it was surrounded byapool,whereasthecellaoftheTempleof Milkashtartehadtwoclearpointsofaccess.Outsideof thesetwoexamples,anarrangementwherethecellais isolatedinthecenterofthecourtyardisvirtually unknown in Syro-Levantine sacred architecture up to this point.Boththedesignofthecella(podiumcellawith frontporchontheshortside)anditsplacementina porticoedcourtyardisrathermorereminiscentofthe cellaeofSyriansanctuaries oftheRomanperiodthanof anycontemporaryorrecent(i.e.IronAgeorPersian period)sanctuary,38althoughthecellaoftheTempleof Milkashtarteisproportionallylongerandnarrowerthan thoseoftheRomanperiod.Thisraisesthequestionof whetherwhatweseeatUmmel-Amedisanearly versionofthetypicalSyro-Romansanctuaryplanandif soshouldweregardthissanctuarytypeasaPhoenician invention? Or should we look for prototypes further west, forapossiblePunicand/orItalicinspiration?Regarding thelatter,ithasbeensuggestedthatthetempleatPunic Carthage uncovered by the German mission from 1975 to 1997isparalleledatUmmel-Amed,butonlytheback half of the cella has been exposed, and the chronological relationshipbetweenthetwobuildingsisnotentirely clear.39 Further discovery and excavation of third- to first-centuryPhoenicianandPunicreligiousarchitectureis neededtoclarifythequestion.Ifaprototypefromthe Phoenicianwestcanbefound,thenitispossibleweare perhapslookingatatransmissionofItalictraditionsin templearchitecture,inparticulartheuseofapodium, rectangularshape,andcolumnedporchononeshortend.Turning to the sculpted architectural detailing, the style of thesanctuarysdesignbecomesmoremixed.Boththe portico and the columned hall are supported by limestone columns in the Greek order: Doric for the portico and the interiorofthecolumnedhall(unfluted,nobases);Ionic for the facade of the columned hall (unfluted, attic bases). Regarding what these columns supported, only fragments ofanarchitravewerefoundthatlikelybelongtothe porticos;nofurtherelementsofaGreek-stylefriezeor entablaturefittingthedimensionsofthecolumnedhall havebeenfound.Anyfurthersuperstructureforthe columnedhallcouldhavebeenconstructedinwood,of course,butwehavenowayofknowingwhatformthis took. According to an inscription, the date for the portico is222BC,andthatofthecolumnedhallsometime previoustothat,40makingthisoneoftheearliest 38E.g.,therecentlyuncoveredHerodiantempleatOmrit(Overmanet al.2007),thetempleofZeusBaetocaecainSyria,andthetemplesat Qalat-Faqra,Yanouh,andQasrNaousinLebanon,amongothers;see Nourdiguian 2005 generally, and Ball 2000, 317-342. 39 Rakob 2002, pp 30-33. 40 The date of the dedication of the columned portico is indicated by an inscriptionas222BC(LouvreAO1440).AccordingtoDunandand Duru(1962,35),excavationrevealedthattheporticowasalater preserved examples (which can be securely dated) of the useoftheGreekarchitecturalorderintheEast.41In addition to the columns of the portico and columned hall, therearenumerousotherfragmentsofGreek-style architectural elements (in limestone) that do not appear to have belonged to either of those structures based on their dimensions.TheseincludedfragmentsofAtticbases, Ioniccapitals,Doriccapitals,flutedcolumns,smooth columns,andmoldingswithegganddartmotif,allin proportionstoosmalltofitthecolumnedhallorthe porticos.42 The original placement of these elements is not certain,buttheymayhavedecoratedthecellaorbeen usedforthefacadesofsomeoftheroomsalongthe southern side of the courtyard.43

Greek-stylecolumnswereonlypartofthepicture, however.Theseelementswereplacedside-by-sidewith non-Greekstylesofarchitecturaldecorationaswell. Theseincludeseveralfragmentsofcavettocornices,a typeofarchitecturalmoldingunderstoodtobeEgyptian inorigin butwhichbecomesubiquitousintheNearEast especially during the Persian period when it was adopted byDariusandhissuccessorsatPersepolis.Severaldoor lintels with sun disks flanked on either side by uraei were recovered from the ruins of the temple of Milkashtarte as well.44Basedontheirdimensions,thesewerelikely placedonthesmallerdoorswithinthesanctuary,visible from inside the court. In its Egyptian context, the winged sundiskwasaprotectivesymbol,goingbacktoatleast totheOldKingdom,andwasusedtoadorndoorways, ceilingsandstelaiintemplesandtombs.45Inits Phoeniciancontext,whereitappearswithsome frequencyon,seals,ivories,modelnaiskoi,andstelai throughoutthefirstmillenniumBC,thesundiskwith uraei appears to have a similar protective function, and as in Egypt, is usually depicted with wings.46

Thenon-wingedversionswehavehereinthetempleof Milkashtarteseemtobealocalvariant.47Whetherthis alterationoftheoriginaltempleplatform,whichitselfwasconstructed at the same time as the cella and the columned hall. Thus, the columned hall was constructed prior to the portico, and should be dated to no later than 222 BC.41 It has been suggested that Ionic capital fragments in marble found at theTempleofEshmunatBostanech-SheikhnearSidoncoulddateas earlyasthe4thcentury(Stuckyetal.2005,98ff),buttheywerefound outside of a clearly dated context, and could easily be later.42 See Dunand and Duru 1962, 44-46. 43 Dunand and Duru 1962, 45.44 From the Dunand and Duru excavations: 2 (M. 300 and M. 366); from the Renan expedition: 3 (in the Louvre: AO 4901, AO 4903, AO 4909). See Vella 2000, 38-39 for the winged sun disk having religious meaning in Phoenicia and in Ummel-Amedespecially; SeeWagner 1980 for a catalogofallEgyptianizingelementsinPhoenicianarchitecturefrom the Bronze Age through the Roman period. 45SeeWagner1980foracatalogofallEgyptianizingelementsin Phoenician architecture from the Bronze Age through the Roman period as well as a discussion of the prototypes in Egypt. 