A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work

Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Madrid, April 3-8 2006 Edited by Joaquín Mª Córdoba, Miquel Molist, Mª Carmen Pérez, Isabel Rubio, Sergio Martínez (Editores) Madrid, 3 a 8 de abril de 2006 Actas del V Congreso Internacional de Arqueología del Oriente Próximo Antiguo VOL. II Centro Superior de Estudios sobre el Oriente Próximo y Egipto Madrid 2008 Colección Actas © ISBN (OBRA COMPLETA): 978-84-8344-140-4 ISBN (VOL. II): 978-84-8344-142-8 Depósito legal: GU-65/2009 Realiza: Palop Producciones Gráficas. Impreso en España. Diseño de cubierta: M.A. Tejedor. 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East V Congreso Internacional de Arqueología del Oriente Próximo Antiguo Scientific Committee Comité Científico Organizador Joaquín Mª Córdoba Sergio Martínez Miquel Molist Mª Carmen Pérez Isabel Rubio Scientific Steering Committee Comité Científico Permanente Manfred Bietak Barthel Hrouda (honorary member) Hartmut Kühne Jean-Claude Margueron Wendy Matthews Paolo Matthiae Diederik Meijer Ingolf Thuesen Irene J. Winter Executive Commission Comisión Ejecutiva Ana Arroyo, Carmen del Cerro, Fernando Escribano, Saúl Escuredo, Alejandro Gallego, Zahara Gharehkhani, Alessandro Grassi, José Manuel Herrero †, Rodrigo Lucía, Montserrat Mañé, Covadonga Sevilla, Elena Torres Technical collaborators Colaboradores técnicos Virginia Tejedor, Pedro Bao, Roberto Peñas, Pedro Suárez, Pablo Sebastagoítia, Jesús González, Raúl Varea, Javier Lisbona, Carmen Suárez, Amanda Gómez, Carmen Úbeda, Cristina López, José Mª Pereda, Rosa Plaza, Lorenzo Manso, Juan Trapero Congress Venue Sede del Congreso Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Facultad de Filosofía y Letras Sponsorships Apoyos y patrocinios Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia Ministerio de Cultura Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores Comunidad de Madrid A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work Guillaume Gernez, Paris Abstract Excavation campaigns of the Twenties and Thirties at Byblos gave us one of the most important collection of metal weapons of the near east. Most of them come from hoards (deposits) found in buildings regarded as temples. Others have been found in several tombs, be they royal or common. The main contexts can be dated from the Middle Bronze Age I (2000-1750 BC). Even though thr original publication is precise, some questions remain at various levels, including typological, technological and chronological. After having had direct access to the whole collection of those bronze, silver and gold weapons thanks to the National Museum of Beirut, it is now possible to bring to light new data and to appreciate these weapons in an original way, looking closely some technical and functionnal aspects. However, this short paper is only a presentation, and most of the research remains to be made. Keywords: Byblos, weapons, metal, hoards, temples, Middle Bronze Age. In the first excavations carried out in Byblos (Lebanon) (fig. 1) by Pierre Montet1 and then by Maurice Dunand,2 the first metal weapons have been discovered in the Middle Bronze Age levels. Beetwen 1921 and 1975, a very important corpus was built up, particularly thanks to the discovery of offerings hoards or deposits, and to the almost exhaustive excavation of the site. Almost nine hundred weapons were identified for a period going from the end of the Chalcolithic until the end of the Iron Age. Nevertheless, it is not our purpose to develop the integral analysis of Byblos’s metallic weaponry here. Following a research project at the National Museum of Beirut in 2005, I was able to access documentation, and thus to bring up to date and complete the elements published by Montet in 1928 and 1929, and Dunand from 1937 to 1958. I would like to thank all the National Museum and the Direction of Antiquities for their welcome and their help. Before the analysis and the synthesis are definitively completed, this paper will have the aim of presenting various thematic files, such as contextual, technological and typochronological details. Some of those analysis already show results. 1 2 Montet 1928 and 1929. Dunand 1937, 1939, 1950, 1954, 1958, 1973. 