08_deac (1)

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

1/6

ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE ISTORIE, XX, 2012http://muzeulbanatului.ro/mbt/istorie/publicatii/ab.htm

85

In 1982 the regretted researcher Al. V. Mateifrom the History and Art County Museumof Zalu (Slaj county)1, published some newlydiscovered artifacts from the sanctuaries terraceof Porolissum consisting of: a cameo with thedepiction of Pallas Athena found in the north-western corner of the building of the PalmyreanGod called Bel, a bronze statuette of Harpocratesfound between the inner and the external wall ofthe temple on the eastern side, a bronze statuetteof Mars found in a pit named conventionally G.1

(fig. 1.)2and most importantly the bronze statuettewhich the author considered to be a representationof Isis (plate 1 fig. 13), found right next to thestatuette of Mars at a depth of approximately 82cm3. It is worth mentioning that all of the artifactswere found in a secondary position especially those

* Babe-Bolyai University, 1st. M. Koglniceanu str., Cluj-Napoca, Romania, [email protected] is work was possible with the financial support ofthe Sectoral Operational Programme for Human ResourcesDevelopment 20072013, co-financed by the European SocialFund, under the project number POSDRU/107/1.5/S/77946

with the title Doctorate: an Attractive Research Career.1 M.I.A.Z. inv. no. C. C. 751/1980.2 eposuMarinescu Pop 2000, 2728, no. 7 dates theMars statuette in the second part of the 2ndc. A. D. withouthaving an argument for this dating and mentions analogiesin Gaul. We cannot accept this dating for sure without aproper argument from the authors mentioned above and Ipropose to date it for the moment in the extend 2 nd3rd c.

A. D. period of time. Another example of a bronze statuetteof Mars was found more recently at Porolissum, see Mina etalii2004, 606616, pl. IVII.3 Matei 1982, 7580, pl. IIX.

found on the temple`s precinct at depths between20 and 30 cm4.

Of all these artifacts mentioned before one ofthem raised some questions regarding its inter-pretation, namely the bronze statuette which Al.Matei considers to be a representation of Isis inone of the hypostasis of the myth of Isis and Osiriswhich illustrates the episode where the goddessmourns her husband Osiris and afterwards triesalongside her sister to find his body5. More thanthat Al. Matei gives an analogy of this iconogra-

phy, a statue from Louvre in the hypostasis of Isislactans which is my opinion inconclusive6. eiconography of the goddess Isis has never beforeknown this kind of a depiction in any part of theRoman Empire throughout the centuries of itsdomination of the Mediterranean World thus thisstatuette must be ruled out of the repertoire of Isis`iconography7. It is also hard to believe the fact thatthis representation could be a unique iconographicdepiction of Isis as suggested by Al. Matei. But if

4 e archaeological situation suggests that in the 2nd c.A. D. there seems to have functioned a temple of Liber Pater

(Gudea 2003, 217) but thensomewhere at the beginning ofthe 3rdc. A. D. after a massive fire another building was builton top of it and further more extended, becoming accordingto authors the temple for Bel (Gudea 2003, 217225, fig. 5).See also plate 3.5 Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride. Also Matei 1982, p. 7778,nr. 3, pl. IVVIII. e iconography of this statuette is alsoaccepted by Popescu, 2004, p. 155.6 Lafaye s. v. Isisin DAIII/1, 577586 with special regardto page 580, fig. 4098.7 For the iconography of the goddess Isis see: Tran TamTinh, s.v. Isis in LIMCV1/1980, 761796 pl. II. 3358.

A RECONSIDERATION OF THE SOCALLED ISIS STATUETTE

FROM POROLISSUM

Dan Augustin Deac*

Keywords: Porolissum, Isis, bronze statuette, Egyptian Sem priest.Cuvinte cheie: Porolissum, Isis, statuet de bronz, preot egiptean Sem.

Abstract

is study tries to prove the fact that the representation of a so-called Isis bronze statuette published by Al. Mateiand found during the archaeological excavations in the Roman settlement of Porolissum is in fact a fragment of astatuary assembly representing a sexual act between an Egyptian Sem priest (this part is missing from the ancienttimes) and a woman (the artifact in discussion). is kind of depictions is very rare, including Egypt itself andunique in the Danube area of the Roman Empire.

