Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T01:32:44.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The authenticity of the Arslan Tash Amulets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Jacobus van Dijk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The pair of amulets which form the subject of this brief contribution were bought in October 1933 by R. du Mesnil du Buisson from a local peasant while visiting the site of Arslan Tash, a town in northern Syria, some 160 km north-east of Aleppo, near the present-day border with Turkey. The site, which is the location of the ancient Assyrian colony Hadattu, had been excavated a few years earlier, and it is not impossible that the objects had in fact been stolen from the excavation. Both amulets are now preserved in the National Museum in Aleppo.

The purchase of the amulets was announced by du Mesnil in a meeting of the Société nationale des Antiquitaires de France in 1937 and this was soon followed by the editio princeps of the first amulet. His article, often justly praised as a remarkable achievement, is accompanied by a set of very reasonable photographs, but, owing to the rounded edges of the tablet and the use of light coming from one direction only, a number of signs cannot actually be seen on them. To supplement the photographs, the editor provided handcopies of the inscriptions; these naturally reflect his own readings of the often problematical text, rather than being an accurate facsimile of each individual sign. With few exceptions most of the subsequent students of the amulet have inevitably had to base themselves on du Mesnil's photographs, and this has not always led to readings better than his. It was not until 1970 that a new impulse was given to the study of the first amulet by the publication of an article by F. M. Cross and R. Saley. These authors were able to use two new sets of photographs (each using light coming from opposite directions) provided by the Museum in Aleppo, and presented several new readings based on these photographs. It is much to be regretted that of this double set of photographs only a single one was published in their article, so that most of their readings cannot be checked. This oversight is only partly compensated by the subsequent publication of a few more of Cross and Saley's photographs by W. Röllig. The next major step forward was a short but very informative article by A. Caquot, who was able to use a cast of the amulet in the possession of R. du Mesnil du Buisson which had been made at the time of its discovery. Caquot's new readings confirm most but not all of those proposed by Cross and Saley, and subsequent treatments of the text usually follow either or both of these authorities.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 54 , 1992 , pp. 65 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1992 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Thureau-Dangin, F., Barrois, A., Dossin, G., Dunand, M., Arslan-Task, Paris, 1931 Google Scholar; see also Turner, G., “The Palace and Batiment aux ivoires at Arslan Tash: A Reappraisal”, Iraq 30 (1968), 62–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Nos. 1329 and 1330.

3 Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquities de France (1937), 203 Google Scholar.

4 du Buisson, R. du Mesnil, “Une tablette magique de la région du Moyen Euphrate”, in: Mélanges syriens offerts à M. René Dussaud 1, Paris, 1939, 421–34Google Scholar. The second tablet was published much later by Caquot, A. and du Buisson, R. du Mesnil, “La seconde tablette ou ‘petite amulette’ d'Arslan Tash”, Syria 48 (1971), 391–406 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Dupont-Sommer, A., RHR 120 (1939), 133–59Google Scholar, was able to study the original “pendant quelques instants” in 1939, when it was in Paris for a short period of time. Torczyner, H., JNES 6 (1947), 18–29 Google Scholar, used an incomplete “gypsum copy” brought from Aleppo, as well as some additional photographs provided by E. L. Sukenik.

6 This is notably the case in Albright's, W. F. influential article, “An Aramaean Magical Text in Hebrew from the Seventh Century B.C.”, BASOR 76 (1939), 5–11 Google Scholar, which introduced some new readings which have been followed by several later authors, but have subsequently been shown to be doubtful or wrong.

7 Cross, Frank Moore Jr. and Saley, Richard J., “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria”, BASOR 197 (1970), 42–9Google Scholar. See also Teixidor, J., Syria 48 (1971), 472–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Röllig, Wolfgang, “Die Amulette von Arslan Taş”, in: Degen, Rainer, Müller, Walter W., Röllig, Wolfgang, Neue Ephemeris für Semitische Epigraphik II, Wiesbaden, 1974, 17–36, Pls. II–IIIGoogle Scholar.

9 Caquot, A., “Observations sur la Première Tablette Magique d'Arslan Tash”, JAMES 5 (1973), 45–51 Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the present whereabouts of the casts once in the possession of the late Count Du Mesnil du Buisson are unknown (Letter from Prof. Caquot, dated 13 October 1989).

10 E.g., Zevit, Z., IEJ 27 (1977), 110–18Google Scholar; Garbini, G., Or Ant 20 (1981), 277–94Google Scholar; Gibson, J. C. L., Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions III, Oxford, 1982, 78–88 Google Scholar; Sperling, S. D., HUCA 53 (1982), 1–10, etcGoogle Scholar.

