10.13125/caster/5573
Nel repertorio dei monumenti lapidei eretti nei santuari punici comunemente noti come “tofet”, i cosiddetti “altari a gradino”, rinvenuti solo a Tharros (Sardegna), rappresentano un unicum assoluto. Da un punto di vista morfologico, la proposta di una loro appartenenza alla categoria dei “troni” a suo tempo avanzata da Sabatino Moscati può essere considerata un dato acquisito. Tuttavia, il loro ruolo all’interno del rituale del tofet di Tharros rimane poco chiaro. Il presente lavoro discute la funzione di questi monumenti di pietra attraverso una revisione del loro contesto archeologico e un approfondito esame iconograf
application/pdf
2532-1110
5573
en
Stefano Floris
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche
altari
From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster
8
Saggi e studi
2023-07-17
2023-03-07
2023-02-22
2023-07-17
1
Stefano Floris
2023/07/17
10.13125/caster/5573
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
2532-1110
altari
From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/article/download/5573/5662
8
Cartagine. Studi e Ricerche, 8 (2023)                          Sezione: Saggi e Studi
Rivista della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Cartagine        Articolo presentato il 06/03/2023
http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/index                     Accettato in data 28/03/2023
issn 2532-1110; doi: 10.13125/caster/5573                      Pubblicato in data 17/07/2023




                                                                                                        CaSteR, 8 (2023)




From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.
Some remarks on the stone thrones known as “stepped altars”
from the Tophet of Tharros


Stefano Floris
Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Alexander von Humboldt Stipendiat
mail: stefano.floris@unive.it




   Introduction*
   In Phoenician and Punic studies, the term “stepped altar” conventionally refers to a par-
ticular type of stone monument in the form of a piece of furniture composed of a stool and
a footstool, interpreted as a throne1 (Figs. 1-2). Such monuments have only been found in
the Tophet of Tharros (Gulf of Oristano, Sardinia), representing an absolute unicum in the
entire Western Mediterranean2. This paper discusses the function of these stone monuments
through a review of the archaeological context and an in-depth iconographic examination.
   The history of research on this subject is quickly exhausted. The term “stepped altars”,
which has now become customary, dates back to an initial interpretation by Sabatino Moscati


    *I would like to express my gratitude to Alessandra Gilibert for reading the text and for her valuable advice
on various aspects of the work.
    1
       In this study, I will therefore refer to the category of monuments that are usually labeled as “stepped altars”
using the term “thrones”, which is more faithful to the morphology of the monuments. In particular, the word
“stone throne” will be used to refer to every single monument as a whole. As will be seen in more detail below
(infra, § 1), despite being made from a single piece of stone, every “stepped altar” is in fact conceptually com-
posed of two distinct elements: a stool and a footstool.
    2
       Ciasca (2002), 137. Excluding the stelae and cippi configured in the form of a throne, either empty or
occupied by aniconic images made in the same block as the throne, the only Tophet to have yielded furnishings
classifiable as a throne is the Tophet of Motya (Ciasca (1996)). However, the document from Motya is very dif-
ferent from the ones from Tharros in terms of typology and function. It is in fact a small throne – about 35 cm
high according to the proposed reconstruction (Ciasca (1996), fig. 5) – with sphinxes on either side, dated be-
tween the late 6th and early 5th c. BC (Ciasca (1996), 636). Unlike the thrones from Tharros, found – when in
situ – in the urnfield, the Motya document was found near the altar of a sacred structure, the so-called Sacellum
A (Ciasca (1996), 635; for Sacellum A see most recently Nigro (2020), 122-131). The context of its discovery
and the small size of the artefact leave no doubt that the throne of Motya was unusable by the cult personnel,
and Antonia Ciasca has proposed that it was the support for a divine image perhaps made of a material other
than stone (Ciasca (1996), 637).

cc-by-nd
                                                Stefano Floris


and Maria Luisa Uberti3. Later on, Sabatino Moscati proposed recognizing these monuments
as thrones of a type of Near Eastern origin, which probably reached Tharros via Carthage,
on the basis of a very close iconographic comparison with some funerary monuments from
Tell Halaf4 (Figs. 16-18). The punctuality of the comparisons proposed by Sabatino Moscati
leaves no doubt about the formal affiliation of these stone monuments from the Tophet of
Tharros to the category of “thrones”, which also seems appropriate to their context of discov-
ery5.
    Initially, Sabatino Moscati advanced the idea that they were stepping stones to reach cultic
images placed on higher grounds, maybe the idols placed on the “cippi-thrones”, which in the
Tophet of Tharros can reach a height of 1.8 m 6 (Fig. 6). Later on, Moscati recognized that the
“stepped altars” reproduced thrones and re-interpreted them as supports for divine images or
cultic objects7. Enrico Acquaro proposed that the stone thrones were left empty and used in
the Tophet as part of rituals eccentric to the main one8. More recently, Anna Chiara Fariselli
has argued that the stone thrones were functional to support simulacra made of perishable
material perhaps associated with the cult of a female deity9 and denied that they were directly
connected with the urnfield10. Their differences notwithstanding, Acquaro and Fariselli tie
the stone thrones to secondary rites performed in the sanctuary, eccentric or complementary
to the main ritual, i.e., the votive offering to Baal Hammon and Tinnit and cremation of
newborns and lambs, whose remains were collected into urns and deposited in the “urnfield”
of the sanctuaries11. A different interpretation altoghether was given by Antonia Ciasca, who
believed that the thrones were not altars but that they were actually used as seats during cer-
emonies specifically performed in the Tophet12. As we shall see, further possibilities may be
supported by parallels from the Early Iron Age Levant.
    Be as it may, if the specific use of these stone monuments remains a matter of debate, the
fact that they are attested only in the Tophet of Tharros indicates that they were embedded
into a local and autonomous ritual variant.

