The Edges of the Roman World

Edited by

Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi and Staa Babi

The Edges of the Roman World,

Edited by Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi and Staa Babi

This book first published 2014

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright 2014 by Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi, Staa Babi and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5899-4, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5899-1

Table of contents

List of illustrations viiList of tables ix

Foreword: Edges of the Roman world, imperialism and identitiesVladimir D. Mihajlovi & Marko A. Jankovi xIntroduction Richard Hingley 1 Roman-barbarian interactions and the creation of Dutch national identity: The many faces of myth Sergio Gonzlez Snchez 5

The Peoples protests: Accounts of resistance from Cassius Dio to Bashir-Al-AssadLydia Langerwerf 19The Hellenization process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeologyIvan Vrani 33Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of powerMarko A. Jankovi 48

Religion and identity in the Roman Empire: Strategies of civic consolidation in the 2nd century ADRoco Gordillo Hervs 61

Knowing your neighbour: Considering some social implications of layouts of Roman military basesAnna H. Walas 72Vinum vires: Trier Black-Slipped wares and constructive drinking in Roman BritainShaun Anthony Mudd 86 Indicating borders or deining sphere of inluence? The Carthaginian position in the westerm Mediterranean in light of its treaties with Rome Andrzej Dudziski 105Headhunting on the Roman frontier: (Dis)respect, mockery, magic and the head of Augustus from Meroe Uro Mati 117The Empire of friends and the house of the father: Celtic and Canaanite elite under Imperial ruleAaron Irvin 135

The Edges of the Roman Worldvi

Being Roman and Greek: Local response to the inluence from Rome in northern Asia MinorJesper Majbom Madsen 145

On the prefectura orae maritimae on the western coast of the Black Sea Ligia Ruscu 159 Enemy at the gates? Interactions between Dacians and Romans in the 1st century ADMariana Egri 172Objects in action: Towards the anthropology of exchange of Roman bronze vessels in the middle Danube regionVladimir D. Mihajlovi 194

The formation of early Imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia: (Re)constructing indigenous communities after the conquestDanijel Dino 219

The Batavians between Germania and Rome: The emergence of a soldiering peopleNico Roymans 232Afterword: When empires colapseStaa Babi 252

List of contributors 257Index 261

Headhunting on the Roman Frontier: (Dis)respect, mockery, magic and the head of Augustus from Meroe

Uro Mati

The bronze head of a Prima Porta type1 portrait of Augustus was, as J. Garstang, the original excavator described, found just outside the doorway of temple M 292 in the north-east quarter of the Royal city of Meroe, buried in a clean pocket of sand (2.5 m from the surface) (Trk 1997a: 146). D. Harting conducted excavations of the same structure during 1983-1984 and distinguished six construction phases (Shinnie and Anderson 2004, 85). The small pit in which the Augustus head was found, was located c. 1m from the threshold at a level c. 60-80cm below Garstangs loor level A, thus, dug into the Garstangs third period porch loor (Trk 1997a: 150). Although it is not entirely clear, it could be assumed that this third period of Garstang corresponds to phase 4 established by Harting. There are two uncalibrated C-14 dates taken from the bottom of the Hartings phase 4 walls, 6070 AD (MR1-208; Beta-9868) and 10 B.C60 (MR1-209; Beta-9869) (Shinnie and Anderson 2004: 8687).

The interior walls of M292 in this phase were plastered, but, the paintings were later damaged in a storm, and now no traces of them exist in situ. The only known records of the paintings are excavation photos, and drawings made by H. Schliephack which were later rediscovered in Boston Museum of Fine Arts and published by P. L. Shinnie and R. J. Bradley (1981). The scene represented on the eastern (E) wall was destroyed above the waist level of the major igures. At each end of the scene was a depiction of an enthroned deity. Both footrests of the deities were decorated with small kneeling igures of prisoners. There were ive prisoners on the footrest of the right igure. The irst on the left was of light skin and had a beard, wearing a blue, thigh-length striped robe with a helmet on his head (Shinnie

1 The Prima Porta type portrait of Augustus is one of the oficial portraits of the emperor Augustus named after the marble statue of the emperor found in the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta near Rome. It is the most widely attested imperial portrait type with c. 150 examples. The hairstyle of the portrait (front of the hair, above the forehead) is used as the irst sign of its identiication (Boschung 1993: 3850). There are several different dates for the irst appearance of the Prima Porta type statues. The earliest is the date around 30BC (Boschung 1993, 160), and the suggestion that the type must have appeared by 27 BC as Augustus restored the Republic on 16. January that year (Ewald and Iorea 2010: 263; Herklotz 2007: 364365). Hausmann argues that this portrait type irst appeared on coin series issued in the east 27/26 BC in connection to the restoration of the Republic but did not became dominant before 25-23 BC (1981: 571). The date of the Prima Porta type in relation to the ind from Meroe will be discussed in more details in the following chapters of this paper.

118 Headhunting on the Roman frontier

and Bradley 1981: 167170). D. E. L. Haynes (1983, 178) describes the helmet as unmistakably Roman, identiiable as such by the hemispherical crown with a small knob on the top, the tapering brow-pieces reminiscent of a visor and nape-guard, however it is impossible to tell from the photograph if there are cheek pieces. Haynes connects this representation with a helmet appearing on Trajans column and with a silver example probably from Emesa, now kept in Toledo Museum of Art (Ohio). The Roman helmet from Toledo Museum of Art is a silver helmet with cheek pieces hinged to the brow piece, produced in Julio-Claudian or early Flavian period (Vermeule 1960: 911). Interpretation of the igure on the footrest as Roman is accepted by various authors (Shinnie and Bradley 1981: 170; Trk 2009: 455456). Similar bound prisoner igures are represented on the relief on the west wall of the Sun temple M 250 in Meroe (Hinkel 2001: 159), on one of the bronze bells found in Begrawiya North 16 (Dunham 1957: 137141), on a wall painting from the Meroitic temple at Qasr Ibrim (Rose 2007: 42), a stela of Amanishakheto from Naga (Wildung 2011: 37) and possibly on a three step dais from Naga in front of the temple of Amun (Wildung 2011: 4549).The standing igures depicted between the enthroned deities on the eastern wall of M292 are interpreted as the king and queen of Meroe with their entourage of priests, oficials or most likely royal princes (Shinnie and Bradley 1981: 170; Trk 1989-1990: 184; 1997a: 148149). L. Trk (1997a: 149) identiies the royal pair as king Natakamani and queen Amanitore, while Haynes (1983: 178) identiies them as Amanirenas and Akinidad. Amanirenas and Akinidad are by some scholars identiied with Candace and her son referred to by Strabo in his narrative on Roman conlict with Meroe (Trk 2009: 500). Therefore, the identiication of the depicted couple can not be entirely certain as the dates for the phase 4 of the temple M 292 and the rule of different royal couples are estimations. However, a date close to or during the reign of Natakami and Amanitore (around the 50 AD) (Baud 2010: 287) is more in accordance to dating of the Hartings phase 4 of the temple M 292 (Shinnie and Anderson 2004: 8687).