11 Teixidor, J., “Les tablettes d'Arslan Tash au Musée d'Alep”, Aula Orientalis 1 (1983), 105–8Google Scholar; followed by: P. Amiet, “Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’ d'Arslan Tash”, ibid. 109.

12 du Buisson, R. du Mesnil, Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France (1939–1940), 156–61Google Scholar.

13 Syria 48, 391 Google Scholar: “Il ne s'agit donc pas de pâtes moulées, mais de deux amulettes d'une roche naturelle taillée, puis sculptée pour recevoir enfin des inscriptions gravées”. Contrast Albright, who speaks of a gypsum tablet into which the inscriptions were gouged with a stylus before it hardened. The term gypsum has subsequently been used by several authors. Röllig gets around the problem by inventing the term “Gipssteintäfelchen”.

14 Teixidor repeated his verdict in the addenda and corrigenda to his Bulletin d'Épigraphie Sémitique 1964–1980, Paris, 1986, 471–2Google Scholar, where he also quoted the opinion of Georges Dossin, who was a member of the French mission at Arslan Tash at the time when the amulets came to light; according to Dossin, “il s'agit bien d'une palpitante ‘forgerie’”.

15 The first amulet will be discussed at some length in my forthcoming book on the Canaanite god Hauron and his cult in Egypt; a preliminary article has appeared in Göttinger Miszellen 107 (1989), 59–68 Google Scholar.

16 Cf. Orthmann, W., Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst, Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 8, Bonn, 1971, 131 Google Scholar.

17 Amiet, op. cit., 109 n. 5, referring to Orthmann, op. cit., Pls. 5b, 38e.f, 39d, 53c.d.e., 58d.

18 Orthmann, op. cit., Pls. 5a (with snake), from Ashara; 26b (with lion), 28d (with winged bull), both from Carchemish; 48h (with lion), from Pancarli.

19 Gaster, Th. H., Orientalia 11 (1942), 72–6Google Scholar.

20 This point will be discussed in detail in the study announced in n. 15 above.

21 Cf. the Assyrian relief depicted in Demisch, Heinz, Die Sphinx. Geschichte ihrer Darstellung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Stuttgart, 1977, 62, Fig. 160Google Scholar, which shows a male deity in exactly the same pose as the one on our amulet, but wielding a dagger instead of an axe at a winged sphinx wearing a horned helmet.

22 Orthmann, op. cit., Pls. 8c, 9c (on the head of a winged lion!), 11c.e, 12a (all from Tell Halaf); Mallowan, M. and Davies, L. G., Ivories from Nimrud (1949–1963), II: Ivories in Assyrian Style, London, 1970, Pls. XXXII–XXXIIIGoogle Scholar.

23 de Moor, J. C., JEOL 27 (1981–1982), 112 Google Scholar.

24 Orthmann, op. cit., Pl. 11f.

25 See e.g. ibid., Pls. 5a, 6a, 10c, 14b, 15a.b.e.f, 17g, 19c, etc.

26 Cf. the detail shown in ibid., Pl. 72c.

27 Syria 48, 391 Google Scholar.

28 It should also be borne in mind that the god Hauron figures prominently in the inscriptions on the first amulet. In 1933, when the tablets came to light, practically nothing was known about this deity beyond his name; yet the role he plays in the text is in perfect agreement with what became known about him in subsequent years. This would seem to make the proposition that the amulets are forgeries very unlikely from the start. Some of the characteristics of the amulets which Teixidor found disconcerting, notably their smoothness and light weight, might perhaps be explained in a different way. Although it is difficult to compare such totally different photographs as the ones published by du Mesnil and those of Cross and Saley and Rollig, it must be admitted that on the latter the amulets themselves as well as the edges of individual signs and damaged areas look much “smoother” than on du Mesnil's photographs. It is not without some hestitation that I make the following suggestion: Could the originals and the casts have been confused at some stage, perhaps during their short stay in Paris in 1939? Do the photographs taken by the Aleppo Museum in the 1960's actually show a cast rather than the original? The implications of such a state of affairs, including the possible loss of the originals (cf. n. 9 above), cannot be discussed here. Cf. also Zevit, , IEJ 27, 111 n. 12Google Scholar, who drew attention to the fact that certain traces originally seen by du Mesnil du Buisson and again by Caquot on the cast of the first amulet are absent on Cross and Saley's photographs, and suggested “that the plaque has been damaged in the intervening years between its discovery and initial publication and the time that new photographs were taken”.