74 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East I. Contexts Weapons come from six principal areas and contexts: — The Eneolithic Necropolis. Daggers were found in twenty graves, i.e. only one percent of the cemetery, which includes 2000 of them. — The Temple of Baal’at Gebal, especially the «d» hoard (Jar 2132), in which daggers, flat axes, one fenestrated axe and one sword were found. — In the Temple of Obelisks, the gold daggers and fenestrated axes was discovered. — The Field of Offerings is less readable in plan, even if we try to reconstruct the architectural evolution of the ensemble. Despite the differences of levels between the hoards, no clear statigraphie could be observed nor reconstituted because of the slope and the lack of stratigraphy. — The Third Private Grave, which is of a schaft-grave type. — The Royal Graves (or Hypogeums) I-III. Other weapons and isolated hoards are dispersed into the settlement. At the end of the 4th millenium BC, the first copper daggers are attested to, for instance in a jar burial in which one sceptre or mace and five daggers were found.3 However, it is from the urban installation and developpement, during the 3rd millenium BC, that metallurgic production seems to intensify. In fact, weapons have been found in several buildings, principally simple daggers, as well as several axes and spears. The rapid increase in numbers happened at the end of Ancient Bronze Age and the beginning of Middle Bronze Age. It is difficult to know the degree of reprensentativeness of the latter, as the multiplication of weapons is due essentially to the practice of storing into hoards of a large quantity of metallic offering. However, the quality, variety and quantity of weapons, as well as the presence of numerous stone moulds, allows us to think that local production was then considerable. The levels concerning the Late Bronze and Iron Age are less well preserved and thus, weapons have been less accounted for, except for arrowheads. II. Weapons: details on production and manufacture Different types of moulds, especially bivalve moulds, have been found, scattered inside the habitat, even sometimes in the walls. The most bewildering observation concerns the gap between typology of the moulds and that of the weapons. In fact, except for duckbill axes (fig. 2.3) and the anchor axe (fig. 2.5), of which we find both bronze copies and stone matrices, other moulds were used for the making of weapons, the exact form of which is not attested to on the site. It is the case, for example, of the mould for dagger with two ribs (fig. 2.6) that for crescentic axe with spheric button (fig. 2.2), that of narrow bladed axe (fig. 2.4), 3 Dunand 1961, p. 78-79, pl. 4.2. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work 75 that for D-Shaped fenestrated axeheads of which the shaft is decorated by reliefs imitating a rolled-tang handle (fig. 2.1). After the casting, all the weapons were formed and finished by hammering (fig. 3.1), and burnishing. In some case, simple incised decorations were made (fig. 3.2). In spite of the absence of clearly identified workshops on the site, there is no doubt that Byblos was one of the major centres for metallurgic production, and in particular for the production of weapons, during the Ancient Bronze Age. Judging by the quality of weapons made of gold (zoomorphic relief, goldsmith achievement for fenestrated axes) and the finish of all found weapons, local craftsmen had made these objects with the greatest care, especially those destined to be given to temples and gods. III. Weapons A lot of forms and types exist at Byblos. It’s not the moment to present and describes all of theses types, wich are already presented in the main publications4 and which will be the subject of a synthesis. We can note that the principal increase come at the end of the third millenium. Before that, most weapons are small simple daggers. Some rounded tripartites spearheads are also present. The typical EB IV weapons are poker spears. However, today, our interest will go principally to the specific set of weapons found in the hoards. About 480 weapons come from these contexts, but there’s not a great variety of types. — Angular tripartite spearheads (fig. 4.5), sometimes decorated. This type is well known at Ras Shamra,5 Tarsus,6 Ebla7 and Tell Munbaqa.8 — Spearheads with large tang wearing two rivets in the lenght (fig. 4.4). Dunand had interpreted these ones as heavy daggers, but the morphology lead us to suppose that they are spears, following the point of vue of Eisenberg9 and Philip.10 This form seems caracteristic of a small area, including Byblos, ‘Enan,11 Ma’ayan Barukh.12 — Triangular daggers with a concave guard. The cross-section of their blade can be elliptical (fig. 4.7) or bi-losangic (fig. 4.6), and can be decorated by a series of midribs. Most of them are small, between 15 and 25 cm. The simple types are common since the Early Bronze Age in a large area, but ribbed ones are known in western Levant beetwen Ras Shamra13 and Tell el-Dab’a.14 Four real sword, reaching 60 centimeters, are also presents (fig. 4.11). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Dunand 1950, 1954 and 1958. Schaeffer 1962, p. 232, fig. 28.B. Goldman 1956, fig. 427.94. Matthiae et al. 1995, p. 429, fig. 306. Czichon and Werner 1998, pl. 101.993. Eisenberg 1985, p. 65. Philip 1989, p. 83. Eisenberg 1985, p. 65, fig. 8-9. Amiran 1961, p. 92, fig. 8. Contenson 1992, p. 421, pl. 169.1. Philip 2006, p. 42, fig. 10. 76 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East — Socketted speaheads are short (fig. 4.3), medium (fig. 4.2) or long (fig. 4.1). These differences imply different uses: light javelins was probably thrown whereas heavy spears was rather keep in hands.15 This form is adopted in the Levant since the end of the 3rd millenium BC, and has success in a lot of areas during the 2nd millenium BC.16 — Broad fenestrated axes are also present (fig. 4.10). In the temple of obelisks, most are made of gold and silver. Duckbill axes are present only in the hoard sigma (fig. 4.9). — One gold crescentic axe is attested (fig. 4.8). It’s the only angular one in the whole corpus. It’s also the more recent in the Near East, since this type appears during the EB I/II in Syria. The most original and not standardised types come from the hoard d in the Baal’at temple.17 It could be a little bit older (probably late EB IV B). The best comparisons are unfortunately not dated with a high degree of precision. In Ugarit, tripatite and socketted spearheads are known in the «poche aux bronze».18 At Tell Munbaqa, the second hoard is a collection of daggers, tripatrite spear and fenestrated axe (D shaped).19 All theses finds have been dated back to within the last years of the third millenium. Tanged spearhead with two rivets are known in Palestine, especially in the north, from final EB IV graves at ‘Enan and Ma’ayan Barukh. Duckbill Axes, short socketted javelins and daggers with ribs seem to show southern affinities, for exemple at Tel Rehov,20 Beth Shan,21 Tell el-Dab’a,22 and can be dated of a slighlty later period (MB I = MB II B). In October 2005, a series of samples were taken from the sockets of several sperheads and the shaft of a fenestrated axe. For the moment, the results of 14C analysis are still expected. These datings come from wood undoubtedly cut especially for this use, which is consequently contemporary with the production of the weapons. They should be of prime importance for the chronology of the deposits, the temples and the site. Thus, the large number of weapons in this set does’nt reflect a large variety. It’s interresting to note that the 4 major types (rivetted spearheads, socketted spearheads, daggers and fenestrated axes) are choose and appear in each weapon hoard, but not randomly. In most hoards, only few fenestrated axe is deposited. There several kinds of associations. It would have been possible tu suppose that the differences are of a chronological nature, but after having made a precise analysis, we prefer suppose that the difference is due to a choice which the sense remains unknown. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish ceremonial weapons, votive weapons and weapons of war. The gold axes and daggers were of course not intended for use in war, but were made to be worn by elite individuals, or even to be intended as an offering. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Potts 1998, p. 183. De Maigret 1976, Gernez 2006. Dunand 1937, pls. 65-71. Schaeffer 1962, p. 232, fig. 28. Czichon et Werner 1998, pl. 47.77, 49.62, 49.96, 101.993. Yogev 1985, p. 107, fig. 4.2 Oren 1971, p. 112, fig. 2.1. Philip 2006. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work 77 Inside the hoards, most daggers and socketted spearheads were hafted, which means that they had been made beforehand to be weapons: in the hoards, pommels and rivets were found, and traces of the original wood (fig. 5.2) or bone (fig. 5.3) grip are still present on the daggers. Moreover, the deformation of the socket shows that the wooden shaft of spearhead has been broken and lifted before being put inside the hoard (fig. 5.4 and 5.5). In a few cases, a piece of this shaft remains in the socket (fig. 5.1). This tends to show that a part of the weapons deposited had previously been made and used as real weapons. It is not the case for all types of weapons: a few daggers and all the rivetted spearheads never seem to be hafted. Those objects would then have been made so as to complete a hoard and are rather to be considered like ingots with a form of weapons, rather than weapons of war in themselves. This fact leads us to draw two conclusions: that the hoards were composed of objects - and of weapons in particular - having been used, or having been made to be used, but also by purely symbolic objects, important also for their quantitative and qualitative value. This can provide us with indications concerning the organization, the duration and the aims of the constitution of these hoards. The main characteristics are: — Choice of forms and types of weapons. — Semi-finished products (blades without handle) or finished weapons. To these are often added diverse tools, implements and a lot of bronze figurines. — Broken and unbroken weapons: symbolic action. — Differentiation of hoards: some contain precious metals (Gold and silver in the Temple of Obelisk), other not. — Weight: is this typological characteristics and/or economic choice? Three fields of hypothesis can be supported: Ñ Composition is not made by chance. Objects put into theses hoards are managed clearly so as to answer to a certain type of organized cult in a precise way. Ñ Chronology of the constitution of a hoard: they were probably constitued on a relatively short time, even if the objects had not been produced in a strictly contemporaneous way. Ñ Objectives of hoards: they are not a foundation deposit nor a hide. They are rather symbolic hoards the value of which is mainly in the weapons (quality, finish, form of ingots) as well as in the metal. IV. About weight If we suppose that the aim of some weapons was to complete a hoard, just like ingots, it might be possible to detect norms in the weight of these objects.We have conducted several tests and samplings. Here are the first results, only hypo- 78 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East thetical for the moment, but which allow us to undertake further analysis. Two exemples seem quite significant. The weight histogram of socketed spearheads shows 2 or 3 principal groups of simimlar weight. (60, 75 and 258 g). Two interpretations are possible: a typological difference, or a choice based on the weight. This two possibilities are not exclusive. The rivetted spearheads –never hafted (fit in an handle) in Byblos– seem more interesting: we can observe (fig. 6), among the corpus of restorated items, 3 or four groups (87, 125, 165 and 205 g). Is it possible to find a relation between these results and a known weight measure? A first lead is the Mesopotamian system. The mina is supposed to weigh about five hundred grams (in fact 490 to 506). The principle groups that we have seen –and also others– seem to correspond to simple fraction of the mina: half, third, quarter and sixth. For the moment, it is difficult to know if these results are due to the happenstance of our sampling or if it does have real significance. Howere, these fractions were known and used. Further analysis will confirm or disproove that point, but if this supposition is correct, it may confirm, on the one hand, that rivetted spearhead were ingots, and on the other hand that economical value had an importance in the hoards of Byblos. In other words, the hoards are to be interpreted in economic and symbolic terms because this is the way they were created. V. About signs Another interesting point, concerns signs engraved on to the weapons. They are simple signs, with a forked form ou a W form with variants (triple V or 2 W one over the other). Several other forms exist (vegetal, geometric, etc.), but not on weapons from the deposits (fig. 7). They are very different from the zoomorphic signs on the axes found in the