Introduction
Despite the historical and cultural differences between Hellenistic Commagene and the Lagid kingdom, as well as the dissimilarities in the available archaeological and written sources, the issues encountered in modern scholarship dealing with these two regions are comparable Similar to how the Antiochan monuments are usually inter-preted as a combination of Greek and Persian/Iranian elements, Ptolemaic creations are mainly analysed in terms of Greco-Macedonian and Egyptian influences Due to their so-called intermediate geographical position ‘between East and West’, both areas are regarded as in-between civilizations, merging elements from two different tradi-tions This orientation of scholarly literature is perfectly illustrated in the studies of the Anfushy necropolis, which is unfailingly seen as a typical example of such a pre-sumed hybridization Its architectural and painted decoration is supposed to mingle features that evoke either Greece or Egypt, and therefore act as emblems of these two areas, while reflecting the ethnic composition of the local population As in the case of the prevailing evaluations of Commagenian Hellenistic material culture1, the aesthetic result has sometimes been described as awkward, or has even been disregarded as a peripheral idiosyncrasy In both cases, such negative assessments are often based on the alleged degree of Hellenization, which has been evaluated as disappointingly low, and therefore as an alarming sign of growing Oriental influence 2
1 See Versluys 2017, 191–199
2 Regarding Commagene, see Hamdy Bey – Efendi 1883, 17–18 25–26 28; Humann – Puchstein 1890, 215 222 232 249 253 258–259 294–295 345–348; Young 1963, 203 207 212; Robertson 1975, 565;
Dörrie 1978, 245; Smith 1988, 23 103–104 121 123 131; Robertson 1993, 69–70; Boardman 1994, 80 82 For Anfushy, see especially Adriani 1952, 122–123 126–127; Bernand 1998, 226–230
Comparisons between scholarly approaches to these sites and further historio-graphical investigation of the close resemblances between interpretative frames and evaluative criteria definitely reveal some of the guiding principles of modern archaeo-logical thought Moreover, the Alexandrian example provides an opportunity to recon-sider the methodological questions raised by this literature3, in the light of Ptolemaic material and written evidence, which is more informative for some purposes than the sources related to the Commagenian social and political environment It may therefore be worthwhile to unravel how scholars have assessed Alexandria as a Greek-Egyptian composite in order to better understand how and why they addressed Commagene in the way they did, as a Greek-Persian/Iranian conglomerate – and this points towards fruitful directions for further research From this perspective, after a short description of the Anfushy tombs and an overview of their dating, this paper will detect and dis-cuss similarities of viewpoints and thought patterns from research about these
monu-3 Botti 1902, 12 17–19 32; Pagenstecher 1919, 120 126 179–183 185; Breccia 1921, 68–69; Noshy 1937, 26–28; Adriani 1952, 55–128; Adriani 1966, 191–197; Venit 2002, 68 73–91; Venit 2004, 124–127; Venit 2009, 55–60; Guimier-Sorbets 2010; Guimier-Sorbets 2012, 171–172 174 178–181; Gorzelany 2019, 24 88–90 106 110 174–175 178 194 198
Fig. 1 Localisation of the site of Anfushy in the modern city of Alexandria, CAD Cécile Shaalan, © CEAlex archives
ments and those of Commagene Subsequently, the issues brought up by such schemes of analysis in the Alexandrian context will be explored, and this criticism will serve as a suggested new basis for a re-examination of Commagenian visual art
Anfushy Necropolis – The Site and its Chronology
