The Syro-Hittite Ritual Burial of Monuments
David Ussishkin
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Apr., 1970), pp. 124-128.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968%28197004%2929%3A2%3C124%3ATSRBOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-C
Journal of Near Eastern Studies is currently published by The University of Chicago Press.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
Thu Jul 12 11:41:05 2007
THE SYRO-HITTITE RITUAL BURIAL OF MOKUMEKTS
D A V I D U S S I S H K I X , Tel Aviv University, Israel
Tm Syro-Hittite cultures which are relevant to the subject of this study
existed and flourished in Syria and southern Anatolia from the Late Bronze Age until the
final annexation of these areas to Assyria during the eighth century B.C. These cultures
are renowned for their characteristic monumental architecture and art. Two typical
features of these are basalt orthostats carved in the shape of lions, which were incorporated
against the jambs of monumental entrances, and statues of gods and kings
carved in the round which were installed outside or inside monumental buildings.
Most of the monumental structures containing these gate-lions and statues were
burned and razed to the ground by a conquering enemy. The gate-lions and statues (and
also other monuments and reliefs)were then broken to pieces, carried away by the enemy,
taken to be reused in other structures, or left buried under the ruins. Sometimes monuments
were left in their original place and position where they remained for a long
period. However, in five cases of monuments discovered in Alalakh. Hazor, Zincirli,
and Arslantepe near Malatya, a different procedure may be observed. Follo~vingthe
destruction by an enemy, gate-lions and statues were intentionally buried in the ground
with much care. These burials seem to point to the existence of a Syro-Hittite ritualcustom
of burying monuments. This assumed ritual burial forms the subject of this
paper and we shall now proceed to discuss it in detail.
In Alalakh Sir Leonard Woolley unearthed several successive temples, among them the
Level I B temple1 which was in use during the later part of the thirteenth century B.C.
The temple was destroyed and burned, probably by the invading Sea Peoples, at the
beginning of the twelfth century B.c., and this destruction marks the end of Alalakh
and the temple. Remains of a later short occupation ("Level 0"), dated to the middle
of the twelfth century B.c., were found in the excavation, and Woolley observed that,
above the Level IB temple ruins, "foundations of heavy stones were laid for a reconstruction
which perhaps was never carried to a finish."
In a room in the annexe of the Level IB temple the statue of Idri-mi, king of Alalakh,
was placed and probably fixed on a basalt throne. What happened to the statue when
the temple was destroyed, and the circumstances of its discovery are vividly described
by Sir Leonard as follows:
In a room in the annexe of the temple proper. . .we found a hole which had been dug into
the floor and filled with earth and large stones (the largest weighing nearly a ton and a half)
and smoothed over; under the stones there was a broken statue; the head, which had been
knocked off, was set beside the body together with two smaller fragments, one of the beard,
the other of a foot; only part of one foot was missing [Cf. our Fig. 11. The statue belonged
L. Woolley, Alalakh, A n Account of the Excaua- Ibad., p. 122; see also \Voolley, Alalakh, pp. 89,
tzons of Tell Atchana an the Hatay 1937-2949 (Oxford, 240, and L. Woolley apud S Smith, T h e Statue of
1955), pp. 85-89. Idrz-mz (London, 1949),p. 2
Idem, A Forgotten Kzngdom, "Pelican Book,"
No. A261 (London, 1953),pp. 170-71.
to the throne found on the temple floor. . . .We can be sure that the statue was on its throne
when the temple was destroyed because the breaking of the feet must have resulted from
its being knocked violently off its base into which the feet were socketted. .. .After the
sack of the temple someone must have crept back and piously collected all that he could find
of the figure and hidden it in a hastily-dug hole ... .
The above description speaks for itself, and it is obvious that after the destruction of
the temple the mutilated statue of Idri-mi was deliberately and carefully buried in the
ground.
In Hazor, Y. Yadin and his colleagues unearthed four successive temples dating to
the Middle and Late Bronze Ages,4 which bear striking architectural resemblance to
the temples of Alalakh,5 one of which was discussed above. Temple Ib in Hazor, dated
to the fourteenth century B.c., was a magnificent and richly equipped structure; following
its destruction temple Ia was built. The latter, "the last in Canaanite Hazor-was
in fact a reconstruction of the earlier temple and reused the main part of its ~ a l l s . " ~
The walls of the outer hall of temple Ib were decorated with a dado of basalt orthostats,
and two lions carved on basalt orthostats were incorporated in the main entrance
to the edifice. Only one of these lions was recovered in the excavation, and Yadin described
its discovery as follows:
One of the most interesting experiences of the season occurred during the excavations of the
south-west corner of the porch, where part of the southern wall was missing. In trying to
trace its foundations, we found under a heap of stones the basalt head of a lion, nearly lifesize.