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

2/6

ANALELE BANATULUI, S.N., ARHEOLOGIE ISTORIE, XX, 2012

86

it is not Isis, one question remains: what does itrepresent?

e place of discovery of this very one bronzestatuette was next to a statuette of Mars in a pitthat had been used for gathering waste dispos-als after sacrifices were made on the altar existingnearby (the pit having 10 m in diameter) whichwas dug to the south of the altar from which onlythe foundation was preserved (2 2.5 m). Both ofthem were linked with the aedes by an alley 0.8 m.wide. Al. Matei specifies the fact that this pit hadsome coins, burned material from the sacrifices,burned bones and ritual depositary of bowls madeout of ceramics and a Celtic bronze axe on thebottom of the pit at the depth of 3.75 m. (whilethe two statuettes were found at a depth of 0.81and 0.82 m). e pit was leveled later on and awall of the second phase of the building namedconventionally N 4 crossed over the edge of the

pit. e new phase was dated in the middle of the3rdc. A. D.8thusly we argue the fact that the statu-ette was thrown in the pit in the segment of timebetween the 2ndc. A. D. and the first half of the 3rdc. A.D9.

e bronze statuette depicts a female adoptinga dwarfish position on a small mound and sur-rounded by reptiles in what want to be an environ-ment similar to the one of the banks of the riverNile (the entire pedestal has 6.7 cm in diameter).It is portrayed with a draped cloth, tightened witha belt (cingulum) and covering only the inferiorpart of the body with the exception of the feet.e head is supported by the knees while beingslightly turned aside and covered with some sortof a wig. e face is remarkably portrayed with theeyes, nose and mouth perfectly distinguishable.e left arm is not depicted while the right one iswith the palm of the hand turned inwards touch-ing the knee and the chin supporting itself on theexterior part of the palm. A peculiar aspect thatshould be mentioned is the orifice between the legsin the genital area (0.6 0.4 cm) which A. Mateiconsiders to be an exaggerated representation of

8 See for more details Matei 1982, 78. Also for theexcavations in the area see: Matei Gudea 1998, 7588;Gudea 1989, 144147; Gudea 1986, 98100; Chirilet alii 1980, 81101, fig. 16, especially 9394. For themonography of the vicus militarisof the fort placed on thePomt hill see Tamba 2008, and for the area of the pit Tamba2008, 345.9 In the pit were found also three Roman coins: twounrecognizable dupondius coins at depths of 1.40 and1.95 m. (see Gzdac et alii 2006, 79, no. 86 and 87) andanother dupondiusof Septimius Severus at the depth of 0.5 m(Gzdac et alii2006, 77, no. 40).

the female sex, an aspect which is well remarkedby the author.

Returning to the original question of what doesthis statuette represent only one answer can begiven namely that it depicts one part of a statu-ary assembly of a erotic scene between a woman(which in this case in represented by our femalestatuette) and an Egyptian Sem priest while havingintercourse and joyfully playing a tambourine(the Sem priest is usually depicted with a macro-phallus and a distinctive sidelock)10. e Sempriest11had an important role in the ritual for theceremonies at funerals in ancient Egypt where hewould perform the most important rituals outsidethe tombs before burial12. ese kinds of depic-tions were used and found without exception inEgypt which concludes the fact that this artifactmust clearly have been an import brought fromthe Nile area. Unfortunately due to the fragmental

preservation of this statuary assembly we are notable to precisely date the period in which it wasconstructed. Secondly we consider the fact thatthis artifact had nothing particular to do with thecultic ceremonies of the Palmyrean god named Bel.As the wide variety of artifacts found in the pit G.1show, this particular artifact was nothing less thananother bronze piece devoted to the god and thenthrown away in a disposal pit13.

We now can finally put an end to the uncer-tainty and pure speculation that surrounded theanswer to what does this bronze statuette repre-sent from the iconographical point of view. Beforethis study it was considered to be an iconographi-cal depiction of Isis in a hypostasis in which thegoddess is mourning her husband Osiris after hewas killed by his brother Seth. More than that, inthe moment of the publishing by Al. Matei of the10 is hypostasis is called symplegma (gr. trans.intertwined) and this scene can be observed in the largestsymplegmafigurines collection from the Brooklyn Museum(s.v. symplegma in Pazzini et al. 1989). Also a stone figurine(13.3 cm in height) depicting the symplegmascene was in theprivate collection of the French Egyptologist Gustave Jquier(18681946). It dates from the 2nd3rdc. A.D. and is the bestanalogy for our statuette from the iconographical point of

view. Also for the banquets and symplegmas in Nilotic scenessee: Meyboom Versluys 2007, 182202, fig. 23, 1215.11 For the Sem priest in Ancient Egypt see: B. Schmitz s.v.Sem (priester) in L V (1984), 833836.12 We do not see necessary to detail its role in the religiousbeliefs of the Egyptians in this paper, for more details youcould consult Erman 1907, 133136 (for the Sem priests andtheir role in the religious ceremonies) and Jquier 1922, 176.13 Unfortunately we cannot find out for the moment if thisstatuary assembly was brought to Porolissum intact and in agood state of preservation or if it was broken already before itreached this settlement.