The Anfushy necropolis is located in the North-West of Alexandria, on the modern Ras-el-Tin peninsula, which corresponds both to the ancient Pharos Island and the Heptastadium, the bridge connecting it to the coast (fig 1) The site is situated on the north-eastern peak of this peninsula and covers a surface area of around 60m2, which includes six monumental hypogea in various states of preservation (fig 2) Two of these are relatively well-preserved (hypogea 1 and 2), one remains in good condition but is inundated and inaccessible (hypogeum 5), while two others are damaged (hypogea 3 and 4), although their layout is still visible and some of their architectural and deco-rative elements are intact The sixth tomb (hypogeum 6) was already hardly visible by the middle of the 20th century 4 The site, which was discovered by accident in 1901 when shacks were being cleared and demolition work was being carried out for the reconstruction of the shoreline and the dock of the eastern harbour5, was first explored
4 Adriani 1952, 55 97; Venit 2002, 73–74 86
5 Lacroix – Daressy 1922, 11; Tkaczow 1993, 51; Venit 2002, 68–69; Helmbold-Doyé 2009 1, 49 Fig. 2 General plan of the Anfushy necropolis, following Adriani 1952, 55 fig 28
by Botti in the early 20th century Further excavations were conducted by Breccia and completed by Adriani, who published the first extensive study of the tombs in 1952 6
Fig. 3 Hypogeum 2, entrance of the funerary chamber 2, following Adriani 1952, 70 fig 40
Fig. 4 Hypogeum 2, back wall of the funerary chamber 2, following Adriani 1952, 72 fig 42
6 Botti 1902; Breccia 1921, 55–69; Adriani 1952, 55–128
Fig. 5 Hypogeum 5, loculus frame in chamber 4, following Adriani 1952, 92 fig 54
Fig. 6 Hypogeum 2, doorway leading from the court to one of the galleries, following Adriani 1952, 66 fig 36
Despite some differences, all hypogea have an approximately identical design, with an L-shaped roofed staircase leading down to a wholly or partially open-air square court This central space gives access to two or three surrounding underground galleries, each of which with a rectangular elongated vestibule arranged with benches, at the back of which a smaller funerary chamber is aligned on the same axis (fig 2) Loculi for burials
and niches for offerings are cut into the walls of the rooms and water cisterns and wells are dug in the floor of the court The best-preserved tombs, partly hewn from the rock and partly built, display a rich architectural decoration, which is still visible in hypogea 1, 2 and 5, featuring both Doric style mouldings and doorways, and aediculas or locu-li frames mainly inspired by the Pharaonic tradition (fig 3–6) Wall-paintings are ei-ther carried out in the structural style, with regular rows of trompe-l’oeil ashlar blocks imitating isodome masonry, or feature a checkerboard pattern, probably imitating a faïence cladding, with inserted squares bearing Egyptian crowns, alternating with bands of fake alabaster In both systems, the lower part contains counterfeit marble or alabaster orthostats (fig 7) Hypogeum 1 retains only the first decorative design They both occur in different rooms in hypogeum 2, and they are superimposed in one of the vestibules, while in hypogeum 5 they decorate different walls of the same anterooms In a room and a loculus of the latter tomb, various kinds of trees and bushes are sketchily painted on the walls, in one case standing between pilasters drawn in perspective (fig 8) Other motives used in this monument seem to evoke carpets (fig 9) In the
stair-Fig. 7 Hypogeum 2, wall paintings in vestibule 2, following Adriani 1952, 69 fig 39
case of hypogeum 2, three panels with figurative scenes in Egyptian style decorate the walls, but only one of them is still in good condition (fig 10), while the second one is very poorly preserved and the third one is barely discernible On the undecorated walls of one of the anterooms, numerous graffiti include both writing and sketches The low-vaulted ceilings of the Anfushy tombs are covered by multicolour geometric shapes, including imbricated lozenges, squares alternating between octagons (fig 7) or framing floral motives, such as stylized rosettes In the main burial chamber of hy-pogeum 2, a particularly elaborate illusionistic example feigns a coffering, incorporat-ing separate scenes probably inspired by Greek mythology, seen in the background through a grid (fig 11) 7
