The Long Life of a Dead King: Royal Ancestors in Late Bronze Age Syria and the Levant

This is an archaeology term paper for a class about 'Stories of Life and Death in the Ancient Near East'. The paper is meant to exemplify the storytelling aspect and follow specific papers we were assigned: Ornan, T. (2012) ‘The Long Life of a Dead King: A Bronze Statue from Hazor in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research: Vol 366’, Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research, 366. Available at: https://doi(dot)org/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.366.0001. Ornan, T. (2011) ‘“Let Baʿal Be Enthroned”: The Date, Identification, and Function of a Bronze Statue from Hazor’, Journal Near Eastern Studies (JNES), 70, pp. 253–280. Ornan 2011_Let Baʿal Be Enthroned_The Date, Identification, and Function of a Bronze Statue from Hazor.pdf Ornan 2011_Let Baʿal Be Enthroned_The Date, Identification, and Function of a Bronze Statue from Hazor.pdf I wanted to start out with an object biography--detailing the birth, life, and death of the statue(s). I can write that. I've started some of it, to give an idea of what that means: He began life in a different era. His clothes tell his story, one of a Middle Bronze Age king ruling in Hazor. The delicate embroidery, tall, rounded hat, and heavy cords that hung from his robes were indicative of this. Daily life was quiet, but full of reverence. His right hand was upright, as a blessing, while his left was outstretched, holding a cup for offerings. He sat, proudly, on a throne as he watched over his palace. [something about where he may have been positioned, but not a lot of information on this] Over time, daily ritual came less frequently and his position shifted. The people around him changed and became unfamiliar. The gold shimmer so indicative of his status began to dull and chip, revealing the warmer-toned bronze beneath. He closed his eyes for a moment, and when he reopened them, he had gained a new companion and new territory. Across from him was a much larger statue of a god, although he was unsure of his identity. It was as if he were surrounded by a fog…one he could almost see past, but the details were lost. Or perhaps, more appropriately, they had changed. All things do with time and he was sure at this point that he had been asleep for a significant period. They were situated in the main room of a bustling hall. He shone gold again and received daily offerings and prayers. He had a new place and a new purpose. The man–the god–before him held a reverential power, sitting in his throne, like that of the god El. But his expression, dress, and the [staff/flora/"] reminded the king of the storm-god, Ba’al. He continued to gaze at his mysterious companion before his eyes were drawn to the script that decorated the walls around them. It was disfigured, he thought. Warped. Familiar but unintelligible. It reflected the garbled speech of his new audience. When they came to him, he recognized their words as prayers, but they spoke with a strange cadence–as if whispering through cupped hands. It would have to be enough that he understood them as worshippers. Although he did not recognize the people, they claimed a connection with him. He was their ancestor, they said. Their kin. They claimed his strength as their own and provided him with rich offerings in return. Their bond was never as true as blood, but the piety they showed him was filial in nature. He understood it now. He and his brethren of Hazor had recalled the kings of myth, as they now turned to him. He had been passed down in history, as tradition dictates. -- >> That part is the fictional, 'storytelling' aspect. The rest of the paper should be a regular academic paper, preferably with sources! Sources can be in-text or footnotes, it doesn't matter. This is the script for the presentation I gave on it. Hopefully this helps. PLEASE IGNORE THE STUPID NOTES I MADE TO MSELF SORRY: Good morning. As they said, my topic is royal ancestor statues in late bronze age syria and the levant. To begin, I’ll give a brief overview of what is included in the presentation. As a starting point, I’ll touch on where we are geographically and temporally to help orient ourselves a little. From there, I’ll go into detail on the practice of self-legitimization with regard to kingship and veneration, so we can have a good understanding of what I’m talking about when I talk about ‘royal ancestor statues’. Finally, 3 ‘’’case studies’’’ will be brought in–Hazor, Qatna, and Ugarit–to exemplify the previous points and try to bring it all together.. On the slides, you might see a discussion question here or there–I’ve put them there so you can keep them in mind throughout the presentation and because what I’m speaking about at that point is relevant