   1. The stone thrones of the Tophet of Tharros: formal analysis and archaological context
   At least 26 stone thrones have been found in the sanctuary13. Although the dimensions
are variable (height ranging from a maximum of 63 cm to a minimum of 22 cm; depth from
a maximum of 92 cm to a minimum of 50.5 cm, including the “step”)14, from a typological

   3
       Moscati, Uberti (1985) 31-34, cat. nos. 182-207.
   4
       Moscati (1987), 71-74; Acquaro (1990), 14. For the models found in funerary settings in Carthage see
below, note 57.
    5
       The term “thrones” indicates not only furniture elements – seats that can vary in morphology (simple
cubes, stools or chairs with or without backrest or armrests) and are often associated with footrests – but also
symbols of reign and superiority of human beings and gods (see Berlejung 2022).
    6
       Moscati (1980), 564.
    7
       Moscati (1987), 73-74.
    8
       Acquaro (1993), 99.
    9
       Fariselli (2020), 1096-1097.
    10
        Fariselli (2020), 1096, note 11.
    11
        On the Tophets and their cult see, with references, Wagner, Ruiz Cabrero (2002); Xella (2013); Melchi-
orri (2016a); Melchiorri (2016b); D’Andrea (2018); Ribichini (2020); Xella (2020); Garnand (2022); Garbati
(2022), 85-116. Specifically, on the Tophet of Tharros, see Floris (2022).
    12
        Ciasca (2002), 137.
    13
        Moscati, Uberti (1985), 129-133, cat. nos. 182-207.
    14
        Moscati, Uberti (1985), 35; Moscati (1987), 71.


                                                       2
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


point of view these monuments are homogeneous (Figs. 1-2). Only two specimens15 (Fig. 3,
b-c) are the result of a contamination between the most common plinth “base-altar” with
Egyptian gorge16 (Fig. 3, a) and the stone thrones known as “stepped altar” (Figs. 1-2).
    Although carved from a single block of sandstone, all the stone thrones juxtapose two
elements, often separated by a more or less thick groove: a stool or seat in a parallelepiped
shape with sharp edges, and a footstool, rendered as a kind of “step” protruding from one of
its faces (Figs. 1-2).
    The thrones vary only in specific details, such as the presence or absence of a dividing line
between the stool and the footstool; the height at which the horizontal strut engages in the
vertical feet of the stool; the rendering of the footstool with vertical feet or smooth walls.
    The hypothesis of a derivation from wooden models seems plausible, particularly consid-
ering the presence of raised kerbs on the sides, generally decorated with red paint, bordering
rectangular recesses17. These kerbs are representations of a wooden frame: the ribbings coin-
cide with the upper horizontal edge and the vertical edges of the stool and footstool; there is
also a horizontal strut in the stool.
    During the last phase of the history of the Tophet (Phase Ai: second half of the 3rd-
2nd/1st c. BC), most of the stone monuments placed in the sanctuary – including cippi,
stelae and altars – were reused as building materials for the southern and eastern extension
works of a structure probably to be interpreted as a shrine18 (Fig. 4; Fig. 7, A, A1, A2). Also
most thrones were found in a secondary position. Some of them, however, have been found
in the open area intended for the deposition of urns, the “urnfield”(Fig. 5; Fig. 7), close to
some “stepped” altar-bases with Egyptian gorge (Fig. 3, b-c). The find context suggests that
these thrones were still in situ19. If so, it appears likely that they were originally erected in the
“urnfield” and also – but not necessarily only – used as part of the main ritual20, contrary to
what Acquaro and Fariselli suggest21.
    The historical development of the Tophet of Tharros22 provides a background to under-
stand how stone thrones came to be produced and used.
    Following Moscati and Uberti23, the stone thrones first appeard in the Tophet of Tharros
towards the end of the 5th c. BC, i.e. during the late Phase B, and they were probably still
produced during the following phase Phase Aii, i.e., 4th-first half of the 3rd c. BC. Phase
B (end of the 6th-5th c. BC) coincides with the historical period of affirmation and con-
solidation of the Carthaginian hegemony in Sardinia and the central Mediterranean. This
phase is characterized by a process of “monumentalisation” of the Tophet, that involved both

