Objects are often the only sources through which we know ancient society. How can objects (whether inscribed or not, with or without images) help us to understand the changing face of kingship in the Southern Levant? How can archaeology, visual media and visual art be used as sources in their own right, as valuable as texts in studying local or regional symbol systems? How can images be considered "media", part of complex communication processes, both within and between ancient societies? Objects are not simply surfaces for images and inscriptions. They are vehicles for the symbolic expression of particular traditions, world views and beliefs. Style, too, has an active role in creating "linkage and spaces among those who are entangled with it or are not" (Feldman 2014, 61). Objects, images and ways of representation are agentive subjects of human actions, not inert elements used in the performance of actions. Objects are and make. In other words, objects and images influence our life and our actions: they are, to use the classic definition from Ian Hodder's Symbols in actions. Social and cultural groups define themselves through emphatic reference to particular symbolic codes and explicit rejection of others. Wood and metalwork, ivory, seals, precious furniture, etc. (what the West has classified as "minor art") functioned over centuries as media for intercultural exchange. In largely illiterate societies, objects and images had a greater impact and wider diffusion than texts, and therefore they occupied a privileged place in the civilization of the Ancient Near East, for example, as instruments of propaganda. Moreover, artworks have the ability to catalyse collective or social memory and therefore to play an active role in cementing social relations and shaping group identity. From ancient times to the present day, court life has always been regulated by a complex of rules and conventions (the French étiquette), pertaining also to figurative language. The complex of rules was shared, outside the walls of an individual royal palace, by a select group of people who were part of an ideal community (the so-called court and also the administrative elite). To investigate the role of objects in the history of kingship in the Levant of the first millennium BC, two periods have been chosen. The first is the region's pre-Assyrian conquest phase, when the Levantine kingdoms experienced a period of autonomy before the Assyrian intervention, and when a process of elaboration of collective memory can be detected (Feldman 2014). The second is the Persian period, when the disappearance of kingship from the majority of the Levant enables us to analyse the surviving Phoenician kingdom of Sidon as a case study of change in the language of the court style and, therefore, in the conception of kingship. Every king probably impressed his own character on his kingdom, although in the context of a well-established tradition to which he could refer. The inclusion of the names of two kings in the title of this paper, instead of a generic reference to the two periods, is an attempt, at least at the theoretical level, to indicate a specific context, when it is known from texts and inscriptions. In practice, this goal is still beyond our reach.
At the Courts of Omri of Samaria and Eshmunazor II of Sidon - Objects, Images and Court Style
Oggiano;Ida
2018
Abstract
Objects are often the only sources through which we know ancient society. How can objects (whether inscribed or not, with or without images) help us to understand the changing face of kingship in the Southern Levant? How can archaeology, visual media and visual art be used as sources in their own right, as valuable as texts in studying local or regional symbol systems? How can images be considered "media", part of complex communication processes, both within and between ancient societies? Objects are not simply surfaces for images and inscriptions. They are vehicles for the symbolic expression of particular traditions, world views and beliefs. Style, too, has an active role in creating "linkage and spaces among those who are entangled with it or are not" (Feldman 2014, 61). Objects, images and ways of representation are agentive subjects of human actions, not inert elements used in the performance of actions. Objects are and make. In other words, objects and images influence our life and our actions: they are, to use the classic definition from Ian Hodder's Symbols in actions. Social and cultural groups define themselves through emphatic reference to particular symbolic codes and explicit rejection of others. Wood and metalwork, ivory, seals, precious furniture, etc. (what the West has classified as "minor art") functioned over centuries as media for intercultural exchange. In largely illiterate societies, objects and images had a greater impact and wider diffusion than texts, and therefore they occupied a privileged place in the civilization of the Ancient Near East, for example, as instruments of propaganda. Moreover, artworks have the ability to catalyse collective or social memory and therefore to play an active role in cementing social relations and shaping group identity. From ancient times to the present day, court life has always been regulated by a complex of rules and conventions (the French étiquette), pertaining also to figurative language. The complex of rules was shared, outside the walls of an individual royal palace, by a select group of people who were part of an ideal community (the so-called court and also the administrative elite). To investigate the role of objects in the history of kingship in the Levant of the first millennium BC, two periods have been chosen. The first is the region's pre-Assyrian conquest phase, when the Levantine kingdoms experienced a period of autonomy before the Assyrian intervention, and when a process of elaboration of collective memory can be detected (Feldman 2014). The second is the Persian period, when the disappearance of kingship from the majority of the Levant enables us to analyse the surviving Phoenician kingdom of Sidon as a case study of change in the language of the court style and, therefore, in the conception of kingship. Every king probably impressed his own character on his kingdom, although in the context of a well-established tradition to which he could refer. The inclusion of the names of two kings in the title of this paper, instead of a generic reference to the two periods, is an attempt, at least at the theoretical level, to indicate a specific context, when it is known from texts and inscriptions. In practice, this goal is still beyond our reach.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