7 For a detailed description of the hypogea, see Adriani 1952, 55–97; Adriani 1966, 191–197; Venit 2002, 73–90; Helmbold-Doyé 2009 2, 5–56
Fig. 8 Hypogeum 5, wall paintings in chamber 2, following Adriani 1952, pl XLIIII fig 1
Fig. 9 Hypogeum 5, painting on a bench in chamber 2, following Adriani 1952, pl XLIIII fig 2
Fig. 10 Hypogeum 2, painted panel in the staircase, Judith S McKenzie et al , Manar al-Athar Photo-Archive, Oxford 2013–, available at httpwww manar-al-athar ox ac uk
Fig. 11 Hypogeum 2, painted ceiling of the funerary chamber 2, following Adriani 1952, 73 fig 43
The early commentators on hypogeum 2 established a chronology in the 3rd c BCE, which relied mainly upon the dipinti and an inscription traced on an amphora found in the tomb, as well as on iconographical particularities and stylistic comparisons with monuments from Ptolemaic Egypt and other parts of the Hellenistic world 8 Conse-quently, Breccia dated hypogeum 5 to the first half of the 2nd c BCE based on what he perceived as its more pronounced Egyptian character 9 Noshy accepted the suggested dating for the first phases of hypogeum 2, but he argued that all Egyptian and Egyp-tianizing elements, for which he found the earliest parallels in the Roman period, were added during a reconstruction that could not have taken place before the 2nd c CE 10 Adriani was the first to take the typology of the findings into account, especially the ce-ramics, lamps and terra cotta figurines, and to confront these results with observations about the morphological and decorative features of the constructions themselves, which he compared to other Alexandrian tombs On this ground, he reviewed the pre-vious arguments and came to the conclusion that the Anfushy necropolis had been built during the 2nd–1st c BCE and had remained in function until a later period 11 Sub-sequent scholarship has generally supported this proposal, in spite of the fact that there are certain disagreements about how the exact stages of development were dated 12
Commagene and Anfushy – Conformity to Culture-styles and Marginality in In-between Areas
Modern approaches to the Anfushy hypogea and the Commagenian monuments are comparable in many respects Antiochos I’s visual language has often been said to in-tegrate what is usually termed as Greek and Persian, or Iranian, elements This attempt has been connected to the area’s historical and geographical position between the
Ori-8 Botti 1902, 14 17–18 21–22 25–29 30 33 36; Schiff 1905, 20 23–25 42–67; Pagenstecher 1919, 117–
118 120–126 178–185 9 Breccia 1921, 68–69
10 Noshy 1937, 26–28 This author denies the existence of an initial stage prior to the structural style decoration, but accepts Pagenstecher’s two later phases, though excluding all the Egyptian fea-tures
11 Adriani 1952, 123–125; Adriani 1966, 192 194–195 197 Hypogea 1 to 3 would date back to the middle or second half of the 2nd c BCE and hypogeum 5 to the 1st c BCE See also Breccia 1921, 60 65 69 12 See, for instance, Fraser 1972 1, 34; Fraser 1972 2, 43 n 95; Fedak 1990, 132–133; McKenzie 1990,
67–68; Pensabene 1993, 59 62 89 103 107 133 135 142 526; Empereur 1998, 17; Pfrommer 1999, 123–124; Venit 2002, 77; Venit 2004, 124; Bonacasa 2005, 50; Venit 2009, 56–58; Fedak 2006, 92;
Guimier-Sorbets 2010, 169; Guimier-Sorbets 2012, 171; Gorzelany 2019, 88 100 n 49 However, Bar-bet 1985, 21 retains the earlier dating A contrary point of view is expressed by J Helmbold-Doyé in her recent PhD, in which she connects the architectural and painted decoration of the necropo-lis to the evolution of Roman painting and the Augustan ‘egyptomania’, suggesting late parallels which would indicate a date between the first half of the 1st c BCE to the 1st c CE (Helmbold-Doyé 2009 1, 97–99, 102–104)