46E.g.,Moscati1988,nos.271,416, 526,528,653,658,831,and836 (naiskoiandseals);InstitutduMondeArabe1998,87(pectoralfrom Byblos)and148(braceletwithintaglio);thesteleofKingYehawmilk of Byblos in the Louvre (AO 22368).47AfurtherlocalexamplecanbefoundatthesmallerPhoenician sanctuary at Kharayeb: Kaoukabani 1973, 54 and Pl. 18.2. Kaoukabani mistakenly suggests that the wings wore off; rather, it is clear that they were intentionally not represented. FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 94 Fig. 5: Reconstruction of the East Temple, with section showing the facade of room 11 and the mainentrance, as seen from inside the courtyard. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, figs. 15 and 17) lack of wings is a symbolic or artistic choice (or both) is unclear;however,thewingedversionisespecially prominentintheEasttemple,notablyoverthemain entrances to the sanctuary complex, above the subsidiary chapeldedicatedtoAstarte(seebelow)aswellasthe cella itself. (Fig. 5) The appearance of these sun disks in thesetemplesmarktheirearliestsubstantialusein survivingPhoenicianarchitecture,althoughgiventhe paucityofremainsofPhoenicianarchitecturefromthe first millennium, it is perhaps premature to read too much intothis.Theuseofthewingedsundiskshouldbeseen asevidenceofPhoenicianiconographicandreligious continuity,butthestrikingjuxtapositionofthis decorationalongsidetheDoricandIoniccolonna- deslikelyreflectsaninnovationoftheHellenisticperiod.J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 95 Fig. 6: Sculpted orthostate fragments from the Temple of Milkashtarte:bull goring a bush. Limestone. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 28.1 and 29.4) Theremainingevidenceforsculptedarchitectural ornamentation of the Temple of Milkashtarte consists of aseriesofsculptedorthostatefragmentsuncovered(but notfoundinsitu)invariouspartsoftheTempleof Milkashtarte;thesereflectpurelyLevantineartistic traditions.Theoriginalplacementoftheseorthostatesis unknown,butbasedontheirsizestheexcavators hypothesized that they may have decorated a central altar, moveablecurtainwalls,ortheporticowalls.Verylittle stonereliefsculpturehassurvivedfrompre-Roman Phoenicia,andsoitisdifficulttofindmaterialwith whichtocompare.Nonetheless,thereisjustenough information to firmly situate this material in the canon of Phoenician-Levantineart.Twopiecesrepresentyoung bulls;48(Fig.6)onedepictstheheadofabull,goringa stylized bush; the second, larger fragment shows most of abullinasimilarpose,buttheobjectofthegoringis lost. The scene of a bull goring a palmetteplant or other typeofvegetationcanbefoundonPhoenicianivories fromaroundtheEasternMediterraneanintheIronAge, particularlyca.950to700BC.49Insculptureitcanbe found on a fragment from Tyre of unknown date, as well asonastelefromtheSanctuaryofEshmun,which perhapsdatestothelateIronAgeorPersianperiod.50A further orthostate fragment (Fig. 7) found by Dunand and Duru in the courtyard area of the Temple of Milkashtarte depictsasceneofculticritual,specificallyinvolvinga votive column surmounted by aeolic-type capitals as the aniconic object of worship. The Aeolic capital depicted on these fragments resembles types found in Israel during the late Iron Age at sites such as Hazor and Ramat Rahel andinthesixthcenturyatGolgoiandTamassosin Cyprus.51 The adorant figure holds a common Phoenician ritualpose,paralleledonstelaifromUmmel-Amed itself and elsewhere.52

48 Dunand and Duru 1962: 143-145 and pls. 28, 1 and 29, 4. 49 E.g., Nimrud: Herrmann 1986: nos. 723, 725, 727, 740.50 AO 4899; Stucky 1993a, no. 59, p74.51Wesenberg1971,figs.123-125,127-128,131,134;thistypealso appearsinPhoenicianivories,e.g.Moscati1988,no.79.SeeShiloh 1979 for the aeolic style in architecture generally. 52 E.g., the Yehawmilk stele (Louvre, AO 22368; Caubet et al. 2002, 64-66.);astelefromArados(LouvreAO4949),stelaifromTyre(Louvre Fig. 7: Sculpted orthostate from the Templeof Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed: Female adorant in front of a pillar with Aeolic type capital. Limestone. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 28.2) With respect to design and decoration the designers of the sanctuaries at Umm el-Amed drew inspiration from both localandforeigntraditions,demonstratingthatafter AlexanderthePhoenicianscontinuedtheirpracticeof selectivelyadoptingandcombiningelementsofforeign canonswithstylesstemmingfromtheirowntraditionto createtheirownparticularkind(s)ofvisualsetting. AspectsofGreekarchitecturaldesignarepresent,but they do not dominate; rather, they have been appropriated selectivelybythePhoeniciansforuseinanon-Greek buildingtype,andjuxtaposedwitharchitectural decorationoflocaltradition.Nordoesthispracticestop atarchitecture;themulti-lingualaspectofthetemple design is echoed in the votive sculpture discovered in and around them. AO1001andAO4821).Thefigureonthisorthostatewasoriginally identifiedbyDunandasabaldmalepriest;althoughthepieceisworn and now missing, a closer look at the photograph and comparison with thebetterpreservedvotivestelai(seebelow)suggestsratherthatthis figure is female, with her mantle pulled over her head.FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 96 VOTIVE SCULPTURE Examplesofvotivesculpturerecoveredfromboththe Temple of Milkashtarte and the East Temple were found eitherinsituordiscardedbelowthesurfaceamongthe ruins.53 No ritual deposits (favissae) were found by either Renan or Dunand; as such, the amount of votive sculpture islimitedascomparedtootherfirstmillennium sanctuaries in the Phoenician homeland, such as Amrit or Bostanech-Sheikh.Nonetheless,whatsurvivesis revealing,andsuggeststhatthepatronsvariouslyand