There is also an enigma of authenticity of the human skull inserted into the wall near the right edge of the E wall scene, visible on Garstangs photos (Negatives 378, 379). The skull is not mentioned in the excavation records or the published records. It lacks the lower mandible suggesting that it was deleshed before it was inserted into the wall. Shinnie and Bradley (1981: 167) suggested that if the skull was not recent it may have been the skull of a sacriiced prisoner, perhaps built into the wall as a parallel to the bronze head of Augustus buried outside. Trk warned that the Garstangs reports usually emphasize inds from places interpreted as places of sacriices and unusual burials, and that this lacks in the case of the skull from M292. Based on the number of small juvenile sketches and scribblings made by Schliephack in Meroe he believes that the skull is a joke of Schliephack (Trk 1997a: 148). What can certainly be argued based on the photos (Negatives 378, 379) is that the plaster area around and above the skull is much damaged. Therefore the main question is was the skull placed in the wall construction before or after the plastering? Was it a later intrusion in regards to the paintings? Judging on the photos it can be noted that there is no visible niche or a special type of installation in the wall for the skull. The shadows cast by the skull and the wall remains in surrounding area are suggesting

Uro Mati 119that, on the photo at least, the skull is positioned rather loose in the wall. This could have been the consequence of the cleaning of the area so that the skull is better visible on the photo. Being that the plaster is rather damaged, especially above the skull, it can be argued that Garstang documented the situation as he found it, however this is not resolving the date of the skull deposition. What is also important is that the skull is positioned between the right throne and the knee of a standing igure behind the right throne. This is certainly not a central wall position, neither is it speciic in any other way, but rather gives an impression of random positioning. If the skull deposition is anyhow connected to the deposition of the Prima Porta type statue head, one would expect a better prepared socket in the wall construction. It is also unlikely that Garstang would allow a joke on the photos, whatever Schliephack scribbled or drew for himself. It should also be stressed that it is not possible to argue based on the photo alone that the skull belonged to a sacriiced prisoner, and that this view of Shinnie and Bradley (1981: 167) is based on analogy with the wall decoration and the bronze head deposition. Recent review of evidence for human sacriice in Meroitic temples done by M. Zach (2010) suggests that the ritual killing of war prisoners was indeed present and formed part of the royal legitimization, at least in the oficial decorum. The question is of course if we can take temple images as signs of repetitive ritual killings in reality and not just as royal obligation related to kingship, gods and cosmology expressed in the decorum. However, so far there is no evidence for taking enemy heads as trophies or evidence for any other body part trophy taking for that matter. Also, if the head was inserted into the wall which was then painted over, in connection to the deposition of the bronze head of Augustus in front of the entrance, then not many would know of the existence of the skull in the wall. Therefore its visibility would not pay a signiicant role for the temple visitors. All available information rather suggest that the skull was inserted later in the wall, but one can not say if its deposition damaged the plaster as it was inserted or it was placed there after the wall was already damaged. The skull is therefore not to be associated with the bronze head of Prima Porta type portrait found outside the doorway of M292.

There are three possible scenarios which have been put forward so far regarding the original context of the statue to which the head of Augustus from Meroe belonged and regarding the arrival of the head in the Meroe city. Before each of the so far offered scenarios is discussed in detail the following lines will present and discuss the events immediately before the war between Rome and Meroe, as a prelude to possible events concerning the head of Augustus.

Prelude to headhunting

The Romans under Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) completely subjugated Lower Egypt after the battle of Actium in September 31 BC. After Octavian left Egypt in Autumn 30 BC he appointed Gaius Cornelius Gallus, an eques by rank, and a personal friend and a known poet as the irst Roman prefect (praefectus Alexandreae et Aegypti) in the new province Aegyptus (Hintze 1978: 99; Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 265; Shinnie 1978: 245246; Trk 2009: 429430).

Headhunting on the Roman frontier120

The irst dispute between Rome and Meroe, known so far, is recorded in the trilingual (hieroglyphs, Greek and Latin) stela of Cornelius Gallus placed in Philae in 29 BC. The stela was found reused in front of Augustus temple at Philae dedicated by prefect Rubius Barbarus in 13/12 BC (Lukaszewicz 2010: 535; Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 265). The Greek and Latin texts on the Galluss stela are a valuable testament to the events following the establishment of Egypt as a province, especially regarding its relations with Meroe. Scholars still debate which of these two texts is the original or more historically accurate and how to interpret them in the light of the political status of Meroe and Triakontaschoinos2 (Hoffmann 2010; Lukaszewicz 2010; Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010). Recent work on the texts convincingly argues from philological grounds that the Latin text is the original one, and the Greek text is its translation (Hoffmann 2010: 152157). Accordingly Gaius Cornelius Gallus placed a local tyrant to govern Triakontaschoinos which became part of the province of Egypt and established a personal patron/client relationship with the king of Meroe (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 285288). This arrangement obliged inhabitants of Triakontaschoinos to pay taxes (Kormysheva 1989: 306; Trk 2009: 434436). However, we should not forget that the trilingual stela of Gallus provides us with a narrative of the events from his point of view, most probably serving his own ideological needs which are not necessarily against the policy of the emperor. We do not have a Meroitic parallel document which we can compare with the version of Gallus, and still there is no reason to think that this document would be less distorted. The king of Meroe probably had his own view of relation to the prefect of Egypt and the Roman Empire. The fact that Triakontaschoinos was now controlled by the Roman Empire does not necessarily imply the loyalty of the king of Meroe, neither does it necessarily imply his open animosity. What we can be sure however is that the control of Triakontaschoinos by the Roman Empire was certainly not suiting the interests of Meroe. Regarding the Roman-Meroitic relations and the inding of the bronze head of Prima Porta type portrait in Meroe, there are three different scenarios offered so far. Central to all of them is the role of the head in Roman-Meroitic relations. Implications of the mutual relations of Rome and Meroe for the original context of the statue, to which the bronze head belonged, will be discussed in the following chapters.