   15
       Moscati, Uberti (1985), cat. nos. 177-178
   16
       Moscati, Uberti (1985), 32-33, cat. nos. 167-181.
    17
       Moscati, Uberti (1985), 34; Acquaro (1990), 14.
    18
       For the architecture of the Tophet of Tharros, see Floris (2022), 223-259.
    19
       This possibility is further indirectly supported by the circumstances of the discovery of specimens nos.
196-197, 204 and the one found in Square M 4 (Fig. 7) (Moscati, Uberti (1985), 54 and, more recently, Floris
(2022), 136, 266, fig. 56). These specimens were covered by structures built in Late Antiquity. However, they
were not re-used as building material, but rather simply covered by later walls (Fig. 8), suggesting that they were
never removed by their original location and, together with a few selected others, remained visible until the last
phase of the Tophet.
    20
       Floris (2022), 236, 266, fig. 56.
    21
       Acquaro (1993), 99; Fariselli (2020), 1096, note 11.
    22
       Floris (2022).
    23
       Moscati, Uberti (1985), 54-56. For a proposed dating to the 4th/3rd c. BC see Pompianu (2017), 423,
cat. no. 423, where the artefacts are presented as “funerary altars”.


                                                        3
                                               Stefano Floris


the stone monuments – with the start of the production of the thrones and “monumental”
cippi-thrones24 (Fig. 6) – and the architecture (Fig. 5) of the sanctuary25. In this period, two
Egyptianising aediculae (4.3 x 3.6 m and 3.5 x 2.6 m) were probably built in the south-east-
ern sector of the Tophet26 (Fig. 5, B-C), while a shrine (8 x 4 m) was probably built in the
north-eastern sector of the urnfield27 (Fig. 5, A). Two small square bases were also built in the
southern sector of the urnfield, west of the aediculae, and were probably used in the frame-
work of the ritual practices related to the aediculae28 (Fig. 5). All the structures described were
also in use during the Phase Aii. A sudden emergency in the mid-3rd century BC prompted
the city community to strengthen the fortification system29 around the Tophet and elsewhere.
This enterprise had important consequences for the sanctuary, marking the end of Phase Aii.
The shrine and aediculae were partially dismantled and their masonry re-used within a mas-
sive defensive structure – probably a tower – as well as within a wall that closed the Tophet
on the east side.30 The emergency which prompted the community to reinforce the defensive
system can hypothetically be traced back to the events of the First Punic War, when Rome
shifted the clash to Sardinia through the expeditions of 259 and 258 BC, culminating, per-
haps, in the temporary taking of Olbia31.
    Eventually, the developments of the “Truceless War” led Sardinia under the rule of Rome,
with the Tophet of Tharros used continuously without any interruption. During Phase Ai,
between the end of the 3rd and the 1st century BC, the sanctuary underwent a second con-
struction phase. Most of the stelae, cippi and other stone monuments previously erected in
the urnfield were used for the creation of smaller bases, perhaps intended to support altars
or tabernacles (Fig. 7). The biggest stone monuments – including the thrones, cippi-thrones,
stone thrones and altars – were reused to construct the southern and eastern extension works
of the basement belonging to the earlier, dismantled shrine (Fig. 7, A, A1, A2), which was
probably rebuilt at this stage, as were perhaps the aediculae32.
    Although these circumstances make it impossible to assess what was the original location
of most of the altars in Phases B and Aii, the analysis of the distribution map of the stone
thrones, cippi-thrones and altars allows some observations to be made, as already partially an-
ticipated above. Most of the stone monuments were used for the construction of the southern
extension of the shrine and for the construction of a terrace that connected the shrine to the
defensive wall built in the mid-3rd century BC, which also marked the eastern boundary of
the sanctuary. A small number of these monuments were left – or repositioned – in the south-
ern part of the sanctuary (Fig. 7). Their distribution is not random. Rather, they are aligned
north-south, marking the path that leads from the aediculae – near which the entrance to the

   24
       For the cippi-thrones in the Tophet of Tharros, see Tore (1971-1972), Moscati (1980), Moscati, Uberti
(1985), 29-32; Moscati (1987), 65-70; Floris (2022), 199-201.
    25
       Floris (2022), 277-283. The construction works documented for this period can be referred to the First
Building Phase of the Tophet of Tharros (Floris (2022), 233-258, pls. XIX-XX).
    26
       Floris (2022), 244-246, figs. 112, 119. More precisely the dating of the two buildings can be ascribed
respectively to the beginning of the 5th c. BC and to the 6th-5th c. BC (Floris (2022), 245-246).
    27
       Floris (2022), 246-248, figs. 120-123.
    28
       Floris (2022), 253, note 1432, fig. 125.
    29
       Floris (2022), 281-283, pl. XXVII.
    30
       Floris (2022), 283, pl. XXVIII. For the metalworking and ceramic production area and the defensive
structures see Floris (2022), 61-87, with references.
    31
       Floris (2022), 283. For the problematic reconstruction of these events, see Debergh (2004); Meloni
(2012), 44-48; Bondì (2019), 45.
    32
       Floris (2022), 255-258, 284-286, pls. XXI-XXIII, XXIX.


