Syria (Archaeology)

""This book investigates the founding and building of cities in the ancient Near East. The creation of new cities was imagined as an ideological project or a divine intervention in the political narratives and mythologies of Near Eastern cultures, often masking the complex processes behind the social production of urban space. During the Early Iron Age (ca. 1200–850 BCE), Assyrian and Syro-Hittite rulers developed a highly performative official discourse that revolved around constructing cities, cultivating landscapes, building watercourses, erecting monuments, and initiating public festivals. This volume combs through archaeological, epigraphic, visual, architectural, and environmental evidence to tell the story of a region from the perspective of its spatial practices, landscape history, and architectural technologies. It argues that the cultural processes of the making of urban spaces shape collective memory and identity as well as sites of political performance and state spectacle.

Excerpt
http://www.cambridge.org/servlet/file/store6/item7256988/version1/9781107027947_excerpt.pdf""

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions
Key words: mythological mosaic, House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Late Antiquity, Roman art, allegorical narrative, allusive language of mythological pictures, wordplay (Marsyas-Messias), Jesus Christ, anti-Christian polemic, Dionysos, Cassiopeia, Apollon, Nereides, Abstract Personifications, Greek Mythology, ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

In the 5 th and 4 th millennia BC, complex societies developed in Eastern Anatolia, Northern (Upper) Mesopotamia, and Southern (Lower) Mesopotamia. This paper examines the available evidence for the emergence of complex societies in Upper Mesopotamia from the Ubaid through the LC4 periods at key sites in the Euphrates, Balikh, Khabur, and Tigris drainages. Evidence from the sites of Hacınebi and Tell Zeidan is compared with data from Tell Brak, Hamoukar, Gawra, and Grai Resh. The currently available evidence suggests two main conclusions. First, the development of complexity was a gradual process, beginning with economic ranking and incipient stratification in the Ubaid period, and reaching its culmination with the emergence of true urbanism and centralized leadership in the LC2 and LC3 periods. Second, the development of complexity in Upper Mesopotamia took place in a time of minimal interaction with southern Mesopotamia, strongly suggesting that urbanism and centralized political leadership in Upper Mesopotamia developed independently and by pathways different from those in the south. Tab 1 -Comparative Chalcolithic chronology of Upper Mesopotamia.

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions

Inanna, Aya and Ninlil; goddesses of the Sirius star Imprint number 38 This imprint pictures a sexual intercourse of sun god Utu with Inanna, a goddess of the Sirius star. On the right stands the moon god Suen dressed in a woollen skirt. This trio: the moon god, the sun god and the Sirius goddess are pictured on many cylinder seals. In this paper I examine some of them. Around 2000 B.C. the Sirius star and the sun were in conjunction from about half April until about half June: rising and setting at the same time: "Egyptians based their calendar on the heliacal rising of Sirius, namely the day it becomes visible just before sunrise after moving far enough away from the glare of the Sun. This occurred just before the annual flooding of the Nile and the summer solstice, after a 70-day absence from the skies. Sirius was identified with the great goddess Isis, while the 70-day period symbolized the passing of Isis and Osiris through the duat (Egyptian underworld)". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius This meant that for 70 days Sirius and the sun formed a couple. In the next verse the conjunction of Sirius with the sun is described as Inanna riding together with her brother, the sun god Utu:

Aramaean architecture can hardly be discussed in isolation from Luwian or “Neo-Hittite” one. As far as we can observe, Aramaeans and Luwians coexisted in most of the small political entities that had emerged after the collapse of the Late Bronze Age world with its huge empires. Sometimes, Luwian and Aramaean scripts and languages appear in one and the same region at the same time; in other cases it can be difficult to determine if the élites were Aramaean or Luwian in origin. Politically, the Luwo-Aramaean world was fragmented into a number of relatively small kingdoms and chiefdoms, some of them urban, some still with a strongly nomadic component. A political or cultural center never existed, although there are some hints that Carchemish played a predominant role. Another issue that modern scholars have to face when they are dealing with the culture of the Luwo-Aramaean world is the rise of Assyrian influence, which we see beginning to emerge in the late 10th century in the east and slightly later in the west. As a result, Aramaean and Neo-Hittite characteristics were altered by Assyrian ones. The process accelerated after the incorporation of the principalities into the quickly growing empire.
In the following, the Aramaean architecture will be dealt with by categories rather than entities (these could also be a reasonable alternative). But it has to be taken into consideration that, due to the political fragmentation, regional differences may have been significant, even between neighboring entities.