When the stones were removed a basalt orthostat, 1.7 m. long, was revealed, one side
bearing the relief of a crouching lion with its fully sculptured head fashioned from the front
of the stone [Cf. our Fig. 21. ..the lion orthostat was part of the entrance jamb. ...Its
location was a mystery which remained unsolved until we had cleared the whole area. I t
then became clear that the lion had in fact been thrown into a pit, deliberately cut through
the two cobbled floorsof the courts of the two earlier templesand then covered with a heap of
stones.
Here, then, is a second case of the burial of a monument following the destruction of
the building where it was placed.
In Zincirli, capital of the kingdom of Sam'al during the first quarter of the first millennium
B.c., the German expedition unearthed the acropolis of the town and its fortifications.
In the area between the Outer Gate of the acropolis ("Aeusseres Burgthor") and
the Inner Gate ("Inneres Burgthor"), and about 12-18 m. from the latter, the excavators
found five gigantic basalt gate- lion^.^ As these lions originally flanked monumental
entrances and were thus placed in pairs, the recovery of five lions point to the existence
of a sixth one which was not discovered. The lions are carved in two different artistic
styles and their original position can only be surmised. R. Koldewey reconstructed all of
them in the Inner Gate of the acrop~lis,~situated near by, but it is difficult to accept
his suggestion that six huge gate-lions, carved in two different styles, were incorporated
Y. Yadin, IEJ, 8 (1958). 11-14; IEJ, 9 (1959). et al., Hazor, Vol. 111-IV (Jerusalem, 1961), pls.
81-84. CXI, no. 1, CXVIII-CXX.
Idem, IEJ, 8 (1958). 14. Kijnigliehe Museen zu Berlin, Mittheilungen aus
den orientalischen Sammlungen, Hefte XI-XV
'Idem, IEJ, 9 (1959). 81. See also n. 23 below. ( ~ ~ ~ l i ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ ~1893-1943): in ~ ~ d ~ h i ~ l a
Idem, IEJ, 9 (1959). 82-83. See also Y. Yadin I-T'. Cf. VO~.11, pp: 128-30, ~01.111,pp. 230-36.
Senakchirli 11,fig. 37 on p. 130.
in a single gate-house.10It seems that all the lions were transferred to the spot where
they were found when the structures in which they were incorporated were destroyed.
As two of these lions. owing to stylistic criteria, have to be dated to the eighth century
B.c., all lions were probably transferred following the destruction of the acropolis and
its palaces, which occurred at the end of the eighth or the beginning of the seventh
century B . C . ~ ~
The gate-lions were buried in a pit specially dug for the purpose at the spot to which
they were transferred. Their burial is described by R. Koldewey as
The position of the lions, as the>-were found during the excavation, is very strange. They did
not lie on the level ground, but in a depression in front of the gate . . . dllg in the usual clay
soil mixed with pebbles which forrned the entire mound [Cf. our Fig. 31. In the level above it
and directly over the lions extended a layer of burned reeds, and the earth adjacent to this layer
was reddish in colour. Therefore, a large fire of reeds had been lit directly over the lions
which lay in a quite irregular fashion in the depression. This whole discovery points to the
view that the lions were dragged to the depression in front of the gate while it was being
demolished, the depression perhaps being further deepened to form a pit. Here their "terrible
splendour" practically, and indeed symbolically, was destroyed by burning a funeral pyre of
reeds over them. They were thus ceremoniously buried. . . .Therefore, during the demolition
of the gate, doubtless to be attributed to a destruct,iveconquerer, our gate-lions were treated
with special respect and sent t,o the next world with tender care, as a result of a superstitious
fear, this being quite an l~nderstandablesituation in an idolatrous age.
Summing up, we see here a clear case of the ritual burial of monuments. Five gigantic
lions were dragged to one spot, and, when taking their size and weight into consideration,
we can only wonder at the enormous effort invested in their transfer. Here all were buried
in a pit, probably in connection with certain religious rites \ihose performance included
the burning of fires.