                                                     4
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


Tophet is likely to have been located – to the shrine33 (Fig. 7). Second, along this path, the
selection of monuments left in situ follows a typological pattern. “Canonical” stone thrones
(stool plus footstool) are arranged in greater proximity to the aediculae, while “hybrid” ones
(plinth base-altar with Egyptian gorge equipped with a “step”/footstool), are located near the
shrine (Fig. 7). This situation indicates that the stone monuments were left in the field of
urns not because they were somehow “forgotten” (a hypothesis difficult to support given their
monumentality) but as a result of a conscious selection likely operated in accordance with
the evolution of the ritual practices conducted in the sanctuary in the Phase Ai. In this phase
there was a change in the cultic orientation of the sanctuary, which no longer required the
massive use of the stone thrones – and the cippi-throne, which underwent a fate quite similar
to that of the stone thrones, with only two specimens found in situ34 – but that did not lead
to the complete abandonment of the ritual practices performed around these monuments.
    Another observation concerns the fate of the thrones reused as building materials for
the extensions of the shrine. If a practical issue – since their size and conformation make
them very similar to building blocks – appears undeniable, it may not exhaust the spectrum
of meanings of such an operation on its own. It does not appear, in fact, a case that these
thrones became a constitutive part of the base of the new shrine. The reconstruction of the
shrine in this Phase Ai is complex and the restitutive proposals are hypothetical. At this stage,
the shrine may have been configured as a “distyle prostyle” shrine, similar to the sacellum of
Thuburbo Maius and the contemporary “Tempietto K” of Tharros35. According to this hy-
pothesis, the new altar was probably placed outside, on a platform realized with the re-placed
stone monuments36 (Fig. 7, A1). Among the reused monuments is also an altar – n. 179 –
unique in shape and decoration (Fig. 3, d; Fig. 7), best identified as a piece of cult furniture
originally placed in one of the sacred buildings of the previous building phase, the same
shrine or one of the aediculae37. The choice of incorporating in the base of the new shrine the
stone furnishings of the immediately previous religious tradition could be dense in meaning
from a ritual point of view. In Sardinia, the practice of incorporating in the foundations the
remains of the structures and furnishings of worship of the previous construction phase is
documented in selected instances of Roman reconstruction of important sacred buildings of
Punic tradition, for example in the Forum Temple in Nora38, in the so-called “Monumental
Temple” in Tharros39 and in the Temple of Sardus Pater40.
    As a final, further consideration, it is interesting to note that the chronology of the stone
thrones, their history of use and their decommissioning closely follows that of the so-called
“cippi-thrones”(Figs. 5-7), supporting the hypothesis of a functional link between these two
classes, as already proposed by Sabatino Moscati41.

   33
        The paths in Fig. 7 are hypothetically traced on the basis of the distribution of structures in use during
the life of the Tophet and, above all, on the basis of the distribution of urn depositions (see Floris (2022), 138,
249, 253, notes 715 and 1432, pls. XIX, XXI).
    34
       Tore (1971-1972); Floris (2022), 134-136, figs. 13, 55-56.
    35
        Floris (2022), 256-257, pl. XXIII. A further possibility is that the sacellum was a building with a mark-
edly elongated rectangular plan, divided inside into two longitudinally developed rooms, as documented for
example in the case of the temple of Sidi Bou Saïd (Floris (2022), 256-257, pl. XXII).
    36
        Floris (2022), 256-257, pl. XXIII.
    37
        Floris (2022), 239-240.
    38
        Bonetto (2009), 165.
    39
        Floris (2014-2015).
    40
        Barreca (1969), 29; Bernardini – Ibba (2015), 82-83; Zucca (2019), 45-47.
    41
        See above, § Introduction. A connection between the stone thrones known as “stepped altars” and the


                                                        5
                                                 Stefano Floris


   2. Typological framework
   As already discussed above, the stone thrones of Tharros invariably combine a seat, or
stool, and a footrest.
   Both the seat and the footrest belong to well-documented furniture types in the Phoeni-
cian area, both in the homeland and in the colonies.

    2.1. Stool
    The seat falls within sub-type V-a of the typology of Phoenician furnitures developed by
Éric Gubel, which includes simple stools with four vertical legs characterized by the presence
of a horizontal strut that reinforces the structure42.
    The simplicity of this type of stool, whose seat was probably made of ropes, woven vege-
tables or leather, makes it a rather common piece of furniture in antiquity as well as in tradi-
tional furniture.
    In addition to sparse archaeological finds43 (Fig. 9, a-b), there are numerous figurative at-
testations in Mesopotamia, the Levant, Cyprus, and the Aegean. In Mesopotamia, such stools
are documented by a number of representations – mainly glyptics44 (Fig. 10, a) –, often as a
seat used by musicians and craftsmen (Fig. 10, b), who may have played a role in the cult, and
more rarely as a seat for deities45.
    In the Levant, this type of stool is reproduced on various types of iconographic documents
covering a time span from the Old Babylonian Period to the Iron Age46.
    In Old Babylonian glyptics47, this type of stool recurs almost exclusively in “drinking
scenes”, in which two figures sit facing each other and raise the cup48. Such a stool also occurs
in relief49, bronzework50 and vase painting51 (Fig. 11), generally in depictions of “banquet”
or offering/worship ceremonies52. Also seated on such a stool are a number of round statues
depicting gods, kings, and deceased ancestors53 (Fig. 16).