Early Bronze Age levels. On the contrary, thoses signs are very similar to the ones found on the inscribed sheets told «pseudo-hieroglyphic», not yet deciphered. So it’s obvious that signs which are engraved on the blades are letters, or syllabs. They can be initials of a name or a word. They may also have a complete meaning. The «W» series is found on gold and silver fenestrated axes only in the Temple of Obelisks, whereas the fork incisions are found in the Field of Offerings and elsewhere. These are probably not the marks of craftsmen because they are mostly incised on the blade, in a visible way. They are made to be seen and understood. Three possibilities thus remain: — a mark related to the one (divinity, temple) which it is adressed to. — a mark related to the one (a person or an instutution) who makes this offering. — a mark related to the quality of the product. — Because of the difference of marks between the two temples, I am rather inclined to choose the first possibility. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work 79 Besides these points, a major cultural question is that of the appearence of this writing. When we have absolute dating of these hoards, we will be able to bring some new precisions concerning the date of conception of this kind of writing. The engraved signs on the weapons are not common in the EB and MB, but some parallels exist. In the royal cemetery of Ur (ED III), zoomorphic signs (bull’s leg, fish23 are present on several spearheads, and a gold dagger. In the hoard of Soli, slightly older than those of Byblos, a dagger also has a similar inscription.24 At Enot Shuni25 (MB I), a small bipartite javelin has a little forked incision, exactly the same as the Byblos ones. We can also observe real inscriptions linked to a palace, a king or another highranking person (the lance of Anitta, from Kültepe, is a perfect exemple). VI. Particular weapons The sets seen previously fit in well with the material culture of the 3rd / 2nd millenium transition, showing that Byblos is not only a major centre of production, but also a point of transition in the material culture between the north and the south, the coast and the eastern Levant. This is probably the material reflection of a human, social, cultural and politic reality. On the other hand, other weapons appear to have been imported further, and in a more sporadic way, underlining the existence of trade relations, or some other kind of links with various areas, sometimes apparently rather distant. — — — — Grooved-shaft-hole axes (fig. 8.2) (northern Syria). Harpés (curved swords) (Egypt, Mesopotamia and Susa). Socketted tridents (Kültepe). Shaft-hole axes with mouldings, of MBA type (fig. 8.3) (Ugarit, Kultepe) and LBA type (fig. 8.4). — Half-circular axes (fig. 8.5-7) (Egypt). — The original area of anchor axes (fig. 8.1) is more problematic. They may come from the central Levant, but contemporaneous exemples also come from the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Conclusion The re-examination of the corpus will be interesting from several points of view; in particular those of a typological and technological nature, if it later becomes possible to undertake further analysis, such as the composition, manufacture and others. But the best next information will come from the14C results which will be of prime importance in dating the hoards. This will lead us to refine the chronology of the weapons, the site, and possibly even more. 23 24 25 Woolley 1934, pl. 189a and Müller-Karpe 2004, pl. 100. Bittel 1940, pl. 3.S 3431. Gorzalczany 2004, p. 27, fig. 37. 80 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Bibliography AMIRAN R. 1961 «Tombs of the Middle Bronze Age I at Ma’ayan Barukh», ‘Atiqot, 3, pp. 84-92. BITTEL K. 1940 «Der Depotfund von Soloi-Pompeiopolis», Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatsche Archäologie, Neue Volge 12, pp. 183-205. CONTENSON H. de 1992 Préhistoire de Ras Shamra. Les sondages stratigraphiques de 1955 à 1976, Ras ShamraOugarit VIII, Editions recherche sur les Civilisations, Paris. CZICHON R.M. and WERNER P. 1998 Tall Munbaqa-Ekalte I. Die Bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde, WVDOG 97, Saarbrucker Druckerei und Verlag, Sarrebrücken. DE MAIGRET A. 1976 Le lance nell’Asia anteriore nell’Età del Bronzo. Studio Tipologico, Studi Semitici 47, Instituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente, Università di Roma, Roma. DUNAND M. 1937 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome I. 1926-1932. Atlas, Paul Geuthner, Paris. 