Scenario 1: The gift of Rome to the king of Meroe

Haynes had suggested that the head of Augustus might have been given to the Meroites as a gift by Gallus, but also argued against this, stating that this is unlikely because Gallus was more interested in placing his own portraits in Egypt than the portraits of Augustus. He also writes that the Meroites would have considered this kind of a gift from Gallus to be humiliating (Haynes 1983: 180). Haynes based his idea of the Gallus preoccupation

2 Triakontaschoinos (Land of the thirty [Greek] miles) was a Ptolemaic governmental unit between the irst and the second cataract irst appearing as a geographical term around 150 BC in the inscription of Boethos, Ptolemaic oficial (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 287; Trk 1989-1990: 173; Trk 2009: 384).

Uro Mati 121with his own statues on the text of Cassius Dio who writes that the prefect was accused for setting images of himself everywhere in Egypt and even inscribing monuments with the list of his achievements (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 280). Whether or not this kind of a gift would be an offence is a complicated question. If Gallus really plotted against Augustus and maybe even collaborated with the Meroites then presenting a head of Augustus, cut from a statue, to the Meroites as a gift would rather be Gallus own political and symbolical statement. This act would thus be a symbolical statement to the Meroites that the perfect of Egypt is no more loyal to the Roman emperor. In this context the presenting of the head would be an opening gift, setting complex gift-giving rules in motion (equal partners, reciprocity, and time) and not offending the Meroites, but rather establishing friendly relations (cf. Mauss 1990). The gift-exchange is well attested in Meroitic society (Edwards 1998: 188189), but the Roman gifts for friendly kings were rather regalia of the old kings of Rome-ivory chairs, scepters, gold crowns, gold vessels and triumphal robes; toga picta, toga palmate (Braund 1984: 2728). Cut parts of the bronze statues would hardly be part of the gift assemblage. The bronze head of Augustus would be a quite unusual gift compared to the ones known to be presented to the so called friendly kings. Even if we presume that the gift of the supposedly treacherous and plotting Gallus would itself be unusual, there are also strong arguments suggesting that Gallus was not plotting against Augustus in Egypt. His deeds in Upper Egypt and beyond the First Cataract can be interpreted as dealing in a legal gray area. The reason is that the prefect made agreements without the permission of the Senate and the emperor, however in a period when the rules were not entirely clear (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 290295). There is also little evidence about the Meroitic perception of the activities of Gallus and there is no reason to think that the king of Meroe had to agree to the already mentioned patron/client relationship. Out of all proposed scenarios for the coming of the bronze head of Augustus statue to Meroe the gift giving scenario is the least probable in the light of available evidence. Consequently this scenario would imply a date to high (29 BC) for the Prima Porta type portrait taking into account the irst appearance of this portrait type on coinage (27/26 BC).

Scenario 2: Headhunting across the First cataract

Eventually, from reasons still debated in scholarship, Gaius Cornelius Gallus, the irst prefect of Egypt fell from grace, was forced to return to Rome and in the end killed himself (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010, 265).

Augustus ordered Lucius Aelius Gallus, second prefect of Egypt to prepare a military expedition against Arabia Felix. He regrouped the forces stationed in Egypt and took c. 8000 of the 16.800 men in three legions and 5500 of the auxiliary forces. The expedition was carried out in 26-25 BC and ended with Roman defeat. The inhabitants of Triakontaschoinos received the news of Aelius Gallus failure in Arabia and revolted in the summer of 25 BC. The aim of the revolt was to end the previously established status of Triakontaschoinos and the obligation of paying poll tax to Rome. Concurrently with this revolt there were local rebellions against

Headhunting on the Roman frontier122

the pressure of taxation in Upper Egypt (Jameson 1968: 77; Trk 2009: 441). The rebels might also have received help from the king of Meroe. Meroe probably tried to use the opportunity presented by the revolt in Triakontaschoinos and Upper Egypt to establish the northern frontier in the region of the First Cataract (Trk 1997b: 449; Trk 2009: 441).

Strabo narrates how the rebels used their opportunity of Aelius Gallus absence to attack the three cohorts left at Syene (Aswan), taking Syene, Elephantine and Philae, enslaving the inhabitants and pulling down the statues of Caesar (Augustus) (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957: 139). The majority of scholars have interpreted the bronze head of Augustus from Meroe as the head of one of the statues taken as booty by the rebels and later buried in front of the temple M 292 (Burstein 1979: 9697; 1988: 20; Grzymski 2004: 167; Haynes 1983: 180; Hintze 1978, 100; Kirwan 1957: 19; Shinnie 1978: 247248; 1996: 116). Trk thinks that it is unlikely that an example of this type existed at Syene, Elephantine and Philae as early as 25 BC because it appears for the irst time on coinage in 27/26 BC. (Trk 1989-1990: 181). The possibility of the statues early existence and placement in Syene, Elephantine and Philae will be discussed in the concluding chapters.

Scenario 3: Headhunting in Qasr Ibrim

The Roman response to the activities of the rebels came quickly. The irst campaign of Publius Petronius, the third prefect of Egypt, occurred between Autumn 25 BC and late Spring 24 BC. The Meroites were defeated and Lower Nubia was occupied by the Romans as far as the Second Cataract (Jameson 1968: 74; Trk 2009: 441442). According to Strabo Petronius forced the Meroites to withdraw to Pselkis, sent envoys to demand what had been taken at Syene and Elephantine and asked for reasons for starting the war. The Meroites answered that they had been wronged by the nomarchs.3 Hostilities continued, Petronius captured the generals of Meroe and sent some of the prisoners to Alexandria. Then he attacked and captured Pselkis and went to Premnis (Qasr Ibrim), which he fortiied and left a garrison and food for four hundred men for two years and set out for Alexandria (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957: 139).

There are rather poorly preserved and understood remains of Roman military installations in Lower Nubia some of which can be dated to the campaigns of Petronius (Welsby 1998: 161164). The only substantial evidence for the Roman presence in Lower Nubia during this period is at Qasr Ibrim (Premnis). The girdle wall surrounding the fort, apparently originally built in the late Ptolemaic times was later enlarged and strengthened at least twice during the Roman period (Adams 1983: 96; Adams, Alexander and Allen 1983: 57; Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006: 65).

Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim is also attested by 4 refuse levels accumulated against the Roman girdle wall. Beside pottery of Ptolemaic and Nubian origin there are large quantities of trans-Mediterranean and Roman-

3 Nomarchs are the heads of the local administration of the nome; here probably referring to district inancial oficers (Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831).

Uro Mati 123Egyptian pottery types. Among the refuse material are large quantities of military boots and shoes, cloth and fragments of papyri written in Latin, Demotic and Greek, together with Roman and Ptolemaic coins. Particularly interesting are the deposits of sling ammunition and c. 1000 sandstone ballista balls with names and inscriptions in Greek (Adams 1983: 9697; Adams, Alexander and Allen 1983: 58; Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006). Among the 40 ballista balls inscribed with carbon-ink is the one (British Museum EA 71839) having inscription KANAH/Kandaxe4 in the second line, and according to the authors the inscriptions in second and third line can be understood as a personal message for the queen: Just right for you Kandaxe! (Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006: 71).

How long did the Roman presence last at Qasr Ibrim is still debated. W. H. C Frend assessed the occupation in decades rather than years (1980: 927928). W. Y. Adams, J. A. Alexander and R. Allen also suggested that the Roman occupation probably lasted longer than two years mentioned by Pliny and Strabo, probably even continuing until the end of the irst century AD if not later (Adams 1983: 9798; Adams, Alexander and Allen 1983: 59). M. Horton argues that the archaeological evidence does not indicate Roman occupation deep into the irst century AD as imported Roman pottery from the military levels all dates to irst century BC.

Pamela Rose argues that the foundation of the Meroitic temple complex at Qasr Ibrim took place immediately after the Roman withdrawal from the fort in the early irst century AD. The decoration on the painted plaster fragments from the temple are similar to those from temples in Butana and Meroe dated to the irst century AD, suggesting that craftsmen were sent from the Meroitic heartlands, as the construction of the temple was the states project (Rose 2007: 165166).

There is an opinion that the bronze head of Augustus found in Meroe once belonged to a statue which was placed in the Roman fort of Qasr Ibrim (Frend 1980: 928929; Plumley 1971: 1819; Trk 1989-1990: 182; Trk 1995: 130; 2009: 455). Trk suggested the existence of a sacellum where the statue could receive the homage of troops and locals (1989-1990: 182; 1995: 130). Martin Plumley identiies the Podium as the place were the statue once stood, seen only by approaching from the South (Plumley 1971: 1618). This identiication of the place for the statue can now be taken as invalid as the Podium can be safely assigned to the Ptolemaic period, both by radiocarbon dating and based on the architectural grounds (Rose 2010: 425). It should also be mentioned that the statue could not have been seen approaching from the south, or if it was possible then not much of it was visible. Frend suggested that the statue stood on a circular pavement 4m in diameter found in 1974 at Qasr Ibrim near the south wall and facing south up the Nile (Frend 1980: 928929). However, next to this pavement there was another one found at Qasr Ibrim (Plumley 1975: 16), and they are both stratigraphically pre-Roman.5 Therefore the statue could not have stood

4 Kandaxe (Kandake, Candace) is a female royal title deriving from Meroitic kdis, kdite, kdiw (sister), meaning kings sister (Trk 2009: 442).5 I would like especially to thank Pamela Rose (Austrian archaeological institute in Cairo) for this information, a view of the photos of the site and its surroundings and for the overall discussion on the issue of Roman levels of Qasr Ibrim and ideas presented in this paper.

Headhunting on the Roman frontier124

on these pavements. Additionally, bronze statues were usually fastened directly into the sockets on top of the base (Hjte 2005: 2829). However, such sockets are not mentioned by the publishers and are not discernable on the published photographs of the pavements, and it is not likely that they were missed by the excavators and publishers. Haynes rejected Plumleys suggestion that the supposed bronze statue of Augustus stood in Qasr Ibrim and that it was later taken by the Meroites when the Romans left. They would probably not leave the statue behind (Haynes 1983: 180). The Meroites most probably never conquered the fort and the Roman army never left under pressure in hurry. This is collaborated by good fortiication during the Roman occupation of the site and the study of ballista balls from Qasr Ibrim, suggesting machinery was present at the site. Meroitic soldiers wearing no body armor would not stand a chance to the Roman defenses (Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006: 77). Strabo writes that Candace marched against the fort with many thousands of men, but Petronius came to help the soldiers in the fort. The queen of Meroe sent envoys which Petronius sent to Augustus on Samos and they supposedly obtained everything they asked for and were also remitted from tribute (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 832; Jones 1957: 139). Therefore, the queen did not have only the problem of the defenses of the fort which her army could not match, but also the army of Petronius in the open. The fact that there are no surviving traces of machinery at Qasr Ibrim, except the ballista balls, suggests that the ballistae were carefully removed and taken by the Roman soldiers when they left. This also suggests that if the statue of Augustus was ever there they had enough time to remove it and take it too. The idea that the head of Augustus from Meroe belonged to a statue of Augustus standing at Qasr Ibrim, where it was sacked by the Meroitic army, is thus not collaborated enough with the available evidence. This leaves us with the second scenario as the most probable one, and also one for which the majority of authors argue. Before the inal discussion and conclusion, the following chapters are going to discuss the recent approach to agency of art in which the head of Augustus from Meroe was taken as an example, but also the interpretation of the heads deposition in front of the temple.

Agencies and (dis)respect

The Meroe head of Augustus was recently mentioned in the context of the study of the agency of art (Eck 2010: 645). The discussion of objects having a sort of agency was opened in archaeology not so recently (Miller 2005: 1115; Fahlander 2008: 131136; Knappet and Malafouris 2008). Theoretical insights were taken from A. Gell (1998) and B. Latour. Gell was particularly interested in agency of art and approached art as a system of action, intended to change the world rather than encode symbolic propositions about it (1998: 6). He rejected semiotic approach arguing that art is not like a text and put more emphasis on agency, intention, causation, result and transformation. Four terms are essential for Gells theory: prototype, artist, index and recipient, where prototype is an entity represented in the image, index is the art work/object/image, and recipient is the observer. These concepts are in mutual agent-patient relation, thus allowing material

Uro Mati 125culture to affect the observer and to captivate him (Gell 1998). Exactly this potential of art work for agency, in relation to the head of Augustus from Meroe, will be discussed in the following lines.