ent and the West and to the official discourse of the dynast, according to whom his double ancestry could be traced back to the Seleucids and Alexander the Great, on the one hand, and to the Persian King of Kings, Darius, on the other The outcome of this process of fusion, which is thought to express such ideological visions as well as Commagene’s intermediary state and role as mediator between the Hellenistic and Iranian-Parthian worlds, has been defined as a hybrid or synthetic style, a testimony to the blending of Greek and Persian cultural aspects The site of Nemrud Dağ has been regarded as a typical example of this dual imagery, suggesting the area’s in-between-ness, not only because of its morphological features, but also because of the syncre-tized denominations of the deities worshipped in its context 13
In a similar way, the Anfushy necropolis has almost exclusively been analysed in terms of its so-called Greek and Egyptian components Although earlier literature sug-gests an underlying stylistic distinction between elements inspired by the Pharaonic tradition and ‘Pompeian’ influences14, soon afterwards this opposition acquired ethnic connotations as these designations were replaced by the labels ‘Greek’, ‘Hellenic’ or
‘Macedonian’ and ‘Egyptian’, which henceforth became recurrent:
“Anfushy may have been, therefore, in origin a Macedonian tomb, Greek in architecture and decoration, which was requisitioned in the Roman period by a second proprietor who gave it an Egyptian touch ”15
The morphological and iconographical characteristics of the tombs would there-fore mirror Alexandria’s cultural particularities as a city in limbo between Egypt and Greece, in the formulation of Marjorie Venit:
“From the second century onward, Egyptian-inspired forms both architectural and figurative vie with Hellenic ones in Alexandrian tombs and create an architectural and decorative program that, by merging signs and symbols of the two cultures, is unique to Alexandria This phenome-non is given clearest voice in the tombs of the Pharos Island ”16
For this reason, these monuments have been interpreted as the most striking illustra-tion of Greco-Egyptian eclecticism17 in the Alexandrian funerary architecture of the
13 Humann – Puchstein 1890, 349–353; Krüger 1937, 9 17 23–39; Dörner – Goell 1963, 302; Young 1963, 220–222; Pollitt 1986, 274–275; Smith 1988, 23 25–26 103–104 121 131; Wagner 1988, 9 118 138 141 178–181; Robertson 1993, 69–70; Smith 1996, 227–228; Jacobs 2002, 33–42; Dunand 2006, 138;
Schwertheim 2011, 77 79–81; Kropp 2013, 5 180–188 314–315 357 360–361 For a summary of these approaches, see Sanders 1996, 30–31; Versluys 2017, 11–13 16 19 109 127 142 155 157–158 172 185 200–201
14 Pagenstecher 1919, 120 126 179–183 185 15 Noshy 1937, 28
16 Venit 2002, 68
17 The decoration is characterized as eclectic by Adriani 1952, 117 122–123 126–127, Bernand 1998, 230, Bonacasa 2005, 50, Guimier-Sorbets 2010, 174 and Gorzelany 2019, 88 n 11
Ptolemaic period Their decoration, which is thought to incorporate elements from both traditions in a cultural mixture, is usually defined by the coexistence of two dis-tinct styles, schemes, modes or systems, indicating an ultimate fusion of the two cul-tures, regardless of the question whether or not this process is deemed intentional 18 According to their subject and stylistic features, architectural elements, mouldings, figurative representations, and ornamental patterns or details are hence usually di-vided into two categories and attributed designations, such as “Greek zone style” or
“Egyptian palace style” (fig 7)19, while some of them are labelled “Greco-Egyptian”20,
“Egypto-Greek”21 or “Egyptianizing”22 (fig 3–5)
