We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
In 1912 Macalister published the 100-foot long line of enormous, rough uninscribed standing stones at Gezer in Palestine. The next year, Andrae published the strange, double row of stelae, some rough, some uninscribed, mostly very large, which he had found at Assur. The similarity between the two installations was immediately noted and for over sixty years the Stelenreihen at Assur have been cited in the many discussions of the maṣṣēbôt of Palestine. The singular importance of the Assur stelae lies in the fact that some of them were inscribed, whereas the Palestinian stones were not. The Assur inscriptions tell us that the stones represented people, and Eduard Meyer and others believed that the Gezer stones probably had the same meaning. Obviously, in order to project the meaning of the Assur stelae on the Gezer stones, one assumption had to be made: that the people in the two areas were practising identical customs. Curiously enough, this basic assumption has yet to be proved. In fact, many later scholars have taken the Assur stones to be merely one example of a wide-spread custom of setting up plain stones. The Assur stelae have been lumped together with the ever increasing number of plain stones, those found singly as well as those discovered in clusters, with Biblical evidence for maṣṣēbôt, with Punic stelae, and even with Greek hero cults. Far from considering the Assur inscriptions as the determining factor in interpreting uninscribed stones elsewhere, meanings drawn from this wide body of comparative material have been imposed on the Stelenreihen.
1 Macalister, A. S., The Excavatwns of Gezer (London, 1912) Vol. I, 105–107: Vol. II, 381–406Google Scholar.
2 Andrae, W., Die Stelenreihen in Assur, WVDOG 24 (1913)Google Scholar; see also his discussion in Das wiedererstandene Assur (Leipzig, 1938), 52 ff., 103 ffGoogle Scholar.
3 AA, Beiblatt, XXVIII (1913), 80–88Google Scholar; also in Geschichte des Altertums, I, 2 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 3rd ed., 1913), 423Google Scholar.
4 Particularly in seeing it as a funerary installation, see below p. 126.
5 Graesser, Carl R., Studies in Maṣṣēbôt. (Harvard doctoral dissertation, 1969Google Scholar; published in summary form as “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine,” Bi Ar 35 (1972), 34–63Google Scholar). In his thesis, p. 131, n. 3 and p. 136 ff., he suggests that the Assur stelae were influenced by the Syro-Palestinian memorial stelae, but he thinks the cluster at Gezer (ibid, p. 177 ff.) had legal significance and that the Hazor installation (ibid, p. 190) had mortuary or votive significance. See in “Standing Stones,” p. 57 ff.
6 Graesser prefaces his remarks, “Standing Stones,” (n. 5 above) p. 37: “The precise conception of a function transferred to a plain masseba is not only difficult to recover, but likely varied considerably according to period, culture, and even individual.” See also no. 20 here.
7 Moortgat, Anton, Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien, Vorläufiger Bericht über die Grabung 1958 (Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, 14; Köln and Opladen, 1960), 9 ff., Figs. 4 (plan)—8Google Scholar.
8 Catalogue nos. 21.15, 21.16, 21.17, 21.18. These are A 3, nos. 34, 84, 166 and 176 in the final publication of the sculpture by Opitz, Dietrich and Moortgat, Anton, Tell Halaf III, Die Bildwerke (Berlin, 1955)Google Scholar; see also Canby, J. V., The Ancient Near East in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore, 1974), nos. 29 A–DGoogle Scholar. The Walters reliefs were purchased at an auction of the portion of von Oppenheim's collection which he had brought to the U.S. It was held in New York by the United States Custodian of Alien Property on October 20, 1943 under the Trading with the Enemy Act as amended and pursuant to the First War Powers Act, Public Law 354, chapter 593 of the 77th Congress, 1941.
9 Tell Halaf III, (n. 8 above) Pl. 95a; von Oppenheim, Baron Max, Tell Halaf, A New Culture in Oldest Mesopotamia (London and New York, 1933), Pl. 32 AGoogle Scholar; Frankfort, Henri, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Baltimore, 1954), Pl. 159 BGoogle Scholar.
10 Tell Halaf III (n. 8 above):
Pl. 10 A 3, 1 basalt, Berlin, used upside down.
Pl. 11, A 3,3 basalt, Berlin, used upside down.
Pl. 14, A 3,10 basalt, Berlin, used upright.
Pl. 15, A 3,12 basalt, Berlin, used upright.
Pl. 16, A 3,14 basalt, Berlin, used upright.
Pl. 33, A 3,45 limestone, lost, used upside down.
Pl. 38, A 3,52 basalt, British Museum, used upside down.