Roman cult images were regularly clothed, fed, given offerings and sacriices, decked with garlands, kissed, consulted, asked for favors, painted, tended and anointed. They were occasionally considered to move, speak, sweat and bleed, some were even bound or chained to keep them in place and to control them. These images were treated as if they were alive, embodying the represented deities and mediating the emperors exposure to the populace (Stewart 2003: 112; 2006: 243246; 2007: 159162). The statues of the emperor were main elements of every legion as they were venerated by the troops (Lozano 2011: 153). Most inhabitants of the Roman Empire never have seen the ruler so his portraits would embody his presence. Ruler portraits were presented with petitions, appealed to for asylum, venerated and feared (Stewart 2003: 170; 2006: 243244; 2007: 169170). Gell would relate this to the distributed personality of the emperor (1998: 102104). Venerations, worship and sacriices to statues of Roman emperors were one of the signs of submission, separating Roman from non-Roman, and friends from enemies (Lozano 2011: 154156). Thus the statues of the emperor are not placed randomly, their agency being most important about them. However, these statues also received other forms of treatment. Destruction of images of bad emperors was a spectacle of symbolic violence and crowds of Rome pulled statues from their bases, dismantled, abused and dragged them through the streets. Such violence was inlicted upon the body of the emperor himself, but there was only one corpse, and thousands of statues (Stewart 2003: 268; 2006: 246). Placing statues of Augustus in the sites such as Syene, Elephantine and Philae would allow the presence of the emperor on the edges of the empire. However, foreign objects and practices (e.g the imperical cult) can cause hatred and resistance towards them by those people who did not want to be affected by them (Lozano 2011: 150151). One probable example of this resistance can be recognized in the actions of the rebels when they sacked the statues of Augustus at Syene, Elephantine and Philae. The very notion of Gells approach to art work as having agency and at the same time maybe diminishing the role of symbolicity has to be mediated. Postcolonial theory warns us that social encounters are unpredictable, uncertain and sometimes cause misunderstanding. These social encounters are not limited to people only, but rather include other agents too e.g objects, and are particularly present in contact zones, space of negotiation, borderlands and frontiers (Bhabha 1994; Cornell and Fahlander 2007: 1; Fahlander 2007: 25; Naum 2010: 101107). Obviously, statues were important to the Romans, because they wanted them back from the Meroites together with the living prisoners (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957: 139).

Most of the previous authors did not deal with the ultimate direction of violence conducted by sacking the statues of Augustus by the rebels. It can be easily assumed that the rebels intended to mock Augustus; however, there is another likely possibility to be considered. Strabo narrates how when Petronius sent envoys of the queen of Meroe to Caesar (Augustus), they however replied that they did not know who Caesar was nor where to ind him, and Petronius gave them escort to go to Samos and meet with

Headhunting on the Roman frontier126

Augustus (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54) (Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 832; Jones 1957: 139). There is an opinion that the Meroites had no knowledge that the commander of the Roman troops only acted on behalf of the emperor and that they perceived the prefect as the ruler of their enemies, probably as a consequence of their relations with Gallus who supposedly had no interest in informing them in the legal circumstances (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 291). We should be careful with such assumptions especially because of the bias of the Strabos writing. This is especially because the Meroites in Strabos writing seem to be well informed about all other related events in Egypt (Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 835). Nevertheless, this comment of Strabo is inspiring in thinking about the reception of the Roman statues. It is an interesting question: who did the rebels from Triakontaschoinos saw in the statues they sacked, emperor or prefect? The answer to this question we may never know, however it is important to bare in mind the possibility of misunderstanding, confusion and ignorance, as well as understanding, information and knowledge.

Magic and mockery

Many scholars argue that the deposition of the head in a pit in front of the temple M292 threshold was itself a magical ritual. Inge Hofmann proposes that it was perceived as the head of a statue of a foreign god and therefore that the head was ritually deposited in a pit in front of the temple entrance (1995: 28492850). If the statue was perceived by the Meroites as a foreign god we can not say, but if we suppose that it was originally placed in the complex of a temple, this is a valid assumption. Trk also suggests a magical ritual performed with the head as does R. K. Ritner. Ritner even connects it to the famous Middle Kingdom Mirgissa deposit6 (Ritner 1993: 135136; Trk 1995: 132; 2009: 455). Haynes and S. M. Burstein view it as ritual humiliation with everyone entering the building stepping on the head, as a symbol of triumph associated with the scene inside the temple (Burstein 1988: 1920; Haynes 1983: 179). If we accept, based on all the evidence available (deposition of the head in the clean pocket of sand; the bound prisoner motif on the footrest on the E wall), that what Garstang found were material remains of a form of execration magical ritual, then we inevitably argue for sympathetic magic (like produces like) as deined by early anthropologists. However, before taking this as a deinite interpretation we should bear in mind that the deposition of the head in a pit in front of the temple has nothing to do with the skull found in the E wall as argued by Shinney and Bradley (1981: 167). The problem of the skull was already discussed at the beginning of the paper. The skull itself together with the statue head deposition was however interpreted as an execration ritual through an analogy with quite older Mirgissa deposit

6 Mirgissa deposit was found 600m from the Middle Kingdom (c. 1911-1870 BC) fort of Mirgissa in a small sandy depression. It contained 5 unbroken crucibles, 197 inscribed broken red vases, 437 uninscribed broken red vases, 346 mud igurines, 3 limestone igurines and a head of the fourth, 4m from the deposit a skull lacking lower mandibule was found with traces of wax dyed with red ochre. The deposit is interpreted as an execration ritual against the enemies of Egypt (Ritner 1993: 135136).

Uro Mati 127(c. 1950 years chronological difference!). This analogy is not justiied as there is no similiarity between the Meroe pit and the Mirgissa deposit. Often added to the argument of magical ritual is the depiction of the bound captives, among them one of the Roman type. Caution should be held with this connection as the stratigraphic relation of the head deposition with the phase of the building in which the mentioned paintings were done is not at all deinitely clear.