Negative value judgements of such blends occur, either explicitly or implicitly, in modern interpretations of both the Anfushy necropolis and the Commagenian materi-al finds Antiochos’ images have often been evmateri-aluated as artisticmateri-ally uninteresting, rath-er hollow23, frivolous, awkward and ill-proportioned, or even grotesque 24 They have often been labelled as Greco-Oriental, a designation that has mostly been used in a de-rogatory sense, implying an unsuccessful combination, an artificial concoction, or an unsophisticated fusion resulting in stylistic failure 25 The Nemrud Dağ monument, in particular, has been characterized as ugly, bombastic, rough and rude 26 Its colossi, de-scribed as empty and meaningless27 or scornfully compared to figures fabricated from snow28, have been regarded as the products of a decadent and troubled time29 and the
18 The term ‘hybrid’ referring to the Anfushy tombs can be found in Botti 1902, 32 Although Schiff does not use this word, he sees a mixture (“Vermischung”) of Greek and Egyptian motives in hypo-geum 2 (Schiff 1905, 18) Breccia 1921, 68–69 comments on hypohypo-geum 5 in a similar way (“un mélange assez compliqué”) More recent scholars describe with the same expression the whole necropolis:
Pensabene 1993, 135 (“un misto di elementi greci ed egizi”); McKenzie 2007, 71 (“a mixture of Egyp-tian and classical decoration”); Guimier-Sorbets 2012, 171 (“le mélange d’éléments grecs et égyptiens”);
Gorzelany 2019, 178 (“the Greek and Egyptian styles had become merged”) See also Lembke 2018, 182 (“a progressive process of amalgamation”)
19 Venit 2002, 76 80 82–83 86 88–89; Venit 2004, 124–127; Venit 2009, 56 58 See also von Hesberg 1978, 142 (“So folgt […] einer griechischen Quaderwand I Stiles eine ägyptische Kacheldekoration”);
Guimier-Sorbets 2010, 160 162; Guimier-Sorbets 2012, 178 180 (“style structural grec”)
20 Adriani 1966, 191 193; Pensabene 1993, 89 127 133 498 526; Bonacasa 2005, 43 50; Gorzelany 2019, 56–58; Guimier-Sorbets 2012, 174 178–179 181; Gorzelany 2019, 90 n 11 107
23 Smith 1988, 104 24 Dörrie 1978, 245
25 Smith 1988, 103–104 121; Smith 1996, 228 See also Pollitt 1986, 275
26 Humann – Puchstein 1890, 215 253 Cf Sanders 1996, p xxiii 28 30 for a brief review of these char-acterisations
27 Smith 1996, 228
28 Hamdy Bey – Efendi 1883, 17–18 29 Smith 1996, 228
reliefs have been qualified as startlingly incompetent 30 The main criticism underlying such invalidating assessments31 is the lack of consistency with a specific culture-style,
‘Persian’ or ‘Greek’32, perceived as a passive and absolute category or a coherent phe-nomenon related to a distinct population Indeed, evaluations by early scholars rely upon the statement that Antiochan sculptures have not earned a place in the develop-ment of Greek art and cannot claim to be considered within this framework 33 More recent literature reiterates such views and suggests that these creations are not genuine, regretting their Greek disguise reduced to a travesty of Classical statuary34 or dismis-sing them as the last fling of Hellenism 35 This neither purely Oriental nor authentically Classical style36 has been thought to be uncharacteristic, reflecting the deficient skill of the stonecutters37, if not their barbaric sense of design The Nemrud Dağ hierothesion has therefore been attributed to indigenous artisans of low artistic status, who had ac-quired knowledge abroad38 and were unfamiliar with – and probably unsympathetic to – the Classical treatment of sculpture;39 or, on the contrary, to faint-hearted attempts of Greek sculptors deliberately barbarizing or Orientalizing the style and anatomy 40