to that question. If you’d like to answer them or discuss mid-presentation, I’m happy to engage, but otherwise, the questions will be shown again at the end. With that said, [NEXT SLIDE–MAP] where (and when) are we? The general area of focus is the Levant, which is pictured here. This map shows the modern-day boundaries and countries, but usually when the term is used, it refers to the history of this area and is defined by the boundaries of the Taurus Mountains (in the north), the Mediterranean Sea (in the west), Sinai (in the south), and the North Arabian Desert (in the east). Sometimes Cyprus is also included as a subregion of the Levant. Later, I’ll focus on Hazor, which is in northern Israel and shown on the secondary map. Qatna and Ugarit are shown on the map on the next slide. We are in the second-millennium BCE–which I know can be a bit abstract to imagine with just the dates–so for some context, this is squarely in the Bronze Age (middle and late), meaning the first half of the millennium was dominated by Middle Kingdom Egypt and Babylonia and later, with the Mycenean Greeks and the Hittites. During this millennium, the palace complex at Knossos was constructed…the eruption of Thera occurred…the Battle of Megiddo was fought, and the Shang Dynasty was replaced with the Zhou Dynasty, at the end of the millennium, in China. [NEXT SLIDE - SYRIA MAP] That’s all rather broad, so to be more specific, our focus is on Late Bronze Age Syria (and the Levant, but……Syria for now), placing it approximately 1600 to 1200 BCE. During this period, Syria was a very active and international area. Akkermans and Schwartz characterize Syria during this time as “...the primary arena of confrontation for a succession of competing multiregional politics, including the Mitannian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Assyrian empires”. This was also the period of the Amarna letters, showcasing Syria as an active participant in international trade. In fact, Peter Pfalzner dubbed this period the ‘international age of Levantine kingdoms’. …Oh, wait–Does everyone know what the Amarna letters were? Should I explain that, or…? …..Mm…..I will–just briefly–the Amarna letters (or Amarna correspondence) are a collection of several hundred clay tablets (I believe over 300) with cuneiform writing, dating to the fourteenth century. They were found in Tell el-Amarna, which was briefly the capital of ancient Egypt during the reign of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV). Their importance lies in the usage of the Mesopotamian script in a place like Egypt–where it did not develop (or wasn’t native). The correspondence are largely from places north of Egypt, but there are a few from Egyptian kings. The letters can be divided into two primary camps (although there are other texts such as lexical lists, myths, epics, etc)...the two camps are letters from smaller rulers of Levantine cities (at this point a region ruled by New Kingdom Egypt), and letters from prominent rulers of neighboring kingdoms, like Babylonia or Assyria. Frequently, things like trade and what we’d call international relations were discussed, which is why I mentioned they show Syria as an active participant on the international field. Ok…Hopefully that helps orient everyone, at least to the broad scope of where we are, but if it’s still unclear, let me know. I tried to give pieces from around the world, because I’m not sure what everybody’s background knowledge is.. [NEXT SLIDE] ….Okay. So, I mentioned that this presentation is about ‘royal ancestor statues’...but what exactly does that mean, and why is it important? Royal ancestor statues are essentially what they sound like. In the context of this presentation, they’re statues that frequently represent past kings and were used politically in order to help strengthen and legitimize one’s claim to rule. Self-legitimization and veneration through artistic representation is not an uncommon phenomenon, by any means, and can be seen across the world (...with the Inka, the Zulu, the many dynasties of China and shogunates of Japan…everywhere). Ancestor veneration or reverence–separate from politics, more or less–is also quite common and extends far beyond Late Bronze Age Syria, such as the Neolithic Plastered Skulls from Jericho or the Middle Bronze Age masks and heads from Sanxingdui (which…some of you already know about from one of my other presentations…). In a general sense, ancestor veneration is about expressing one’s filial duty, devotion, and respect to deceased ancestors–and this can be direct relatives or ‘ancestor’ in the broadest, communal meaning. I am trying to avoid using the term ‘worship’ or ‘ancestor worship’ because I feel it recalls a sense of loyalty and devotion to the divine (or a deity), and while there is some discussion