cippi-thrones could be also suggested by some cippi-thrones from the Tophet of Carthage (Bartoloni (1976),
cat. nos. 135, 137). Two of them present, respectively along the walls of the plinth (Bartoloni (1976), cat. no.
135) and in the back side of the throne (Bartoloni (1976), cat. no. 137), rectangular recesses that closely re-
semble those of the stone thrones of the Tophet of Tharros. A third document (Bartoloni (1976), cat. no. 168)
shows, inside the throne, a “bottle idol” with an element, doubtfully interpreted as a seat (Bartoloni (1976), 99)
but also possibly readable as a footstool.
    42
       Gubel (1987), 208-210.
    43
       Wooden examples of this type of stool are known from Egypt (Fig. 9, a) (Baker (1966), 139, fig. 214)
and more rarely from the Syro-Palestinian area (Fig. 9, b) (see e.g. the Middle Bronze Age specimen found in
Baghouz (MBA I or IIA): Du Mesnil du Buisson (1949): pls. XLII, XLVI, XLVIII, LI, LV; Parr (1996), 46, fig.
2: 3, 5). Stone examples are known from the Minoan area (Kryszkowska (1996), 91, figs. 2.4-5).
    44
       Metzger (1985), 129, cat. nos. 312-317, 316A, pl. 45; 140-141, cat. nos. 504-508, pl. 60; 174-175, cat.
nos. 762, pl. 60, A; 204-205, cat. nos. 908, 910-912, pl. 94; 213, cat. nos. 947-953, pl. 96, A.
    45
       Metzger (1985), 175; al Gailani Werr (1996), 30, pl 10, a, c-d; Baker (1966), fig. 268; Gubel (1987),
207).
    46
       Metzger (1985), 240-243.
    47
       Metzger (1985), 240, cat. nos. 1093-1114, 1120-1125, 1130.
    48
       Metzger (1985), 240, cat. nos. 1098-1102, 1104.
    49
       Metzger (1985), 241, cat. no. 1107.
    50
       Metzger (1985), 241, cat. nos. 1111-1114.
    51
       Metzger (1985), 241, cat. no. 114A, taf. 105; Caubet, Yon (1996), 67, fig. 2a; Yon (2006), fig. 2.6; Pa-
radiso (2011).
    52
       Metzger (1985), 241, cat. nos. 1111-1114.
    53
       Metzger (1985), 240, cat. nos. 1109-1110.


                                                        6
                          From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


    A variant of the stool characterized by circular legs and decoration with grooves and cir-
cles, inspired by Egyptian models, is attested by finds from Jericho54 and is represented, for
example, in ivories from Megiddo with banquet scenes55 and an ivory statuette of a deity
from Kāmid el-Lōz56.
    In Phoenician and Punic contexts, one of the best comparisons are the stool models found
in Carthage in a funerary context57 (Fig. 12). They are ascribed to type V, sub-type V-a, of
Éric Gubel’s typology. Among the iconographic attestations of this sub-type, the Author
mentions unpublished terracottas with an enthroned pregnant goddess dating from the 8th
century BC and a Persian Period scarab from Byblos with a proceeding character offering
a hunted quadruped to a deity of uncertain gender seated on a stool58. The stool on which
sits a veiled female deity holding a “disc” depicted on a stela from the Tophet of Sousse59 is
instead attributed to the V-b variant60 (Fig. 20, a). This stool, similar to the previous one but
with slightly inclined legs, is considered to be of Egyptian origin61 and it is also known from
Syro-Palestinian glyptics62.
    An excellent further comparison is a votive stool model from the Cesnola Collection (Fig.
13). Found in the sanctuary of Golgoi-Ayios Photios – where votive plinth altars with Egyp-
tian gorge are also attested63 – and dubiously attributed to the Classical period (ca. 480-ca.
310 BC)64, it has dimensions (24.1 x 30.5 x 29.2 cm) and a technique of fabrication fully
comparable to the thrones from Tharros, and is characterized by a syllabic inscription proba-
bly mentioning the goddess of Paphos and by traces of burning on the upper face65.