We now turn to Arslantepe near Malatya. the site of ancient Milid, where L Delaporte
excavated the "Lions' Gate." This is a monumental gate-house, decorated with lions
and reliefs. which received its final form during the first quarter of the first millennium
B . c . ' ~The gate-house contained an inner chamber in which a royal statue was placed.14
The statue was fixed on a stone pedestal which faced the gate-passage, with its back
against the wall of the gate-chamber. and blocked a side entrance which \{as built in
this wall. The majestically carved statue portrays a robed royal figure larger than life
size. B. Landsberger and H. G. Giiterbock are probably right in ascribing15the erection
of the statue to Muttallu, the last king of Kummuh. That king conquered and ruled
Milid between 712 and 708 B.c., and the erection of his royal statue at the gate of Milid
marked his conquest of the town. In 708 B.C. Muttallu revolted against Assyria and
was dethroned by Sargon. It was probably then that Muttallu's statue was knocked off
its base.16The statue fell forward, its front striking the ground, and as a result the hands,
nose, lips, and beard were partially broken.
lo On this problem see also m y article "Der alte l 3 Cf. L. Delaporte, Malatya, Arslantepe, Fasc. I :
Bau in Zincirli," B A S O R , No. 189 (1968), pp. 50-53. L a Porte des lions (Paris, 1940).
"Cf. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli I V , p. 240; 14 On this statue cf. ibid., pp. 35-38.
B. Landsberger, Sam'al: Studien zur Entdeckung der
Ruinenntatte Karatepe (Ankara, 1948). pp. 79 ff. l5 Landsberger, op. cit., pp. 76-79; H . G. Gliter-
12Sendschirli I I , p. 130. The Daasaee quoted here bock' 16* (lQG1)'49-50'
A - A
is a translation frornthe German text. le Cf. Landsberger, op. czt., pp. 16-79 and n. 203.
When L. Delaporte excavated the "Lions' Gate" he found that, following its collapse,
a "tomb" had been constructed around the statue (Cf. Fig. 4).17The statue was now
lying on its back with its face upwards beside the spot where it fell, and it is obvious
that it had been turned over once. Almost certainly this was done deliberately, indicating
the wish to treat the statue with respect and bury it facing upwards, as in the case
of human burials. A low clumsy wall, constructed mainly of squarely shaped stones, had
been built around the statue, covering it and in this way creating a tomb above ground-
level.
Another case of a ritual burial, similar to that in Malatya, was recorded in Zincirli. A
statue, erected on a double lion-base, was placed against the outer wall of Kilamuwa's
palace J.leThe statue portrays a god or, as suggested by H. Frankfort and W. Orthmann,lg
a royal figure. It was knocked off its base, almost certainly when palace J was
burned and razed to the ground. The statue fell forward with its front striking the
ground, and as a result its face, hands, and scepter were damaged. The statue was then
rolled aside to a distance of about a meter from the side of the lion-base. As in the case
of the Malatya statue, it was left lying on its back and then buried. This ritual burial is
briefly described by F. von Luschan and G. Jac~by.~OThey found the statue lying in
"dark soil" and surrounded by a row of large stones which formed the tomb.
Concluding the discussion on the available factual data it may be said that a ritual
burial of monuments was practiced in the Syro-Hittite world for over half a millennium.
We admit that this ritual burial was practiced only in a few cases, and no satisfactory
explanation can be given at present why other monuments of that kind, which were
desecrated by a conquering enemy in similar circumstances, were not buried as well.
On the other hand, the effort invested in the burial of the monuments discussed above,
and the repetition of similar phenomena in four places, rules out the possibility that the
parallelism in all cases is accidental. Therefore the existence of analogous ritual burials
of two categories, gate-lionsand statues, seems to be established. In both the cases in the
first category, the gate-lions were dragged a certain distance to their burial-pit and in
both cases one gate-lion, known to have existed as a pair to a buried one, is inexplicably
missing. On the other hand, no fire had been lit in the burial-pit in Hazor, as had been
done in Zincirli. In the three cases of the second category, the statues were buried on the
spot, near the place where they had originally been installed. Furthermore, the two upright
statues were placed on their back when buried, and in all three cases the base of
the statue (Idri-mi's throne, Zincirli's lion-base, and Muttallu's pedestal) was discarded
and not buried.