contemporaneouslycommissionedsculpturethat followed Phoenician, Egyptian, and Greek traditions.Beginningwithcultobjectsproper,theonlysculptures uncovered that clearly served such a purpose are the two so-calledAstartethrones,anobjectexclusiveto PhoeniciathatexhibitsnoinputfromGreekreligious practices or iconography. These thrones are characterized by their armrests, which are in the form of female winged sphinxes,atypetypicallyfoundinPhoenicianglyptics sincetheIronAge.Thesethronestypicallyareemptyor haveacuttingfortheplacementofaniconiccultobject (e.g.abetyl),andoftenonthefrontoronthebackrest thereareculticscenesorsymbols.Approximatelya dozen ofthesethrones have beenfoundin Phoenicia,all in the region of Sidon and Tyre,54 and they are associated withAstartemainlyonthebasisoftheiconography.55 Thrones featuring animals as armrests have a long history in the Near East, and sphinx thrones with seated kings or divinities can be found in relief carvings in the early first millenniuminPhoeniciaandtheLevant,suchasonthe Ahiramsarcophagusandinglypticsandivorycarving.56 Whereas the early glyptic representations of such thrones show a divinity (or in the case of Ahiram, a king) seated inthethrone,thephysicalthronesfoundinSidonand Tyrewereclearlyintendedtoremainvacantandthus serveasananiconiccultobject,asindicatedeither becauseoftheirsmallsize,theslopeoftheseat,orthe presence of an object. It is understood that the emptiness of the throne, or the object within, is an indication of the presence of the divinity.57 One example of such a throne was found nearly in situ in theEasttemple,(Fig.8)initsownroomonthe Northwestperipheryofthecourtyard.Thisroomwas accessed through a large doorway surmounted by another linteldecoratedwithawingedsundiskflankedwith uraei, of the type discussed above.58 The throne itself was foundknockedoverandbrokennexttotheplatformon whichitpresumablyoriginallystood.Thepresenceof thisthronepointstocontinuitybothinPhoenician religious practices as well as iconography. 53AlthoughDunandandDuruprovideplansthatlocatehorizontallya majority of the architectural and sculptural fragments excavated in both sanctuaries, they do not give the elevation of any of these find spots.54 E.g., Beirut, National Museum, nos. 2118, 2062, 2120, 2116.55 Delcor 1983, 778; Doumet-Serhal et al. 1998: 26.56 For thrones in Phoenician art generally see Gubel 1987, 37-84.57FortheseAstartethrones(orsphinxthrones,astheyaresometimes called) as aniconic cult objects, see Mettinger 1995, 100-103. 58 Dunand and Duru 1962, Pl. 63, 1, inv no. E. 6. Fig. 8: Astarte Throne from room 11of the East Temple, Umm el-Amed. Limestone.(After Dunand and Duru 1962, pl. 67) With respect to the remaining recovered votive sculpture, Egyptianstylesofrepresentationdominate.Numerous examplesofEgyptianizingsculptureintheroundwere recoveredbyDunandaswellasuncoveredduring clandestineexcavationsinthe19thcentury.59Dunands expeditionuncoveredamalevotivestatueinEgyptian dressknockedoverfromitsbase,infrontofthemain entrancetothesanctuaryofMilkashtarte.(Fig.9).The head is missing, as well as the lower part of the legs, but the base, along with the feet were found in situ. (See Fig. 4forthefindspot)Theinscriptionalongthisbase indicatesthatitwasdedicatedbyacertainAbdosirto Milkashtarte.AlthoughtypicallyEgyptianindressand stance,thestatuedeviatesfromitsEgyptianprototype withtherightarmraisedintheso-calledgestureof adoration, commonly found in representations of people engagedinreligiousritual,bothatUmmel-Amedand elsewhere in Phoenicia and the greater Levant. These so-called Egyptianizing votives statues, as they are usually called, are found elsewhere in Phoenicia and Cyprus (e.g. Amrit,Bostanech-SheikhandGolgoi)fromasearlyas thesixthcentury,althoughtheexamplesfromUmmel-Amedwearaconservative,lessornatestyleofkiltand neckpiece than these earlier examples.60

In the same vein are the numerous fragments of sphinxes recovered by both expeditions from both sanctuaries.61 In allexamplesthetypeappearsconsistent:atraditional 59 Dunand and Duru 1962, nos. M. 436, E. 213, E. 173, E. 102. Caubet etal.2002,19,38,catalognos.145-149);thesewereacquiredby clandestinecollectingattheproddingofCh.Clermont-Ganneauinthe 19th century. 60Amrit:Lemke2004,50-56andnos.119-165,withbibliography; Bostanech-Sheikh,nearSidon:Stucky1993.ForexamplesinCyprus, seeKarageorghisetal.2000.Seealsotheexcellentdiscussionofthis statue type in Phoenician art in Markoe 1990. 61 Dunand recovered fifteen fragments: M. 362, M. 98, M. 13, M. 14; E. 88-90,112,123,129,130,134-136,141.(DunandandDuru1962) Renanrecoveredthreenearlycompleteexamples,nowintheBeirut museum(Doumet-Serhaletal.1998,no.69and70;thethirdis unpublished but reproduced here, see Figure 10) Four further fragments wereexcavatedbyRenanandarenowintheLouvre:AO4851,AO 4852, AO4952 and AO 4841 (Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 132-135). J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 97 Fig. 9: Egyptianizing male statue from the entranceto the Temple of Milkashtarte. Limestone. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke) NewKingdom-stylerecumbentsphinxwithdecorative usekh collar and Nemes klaft headdress. This type is in contrast to the Levantine type that has wings and is often female (for example, the ones that appear on the armrests oftheAstartethrones;seeabove),atypethatis commoninPhoenicianivoriesandscarabsbeforethis period.Assuch,whatweseehereismostlikelyanew borrowing.Onewell-preservedexampleisparticularly revealing.