    2.2. Footstool
    As far as footstools are concerned, the stone thrones of Tharros offer two different variants.
    The first of the two types of footstools attested at Tharros consists of a simple low stool
with four upright feet without horizontal strut, which occurs in the same documentation
cited above for the stool, in addition to which one can add a possible limestone model of a
footstool found at Golgoi66 (Fig. 14).
    As for the second type, consisting of a parallelepiped with completely smooth faces, it
could be a simplified or unfinished rendering of the first type or a representation of a further

   54
       The specimens found in Jericho are attributable to the Middle Bronze Age (MBA II) (Kenyon (1960),
464-465, Stool no. 26, fig. 200, pl. XXVII: 5; Baker (1966), 217-224, figs. 354, 358; Gubel (1987), 207; Parr
(1996), 43, fig. 1:1).
    55
       Loud 1939, cat. nos. 160b, 162b; Metzger (1985), 243-244, cat. nos. 1138-1141.
    56
       Metzger (1985), 243-244, cat. no. 1143; Gubel (1987), 13, 207, fig. III.
    57
       For the miniature furniture found in the necropolis of Carthage, see Gauckler (1915), pl. CCVI, 2; Ben
Younès (1982), 55, cat. no. 40; Gubel (1987), 208, fig. 31; Fantar (1993), 358; Ennabli (1995), 74-75; Slim
(2001), 55; Hattler (2004), 270-271, cat no. 9.
    58
       Gubel (1987), 207.
    59
       Cintas (1947), 22-23, figs. 52-53; Bisi (1967), 96.
    60
       Gubel (1987), 210.
    61
       Gubel (1987), 208-209.
    62
       Metzger (1985), 240, cat. nos. 1105, taf. 104; Frankfort (1965), pl. XLII, h.
    63
       See, e.g., Hermary, Mertens (2015), 316, cat. no. 442.
    64
       Hermary, Mertens (2015), 298. A dating to the 5th c. BC is doubtfully proposed in the online catalogue
of the Met Museum (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/241878).
    65
       Hermary, Mertens (2015), 298, cat. no. 419, presented as a “Footstool (?)”.
    66
       The artefact is cat no. 286 in the Cesnola collection. No interpretation of the function of the artefact
was presented when the inscription engraved on it was published (Hall (1872), 211, pl. IV, cat. no. 14), but is
currently presented as “statue base“ (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/241855).


                                                      7
                                                 Stefano Floris


variant with smooth walls. Smooth-walled footstools are documented in a bronze statuette
with a divine figure on a throne with a back from Enkomi attributed to the 12th-11th centu-
ry BC67 (Fig. 15) and in a cultic scene with an offering to a seated deity painted on a jug from
Ugarit from the Late Bronze Age II68 (Fig. 11).

   3. Altar-statues, thrones, cult of the dead and deities with “disc”: from Tell Halaf to
Tharros, via North Africa and Cyprus
   As seen above, a very close comparison for the thrones from the Tophet of Tharros – al-
ready identified by Sabatino Moscati – in terms of construction technique, dimensions, and
type of furniture is offered by two funerary statues from Tell Halaf dated respectively to the
mid-10th-early 9th century (Fig. 16, a) and the 9th century BC69 (Fig. 16, b).
   The two monuments are late attestations of an important class of statues in the Syrian
tradition, dating back to the Middle Bronze Age and located in temple contexts or burial
crypts, but also in public spaces. They are representations of seated figures, holding a cup in
their right hand, which allows them to be connected to the performance of a specific ritual70.
   In particular, the statues from Tell Halaf belong to the group of the “Syro-Hittite” funer-
ary monuments, a particular class of artwork – mostly represented by funerary stelae with the
scene of a table with food offerings to the deceased – emerged in the early 1st millennium
BC in the area of Luwian and Aramaean city-states71. These monuments actively marked the
place in which the memory of the deceased was celebrated – not necessarily coinciding with
the burial place – and at least in certain cases hosted the “soul” of the dead72, thus connoting
the cult place as «a place of interaction between the living and the dead»73.
   The statues from Tell Halaf, 1.92 and 1.42 m high, depict two female figures seated on a
stool that, in type and rendering, closely resembles the monuments found in the Tophet of
Tharros. The legs and horizontal struts have a square cross-section and are rendered as relief
ribs, emerging from the backplanes representing the empty space. The figures are wrapped in
long robes and the feet, left uncovered, rest on a footstool. The arms are folded and rest on
the thighs. The left hand rests on the left knee, while the right hand holds a cup.
   Although the statues were found incorporated secondarily into a mud-brick terrace, at the
time of their discovery, they still maintained a connection with the cremation burials with
which they were connected. The burial was accompanied by sacrificial rituals, the remains
of which have been recognized thanks to the recovery, in the area of the burial pits, of layers
of ash with the remains of bronze and gold objects and the discovery of artefacts among the