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

3/6

87

statuette in 1982, the corpus that was needed tobe consulted regarding the iconography of Isis inthe Roman world had not yet been published itself(Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologie Classicae, thevolume in which Isis can be found appeared only in1990). e result was a total misinterpretation andspeculation regarding the iconographical depictionof this statuette. After ruling out this hypothesiswe now can firmly confirm that the statuette rep-resents a fragment of a statuary assembly in whichan Egyptian Sem priest is having intercourse witha woman while joyfully playing a tambourine (thewoman being represented by this statuette whilethe Sem priest with his macro-phallic depictionhas long been lost). In what concerns the datingit is clear that this is an import in the provinceof Dacia coming from Egypt and manufactured inthe Greco-Roman age. Unfortunately the archaeo-logical context does not help us assert when pre-

cisely during the Roman era had this statuette beenthrown in the disposal pit of the temple of BelfromPorolissum but it can be stated that this particularstatuette served as some sort of an offering.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chiril et alii1980E. Chiril, N. Gudea, Al. Matei, V. Luccel, Raport

preliminar asupra cercetrilor arheologice de la Moigrad(Porolissum) n anii 19771979, AMP IV, (1980),p. 81103 + fig. 6.

Erman 1907A. Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion, London

(1907).

DACh. Daremberg, M. E Saglio, Dictionnaire des

antiquits grecques et romaines, Paris (18771919).

Gzdac et alii2006C. Gzdac, N. Gudea, I. Bajusz, C. Cosma, Al. Matei,

E. Musc, D. Tamba, Coins from Roman Sites and Collectionsof Roman Coins from Romania. Vol. II. Porolissum, Cluj-Napoca (2006).

Gudea 2003N. Gudea, Sanctuare i militari la Porolissum, EphNapXIII, (2003), 217242.

Gudea 1989N. Gudea, Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la

marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. I. Descoperirii cercetri arheologice pn n anul 1979,AMP XIII,(1989).

Gudea 1986N. Gudea, Porolissum. Res publica Municipii Septimii

Porolissensium, Bucureti (1986).

Jquier 1922G. Jquier,Matriaux pour servir ltablissement dun

dictionnaire darchologie gyptienne, BIFAO 19, (1922),p. 1271.

LW. Helck, E. Otto, Lexicon der gyptologie, IVI,

Wiesbaden (19751986).

LIMCLexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, V,

Zrich-Mnchen, (1990).

Matei 1982Al. Matei, Piese figurate descoperite pe terasa

sanctuarelor de la Porolissum, AMP VI, 1982, p. 7580+pl. IX.

Matei Gudea 1998Al. Matei, N. Gudea, ber die rmische Stadt. Der

Libertempel. In: N. Gudea, Al. Matei, I. Bajusz, E. Chiril,D. Tamba (eds.), Porolissum. Auschnitte aus dem Leben einerdakisch-rmischen Grenzsiedlung aus der Nordwesten derProvinz Dacia Porolissensis,Amsterdam (1998), p. 7189.

Meyboom Versluys 2007P. G. P. Meybomm, M. J. Versluys, e Meaning of

Dwarfs in Nilotic scenes. In: L. Bricault, M. J. Versluys,P. Meyboom (eds.), Nile into Tiber. Egypt in the RomanWorld. Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conferenceof Isis Studies, Leiden, May 1114 2005, Leyden (2007),p. 170208.

Mina et alii2004J. Mina, B. Wright, Al. Matei, C. Gzdac,Mars from

Porolissum. In: Orbis Antiquus. Studia in honorem IoannisPisonis, Cluj-Napoca (2004), p. 606608 + VII pl.

Pazzini et al.R. A. Pazzini, Ancient Egyptian art in the Brooklyn

Museum, New-York & London (1989).

Popescu 2004M. Popescu, La religion de larme romain de Dacie,

Bucureti (2004).

Tamba 2008D. Tamba, Porolissum Aezarea civil(vicus militaris)

a castrului mare, Cluj-Napoca (2008).

eposuMarinescu Pop 2000L. eposu C. Marinescu Pop, Statuete de bronz din

Dacia roman, Bucureti (2000).

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

4/6


88

Pl. 1. The bronze statuette from Porolissumrepresenting a woman adopting a dwarfish position: a) front view, b) viewfrom behind and c) detail. Photo by the author.

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

5/6

89

Pl. 2. Hypothetical reconstruction of a fragmentary statuary assembly of an Egyptian Sem priest, while having intercoursewith a mistress (upper register). Image depicting a macro-phallic figure, perhaps a Sem-priest, identifiable by his sidelock, and his lover, the male kneeling, his head turned to his right, holding a tambourine above his phallus, the femaleseated with her head turned to her left and resting on his phallus, a small cup in her left hand, on an integral plinth(http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=5078768, accessed on 25. 04. 2012 ).

8/12/2019 08_Deac (1)

6/6


90

08_deac (1)

Documents