(Fig.10)Thisisanunpublishedsphinxinthe NationalMuseuminBeirutthatwasfoundbyRenanin the 19th century and recently reassembled by the museum staff.Theheadisofspecialinterestinthatwhilethe headdress and sideburns are in traditional Pharaonic style, thefaceissculptedinthedistinctivelyfleshy,idealized mannerofPtolemaicportraiture,seamlesslyblending EgyptianPharaonicimagerywithamorenaturalistic treatmentofthefacepreferredbyGreeksculptors.62 Although worn and highly idealized, the physiognomy of theheaddoesindeedbearaclearresemblancetothe hybrid Egyptian-Greek style portraits of both Ptolemy VI (reigned 180 to 145) and Ptolemy VIII (reigned 169-164 62Anddoessosomewhatmoreeffectivelythanmanyotherhybrid Greco-EgyptianportraitsofthePtolemies.SeeSmith1997regarding the reception of Greek sculptural ideas by Egyptian sculptors. Fig. 10: Detail of the head of a sphinx (portrait of Ptolemy VIII Physkon?) recovered from the Temple of Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed. Limestone. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke) and 145-114).63 A head of similar type and style was also foundbyRenanandispresentlyintheLouvre.64This pieceismuchmorewornandtheheaddressismostly missing;nonethelesstheface,theheadband,andthe Egyptian-typestylistichairandsideburnarequiteclear. ThisheadisnotidenticaltotheBeirutpiece(the headbandandearsaredifferent),butthereisa resemblance in the facial structure; this piece bears close resemblance to the known portraits of Ptolemy VIII.65 The presenceoftheseworksatUmmel-Amedholdsgreat significanceforourunderstandingoftherelationship betweenthestyleandaudienceofPtolemaicportrait types.TherehasbeenaprominentviewinPtolemaic studiesinrecenttimesthatEgyptianizingPtolemaic portraiture,likeallexpressionsoftraditionalPharaonic cultureintheHellenisticperiod,wasintendedfora purely Egyptian audience.66 The Umm el-Amed portraits, alongwithrecentEgyptianizingfindsfromAlexandria andotherrecentresearchinPtolemaicstudies,67support theideathattheaudienceforsuchstyleswasafairbit more mixed than that, and that it is a mistake to assume a one-to-onecorrelationbetweenparticularstylistic categories of art and specific ethno-cultural groups in the Hellenistic period. 63 Ptolemy VI: Stanwick 2002: figs. 52-53, 58, 74-75, 77. Ptolemy VIII: Stanwick 2002: figs. 81-82, 84-85, 98-99.64 AO 4868; Caubet et al. 2002, 131.65E.g.Stanwick2002,figs.258-9(datedto121/0);Smith1991,fig. 241.66Forthewidelyheldviewofseparate,distinctcultureswithlittle interest on the part of Greek speakers in Egypt for Egyptian culture, see the following: Momigliano 1975, Praux 1978, Samuel 1983 and 1989, Lewis 1986, Bagnall 1988, Green 1990, and Cartledge 1997.67 Recent research has demonstrated the clear incorporation of Egyptian culture and ideas into aspects of Greek elite culture in Alexandria, such aspoetry,kingshipideology,andartisticself-expression:Stephens 2002, Koenen 1993, Baines 2004 with bibliography. FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 98 Fig. 11: Fragments of Hellenizing statuettes (bearded head, ht. 12 cm; head of a youth, dimensions unknown; statuette of a woman, ht. 55 cm), Temple of Milkashtarte, Umm el-Amed. Marble. (After Dunand and Duru 1962, pls. 38.2, 35.5, and 33.1, respectively) Thereisahandfulofsmall,fragmentaryexamplesof Greek-stylestatuaryfrombothsanctuaries,inboth marbleandlimestone,allofwhichquitesmallinscale, and now unfortunately missing. (Fig. 11) Their small and fragmentarynaturemakesitdifficulttodrawany conclusions,buttheirpresenceisperhapsindicativethat theremayhavebeenmuchmore.Themorenotable pieces include a small bearded head, a fragment of a head of a youth, and a statuette of a woman dressed in a high-girded,emphaticallypleatedchitonandhimation,allin marble and all found in the southern area of the temple of Milkashtarte.68

The most notable Hellenic element in the votive sculpture fromUmmel-Amed,however,istobefoundwithina seriesofstelaiinlocallimestone,sixteenintotal.Only two of these are documented as having been found in the sanctuary ruins proper. Three were found on the southern slopeofthesitebyafarmerinthe1950s,andtherest werefoundinthevicinityofthesiteinthe19thcentury bychanceorthroughclandestineexcavations.69These stelaifeaturebasicallythesamescene:afigure,maleor female,standswithanarmraisedinthegestureof 68DunandandDuru1962,catalognos.M.602(pl.33,2),M.426(pl. 35, 5), M. 439 (pl. 33, 1). Without being able to examine these pieces it is difficult to type them. 69SeeDunandandDuru1962,164-7;theknowledgethattheruinsof Umm el-Amed were a source of Phoenician inscriptions prompted such clandestine activities; these stelai were sold to collectors, and eventually madetheirwaytotheLouvre:Caubetetal.2002,nos.150,154,156-163;andCopenhagen:NyCarlsbergGlyptotek1835(seeDunandand Duru1962,pl.XXVII).Thethreediscoveredinthe1950sareinthe National Museum in Beirut (inv. 2071, 2072, 2075); see Doumet-Serhal 1998, nos. 88-90. adoration.Allofthestelaiareround-toppedwitha wingedsundiskcrowningthescene,andsomehave inscribed(Phoenician)dedications,datedtoroughlythe 3rdand2ndcenturiesBConpaleographicgrounds.70In termsofgenre,theyfitperfectlywellwithinin Phoenician tradition. Fig. 12: Votive stele from Umm el-Amed. Limestone. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke) Whatisparticularlystriking aboutthesestelaiisthatthe femalefigureswearwhatlookssimilartoaGreek himationandchiton,(Fig.12)whilethemalefigures mostlywearrobesandapoloshatasseeninsome Persian-periodrepresentations.71(Fig.13)Intermsof 70Thefunctionofthesestelaiisdisputed;somecallthemvotive (Doumet-Serhal1998),othersfunerary(Caubetetal.2002).See Dunand and Duru 1962, 165-166, for an explanation as to why they can be both.71 Such as the stele of King Yehawmilk of Byblos, dating to the mid-5th centuryBC,Louvre,AO22368;Caubetetal.2002,64-66.An exception to this representation of dress is Louvre AO 4402 (Caubet et al. 2002, no 161) the lower half of a stele showing the lower part of the legs of a male individual.J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 99 Fig. 13: Fragment of a votive stele fromUmm el-Amed. Limestone. Paris,Louvre (AO 3754). (Photo: J. Nitschke) iconographic and stylistic parallels, the female figures are similar to the woman on the orthostate mentioned above. There are also isolated similar relief representations from undetermined contexts at other sites, such as Arados and Tyre.72Thesculpturaltechniqueemployedinmostof thesestelaiandtherenderingofthedresscanbe describedaslocal;however,inafewofthestelaithere appears to be perhaps some Greek technical inspiration in therenderingofthedraperyandfoldsofthegarments andinsomeofthefacesandhair.73Inparticular,twoof thestelaifeaturewomenwho,inthestyleand arrangementoftheirdress,clearlyrecalltheso-called smallHerculaneumwomantype(albeitinaslightly differentmediumreliefasopposedtosculptureinthe round),74suggestingattheveryleastthatthisparticular mannerofrepresentingfemaledresshadfound widespread distribution in non-Greco-Roman contexts by the mid-Hellenistic period; it could perhaps also reflect a direct access to and copying of such statuettes; as no such pieceshavebeenfoundintheregionthatcouldhave inspiredtheskillandattentionthatweseeinthestelai here,thisisonlyspeculative.However,mold-made figurinesofwomeninGreekdress(imitationsofthe Tanagrean type) have been found at the site of Kharayeb tothe north,75andafinerexampleofsuchafigurine has been unearthed in the recent excavations of Beirut.76 The existence of these figurines does confirm a wide trend in this region for images of women in this type of dress. 72 See Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 7, 113, 114. 73 E.g. Caubet et al. 2002, nos. 154, 159,161; Carlsberg Glyptotek 1835; Doumet-Serhal 1998, nos. 88-89. This treatment is not consistent across these examples, i.e. we are not looking at one sculptor. 74 Louvre, AO 3135 (Caubet et al. 2002, no. 154); National Museum in Beirut,no.2075(Doumet-Serhal1998,no.88).FortheHerculaneum woman type see Trimble 2000, fig. 1, and Connelly 1988, pl. 3, fig. 12. 75SeeKaoukabani1973forapreliminaryreportonthesanctuaryand the figurines. 76InstitutduMondeArab1998,170.(Beirut,Directiongnraledes Antiquities inv. 24905).The use of Greek costume for the women in these stelai is intriguing,especiallyincontrasttothenon-Greek costumeofthemen.Doesitreflectcurrentfashion among Phoenician women, or has it been copied from the prototypesforthesefigures?Iftheformer,areweto believethatthemenretainedtraditionalPhoenician dress,whilethewomenadoptedGreekfashions?Ordid Phoenicianwomenwearsomethingnotdissimilarto Greekdresslongbeforethis,makingthetransitiontoa morenaturalistic,Hellenicrepresentationoftheirdress in art natural? As for the male figures, those appearing on thesestelaihavebeentraditionallyinterpretedaspriests ofsomesort.Ifthisisso,isthedressthatwesee intentionallyarchaic,andthusunrepresentativeofwhat theaveragemanonthestreetwouldbewearing?Butif most of the men represented on all these stelai are in fact priests,who,then,arethewomen?77Orarewesimply lookingattypicalmaledress?Andifweassumethat whatisrepresentedonthesestelaireflectswhatpeople actually wore, then must we not also have to assume that theEgyptiancostumefoundonthevotivestatues mentionedaboveisalsoinuse?Therearemanyquesti-ons,whicharedifficultifnotimpossibletoanswer.A comparisonwithearlierPhoenicianwomenscostumes wouldbeuseful,butthereisalackofcomparativema-terialdatingbeforetheHellenisticperiod.78Regardless, fortwoofthestelai,thedecisiontorenderthesefemale figuresbasedonawell-knownsculpturaltypereflectsa clearchoiceonthepartofthepatrons,andindicatesan adoption of Greekstyle bytheseindividuals,asmuchas the choice of more traditional forms on the stelai of other figures demonstrates an opposite preference.Whenwetakeallofthismaterialtogetherasawhole,it becomesclearthatthevisualimpressionofthese sanctuaries and their artistic embellishment is stylistically mixed: foreign and local elements appear to be presented simultaneouslyinamannerthatliesoutsidethebounds of traditional archaeological and cultural typology. Greek elements feature in the architectural decoration with limi-tedpresenceinvotivesculptureaswellasintheimages ofwomen,whilemalefiguresarepresentedineither traditional Phoenician garb or ceremonial Egyptian costu-me.WehaveSyro-Phoeniciancontinuityinsomeofthe spatialarrangementsofthesanctuaryandinsomeofthe reliefsculpture.Egyptianimageryisprevalentthrough-out, and imperial Persia is echoed in the columned hall. 77SeediscussionofMaes1991,esp.223-238,whichiscriticalof Dunand and Durus identification of these figures as priests. 