   67
        Schaeffer (1952), 371-377, fig. 115, pls. LXX-LXXV; Metzger (1985), 208, cat. no. A, pl. 100;
Theodossiadou (1996), 77.
    68
        Paradiso (2011); Yon (2006), fig. 2, no. 6. In Ugarit, worship scenes to a figure seated on a stool with
footstool date back to the beginning of the 2nd millennium (Amiet (1992), 5, 17, cat. no. 9, fig. 4).
    69
        Moscati (1987), 72; for the statues see Bonatz (2000), cat. nos. B 4-B 5, pl. V, with bibliography.
    70
        Pinnock (1994), 23; Novák-Pfälzner (2003), 161-162.
    71
        See Bonatz (2016), with bibliography.
    72
        See, in particular, the case of the Katumuwa Stele from Zincirli (Sam’al), dated to the 8th c. BC, in which
the depiction of the deceased, holding a cup and seated in front of a table with food, is accompanied by a long
inscription in which, at line 5, the dead itself says «[...], a ram for Kubaba, and a ram for my “soul” that will
be in this stele» (translation by Pardee (2009), 54, 62–63). According to David Hawkins the term for “soul”
(nbš) should be translated “likeness” (Hawkins (2015): 54-55). In any case, as stated by Dominik Bonatz, the
“likeness” could be considered a metaphorical translation of the “soul” and «in the context of the Kutamuwa
stele is treated as if it were the living substitute for the dead person or as his simulacrum» (Bonatz (2020), 88).
    73
        See Bonatz (2016), 175-177 (quoted text at page 177).


                                                        8
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


cremated remains (Fig. 17). After the burial, the statues had been erected above the pits to-
gether with their own “statue chambers”, where the cult of the dead took place74. Within this
framework, the statues have been interpreted as a constant admonition to the performance
of sacrifices for the afterlife of the deceased, to be consumed in the private sphere, inside the
small, secluded chambers75.
    As noted by Dominic Bonatz, the structure of the statues itself also implies a permanent
invitation to the performance of funeral offerings and sacrifices: the schematic rendering of
the legs, folded and wrapped in the long robe, makes them represent a whole with the “cube”
representing the stool, and their flat upper surface thus forms a veritable table for receiving
offerings, just as the carved cup76 (Fig. 18).
    The analysis of the context thus offers the possibility of establishing a further element of
connection between the statues of Tell Halaf and the monuments of the Tophet of Tharros,
namely the connection with the performance of cult activities in connection with cremation
depositions.
    Also belonging to the funerary sphere is the second group of documents attesting to the
association between stool and footstool. These are models of furniture of various shapes
found in the necropolis of Carthage and generally dated to the 7th-6th century BC, among
which are also some stools made of limestone with vertical supports and horizontal struts,
that the small dimensions (approximately 10 cm in height) allow being sculpted in the round
(Fig. 19). Found in tomb contexts of adults with rich grave goods, such artefacts are generally
interpreted as propitiatory objects as they are linked to royal or priestly dignity77. It seems
relevant to point out that, although characterized by formal variety, they can generally be
brought under the category of thrones78. Exceptions to this are a footstool of the type “with
voluted supports”79 – that, anyway, can also be associated with the concept of a throne –, a
vertically developed incense burner80, and a plinth-shaped piece of furniture with listel deco-
ration at the base and top, which can be interpreted as an altar81, for which a comparison with
a full-size specimen from the Tophet of Tharros could be proposed82 (Fig. 3, d).
    The precise repetition of the stool type of the furniture model, its association with models
of footstool, altar and censer, as well as the private sphere of the chambers, accessible only
to members of the family group, may connote the Carthaginian models as the outcome of a
process of re-elaboration and readjustment into Punic belief system of the same conception of
the funerary cult attested in the Levant in the Iron Age83 and especially evident at Tell Halaf
   74
       Oppenheim (1931), 195-196; Langenegger, Müller, Naumann (1950), 159-167; Bonatz (2000), 154;
Martin (2010).
    75
       Bonatz (2000), 154-155.
    76
       Bonatz (2001), 159 and note 10. The direct connection of the statues with offerings and sacrifices as
part of the cult of the dead is confirmed by the discoveries made in the Royal Tomb of the Palace of Qatna, in
use from the Middle Bronze Age IIA until the Late Bronze Age IIA. In the antechamber, on either side of the
entrance to the main burial chamber, two seated statues of royal ancestors sitting on a stool with footstool were
found in association with vases (bowls and bottles) and bones (generally related to cattle and, especially, sheep),
interpreted as the remains of offerings and sacrifices performed in connection with them (Novák-Pfälzner
(2003), 145-146, 156-162; Pfälzner (2009); Pfälzner (2016), 256-257; Pfälzner (2019).
    77
       Cintas (1946), 93.
    78
       Cintas (1946), 93.
    79
       Gubel (1987), 231-238, type VII-a.
    80
       Ennabli (1995), 74-75.
    81
       Hattler (2004), 270, cat. no. 9.
    82
       Moscati, Uberti (1985), cat. no. 179.
    83
       See, among others, Niehr (1994), Bonatz (2000), Bonatz (2001), Niehr (2006)a, Lewis (2014).