Pl. 67, A 3,108 basalt, lost, used upright.
Pl. 71, A 3,116 basalt, Berlin, used upright.
Pl. 84, A 3,144 basalt, Berlin, used upside down.
Pl. 85, A 3,147 basalt, Aleppo, used upside down.
Pl. 86, A 3,149 basalt, Aleppo, used upside down.
Pl. 86, A 3, 148 basalt, Berlin, used upright.
Pl. 87, A3, 150 basalt, Metropolitan Museum, N.Y., used upright.
Pl. 88, A 3, 153 limestone, Berlin, used upright.
11 Ibid., Pl. 87, A 3, 150. I am indebted to Dr. Vaughn Crawford of the Metropolitan Museum not only for allowing me to see the piece in storage, but for single-handedly turning it over so that we could check the back.
12 Orthmann, Winfried, Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 8 (1971)), 120 ffGoogle Scholar.
13 Tell Halaf III (n. 8 above), 22.
14 BiOr 13 (1956), 36 ffGoogle Scholar.
15 OLZ 50 (1955), 454Google Scholar.
16 Orthmann, op. cit. (n. 12 above), 129.
17 Hrouda, Barthel, Tell Halaf IV, Die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit (Berlin, 1962), Pls. 9–11 (ivories), Pl. 33; 61–63 (earrings) and p. 113 ffGoogle Scholar.; for chronological problems in using this material, see my review AJA 68 (1964), 71Google Scholar.
18 On the earrings see Hrouda, Barthel, Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 2 (1965)), 144, Pl. 8:26Google Scholar.
19 Goetze, Albrecht, Kleinasien (2nd ed., Munich, 1957), 177, n. 1Google Scholar. It is interesting that Edith Porada has recently assigned the sarcophagus of Ahiram to 1000 B.C.—that is within the supposed gap in sculptural production between the twelth and ninth centuries B.C.; see “Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram,” The Gaster Festschrift, JANES 5 (1973), 355 ffGoogle Scholar.
20 For the “stelae temple” area, see Yadin, Yigaelet al., Hazor I, An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955 (Jerusalem, 1958), 83 ff., Pls. XXVII–XXXI, CLXXXGoogle Scholar; Yadin, et al., Hazor II, An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 (Jerusalem, 1960), 97 (on the location of the shrine and the stelae found nearby), Pl. XXXVII: 6Google Scholar; see also Yadin, Yigael, Hazor, the Head of all those Kingdoms (The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy; London, 1972), 71 ffGoogle Scholar.; for other stelae, see Yadin, et al., Hazor III IV, An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957–1958, Plates (Jerusalem, 1961), Pls. IX, CXLII: 2, CCCXXXIII: 2–8Google Scholar; and Yadin, Schweich Lectures, 63, 71, 104 and Pl. XIVb. The various interpretations of the installation are summarized by Graesser, , “Standing Stones” (n. 5), 60 ffGoogle Scholar. who concludes : “The plain fact is that we do not yet possess sufficient knowledge of the beliefs and practices of these Canaanites to enable us to decide confidently (on the purpose of the Hazor shrine).” Add to the discussion Albright, W. F., “The High Place in Ancient Palestine,” VT, Supplement IV (1957), 251 ffGoogle Scholar.
21 Dunand, Maurice, Fouilles de Byblos, Vol. II (Études et documents d'archéologie, vol. III; Paris, 1958), Atlas, Pl. XXVIIGoogle Scholar, top right; see also Pls. XXXVIII: 2, XXIV. It seems to me that the Egyptian elements are so strong here at Byblos that the obelisk temple should not be included in a study of Syro-Palestinian customs—at least until the two elements at Byblos can be clearly separated.
22 Hazor I (n. 20), Pl. XXXI: 1.
23 Hazor II (n. 20) Pl. CXCVII and p. 157.
24 Hazor III–IV (n. 20) Pl. CCCXXX; and Schweich Lectures (n. 20), 84.
25 Hazor III–IV (n. 20), Pls. CCCXXVI–CCCXXVII; Schweich Lectures (n. 20), Pl. XXIb and p. 94.
26 Hazor III–IV (n. 20), Pl. CCGXXXIII: 2–8; Schweich Lectures (n. 20), 74, n. 5.
27 du Buisson, Comte du Mesnil, Le site archéologique de Mishrifé-Qatna (Collections de textes et documents d'orient, Vol. I; Paris, 1935), Pl. V 1, 2Google Scholar; Syria 8 (1927), 47, Fig. 59, Pl. LXXIX: 1, Pl. LXXX: 1Google Scholar.