"This paper proposes three new (and tentatively, another two) identifications of sundials in Middle Eastern mosaics of the 5th – 8th century. The author discusses a vignette from the Holy Martyrs’ Church at Tayibat al-Imâm, central Syria, a mosaic panel from the tomb of Georgia and Theodosia in Jerusalem, two
vignettes of Sebastis and Kastron Mefaa from the St. Stephan’s Church at Umm al-Rasas, and a vignette of Jerusalem from the St. George’s Church at Madaba. These mosaics date, respectively, to 442, to the reign of Justinian (527 –565), and to the Byzantine Umayyad era (718). According to the author, these are probably the latest representations of sundials known to date from the Late Antiquity. Until this study, only six representations of sundials on mosaics from the Roman period were known. This paper adds three new items and two hypothetical ones from Byzantine times. It also offers an interpretation of the function of the famous column in Jerusalem, shown on the map of Madaba and the mega-vignette of the Holy City.
Key words: Sundials, Sonnenhuhren, Meridiane, Cadrans solaires, Relojes de sol."

Sundials in Roman and Byzantine Mosaics (1st – 9th Century AD). A scientific monograph. The sundials on ancient mosaics have not been the subject of scientific studies so far. The author has gathered together  in this  publication  the sundials  already known (Torre Anunzaiata, Sarsina, Trier, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Antiochia and Brading; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9) and those which have  not  previously  been  identified.  Thanks  to  the author’s  new  identifcations,  the  catalogue  has  been enlarged  by  six  new  sundials (Grand,Tarsus, Antioch – interpreted by H. Pamir; Figs.  3, 6,  8, and 10. Tayibat al-Imam, Jerusalem and Umm al-Rasas (Sebastis); Figs. 10, 11, 12) and three monumental gnomes-columns with multiple functions that were used as monumental sundials [Madaba (Jerusalem), Umm al-Rasas (Kastron Mefaa) and Rome (Jerusalem); Figs. 13–15]. In addition, recognizing fully John H. Humphrey’s  interpretations,  the  author  enriches  the catalogue  by  eight  ancient  mosaic  representations  of obelisks in  circuses (Lyon, Barcelona, Volubilis, Piazza Armerina - two mosaics, Girona, Carthage and Gafsa; Figs.  16–23).  They  performed the roles of monumental sundials. In this way, the catalogue includes  twenty-three  mosaics with  the representations of sundials. They come from the Western and Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. The first mosaic is dated to the beginning of the 1st century AD and the last dates to the 9th century AD. The author, after  a  short  description  of each monument,  summarizes the issue discussing the role of sundials in Roman and Byzantine society, their complex signifcance and symbolic difficult linked with the progress of time on which nature and human life are dependent.

On first entering Syria, the observant traveler will probably be startled to go through passport control and notice a military map of Syria on the wall, for this map contains several anomalies. It shows the Golan Heights under Syrian control, though they have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Syria's boundaries with Lebanon and Jordan appear not as international borders but as something called "regional" borders. Israel does not even exist; instead, there is a state called Palestine. And Palestine is separated from Syria by a line designated a "temporary" border. Finally, the province of Hatay, a part of Turkey since 1939, appears to be included in Syria; only on close inspection can one see the "temporary" border between it and Syria...

An assessment of the damage sustained to Syrian archaeological sites until late 2014 via satellite imagery.
Bjørgo, E., Boccardi, G., Cunliffe, E., Fiol, M., Jellison, T., Pederson, W., and Saslow, C. 2014. Satellite-based Damage Assessment to Cultural Heritage Sites in Syria. UNITAR/UNOSAT. http://www.unitar.org/unosat/chs-syria