Although pejorative characterizations are less frequent and virulent in the case of Anfushy, they derive from the same idea of faithfulness to fixed styles and artistic tradi-tions Thus, the painted panels inspired by Pharaonic iconography have been accused of having neither the beauty of works created by the great Greek masters, nor the au-thenticity of Egyptian art 41 Even more stringent criticism was levelled at the tombs when they were compared to other, more strongly Hellenized Alexandrian funerary monuments, which led to conclusions of disappointment that almost nothing was left of the beauty and the purity of Greek architectural forms on the Island of Pharos, that nothing reminded of the size, clarity, finish, richness, and variety of other ‘purely
30 Robertson 1975, 565
31 Kropp 2013, 361 summarizes and criticizes these negative assessments Although he thinks that the final products were artificial, he qualifies them as eclectic (see also Kropp 2013, 23 382) in the positive sense of the term, an adjective which is also used by Sanders 1996, 135 143–144
32 As T Goell pointed out, cf Sanders 1996, p xxiii 27–28 30–31 For the notion of culture-style, see Assmann 1986
33 Humann – Puchstein 1890, 222 258–259 294–295 345–348 34 Boardman 1994, 80 82
35 Pollitt 1986, 275 36 Young 1963, 203 207 212
37 Hamdy Bey – Efendi 1883, 25–26 Hoepfner 1983, 66–67; Hoepfner 2000, 67 disputes this view-point
38 Humann – Puchstein 1890, 345 347–348 39 Boardman 1994, 80 82
40 Smith 1988, 104; Smith 1996, 228 For a critical overview of all these derogatory judgements, see Versluys 2017, 19–20 26 155 185–193 197 199–201
41 Botti 1902, 12 (“M Poilay bey ne trouvait pas dans ce tableau la beauté de l’œuvre des grands maîtres grecs;”) See also infra, n 52
Greek’ expressions 42 Given the poverty of their uneven layout, their irregular design and masonry43, their misunderstood ‘bastardized’ Doric elements44 and roughly re-adapted Hellenistic motifs45, the mediocre execution and modest quality of their deco-ration46, the Anfushy hypogea allegedly display an eclecticism that demonstrates an ex-treme decadence of taste 47 According to this view, the tombs testify to the weakness of Hellenism, fighting against traditional Egyptian art and bending under its weight 48 Although more recent scholarly assessments are not overtly negative, their somewhat condescending undertones suggest that this opinion has not completely changed Comparisons to other Alexandrian necropolises still conclude that the Pharos exam-ples are less important49, elaborate and innovative, less stately, neat and well-aligned Landscape details (fig 8) are qualified as ingenuous and trompe-l’oeil vistas as more simplistic and less sophisticated than their counterparts from mainland Greece and the Italic peninsula 50 As in Commagene, such approaches retain Classical canons as the main aesthetic criteria, overtly or implicitly seeking for traces of these aesthetics in an alien and rather unfavourable environment Again, the distortion of these norms is imputed to local craftsmen of lesser technical dexterity, appropriating a vocabulary that they have not become familiar with 51 Accordingly, the Pharaonic style panels (fig 10) have been interpreted as the work of artists who were not native, despite their
42 Adriani 1952, 102 (“il n’y a rien, qui puisse rappeler la belle architecture […] d’autres hypogées alexan-drins”) 126 (“Il n’y a plus rien à Pharos qui nous rappelle l’ampleur, la clarté, la variété des plans de la nécropole de Moustafa Pacha; presque plus rien de la pureté des formes architecturales grecques” ) Ber-nand 1998, 230 (“Les constructions, comme les décorations, n’ont ni le fini, ni la richesse, ni la variété des
42 Adriani 1952, 102 (“il n’y a rien, qui puisse rappeler la belle architecture […] d’autres hypogées alexan-drins”) 126 (“Il n’y a plus rien à Pharos qui nous rappelle l’ampleur, la clarté, la variété des plans de la nécropole de Moustafa Pacha; presque plus rien de la pureté des formes architecturales grecques” ) Ber-nand 1998, 230 (“Les constructions, comme les décorations, n’ont ni le fini, ni la richesse, ni la variété des