to be had regarding deification in the archaeological record, the evidence for deification in the case studies, later on, is…tenuous. So, now, taking the definition of ancestor reverence (or veneration) and bringing it into the context of this presentation, we get the political view of ancestor veneration and these ancestor statues. The important part of this is the notion of self-legitimization through these statues. Kingship was considered an “institution transmitted to humanity by the divine” in the Ancient Near East, and thus, using art and literature as a means of strengthening–or sometimes just creating–ties to….a usually heroic…past was commonplace. The king represented the most important link between humanity and the divine (or supernatural) and they were, for better or for worse, in charge of maintaining that cosmic order. These statues, despite the moniker of ‘royal ancestor statues’, did not always represent one’s actual ancestor, but sometimes a mythological or exaggerated figure from an imagined past, or sometimes a ruler from a..more or less…unrelated, yet still very powerful or significant dynasty/kingdom of the past. We will see this in the case studies later on. Memory and veneration were an integral part of this self-legitimization and, therefore, an integral part of kingship. Rituals and offerings were regularly conducted to maintain this connection and Tallay Ornan impresses the terms ‘collective memory’ and ‘cultural memory’ as useful descriptors in this context (that is, the ‘role of memory in the self-identification of a community’ and as an ‘external memory vehicle for the reshaping or consolidation of social institutions’--in this case, kingship). [NEXT SLIDE] I know that was quite a brief summation, but I want to go ahead to the case studies. I think it’s better illustrated through them–and each one will build on the previous case study–so…the first one brings us to Hazor. As I stated in the beginning, Tel Hazor is in northern Israel. Here, in 1996, several bronze statues were found in area A of the Acropolis, in a Late Bronze Age context. We will focus on two of them (which are on the next slides). The two statues in question were unearthed as part of Locus 7420, an assemblage that included other items of bronze, silver, and ivory (including a bull figurine and a large bronze hand). Locus 7420 was located in the main hall of a monumental building–which…this is the plan of that monumental building–, along the interior of the southern and eastern walls of the room. The statues were found in separate corners of the room, something Ornan says suggests deliberate internment and possibly a protective function. Also suggested is that the statues were locally made, due to similar pieces (such as footwear) found within Hazor, but the shape of the footwear itself is not really found elsewhere. [NEXT SLIDE] Ok, here is the first of our bronze statues. This one is suggested to be the god Ba’al and the other one–which we’ll see next–is suggested to be a Middle Bronze Age king. Let’s talk about why. So, this figure is about 35 centimeters tall and weighs around 3 kilograms, making it the largest seated statue in the preclassical Levant. It’s considered a Late Bronze Age product, dating to the 14th century. It’s solid bronze and the positioning of the right arm bending to the left (parallel to the chest) is quite unique compared to contemporary seated figures, which usually have the arm(s) extend forward (Ornan describes this as a ‘blessing gesture’). The right hand is fully open and upwards, which maintains the ‘blessing gesture’, despite the different position. Similar representations were mainly found in 2D depictions, such as the Ba’al stele from Ugarit–which we’ll cover a little later. Notably, this figure doesn’t have the horned helmet that is typically used to represent divinity during this period, but the detail on his headpiece shows vegetation surrounded by horned animals (which, hopefully you can see in the drawing of the headpiece details). It should be noted that Ba’al is not usually depicted as a seated figure. The god El is usually depicted as seated on a throne, while Ba’al is usually in a standing or striking position. However, El is typically depicted with a beard and as a very reverential figure. Because the figure is beardless (and other depictions of Ba’al at Hazor), the consensus so far is that this is more likely to be Ba’al rather than El. [NEXT SLIDE] The second statue is suggested to be a Middle Bronze Age king of Hazor. This is important because it was found in a Late Bronze Age context, which, of course, immediately has us asking, “Why was there a Middle Bronze Age king…in a Late Bronze Age context?”