78FemalefiguresdoappearontheSarcophagusoftheMourning Women(seeFleischerandSchiele1983andFerron1993forthis sarcophagus),buttheidentificationofthesewomenisuncertain,i.e. whether they are meant to be mortal or immortal, and whether they are meanttorepresentspecificindividualsorintendedtoactasageneric symbolicpresence.Afemalefigurewithhergarmentpulledoverher head can be found in the banquet scene of the Satrap sarcophagus; such figurescanbefoundindecisivelynon-GreekartintheAchaemenid empire (the artistic themes of which the satrap sarcophagus takes some ofitsinspirationfrom);seeGirshmann1964,fig.468.Thelayersand drapingofthedresswornbythewomeninmourningonthe sarcophagus of Ahiram (ca. 1000 BC or earlier) are not incongruous to thetypeofdressweseehereontheUmmel-Amedstelai,butthis comparanda is far too early and the rendering too stylized to draw firm conclusions. FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 100 Fig. 14: Phoenician anthropoid sarcophagus of unknown origin. Marble. Vienna, Kunsthistoriches Museum. (Courtesy of Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY) What bearing, then, does this sanctuary and its finds have onhowweunderstandPhoenicianidentity,andthe questionofacculturationamongthePhoeniciancity-statesintheHellenisticperiod?Inthisregarditis relevanttonotethatnothingfoundatthetempleargues foranythingotherthanapurelyPhoeniciancult:as mentioned earlier, all the inscriptions are to a Phoenician deity, written in the Phoenician language, by people with Phoeniciannames,suggestingthattheinhabitantsand primarypatronswerelocals.Butifwedidnothavethis written evidence, would we be tempted to conclude from thepresenceofhellenizingelementsinthearchitecture and art a gradual hellenization of the cult and its patrons as well? Scholarly precedent suggests we might. But does theappearanceoftheseelementsreallyindicatethat PhoenicianartandarchitectureislessPhoenicianthan before, as suggested by the scholarly commentary cited at the beginning of this paper?Phoenicianmaterialculturehasofcourselongbeen characterizedaspronetotheappropriationofforeign canons,oftenderisivelyso.HenriFrankfortfamously declaredthatthehallmarkofPhoenicianartisthe bungleduseofEgyptianthemes.79Morerecent assessmentsofPhoenicianarthavebeenkinder, acknowledgingthePhoeniciansengagednotinmere mindlessmimicry,butwereselectiveinwhatthey adoptedfromothercultures,andalmostalways transferredborrowedsymbols,themes,andmotifsinto somethingthatcanbe onlybecharacterizedasdistinctly 79 Frankfort 1996, 310. Phoenician.ThisisexemplifiedinthePhoenician anthropoidsarcophagi,(Fig.14)datingtothe5thand4th centuriesBC.Whileonecanbreakdownthelocal, Greek,orEgyptiancharacteristicsofthesesarcophagiin terms of function, design, material, technique and stylistic representation,theendproductasawholespeakswitha clear point of view that is neither Greek nor Egyptian, but uniquely Phoenician.EveninthecaseofthegrandroyalSidoniansarcophagi ofthe4thcentury(Figs.1and2)thatfeatureso prominentlyintextbooksonGreekart,thepictureisnot soclear-cut.Onecannotfindanobjectofthisspecific design,purpose,anddecorationintheGreekhomeland; rather,theSidonianroyalsarcophagiblendalready existing traditions of funerarymonuments of Cyprus and western Anatolia, which are themselves hybrids.80

AndasGreekasthosesarcophagimayappearinstyle andinsomemotifs,theyarecounterbalancedbythe contemporary existence of non-Greek imagery and styles, suchasisfoundonthecoinsofSidon,producedand approvedbytheSidoniankings;farfromreinforcing somesortofHellenicaspirations,theyinfactdothe opposite:overwhelminglyexhibiticonographyadapted fromAchaemenidimperialart.TheAchaemenidPersian elementisfoundnotsimplyincoins,butinarchitecture aswell,asdemonstratedbymonumentalmarble fragmentsofcolumncapitalsandbasesfoundinSidon. (Figs.15and16)Thematerialisofparticularinterest. Theuseofislandmarbleinthesepiecesindicatesthe patronagebytheSidoniansofGreekworkmenand sculptors, and thus that the Sidonian court had access to, knowledgeof,andresourcestopayforGreek-style monumentalarchitecture.Instead,theSidonians commissionedabuildingwithdecidedlyunGreek decoration. What this all tells us is that the appearance of Greek artistic traditions in some Phoenician art does not a prioriindicateanabandonmentofordisinterestinother artistic traditions. CONCLUSIONConsideringthematerialofUmmel-Amedasawhole, wehaveclearevidenceoftheincorporationofcertain characteristicsofGreekvisualculturesuchasbuilding material,naturalisticstyle,architecturalornamentation, andfashion.Doesthismerittheuseofalabelsuchas hellenizedorperhapsthelessloadedGreco-Phoenician,todescribethispeopleandtheirculture? DoestheincorporationofelementsofGreekartinto 80E.g.,theAmathusSarcophagus(Karageorghis,etal.2000,201-204 with a date of 475 BC; Ferron 1993, 246-7 prefers a date around 550); and the sarcophagus from Golgoi (Kharageorghis 2000, 204-206 with a dateof450-425andFerron1993);variousfunerarymonumentsfrom Lycia(suchastheHarpytombatXanthos)thatgivetheLycian Sarcophagusitsname,seeLanger-Karrenbrock2000andSchmidt-Dounas1985foradiscussionofthoseprototypes,aswellasFerron 1993, figs.69-73; theHarpytombandtheso-calledNereidMonument atXanthos;andtworecentlydiscoveredsarcophagifromtheGranicus rivervalley(Rose2007,Sevin,etal.2001);SeeDusinberre2003for the Achaemenid artistic impact on western Anatolia.J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 101 Fig. 15: Bull-protome capital from Sidon. Marble. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke) Fig. 16: Assyrian-style torus base with vegetal decoration from Sidon. Marble. Beirut, National Museum. (Photo: J. Nitschke) PhoenicianmaterialculturemakethePhoeniciansless Phoenician?Theanswertobothoftheseisnegative. Thesetemples,withtheirdiverseelements,representan architectural innovation, both in terms of space as well as design,whichwillgoontohavealongandfruitful historyintheregion.Theselectionandcombinationof specificartisticandarchitecturalfromcanonsbothlocal andfarhaslongbeentypicalofPhoenicianmaterial culture; that one of these canons is now that of the Greeks doesnotmakethismaterialanylessPhoeniciannor should lead us to refer to the Phoenicians as hellenized. Afterall,thePhoeniciansarenotlabeledby EgyptologistsasanEgyptianizedpeopleforhaving borrowedfromEgyptianartandfashion,nor PersianizedbyNearEasternarchaeologistsforhaving borrowedfromPersianartandfashion.Whyshould they be considered hellenized