1939 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome I. 1926-1932. Texte, Paul Geuthner, Paris. 1950 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome II.1933-1938. Atlas, Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris. 1954 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome II. 1933-1938. Texte 1, Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris. 1958 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome II. 19 33-1938. Texte 2, Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris. 1961 «Rapport préliminaire sur les fouilles de Byblos en 1958», Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth, XVI, pp. 75-79. 1973 Fouilles de Byblos. Tome V. L’architecture, les tombes le matériel domestique, des origines néolithiques à l’avènement urbain. Texte et planches, Adrien Maisonneuve, Paris. EISENBERG E. 1985 «A Burial Cave of the Early Bronze Age IV (MB I) Near ‘Enan», ‘Atiqot, 17, pp. 59-73. GERNEZ G. 2006 «Armement et société au Moyen-Orient: l’exemple des lances à douille à la fin du Bronze ancien et au début du Bronze moyen», in C. Kepinski, O. Lecomte and A. Tenu (eds.), Studia Euphratica. Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha, Travaux de la Maison Rebé-Ginouvès, 3, De Boccard, Paris, pp. 65-82. GOLDMAN H. 1956 Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, v.II, From the Neolithic through the Bronze Ages, Princeton University Press, Princeton. GORZALCZANY A. 2004 «’Enot Shuni», Hadashot Arkheologiyot, 116, pp.26-27. MONTET P. 1928 Byblos et l’Egypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921-1922-1923-1924. Texte, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. 1929 Byblos et l’Egypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921-1922-1923-1924. Atlas, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work 81 MATTHIAE P., PINNOCK F. and SCANDONE MATTHIAE G. 1995 Ebla. Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trent’anni di scavi in Siria dell’Università di Roma «La Sapienza», Electa, Milano. MÜLLER-KARPE M. 2004 «Katalog I: Untersuchte Metallobjekte aus Mesopotamien» in H. Hauptmann and E. Pernicka (eds.), Die Metallindustrie Mesopotamiens von den Anfängen dis zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Orient-Archäologie Band 3, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden, pp. 1-91. OREN E. D. 1971 «A Middle Bronze Age I Warrior Tomb at Beth-Shan», Zeitschrift Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 87 (2), pp. 109-139. PHILIP G. 1989 Metal weapon of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine, BAR International Series ,526, Oxford. PHILIP G. 2006 Tell el-Dab’a XV. Metalwork and Metalworking Evidence of the Late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. POTTS D. T. 1998 «Some issues in the study of the pre-Islamic weaponry of southeastern Arabia», Arabian Archaeolohy and Epigraphy, 9, pp.182-208. SCHAEFFER C. F. A 1962 «Les fondements préhistoriques d’Ugarit» in Ugaritica, IV, Paul Geuthner, Paris, pp.151-251. WOOLLEY L. 1934 Ur Excavations. Vol. II. The Royal Cemetery. A report on the predynastic and sargonid graves excavated between 1926 and 1931, The British Museum Press, London. YOGEV O. «A Middle Bronze Age Cemetery South of Tel Rehov», ‘Atiqot, 17, pp.90-113. 82 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East . Fig. 1: Map of the Levant showing the sites mentioned in the text. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work Fig. 2: Stone moulds from Byblos. 83 84 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Fig. 3: Examples of incisions (1) and hammering (2). A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work Fig. 4: Main forms of weapons from the hoards. 85 86 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Fig. 5: Specific details observed on weapons. A new study of metal weapons from Byblos: Preliminary work Fig. 6: Weight histogram of rivetted spearheads. Fig. 7: Main types of signs engraved on weapons. 87 88 Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East Fig. 8: Particular weapons from different contexts. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 (EB); 3 (MB II); 4 (LB I).