….I’m sure you can deduce the answer already (....ancestor veneration, right?...) …….but we’re gonna take the journey there anyway. So, like the first statue, this statue is also seated, and also made of bronze. It measures around 30 cm in height, so slightly smaller than the previous statue but still one of the largest ones found in the area. As you can see from the photo of the back–....and a little bit on the front, but more so on the back–...it, at one point, had a gold coating. His hand is outstretched and would have held a bowl or something similar–something which was presumably used for offerings similar to rituals one would find in the royal court, or the kispum rituals for the dead. The headpiece is slightly different–it’s not as elaborately decorated and its more rounded in comparison. The man is wearing what Ornan describes as a ‘rolled-hem garment’ and this type of clothing (with the oval hat) can be seen in similar depictions from the Middle Bronze Age, such as in the seal impression pictured here, which is from Alalakh (ah-lah-lak) and depicts one of the kings of Yamhad. This is not the only seal impression or depiction of this, of course, it’s just the only visual I included. There are some examples from Ebla as well that are similar. These depictions serve a dual purpose for our statue: first, they provide a timeline for the statue, which is that it was probably created sometime between the mid-18th century to the second half of the 17th century. Second, it establishes the identity of the person (or people) as kings, usually in the role of a worshipper in front of a deity. Ornan writes that this was the official outfit of the kings of Yamhad and it spread from there. So, those two taken together with the seated position and it previously having been coated in gold–which can be an indicator of its high status–we can pretty confidently conclude that this was a Middle Bronze Age king in Hazor, despite it being found in a LBA context. …..Which brings us back to that question–why? Because of the outstretched hand of the king–presumably holding a bowl or something–the deliberate internment, the placement in a prominent location (that being the monumental building on the acropolis), and the curious proximity to the Ba’al statue, it can be assumed that the statues were used ritually and potentially served a political purpose, like the legitimization of the Late Bronze Age reigns through a connection to the Middle Bronze Age kings. [NEXT SLIDE] So, the next place is Ugarit. Ugarit is a port city in northern Syria and is also called Ras Shamra (which is how its represented on this map). I feel like I don’t need to say too much about Ugarit–on, like, the background of it–because its quite well known and we just had a presentation on it. However, to save the flow of my presentation, I’m still going to add a bit in. ..Ugarit was quite a long-lived city, beginning in the Neolithic (around 6000 BC) and ultimately ending in the early 12th century BC (late bronze age collapse). Our focus is on the Late Bronze Age, of course, which is generally considered to be a sort of ‘golden age’ for the city. It was engaging in a lot of…prosperous trade, not only among other Levantine cities and kingdoms, but also places like Egypt and Cyprus (then called Alashiya). [NEXT SLIDE] I’d like to focus on this stele, which is the Ba’al au foudre. The Ba’al au foudre, or Ba’al with a Thunderbolt, or the ‘Great Stele of Ba’al’ is a limestone relief that measures 142 centimeters in height, 50 centimeters in width, and 28 centimeters in depth. It was found–not in, but near the entrance to the Temple of Ba’al, likely in what used to be the courtyard to it. In this depiction, he is wearing the typical horned helmet representative of deities and is holding a spear (...of some type–some descriptions record it as a lightning bolt wrapped in vines, others only have the vague descriptor of ‘vegetation’)...in his right hand, which is the standing/striking position I mentioned earlier. The main interpretation is that Ba’al is giving divine protection to the king below him, and some interpretations say that the vegetation around the thunderbolt, along with the striking motion, are indicative of bringing rain for a harvest. However, what is more interesting here is the smaller figure–presumably a king of Ugarit–because the hand position is similar to that of the Hazor statue. It’s a little hard to see, but his arms are in the same parallel position and his hand is fully extended like the statue at Hazor. The difference in size between the two figures is, obviously, quite significant. Mark Smith describes this as “...an attempt to strike the right balance between the glory of the god and the relative weakness of the king, while indicating that the king has a clear and close relationship to the god”. This brings us back to the idea of kingship as a divine institution–one that is bestowed upon humanity