Further, it is interesting not only, as previous scholars argued, that there is an association between the deposition of the head in front of the temple and the motifs in the interior, but that a particular motif of bound prisoner got an iconographical addition. Around the middle of the 1st century AD, at least according to available so far discovered and dated material, there emerges a topos of the Roman enemy in Meroitic iconography. We ind it on the temple walls of M292 and M250 (Sun temple) at Meroe and the Meroitic temple complex at Qasr Ibrim as a bound prisoner, also on a stela of Amanishakheto from Naga, and possibly on a three step dais from Naga in front of the temple of Amun (Shinnie and Bradley 1981: 170; Rose 2007: 42; Wildung 2011: 3749). The construction of these temples is interpreted as connected to a message of Meroitic supremacy (Rose 2007: 165166). Another depiction is on the bell from Begrawiya North 16. Here the prisoner in question is not only iconographically close to the ones previously mentioned, but is also the only one depicted as being stabbed by a knife, while all other bound prisoners are depicted pierced by arrows (Dunham 1957: 137141). This is a clear way to distinguish him from the others for the viewer. Therefore, the bound prisoner motif in iconography had its own life course and changes in Meroitic art serving the need of its own historically speciic decorum and ideology.

The Candace of these confrontations is described as a masculine one-eyed woman, her troops as not keen for ighting, clearly emasculating the men of Meroe, de-feminising the women and mocking both genders (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957: 139). This is evidently ideological gender inversion used as a sign of barbarism usual regarding the foreign women in the work of Strabo (McCoskey 2005: 6168). The results of the encounter were echoing on both the physical and symbolic plain (iek 2004: xi). Roman-Meroitic encounter is thus a peculiar example not of often argued mocking mimicry in recent postcolonial scholarship (sensu Bhabha 1994), but of direct mockery on both conlicted sides.

Conclusion

The solution of the problem of the original context of the statue to which the bronze head from Meroe originally belonged is usually sought in relation to the dating of the Prima Porta type and its earliest production. The scenario offered by Haynes, in which the head of Augustus was presented to the king of Meroe as a gift, is, as argued in this paper, the least plausible scenario offered so far. This scenario would also mean dating the Prima Porta type to high (29 BC). The main issue of the two more plausible scenarios, suggesting the original context to be either Syene/Elephantine/Philae or Qasr Ibrim, is chronological. It was suggested that a bronze

Headhunting on the Roman frontier128

statue of Augustus of Prima Porta type could not have stood at Syene/Elephantine/Philae already in 25 BC because the earliest portraits of this type are known from coins dated to 27/26 BC and not from statuary (Trk 1989-1990: 181). The possible reason for the existence of the earliest portraits dated to 27/26 BC solely on coins is the fact that even though bronze was the preferred material for honorary statues it had high scrap value and was melted (Hjte 2005: 14). The problem is that the Prima Porta portrait type was by L. Trk dated using coinage iconography. It is highly unlikely that a proile would appear on coin obverse before the existence of a portrait model suggesting that most probably the same portrait existed simultaneously in statue form. Statues of Augustus with Prima Porta type portrait could have reached the borders of Egypt as a province relatively fast.7 The suggestion that the head of Augustus from Meroe belonged to a statue which was sacked by the Meroites when they conquered Qasr Ibrim is not collaborated with the available evidence. The previous identiications of places and architectural features for the placement of the statue at Qasr Ibrim turned out to be earlier than the statue itself. New evidence of the site fortiication and machinery defense during the Roman occupation, together with records of Strabo, argue that the Meroites most probably negotiated when they were confronted with the strong defenses and the incoming army of Petronius. We are safe to assume that the Roman army had the time to leave the fort and take the presumed statue (if there ever was one there) with them. This leaves the scenario in which the original context of the statue was in Syene/Elephantine/Philae as indeed the most probable one. The question which of course remains is: who did the rebels from Triakontaschoinos saw in the statues they sacked? Did they recognize the emperor or the prefect of Egypt? Did they saw in statues the nomarchs to whom they were forced to pay taxes? Did they see a foreign god in the statues? Was this ultimately important or the sacking of the statues was not related to any one of them in particular but rather to the whole enemy side? The fact that the statues were not only sacked but also carried away and kept speaks not only of mocking and victorious boosting but in some way also of respect (cf. Harrison 2012). That this was taken as a serious offence by the Roman side collaborates the narrative of Strabo stating that they wanted the statues back. Apparently, some of the statues were not returned after the Samos treaty and stayed with the Meroites. Presumeably, the head of one of these statues was deposited in a pit just outside the entrance to temple M292 in the city of Meroe.

7 Particularly interesting for this discussion is a relief fragment of Augustan date from the Khnum temple at Elephantine. The inscribed text has a peculiar rendering of Egyptian hieroglyph Hr in the form of Prima Porta type portrait (Laskowska-Kusztal 1996: 108; Kiss 2003). The connection between the record of Strabo, mentioning the sacking of the statues, and the Hr sign in form of the Prima Porta type, as an indication that the statues of this type were present there in 25 BC was already stressed by Z. Kiss. He also refers to the bronze head of Augustus from Meroe (Kiss 2003, 390). I would like to express my gratitude to Ewa Laskowska-Kusztal for pointing me to this ind and to related publications in our discussion at the German excavation house on Elephantine Island. Moreover, statue bases with sockets are present at Elephantine and are related to the temple of Khnum, however they are, for the time being only roughly dated to Roman period. The statue bases are currently studied by Tobias Krapf to whom I thank for sharing this information.

Uro Mati 129That the later deposition of the head in the pit in front of the temple can

be related to the deposition of the skull found in the E wall can be safely dismissed being that nothing indicates their chronological synchronization. Rather the contrary, it seems that the skull was later inserted into the wall. The analogy with the Middle Kingdom Mirgissa deposit is thus not grounded because of its date and the fact that the content of the Meroe pit itself has little analogous to Mirgissa. The supposed human sacriice at M292, argued because of the skull found in the E wall and related to the Mirgissa deposit, can not be sustained. This leaves us with the possibility for different view of the deposition of the Augustus head. If we assume that the deposition of the head is roughly contemporary to Hartings phase 4, dated c. 50 AD and to the reign of Natakamani and Amanitore, then the deposition of the head is c. 75 years later then its presumed sacking from the statue. This posses the question of the social life of the statue head (cf. Kopytoff 1986), before deposition in front of the temple M292. What did the new owners did with the head before they deposited it? Which roles did the head have in the context of the new ownership? The answers to these questions, however interesting they might be, are unfortunately out of our reach. Equally interesting is the fact that the head is not deposited in relation to any other major temples of the Meroe city, e.g the Amun temple. We would expect that more than M292 if we argue that the head served the ideological purpose for the Meroitic royalty. Consequently if the head could indeed be dated later than c. 25 BC, different interpretative scenarios can be proposed.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my enormous gratitude to my Ph.D supervisor Angelika Lohwasser (Institute for Egyptology and Coptology, University of Muenster) and Pamela Rose (Austrian archaeological institute in Cairo) on their help in obtaining the references I needed, their useful comments and critiques on the ideas here developed and their close readings of the draft. Special acknowledgments also go to Marko Jankovi (Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade), Vladimir Mihajlovi (Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad), Jane Webster (Newcastle University), Richard Hingley (Durham University), Anja Kootz (University of Cologne) and Ewa Laskowska-Kusztal (Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures, Polish Academy of Sciences) for their comments and perspective insights.