The ritual burial of gate-lions and royal statues points to their importance in the cult
and beliefs of the Syro-Hittite world. The ritual burial seems to support the view that
the gate-lions were not merely decorated orthostats meant to strengthen the superstructure
of the gates in which they were incorporated, but, as guardians of the gate were
considered to possess godly, demonical, or punitive powers. I n the case of the royal
statues it is known that in the Syro-Hittite world royal images were portrayed as godsz1
l7 For other photographs of the statue's entomb- Ancient Orient (London, 1954),p. 180; W. Orthmann
ment see Delaporte, Malatya, pls. XIV, XXVI- in Vorderasiatische Archiiologie, Studien und Aufsatze
XXVIII. Anton Moortgat (Berlin, 1964), pp. 221-29.
l8 On this statue of. Sendschirli I V , pp. 288-89, Sendschirli I V , pp. 289, 363; also of. pl. IL.
362-69, figs. 194, 261-68, pl. LXIV. a1 Cf. Orthmann, op. cit.
l8 H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the
and were probably considered as such. The statue of Idri-mi, who probably reigned
before the fourteenth century B.c., was kept at least for two centuries in a room of the
temple, a fact indicating its cultic importance.
A final problem which remains to be discussed is the question of who cared for the
eternal peace of the monuments and buried them. Several suggestions were made by the
excavators. Woolley believes that Idri-mi's statue, "prized for its own sake" was
treasured in Alalakh as "the oldest surviving monument of the local school of art" and
that is why "a man risked his life to salve it" by burying it in the hope of coming to
recover it later.zzYadin raises the possibility that in Alalakh and Hazor the monuments
might have been buried by the people who later rebuilt the temples when they found
no further use for them in the reconstructed edifice.z3Koldewey and Yadinz4suggest
that the burials were performed by the conquerors wishing to destroy the magic powers
of the monuments. Von Luschan raises the possibilityz5that the statue from Zincirli
was carefully hidden by the local inhabitants to prevent its destruction by the approaching
enemy.
We venture to suggest here a different interpretation of the ritual burial which, as we
believe, fits all the cases in question. It seems to us that the ritual burials should be
attributed to the conquered people, the local priests and believers, they being the only
ones to whom the monuments meant so much. One can imagine how the remnants of the
local population and priesthood who survived the general destruction returned to the
ruins of their public buildings to salvage what was left and also to pay homage to their
sacred monuments which had been abused by the conquerors. These are obviously the
people who would have troubled to perform the burials, and it seems that their deeds
of burying "dead" monuments were motivated by reasoning and belief similar to that
which motivates the burial of human beings. This last conclusion is supported by the
fact, briefly discussed above, that the statues from Zincirli and Arslantepe were turned
on their backs before being entombed in imitation of human burials. Furthermore, the
lighting of a fire in the ritual burial of the gate-lions in Zincirli may possibly have been
motivated by the practice of cremation, so often performed in Hittite burials of that
period.z6
22 UToolley,A Forgotten Kingdom, pp. 122-23. 25 Sendschirli I V , p. 363.
23 Yadin, I E J , 9 (1959), 83. Yadin's suggestion is 26 I t is difficult to judge at present whether the
partly based on the interpretation of the archeo- Syro-Hittite ritual burial of monuments can be
logical data recovered in the excavation. Tadin connected to other traditions of that kind in the
believes that the outer hall of temple I b was not ancient r e a r East. Cf. the burial of the statues in
reconstructed in the later temple Ia. This means that Abu Temple a t Tell Asmar (H. Frankfort, Sculpture of
the gate-l~on,which was almost certainly incorporated the Third LWillennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and
in the entrance to the outer hall of temple Ib, could KhafCjah, "OIP," XLIV [1939], 3-4). and the bronze
not have been reconstructed in its original position statue of the horned god from Enkomi (P. Dikaios,
when the edifice was rebuilt (oral information kindly Archaologischer Anzeiger [1962], cols. 1-40. I owe this
supplied by Prof. Y. Tadin). reference to Dr. T. Dothan).
a4 Koldewey, Sendschirli 11,p. 130; Yadin, I E J , 9
(1959), 83.
+ -d
c
.% "c-3 .e .%
25;
$ Z
# u r n $
g;,$ 2
. Cal-G a s p
$7 g $
& ? a sgS H c 0
T 6 2 3
6 ;
$ * $ &
B % ph-:
a % + z
G . 9 62m
a a w
.2* $ 5
Ff.2 8
. ; g j s G
$ s a O "
#Q + 3 5 s.2 .%%
c a a - a
.- .a 9-d 2 +
$ e w
agg5 .% .--
g ,q .5C . E %d 5
3+ :.@".
3 " " ~ i
S .9 a
Ei ,,m*3
8 o +
C N
m.q f BSx,:,u
" g 8 " +
% o o m 3maw!-
e.iq
-d .s 2 .iii
c - 4 ' 6
F=1 F=l s