by the gods. The relationship between Ba’al and the king of Ugarit is clear here as one of patron deity and devotee. Such depictions contribute to the centrality of kingship and the idea of ‘’’proper succession’’’. The placement of this stele in the temple courtyard means it would have been seen by anyone who had access to the temple, so would not have been limited to elite classes as much written documentation would have been, which means its likely the general public had knowledge of this and the story behind it, further impressing the role of the king with the divine. [NEXT SLIDE] Okay, so….like Ugarit, I don’t want to, like, step on the toes of the next presentation, but for the sake of my own presentation, I’m going to give a little background. Qatna is in western Syria and dates back to the Late Chalcolithic (around 3300 BC) and lasted into the Iron Age. It’s best known for its royal tombs and palatial architecture.. There were a number of cults that made up the fabric of the religious landscape in Qatna, and one of the most prominent was that of the royal ancestor cult. This is most clearly seen in the royal tombs, where two kinds of burials can be seen. I mean, arguably more than two–but for simplicity…two types of burials: the first is a primary burial which focused on the physicality of the situation–in other words, a burial meant to transport the dead to the afterlife. Following this was a secondary burial that was focused on “changing the role of the deceased” into that of an ancestor. Food offerings would have been left there as well, which is the kispum ritual we’re all quite familiar with at this point. [NEXT SLIDE] Of interest to us, in this presentation, are the statues that were associated with these tombs or burials. The first photo is from Qatna and the second photo is from Hazor, for comparison. The statues are basalt and were in the antechamber to the royal tombs, surrounded by animal bones and offering bowls, leading Pfalzner to suggest that these were “probably idealized representations of kingship” and that the “...kings of Qatna would have stood there to address the ancestors and supply them with offerings”. In these examples, you can see the same ‘rolled-hem robe’ type of garment identifying the individuals as kings, as well as the similar positioning of the hand holding a bowl. I actually think these are clearer examples of the rolled-hem robe, compared to the bronze statue from Hazor..it’s a little difficult to make out there. These statues are directly connected to the practice of ancestor veneration and its ties to kingship–being that they were used in the, uh, ancestor cult…and represent kings. They are in a different context than those in Hazor–these are very clearly in a funerary context whereas the statues in Hazor were found in a….palatial(? –that’s not the right word..).......mm, political(?) context, being found in the main hall in the acropolis. But their functions are ultimately similar, serving as places of remembrance and as representations of kingship. Ah..okay. [NEXT SLIDE] You probably saw the discussion questions as we progressed, but in case you didn’t, here they are again. They are broad and a little abstract–possibly even tangential–, but I did that on purpose because I was trying to leave them open for many avenues of discussion. Discussion questions: Consider post-mortem agency, or the agency of the dead. How do funerary rituals or ancestor cults exemplify this? How is this seen in our lives today or in archaeology as a discipline? I believe the dead DO have agency…which is enforced by social pressure among the living community. Funerary traditions and rituals around death are clear examples of this agency. As for the ‘in archaeology’ bit, I think it’s a bit like the social push towards agentifying the dead in our own discipline. Which, on a more philosophical note, sort of makes you ask, “Is part of our obsession with granting agency/identity to the dead we study tied up with our desire to be treated with agency, and to be treated as individuals, after our own deaths?” What do we all think of rites of passage? Do we think it is a universal phenomenon? Where does it work? Where does it not work? I was thinking of this when reading Van Gennep, but I do think the question applies here, as we’re seeing several rituals: that of divine kingship, of self-legitimization, those associated with passing to the netherworld, those for ‘creating’ or ‘transitioning’ to an ancestor, etc. The last two questions are really meant to open the conversation more by bringing in modern contexts and experiences as well as the ancient ones we study. So, it’s mainly meant to ask, like, ‘where does it work [in your studies]?’ and ‘where does it work [in your experience]?’ and of course, where does it not work for both of those.