28 SirWoolley, Leonard, Alalakh: An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, No. XVIII; London, 1955). At 39/317, 243. Pl. LIIGoogle Scholar.
29 See Matthiae, Paolo in Castellino, G.et al., Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria, Rapporto preliminare della Campagna 1965 (Tell Mardikh), (Rome 1966), 104 ff., Pls. XXXVIII–XLIIGoogle Scholar. Professor Matthiae notes the similarity to Hazor and Halaf sculpture, p. 106. Note that two blank stelae were found in the temple in section D of the site; see M. Squarciapino, ibid., 59 ff., Pls. XXIII, XXV: 1, 2.
30 Von Oppenheim, op. cit., (n. 9), 196 ff., Pl. XLVI: 6, 7; Tell Halaf IV (n. 17), 19 ff., Pl. 3, nos. 16, 17; on the cult room see Naumann, Rudolfet al., Tell Halaf II, Die Bauwerke (Berlin 1950), 357 ff., 394 ffGoogle Scholar.
31 Von Oppenheim, op. cit., (n. g), Pl. XLV B; Tell Halaf III (n. 8), Pls. 146–148.
32 Tell Halaf III (n. 8), Pl. 152 B, C.
33 Ibid., Pl. 153 A, B and p. 123.
34 Ibid., nos. A 1, A 2, Pls. 1–9; von Oppenheim, op. cit. (n. 9), Pls. XLII B, XLIII–XLIV B; Tell Halaf II (n. 30), 159 ff.
35 Özgüç, Tahsin, Altıntepe II, Tombs, Storehouse and Ivories (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınlarından, V Seri, no. 37; Ankara, 1969), 64 ff., Figs. 4–33, plan (Fig. 3), Pls. II–XVIIIGoogle Scholar.
36 Hazor III—IV (n. ao), Pls. CCCXXVI–CCCXXVII; Schweich Lectures (n. 20), PL XXI b.
37 Tell Halaf III (n. 8) A 1, Pls. 1–5.
38 Hazor III–IV (n. 20), Pls. CCCXXIV–CCCXXV; Schweich Lectures (n. 20), Pl. XX a and p. 95.
39 Tell Halaf III (n. 8), Bc 5, p. 115; see Frontispiece, von Oppenheim, op. cit. (n. 9).
40 Tell Halaf IV (n. 17), 51, Pl. 38: nos. 229, 230.
41 For references see n. 7. Sixteen stelae are shown on the plan.
42 Ibid., 22.
43 Moortgat, Anton, Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien Bericht uber die vierte Grabungskampagne 1963 (Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen, Vol. 31, 1965), 52Google Scholar.
44 See Güterbock's, Hans G. suggestion in AJA 78 (1974), 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar, that the installation might be funerary.
45 Moortgat-Correns, Ursula, Die Bildwerke vom Djebelet el Bēdā in ihrer raumlichen und zeitlichen Umwelt (Berlin, 1972), 25 ffGoogle Scholar.
46 Ibid., 46 ff.
47 Ibid., 34 ff.
48 The single conical “maṣṣēbah” found in the Ninni-zaza temple at Mari has little to do with the clusters discussed here. Parrot, André, Les Temples d'Ishtarat et de Ninni-zaza (Mission archéologique de Mari, Vol. III; Paris, 1967), 22 ff., Figs. 18, 19Google Scholar. See also Moortgat, Anton, “Frühe kanaanäisch-sumerische Berührungen in Mari,” BaM 4 (1968), 223 ffGoogle Scholar.
49 Albright, W. F., “The Archaeological Results of an Expedition to Moab and the Dead Sea,” BASOR 14 (02 1924), 5Google Scholar; idem, The Jordan Valley in the Bronze Age, AASOR 6 (1934–35), 59.
50 Glueck, Nelson, Explorations in Eastern Palestine, I (AASOR 14 (1933–1934)). 44 ff., Fig. 19, Pl. 9Google Scholar.
51 Albright, W. F., BASOR 14 (n. 49), 10Google Scholar; idem, “Soundings at Ader” (BASOR 53 (1934)), 13 ff., Fig. 7Google Scholar. See also Glueck, op. cit. (n. 50), 46.
52 Dunand, op. cit., (n. 21), Pl. XXXVI, 2, 3.
53 See n. 1 for references. For the new date, see Dever, W. G.et al., “Further Excavations at Gezer 1967–1971” Bi Ar 34 (12 1971), 122Google Scholar.
54 Rothenberg, Beno, Timna, Valley of the Biblical Copper Mines (New Aspects of Antiquity, ed. SirWheeler, Mortimer; London, Thames & Hudson, 1972), 107 ffGoogle Scholar.