for having borrowed from Greek art?It has become conventional for Classical archaeologists to applythetermhellenized,withallitsimplicationsof thepassiveabsorptionofculture,toanymaterialor cultural group that exhibits an element of borrowing from Hellenicculture.Bycontrast,whenitcomestoforeign easternelementsinarchaicGreekart,Classicistsdonot refertoarchaicGreekartasOrientalized,butinsist ratherontheactiveOrientalizing,inordertogive emphasistotheGreeksactiveroleinthiscultural exchange.Thisfocusontheactiveagencyofthe borrower,ratherthanonanyperceiveddominanceor superiorityofthecultureborrowedfrom,issurelythe rightapproach.Butthissamemethodologicalstandard needstobeappliedtotheculturesthatengagedwith Greek culture in turn.InthecaseofthePhoenicians,weknowthatwiththeir long established contacts with the Greek world they were wellacquaintedbytheadventoftheHellenisticperiod FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 102 withGreekartisticstyles,mannerofrepresentation,and imagery.AndtheGreekelementsfromthematerialat Ummel-Ameddemonstratethattheystillhad knowledgeandaccesstothiscanonasthisage progressed.LookingattheevidencefromUmmel-Amed, though, we are left with the simple fact that if the inhabitants of this town wanted a Greek-style temple they couldhavehadone.Theychoseotherwise.Iftheyhad wished to honor the Ptolemaic king with an image in the fineGreco-Macedoniantradition,theycouldhavedone so. They chose something else.Ibeganthisoverviewbyaskingthequestion,isthere anythingPhoenicianaboutPhoenicianlifeinthe Hellenistic Age? The material at Umm el-Amed suggests thattherecertainlyis.Althoughtheevidencepresented hereinthislimitedforumisonlyapartoftheentire pictureofHellenisticPhoenicia,itdemonstrates nonetheless that a simplistic presentation of Phoenicia as ahellenizedentitywillnolongersuffice.Hellenic culture,inwhatevermanifestation,isnotdefacto antitheticaltoPhoeniciancultureoridentity.The appearanceofGreekstylesofartandarchitecturedoes not necessarily herald the demise of a discrete Phoenician culture.InthecaseofUmmel-Amed,itinfactreflects theopposite.Thesetemplesandtheirornamentation weavetogethericonographyandstyles,bothlocaland foreign,whichreflectbothcenturies-longtraditionas wellascontemporarytrends.Farfromthedeathof Phoenicianculturalvitality,wewitnessherecontinued Phoenician creativity and innovation in the way they have drawntogethervariouselementsofdifferentforeign artistic canons to create a space and artistic setting that is their own. Bibliography AVI-YONAH,M.1978.HellenismandtheEast: ContactsandInterrelationsfromAlexandertothe Roman Conquest. Ann Arbor. AUBERT, C. 2003. Phnomnes dacculturation grecque en Phnicie: le cas de Beyrouth. In M. Sartre (ed.), La Syrie Hellnistique, 111-24. Lyon. BAGNALL,R.S.1988.Greeks-Egyptians:Ethnicity, StatusandCulture.InCleopatrasEgypt,Ageofthe Ptolemies, 5-21. New York, Brooklyn Museum. BAINES, J. 2004. Egyptian Elite Self-Presentation in the ContextofPtolemaicRule.InW.V.HarrisandG. Ruffini (eds.), Ancient Alexandria between Egypt and Greece, 33-61. Leiden. BALL, W. 2000. Rome and the East: the Transformation of an Empire. New York. BARR,J.1974.PhiloofByblosandhisPhoenician History. Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57, 17-68. BAUMGARTEN,I.1981.ThePhoenicianHistoryof Philo of Byblos. Leiden. BURSTEIN, S.M. 2003. The Legacy of Alexander: New Ways of Being Greek in the Hellenistic Period, in W. Heckel and L.A. Tritle (eds.), Crossroads of History: The Age of Alexander, 217-42. Claremont. CAUBET,A.,FONTAN,E.andGUBEL,E.2002.Art Phnicien:LaSculpturedeTraditionPhnicienne. Paris: Muse du Louvre. CARTLEDGE, P. 1997. Introduction. In P. Cartledge, P. Garnsey and E.S. Gruen (eds.) Hellenistic Constructs: Essays in Culture, History, and Historiography, 1-19. Berkeley. CONNELLY,J.1988.VotiveSculptureofHellenistic Cyprus. New York. DELCOR,M.1983.LestrnesdAstart.InAttidelI CongressoInternazionalediStudiFeniciePunici, Rome, 5-10 Novembre 1979, 777-87. Roma. DOUMET-SERHAL,C.(ed.)1998.StonesandCreed: 100 Artefacts from Lebanons Antiquity. London. DUNAND,M.andDURU,R.1962.Oummel-Amed, unevilledelpoquehellnistiqueauxchellesde Tyr. Paris. DUNAND,M.andSALIBY,N.1985.LeTemple dAmrith dans la Pre dAradus. Paris. DUSINBERRE,E.R.2003.AspectsofEmpirein Achaemenid Sardis. Cambridge, U.K. EISSFELDT,O.1952.TaautosundSanchuniaton. Berlin. LAYI,J.1980.ThePhoeniciancitiesinthePersian Period.JournaloftheAncientNearEasternSociety 12,13-28. LAYI,J.1988a.PntrationgrecqueenPhniciesous lempire perse. Nancy. LAYI,J.1988b.Lessarcophagesphniciensdpoque perse. Iranica Antiqua 23, 275-322. LAYI,J.andLAYI.A.G.2004.LeMonnayagedelaCitPhniciennedeSidonlpoquePerse.Paris. FERRON,J.1993.SarcophagesdePhnicie: Sarcophages Scnes en Relief. Paris. FERRON, J. 1996. Contacts et changes culturels attests par les sept sarcophages scnes en relief phniciens sculptsentreledbutduVIeetlafinduIVesicle av. J.-C. Transeuphratne 12, 41-58. FLEISCHER,R.andSCHIELE,W.1983.Der Klagefrauensarkophag aus Sidon. Tbingen. FRANKFORT, H. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven. GHIRSHMAN,R.1964.PersiafromtheOriginsto Alexander the Great. London. GRAINGER, J.D. 1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford. GREEN,P.1990.AlexandertoActium:theHistorical Evolution of the Hellenistic Age. Berkeley. GUBEL, E. 1986. Une nouvelle scne de culte phnicien delpoqueperse.InC.Bonnet,E.LipinskiandP. Marchetti(eds.),ReligioPhoenicia:ActaColloquii Namurcensis habiti diebus 14 et 15 Mensis Decembris anni 1984, 263-76. Namur. J. NITSCHKE: HYBRID ART, HELLENISM AND THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION IN THE HELLENISTIC EAST 103 GUBEL,E.1987.PhoenicianFurniture:aTypology Based on Iron Age Representations with Reference to the Iconographical Context. Leuven. HACHMANN,R.1978Rapportpreliminairesurles fouillesauTelldeKamidel-Lozde19621972. Bulletin du Muse de Beyrouth 30, 7-26. HAMDYBEY,O.andREINACH,T.1892.Une Ncropole Royale Sidon. Paris. HERRMANN,G.1986.IvoriesfromNimrud4.Ivories from Room SW 37, Fort Shalmaneser. London. InstitutduMondeArabe.1998.Liban:lAutreRive: ExpositionPrsentelInstitutduMondeArabedu 27 Octobre au 2 Mai 1999. Paris. JIDEJIAN, N. 1968. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut. JIDEJIAN, N. 1969. Tyre Through the Ages. Beirut. JIDEJIAN, N. 1971a. Byblos Through the Ages. Beirut. JIDEJIAN, N. 1971b. Sidon Through the Ages. Beirut. JIDEJIAN, N. 1973. Beirut Through the Ages. Beirut. JIDEJIAN, N. 1980. Tripoli Through the Ages. Beirut.JIDEJIAN,N. 1988.LebanonandtheGreekWorld, 333 to64BC:PortraitsofAlexandertheGreat,the Ptolemies,theSeleucidandArmenianKings: IllustratedbyCoinsintheMichelEddCollection. Beirut. KAOUKABANI,B.1973.Rapportpreliminairesurles fouillesdeKharayeb.BulletinduMusedeBeyrouth 26, 41-60. KARAGEORGHIS,V.etal.2000.AncientArtfrom Cyprus:TheCesnolaCollectionintheMetropolitan Museum of Art. New York. KLEEMANN,I.1958.DerSatrapen-Sarkophagaus Sidon. Berlin. KOENEN,L.1993.ThePtolemaickingasareligious figure.InA.W.Bulloch,E.S.GruenandA.A.Long (eds.),ImagesandIdeologies:Self-definitioninthe Hellenistic World, 25-115. Berkeley. LANGER-KARRENBROCK,M.-T.2000.Derlykische SarkophagausderKnigsnekropolevonSidon. Mnster. LEMBKE,K.2001.Phnizischeanthropoide Sarkophage. Mainz am Rhein. LEMBKE,K.2004.DieSkulpturenausdem Quellheiligtum von Amrit: Studie zur Akkulturation in Phnizien. Mainz am Rhein.LEWIS,N.1986.GreeksinPtolemaicEgypt:Case Studies in the Social History of the Hellenistic World. New York. MAES, A. 1991. Le costume phnicien des stles dUmm el-Amed.InE.Lipinski(ed.)Phoeniciaandthe Bible, 209-330. Leuven. MARKOE,G.1990.Egyptianizingmalevotivestatuary from Cyprus: a reexamination. Levant 22, 11-22. MARKOE, G. 2000. The Phoenicians. Berkeley. MESSERSCHMIDT,W.1989.Historischeundikono-graphischeUntersuchungenzumAlexandersarko-phag, Boreas 12, 64-92. METTINGER, T.N.D. 1995. No Graven Image? Israelite AniconisminitsAncientNearEasternContext. Stockholm MILLAR, F. 1983. The Phoenician cities: a case-study of hellenisation.ProceedingsoftheCambridge Philological Society 209, 55-71. MOMIGLIANO,A.1975.AlienWisdom:theLimitsof Hellenisation. Cambridge, U.K. MOSCATI, S. (ed.) 1988. The Phoenicians. New York. NITSCHKE,J.L.2007.PerceptionsofCulture: InterpretingGreco-NearEasternHybridityinthe PhoenicianHomeland.UnpublishedPhDthesis, University of California, Berkeley. ODEN,R.A.1978.PhiloofByblosandHellenistic Historiography.PalestineExplorationQuarterly110, 115-126. OVERMAN,A.,OLIVE,J.andNELSEN,M.2007.A Newly Discovered Herodian Temple at Khirbet Omrit in Northern Israel. In N. Kokkinos (ed.), The World of the Herods. Volume 1 of the International Conference The World of the Herods and the Nabataeans held at theBritishMuseum,17-19April2001,177-95. Stuttgart. PREAUX, C. 1978. Le Monde Hellnistique: la Grce et lOrientdelamortdAlexandrelaconqute romaine la Grce (323 146 av. J.-C.). Paris. RAKOB,F.2002.Cartago.Latopografiadelaciudad pnica.Nuevasinvestigaciones.InM.Vegas, Cartago Fenicio-Pnica. Las Excavaciones Alemanas en Cartago, 1975-1997, 14-46. Barcelona.RENAN,E.andTHOBOIS,M.1864.Missionde Phnicie. Paris. ROSE, C.B. 2007. The Tombs of the Granicus Valley, in Delemen,I.(ed.),TheAchaemenidImpactonthe LocalPopulationsandCulturesinAnatolia(Sixth-Fourth Centuries BC), 247-265. Istanbul. SALLES,J.-F.2003.Bybloshellnistique.InM.Sartre (ed.), La Syrie hllenistique, 53-109. Lyon. SAMUEL,A.1983.FromAthenstoAlexandria: HellenismandSocialGoalsinPtolemaicEgypt. Louvain. SAMUEL,A.1989.TheShiftingSandsofHistory: Interpretations of Ptolemaic History. Ottawa. SARTRE, M. 2005. Middle East under Rome. Cambridge (MA). SCHMIDT-DOUNAS,B.1985.DerlykischeSarkophag aus Sidon. Tbingen. SEVIN, N., et al. 2001. A New Painted Graeco-Persian Sarcophagus from an, Studia Troica 11: 383-420. SHILOH,Y.1979.Theproto-aeoliccapital.Qedem11, 1-49. SMITH,R.R.R.1991.HellenisticSculpture:a Handbook. New York. FROM PELLA TO GANDHRA 104 SMITH,R.R.R.1997.PtolemaicPortraits:Alexandrian Types,EgyptianVersians.InAlexandriaand Alexandrianism,203-213.Malibu,J.PaulGetty Museum.STANWICK,P.2002.PortraitsofthePtolemies:Greek Kings as Egyptian Pharaohs. Austin. STEPHENS,S.2002.SeeingDouble.Intercultural Poetics in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Berkeley. STUCKY,R.1984.TribunedEchmoun:ein griechischerReliefzyklusdes4.Jahrhundertsv.Chr. in Sidon. Basel. STUCKY,R.1993.DieSkulpturenausdemEschmun-HeiligtumbeiSidon.Griechische,rmische, kyprische und phnizische Statuen und Reliefs vom 6. JahrhundertvorChr.biszum3.Jahrhundertnach Chr. Basel. STUCKY, R.A.et al. 2005. Das Eschmun-Heiligtum bei Sidon. Architektur und Inschriften. Basel. TUFNELL, O. (ed.) 1953. Lachish III: The Iron Age.TRIMBLE,J.2000.Replicatingthebodypolitic:the HerculaneumWomenstatuetypesinearlyImperial Italy. Journal of Roman Archaeology 13, 41-68.VELLA, N.C. 2000. Defining Phoenician religious space: Oummel-Amedreconsidered.AncientNearEastern Studies 37, 27-55. vonGRAEVE,V.1970.DerAlexandersarkophagund seine Werkstatt. Berlin. WAGNER,P.1980.DergyptischeEinflussaufdie phnizische Architektur. Bonn. WESENBERG,B.1971.KapitelleundBasen. BeobachtungenzurEntstehungdergriechischen Sulenformen. Dsseldorf. WRIGHT, G.R.H. 1985. Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine. Leiden. YADIN, Y. 1972. Hazor. London.