The late Antique mosaic of Orpheus decorated a small room, approximately 18 m2 in area, connected with two even smaller ones, in 4 m2 and the other 2 m2 in area, belonging most likely to a small funerary chapel (or tomb) discovered in the ancient necropolis by the Damascene Gate in Jerusalem; it was discovered in 1901 by H. Vincent.
The author proposes a new interpretation of the iconographic program of the Orpheus myth used by wealthy Christians in a sepulchral context (see Olszewski M.T. «Orphée endeuillé de la mosaïque funéraire de Jérusalem», in Rey Mimoso-Ruiz, B. ed., Actes du colloque «Orphée entre Soleil et ombre», à l’Institut Catholique de Toulouse du 16 au 17 novembre 2007, Inter Lignes, numéros spécial – mars 2008, pp. 205-214, 226). He also proposes a new interpretation of the role Orpheus played in Roman funerary art, concentrating on the importance of the play on words and the visual and textual punning that was popular in ancient art and especially in funerary art. He rejects the popular interpretation of Orpheus as Christ in the Roman catacombs and proposes to interpret the image as that of Orpheus, bard of the departed souls, without any ahistorical connection with Christ. The program of the mosaic from Jerusalem is thus explained as a play on the words Orpheus-orphanos and Chiron (Chi-Rho) and Pan [Παν(τοκράτωρ)].The frequently used Christian funerary formula of resting in peace, Christ or the Lord corresponds
perfectly with the mood created around the mythical bard.
Orpheus’ universal role as singer and musician moving even the most stony of hearts, extolling the beloved departed, is absolutely justified in the context of a 6th-century Christian tomb. Orpheus is a popular and neutral figure, meaning that in effect it does not constitute a threat to Christian theology and can be tolerated by the educated Christians of Jerusalem.

""The author analyses the mythological subjects known from the funerary paintings of the Near East. He is interested principally in the meaning and the message which these representations conveyed. He studies the interpretative problems of funerary iconography in terms of the principles that we encounter in the iconography of roman art - principles which are confirmed by Artemidorus of Ephesus (or Artemidorus of Daldis), a Greek author of the Antonine period, in his manuel Key to Dreams (Onirocriticon). This approach has never previously been attempted. To support his argument, he refers to numerouse monuments of funerary art as well as to a series of inscriptions adorning the monuments in Roman necrpoleis.

L’auteur analyse les sujets mythologiques connus de la peinture funéraire au Proche-Orient. Il s’intéresse principalement au sens et au message que ces représentations portaient. Il étudie la problématique de la sémantique de l’iconographie funéraire en fonction des principes qu’on retrouve dans l’iconographie plastique et qu’Artémidore d’Ephese (soit Artémidore de Daldis), auteur grec de l’époque antonine, confirme dans son manuel La clef de songes (Onirocriticon). Cette démarche n’avait jusqu’alors, jamais été entreprise. Pour appuyer son raisonnement, l’auteur se réfère à des nombreux monuments d’art funéraire, ainsi qu’à une série d’inscriptions ornant des monuments des nécropoles romaines.
See also: M.T. Olszewski, Artémidore, mythologie et symbolique funéraire, Archeologia (Warsaw) 52, 2001, pp. 39-60.
M.T. Olszewski, Le statut de l'image selon Artémidore et l'art romain, in: Morlier, H. ed., IXe Colloque international pour l'étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Roma 5.11.2001-10.11.2001, Collection de l'Ecole Française de Rome 352/2, Rome 2005, pp. 859-880.""

The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

Early balance weights have been found at several Early Dynastic/Akkadian/Ur III sites in southern Mesopotamia since the late 19th century but not all were identified as such and very few have been published adequately. The existence of weight metrology already in the Chalcolithic period cannot be verified so far. In Syria, a steadily increasing number of weights have come to light in excavations at Early Bronze Age sites in the last decades. In a recent comprehensive and not yet published study, the author has assembled nearly 2000 third-millennium balance weights from 163 sites between the Aegean and western India, and discussed them under chronological, contextual and metrological aspects. In this contribution, some results concerning Mesopotamia and western Syria will be presented.

In this article, it will be attempted to elaborate on a differentiation between the dead
and the ancestors from a theoretical point of view, and, upon this basis, with regard to royal contexts of the 2nd millennium BC in ancient Syria. The main questions to be discussed in this respect are the following: when does a dead person become an ancestor? And how is this reflected in funerary rituals and grave contexts? And finally, can we detect the difference archaeologically?

The article discusses the archaeological evidence for contacts between Palmyra and Hatra. In the past, it has been assumed frequently that these contacts were strong and of a commercial nature. The available evidence does not substantiate this assumption. Only one Palmyrene relief was found in a small shrine in the residential area of Hatra. From this one cannot conclude that there was a strong Palmyrene presence in the city, let alone that these Palmyrenes were merchants. This becomes especially clear when one compares the situation in Hatra with cities, such as Dura-Europos, where Palmyrenes figure prominently in the archaeological record.