55 Graesser thesis (n. 5), 129 ff.
56 Ibid., Appendix, p. 341. The seventh-century date given the five stelae from Beth-Shemesh, p. 199, seems rather tenuous.
57 Stelenreihen (n. 2), 1 ff.; Andrae, Walter, Die Festungswerke von Assur (WVDOG 83 (1913)), Text, p. 5 ff., p. 133 ffGoogle Scholar.
58 Stelenreihen (n. 2), 2; Festungswerke (n. 57), 3, Pl. XLVIII (Plan).
59 Festungswerke (n. 57), 3; Wiedererstandene Assur (n. 2), 121.
60 See notes 49–51 for references.
61 Dever et al., op. cit. (n. 53), 125.
62 Ibid., 97 ff., 122, 124.
63 Ibid., 122.
64 Schweich Lectures (n. 20), 68; see also Hazor II (n. 20), 97.
65 Rothenberg, op. cit. (n. 54), 112 ff., Fig. 33, Pl. 114.
66 Ibid., 128, 150 ff., Fig. 44, colour Pl. XI, Pls. 72, 73. The stones at Megiddo (Loud, Gordon, Megiddo II, Seasons of 1935–39 (OIP LXII (1948)), 87, 92, 102, Figs. 206, 207, 241, 398, 401Google Scholar) would be an exception to the rule. Although the precise architectural setting to which they belong is unclear, they must have been set up within the town.
67 Ungnad, A., “Eponymen” (RLA II (1938), 412)Google Scholar; Graesser, , “Standing Stones” (n. 5), 41Google Scholar; idem, Thesis (n. 5), 137.
68 Lewy, Hildegard, “Assyria c. 2600–1816 B.C.” (Cambridge Ancient History, (3rd ed.) Vol. I, Part 2; Cambridge 1971), 743Google Scholar, following Wiedererstandene Assur, (n. 2), 52, 108.
69 Even here there may have been two deep, see Stelenreihen (n. 2), 13 on nos. 7, 8.
70 Ibid., Pl. IX, Blatt, 16, 17.
71 Saporetti, Claudio, “Some Considerations on the Stelae of Assur” (Assur, Monographic Journals of the Near East, ed. Buccellati, Giorgio, Vol. 1: 2; Malibu, 1974), 1 ffGoogle Scholar.
72 I.e., no. 123, see ibid., Fig. 4, for the chronological relationships between stelae.
73 See, for instance, in the royal line, nos. 3, 11, 12, 14, 18, 20, 24.
74 Ibid., no. 22, p. 37 f., Blatt 3, Fig. 41.
75 Ibid., nos. 8, at, 23.
76 E.g., ibid., no. 23, p. 38, Fig. 43, Pl. XVIII: 1.
77 E.g., ibid., no. 29 without inscription is the last in situ in the official row, p. 44, Fig. 54, Pl. VIII: 2 right; see also no. 34, p. 46, Fig. 59, Pl. VIII: 2 right (768 B.C., see Ungnad, op. cit., (n. 67), 439); no. 37; Stelenreihen (n. 2), 47, Pl. XX top left, is the latest of all, see Ungnad, op. cit., 439: 748, 738 B.C.
78 I.e., Stelenreihen, (n. 2), nos. 3, 21 and perhaps 18, 19.
79 I.e., ibid., nos. 29, 54, 77, 87, 112, 113, 125, 131.
80 E.g., ibid., no. 29 was in situ at the west end of the row, nos. 112, 113, 125, at the eastern-most end.
81 Ibid., no. 1, p. 1 ff., Fig. 3, p. 7, Pl. X: 1; no. 2, p. 8 ff., Pl. XI: 1.
82 Ibid., 39 f., Fig. 45, Pl. XVIII: 2.
83 Ibid., 38 f., Fig. 42, Pl. XVIII: 1.
84 Ibid., no. 6, p. 12 f., Figs. 13, 14, 15, Pl. XI: 3.
85 Ibid., 41 f.
86 Ibid., 84, Fig. 183, Blatt 22, Fig. 181; see Saporetti, op. cit. (n. 71), p. 3.
87 In Stelenreihen, (n. 2), 42, Andrae spoke of middle or late Assyrian houses. These houses are not discussed in Preusser's, G.Die Wohnhäuser in Assur (WVDOG 64 (1954)Google Scholar), but Haller, Arndt, Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur (WVDOG 65 (1954)Google Scholar), dates the tomb under the large house just south of the fortification wall (Gruft 17951: Haller no. 55) to the Neo-Assyrian period, p. 156 ff. The nearby sarcophagus grave (17955: Haller no. 995) is classified as post-Assyrian. The sarcophagus grave (18185: Haller no. 781) in the house which interrupts the official row, is called neo-Assyrian (p. 62), but the other graves in this area are not datable.