References

Adams, W. Y. 1983, Primis and the Aethiopian Frontier,.Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt XX, 93101, Alexander, J. A. and Roger A. 1983, Qar Ibrm 1980 and 1982, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 69,: 4360Baud, M. (ed.). 2010, Mro: Un empire sur le Nil, Paris : Muse du Louvre

ditions Bhabha, H. K. 1994, The Location of Culture, London: Routledge

Headhunting on the Roman frontier130

Boschung, D. 1993, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Berlin: Gebr. Mann VerlagBraund, D. 1984, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship, London and Canberra: Croom HelmBurstein, S. M. 1979, The Nubian Campaigns of C. Petronius and

George Reisners Second Meroitic Kingdom of Napata, Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 106, 95105Burstein, S. M. 1988, Cornelius Gallus and Aethiopia, The Ancient History Bulletin 2 (1), 1620Cornell, P. and Fahlander, F. 2007, Encounters Materialities

Confrontations: An Introduction. In Encounters, Materialities, Confrontations. Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited by Per Cornell and Fredrik Fahlander, 114. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press

Dunham, D. 1957, Royal Cemeteries of Kush: Royal Tombs of Meroe and Barkal, vol. IV, Boston: Museum of Fine ArtsEck, C. van 2010, Living Statues: Alfred Gells Art and Agency, Living

Presence Response and the Sublime, Art History 33. 4: 642-659Edwards, D. N. 1998, Meroe and the Sudanic Kingdoms, The Journal of African History 39 (2), 175193Eide, T. Hgg, T. Holton, R. P. and Trk L. (eds.). 1998, Fontes Historiae Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Vol. III. From the First to the Sixth Century AD. Bergen: University of BergenEwald, B. C. and Iorea, C. F. 2010, The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual, Yale Classical Studies 35. Cambridge:

Cambridge University PressFahlander, F. 2007, Third Space Encounters: Hybridity, Mimicry and

Interstitial Practice In Encounters, Materialities, Confrontations. Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited by Per Cornell and Fredrik Fahlander, 1541. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press

. 2008, Differences That Matter: Materialities, Material Culture and Social Practice In Six Essays on the Materiality of Society and Culture, edited by Hkon Glrstad and Lotte Hedeager, 127154. Lindome: Bricoleur Press

Frend, W. H. C. 1980, Augustus Egyptian Frontier: Qasr Ibrim? In Roman Frontier Studies: Papers presented to the 12th International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. BAR International Series 71, edited by William S. Hanson and Lawrence J. F. Keppie, 927930. London: Archaeopress

Gell, A. 1998, Art and Agency, An Anthropological Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Grzymski, K. 2004, Meroe In Sudan: Ancient Treasures, edited by Derek A. Welsby and Julie R. Anderson, 165-167. London: The British Museum Press

Harrison, S. 2012, Dark Trophies. Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern War, New York and Oxford: Berghahn BooksHausmann, U. 1981, Zur Typologie und Ideologie des Augustusportrts, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt II: 513598Haynes, D. E. L. 1983, The Date of the Bronze Head of Augustus from

Mero. In Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano: Studi in Onore di Achille Adriani, Vol I. Studi e Materiali 5, edited by Nicola

Uro Mati 131Bonacasa, Achille Adriani and Antonio di Vita, 177181. Roma: LErma di Bretschneider

Herklotz, F. 2007, Prinzeps und Pharao: Der Kult des Augustus in gypten. Frankfurt am Mein: VerlagAntike

Hinkel, F. W. 2001, Der Tempelkomplex Meroe 250. Forschungs-Archiv F. W. Hinkel. The Archaeological Map of the Sudan Supplement I. 1, Berlin: Selbstverlag Herausgebers

Hintze, F. 1978, The Kingdom of Kush: The Meroitic Period In Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan, Volume I, edited by Sylvia Hochield and Elizabeth Riefstahl, 89105. Brooklyn: The Brooklyn MuseumHoffmann, F. 2010, Lost in translation? Beobachtungen zum Verhltnis des Lateinischen und Griechischen Textes der Gallusstele In Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule. Proceedings of the International Conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum 3-6 July 2008, edited by Katja Lembke, Martina Minas-Nerpel, Stefan Pfeiffer, 149157. Leiden: Brill

Hofmann, I. 1995, Die meroitische Religion, Staatskult und Volksfrmigkeit. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, edited by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 28012868. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co

Horton, M. 1991, Africa in Egypt: New Evidence from Qasr Ibrim In Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, ed. William V. Davies, 264277. London: British Museum Press

Hjte, J. M. 2005, Roman Imperial Statue Bases from Augustus to Commodus, Aarhus: Aarhus University PressJameson, S. 1968, Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C.

Petronius, The Journal of Roman Studies 58, 1 & 2, 7184Jones, H. L. trans. 1957, The Geography Vol. VIII. London: William

Heinemann Ltd. Kiss, Z. 2003, Un portrait dAuguste en tant que signe hiroglyphique,

In Faraoni come Dei-Tolomei come Faraoni. Atti del V Congresso Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Torino, Archivio di Stato-8-12 dicembre 2001, edited by Nicola Bonacasa, Anna Maria Donadoni Roveri, Sergio Aiosa, Patrizia Min, 388391. Torino-Palermo: Museo Egizio di Torino-Universit dgli Studi di Palermo

Kirwan, L. P. 1957, Rome beyond the Southern Frontier, The Geographical Journal 123 (1), 1319. 1994 The Boethos Stela and Ptolemaic and Roman Qasr Ibrim In tudes Nubiennes. Confrence de Genve 3-8 Sept. 1990. Vol. II, edited

by Charles Bonnet, 16. Genve: Socit d'tudes nubiennesKnappett, C. and Malafouris, L. 2008, Material and Nonhuman Agency:

Introduction In Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach, ed. Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris, ixxix. New York: Springer

Kopytoff, I. 1986, The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 6494. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Kormysheva, E. Y. 1989, Political relations between the Roman Empire

Headhunting on the Roman frontier132

and Meroe In Studia Meroitica 10: Proceedings of the ifth International Conference for Meroitic Studies, edited by Sergio Donadoni and Steffen Wenig, 49215. Berlin: Akademie Verlag

Laskowska-Kusztal, E. 1996, Die Dekorfragmente der ptolomisch-rmischen Tempel von Elephantine. Elephantine XV. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern

Lozano, F. 2010, Arx aeternae dominationis: Emperor Worship Rituals in the Construction of a Roman Religious Frontier, In Frontiers in the Roman World. Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16-19 April), edited by Olivier Hekster and Ted Kaizer, 149156. Leiden and Boston: Brill

Lukaszewicz, A. 2010, Cornelius Gallus and the Beginnings of Roman Policy in Nubia In Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of Nubian Studies Warsaw University, 27 August- 2 September 2006, Part two, fascicule 2, edited by Wodzimierz Godlewski and Adam Lajtar, 535540. Warswaw: The Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University

Mauss, M. 1990, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: RoutledgeMcCoskey, D. E. 2005, Gender at the crossroads of empire: locating

women in Strabos Geography In Strabos Cultural Geography: The Making of a Kolossourgia, edited by Daniela Dueck, Hugh Lindsay and Sarah Pothecary, 5672. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Minas-Nerpel, M. and Pfeiffer, S. 2010, Establishing Roman Rule in Egypt: The Trilingual Stela of C. Cornelius Gallus from Philae In Tradition and Transformation: Egypt under the Roman Rule. Proceedings of the International Conference, Hildsheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum, 3-6 July 2008. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Vol. 41, edited by Katja Lembke, Martina Minas-Nerpel and Stefan Pfeiffer, 265298. Leiden: Brill

Miller, D. 2005, Materiality: An Introduction In Materiality, edited by Daniel Miller, 150. Durham: Duke University Press

Naum, M. 2010, Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical Archaeology of the Borderlands, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17 (2), 101131

Plumley, M. J. 1971, Pre-Christian Nubia (23 B.C.-535 A.D.) Evidence from Qasr Ibrim, tudes et Travaux 5, 724. 1975, Qar Ibrm, 1974, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 61, 527

Ritner, R. K. 1993, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, Studies in Oriental Civilization No. 54. Chicago: The Oriental Institute in Chicago Press

Rose, P. J. 2007, The Meroitic temple complex at Qasr Ibrim. Excavation Memoir 84. London: Egypt Exploration Society. 2010, Ptolemaic Qasr Ibrim: the Podium revisited, In Beyond the Horizon, Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honour of Barry J. Kemp, ed. Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson, 424439. Cairo:

The Supreme Council of AntiquitiesShinnie, P. L. 1978, The Nilotic Sudan and Ethiopia, c. 660 BC to c. AD

600 In The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 2, from c. 500 BC to AD 1050, edited by John D. Frage, 210271. Cambridge: Cambridge

Uro Mati 133University Press

. 1996, Ancient Nubia, London and New York: Kegan Paul International

. and Bradley, R. J. 1981, The Murals from the Augustus Temple, Meroe In Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan; Essays in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday, June 1, 1980, edited by William Kelly Simpson, 167172. Boston: Department of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts

. and Anderson, J. R. 2004, The Excavations In The Capital of Kush 2. Mero Excavations 1973-1984, edited by Peter L. Shinnie and Julie R. Anderson, 588. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag

Stewart, P. 2003, Statues in Roman Society. Representation and Response, Oxford: Oxford University Press

. 2006, The image of the Roman emperor In Presence: The Inherence of the Prototype within Images and Other Objects, edited by Robert Maniura and Rupert Shepherd, 243258. Burlington: Ashgate

. 2007, Gells Idols and Roman Cult. In Arts Agency and Art History, edited by Jeremy Tanner and Robin Osborne, 158178. Oxford: Blackwell

Trk, L. 1989, Kush and the external world In Studia Meroitica 10: Proceedings of the ifth International Conference for Meroitic Studies, edited by Sergio Donadoni and and Steffen Wenig, 49215. Berlin: Akademie Verlag

. 1989-1990, Augustus and Meroe, Orientalia Suecana XXXVIII-XXXIX, 171190

. 1995, Meroe: Six Studies on the Cultural Identity of an Ancient African State. Studia Aegyptiaca XVI, Budapest: Etvs Lornd University

.1997a, Meroe City, an Ancient African Capital: John Garstang's excavations in the Sudan, London: Egypt Exploration Society. 1997b, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization, Leiden: Brill. 2009, Between the Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC-500 AD. Probleme der gyptologie

Band. 29, Leiden and Boston: BrillVermeule, C. C. 1960, A Roman Silver Helmet in the Toledo (Ohio)

Museum of Art, The Journal of Roman Studies 50, parts 1 and 2, 811Welsby, D. A. 1998, Roman Military Installations along the Nile South of

the First Cataract, Archeologie du Nil Moyen 8, 157182Wildung, D. 2011, Gtter und Herrscher-Gods and Rulers In Knigsstadt Naga/Naga Royal City: Grabungen in der Wste des Sudan/Excavations in the Dessert of the Sudan, edited by Karla Krper, Sylvia Schoske and

Dietrich Wildung, 2251. Mnchen and Berlin: Naga Projekt Berlin and Staatliches Museum gyptische Kunst Mnchen

Wilkins, A. Barnard, H. and Rose, J. P. 2006, Roman Artillery Balls from Qasr Ibrim, Egypt, Sudan and Nubia 10, 6478Zach, M. H. 2010, Sacred Act or Profane Death? Human Sacriice in Meroitic Temples? In Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the 11th Conference of Nubian Studies Warsaw University, 27 August- 2 September 2006. Part two, fascicule 2. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean Reports 2. 2, edited by Wodzimierz Godlewski and

Headhunting on the Roman frontier134

Adam Lajtar, 541550. Warsaw: The Polish Center of Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw Universityiek, S. 2004, Organs without Bodies: Deleuze and consequences, New York: Routledge

Pages from 978-1-4438-5899-1-sampleMatic_117-134