88 See n. 82.
89 Stelenreihen no. 25, p. 40, Figs. 47–49, Pl. XIX top left; no. 26, p. 40, Blatt 4, Fig. 49 right.
90 Ibid., no. 28, p. 41 ff., Fig. 42, Pl. XIX: 1.
91 Ibid., no. 27, p. 41, Fig. 51, Pl. XIX: 3. For this being the stela of the second king of this name, see Ebeling, E., Meissner, B. and Weidner, E. F., Die Inschriften der Altassyrischen Könige (Altorientalische Bibliothek I; Leipzig, 1926), 37Google Scholar. Andrae believed the stelae were set up after the “archaic” (pre-1500 B.C.) wall had fallen to ruin. In Stelenreihen (n. 2), 1, he speaks of the stelae standing on these ruins, by which he probably meant the artificial fill of which he speaks in Festungswerke (n. 57), 137.
92 Stelenreihen (n. 2), 2 f., 43, 57.
93 See Ungnad, op. cit., (n. 67), 439 for the later stelae.
94 Stelenreihen (n. 2), no. 5.
95 Stelenreihen (n. 2), no. 4, p. 9, Pl. X. Ibid., no. 1, p.6 ff., Fig. 3, Pl. X: 1.
96 H. Lewy, op. cit., (n. 68), 745.
97 See Andrae, Walter, Die Archäische Ischtar-Tempel in Assur (WVDOG 39 (1923)) 5–21, 27–84Google Scholar. On writing here in the Old Akkadian period, see Meyer, G. R. in Preusser, Conrad, Die Paläste in Assur (WVDOG 66 (1955)), 12, Pl. 12: cGoogle Scholar.
98 H. Lewy, op. cit., (n. 68), 766, suggests that the god Assur was originally of west Semitic origin and that his father, as well as another old Assyrian deity, were worshipped in Bethlehem.
99 Finkelstein, J. J., “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty” (JCS 20 (1966), 95 ff.)Google Scholar; see especially p. 113 and the summary p. 116 ff.
100 “Standing Stones,” (n. 5), 36 f.
101 The four functions Graesser ascribes to maṣṣēbôt, ibid., 37 ff.
102 Wiedererstandene Assur (n. 2), 108.
103 Albright, “High Place” (n. 20), 17Google Scholar, and in all editions of Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore; see 5th ed., 1968), 105 ffGoogle Scholar. followed by Graesser, Thesis (n. 5), 303, “Standing Stones,” (n. 5), 41.
104 Genge, Heinz, Stelen neuassyrischer Könige, Teil I, Die Keilinschriften, Eine Dokumentation und philologische Vorarbeit zur Würdigung einer archäologischen Denkmälergattung, (Inaugural Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg in Breisgau) (Berlin Weissensee, 1965), introductionGoogle Scholar.
105 Haller, op. cit., (n. 88), 170 ff.: Graft V: Aššurnaṣirpal (stela no. 6); Graft III: Aššur-belkala (probably no. 17, the pillar made into a stela).
106 “Standing Stones,” (n. 5), 62.
107 Ibid., 56 ff.; see Dever et al., op. cit., (n. 53), 122 ff.
108 Stelenreihen (n. 2), 2.
109 Ibid., no. 15, Šamši-adad IV; no. 16, probably Tiglath-pileser I. It was attributed to Aššurnaṣirpal II by Andrae (ibid., 23 and “Assyrische Stelen und Säulen” (OLZ 25 (1922), 51)Google Scholar. Borger, R., Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur, Band I (Berlin, 1967), 8Google Scholar, refers only to Herzfeld's “Archäologische Parerga” (OLZ 23 (1920), 209)Google Scholar, in which he argues for Tiglathpileser I.
110 Stelenreihen (n. 2), no. 17, Aššur-bel-kala.
111 Herzfeld, op. cit., (n. 109), col. 207 f.
112 Wiederstandene Assur (n. 2), 106 ff. Andrae speaks here of the king's statue, no. 9, being set on its head which does not match the description in Stelenreihen (n. 2), 14 ff.
113 See preceding note, and Borger, op. cit., (n. 109), 8.
114 Rothenberg, op. cit., (n. 54), 150 ff., colour Pl. XI, Pls. 72, 73.