                                                        9
                                                Stefano Floris


between the 10th and 9th century BC. If so, it is possible that the miniature furniture includ-
ed in the Carthaginian tombs fulfilled a function not far removed from that of the funerary
altar-statues of Tell Halaf. It is possible that the Carthaginian furniture models were intended
as a symbolic allusion to the offerings presented to the deceased as a memorial rite84.
    Post mortem cults are attested in the Phoenician East in this chronological span, as in-
dicated by the cases of Byblos, Tyre Al-Bass and Achziv. In Byblos, the performance of post
mortem cults is indicated by the well-known sarcophagus from the royal Tomb V, probably
produced in the Late Bronze Age and re-used for the burial of King Ahiram, as indicated by
its funerary inscription (KAI 1), generally dated after 1000 BC85. As for the iconography, it
shows, on its faces, a thematically unitary composition: its focus is the funerary repast of (the
sculptural image of ) the dead king, towards whom a procession of worshippers and lamen-
tation scenes are directed86. Furthermore, libations in honour of the deceased were likely to
be practiced in Byblos, as the closing of Ahiram’s funerary inscription87 and the presence of
conduits in the shafts of Tomb III88, Tomb IV89 and Tomb V90, may indicate. In the cem-
etery of Tyre Al-Bass (end of the 10th-end of the 7th c. BC) the performance of collective
feasting in honor of the dead celebrated open air on the surface of the beach necropolis in
the environs of some burials is attested by the recovery of charcoal concentrations, broken
crockery and unburnt remains of adult bovines – sometimes with signs of removal of the flesh
– and ovicaprid, although the time lapse between the interment and the communal eating
rites can’t be established91. Furthermore, the excavations carried out in Al-Bass show that the
funerary stelae, in some cases found in association with remains of plates, served as a focus
for commemorative rituals with communal eating and sacrifice92. In Achziv, in the southern
and eastern necropolis (in use between the 11th and the 7th c. BC), some architectural fea-
tures of the tombs – like the openings in the ceiling of chamber tombs93 and the presence of
altar-tables placed above the ceiling of the rock-cut shaft tombs94 – suggest that practices of

   84
        It is particularly striking that the categories of furniture attested by Carthaginian funerary models –
throne, altar, censer – are attested by monumental items forming an ensemble in the framework of the royal
cult of the dead and ancestors found in the annex room of the temple of Alalakh (layer IB) in which the seated
statue of the King Idrimi was found (Mayer-Opificius (1981): 281; Niehr (2012): 566).
     85
        Niehr (2012). For the sarchofagus, its inscription and its archaeological context see also, among others,
Rehm (2004), Lehman (2005), Niehr (2006)b. The inscription has been variously dated between the 13th, 10th
or 9th-7th c. BC and it is still an open question whether it was made ex novo for Hiram by his son or whether
it is the result of the reuse of an older monument (for a summary of the various hypotheses see Gómez Peña,
Carranza Peco (2021), 116-117, with bibliography).
     86
        Niehr (2012). In a recent study, Álvaro Gómez Peña and Luis Miguel Carranza Peco proposed to inter-
pret the scene as a representation of the Opening of the Mouth ritual (Gómez Peña, Carranza Peco (2021),
116-119, with bibliography).
     87
        According to Reinhard G. Lehmann’s interpretation, the final phrase of the epigraph alludes to a special
ritual, apparently of Anatolian origin, involving the use of a “libation tube” (Lehmann (2005): 33-36; Lehmann
(2008): 125-126).
     88
        Montet (1928): 148, fig. 65.
     89
        Montet (1928): 152, fig. 67.
     90
        Montet (1928): 215; Niehr (2006)b, 237; Lehman (2008): 126, note 33. For the interpretation of the
shaft of Tomb V as a place for the ancestor cult, see Niehr (2006)b, 238-239.
     91
        Aubet (2014): 516.
     92
        Aubet (2014): 520.
     93
        See, e.g., Mazar (2001), 49 (T.C.2), 72 (T.C.1.), 75-76. The tombs belong to the Type I.C. of Eilat Ma-
zar’s classification, dated to the end of the 10th century BC (Mazar (2001), 157-159). See also Dayagi-Mendels
(2002), 164.
     94
        See, e.g., the offering table (65 x 55 x 28 cm) found between the slab closing the opening of the ceiling


                                                      10
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


commemoration of the deceased were regularly performed and must have included the laying
of offerings and the pouring of libations95. The discovery of similar installations attests to the
development of post mortem cults also in the Phoenician centers of the central and western
Mediterranean, including Carthage96 and Tharros97.
    From the 5th century BC onwards, the iconography of the throne composed of a stool and
a footstool is found in stone monuments in Tophet sanctuaries in North Africa and Sardinia.
    The aforementioned stela from the Tophet of Sousse – found in situ in the second level and
thus datable to the first half of the 5th century BC98 – depicts a enthroned goddess in profile,
dressed in a capped long robe, holding a “disc” with her hands stretched forward. The throne
is a stool with slightly inclined vertical feet and horizontal strut rendered as raised ribbings,
combined with a footstool99 (Fig. 20, a). In front of the figure is a foliate corolla thymiaterion
surmounted by the solar disc and the lunar sickle, which contributes to the recognition of the
divine nature of the female figure and betrays the derivation of the iconographic scheme from
Near Eastern motives proper to glyptic repertoires100. The same scene is depicted on a stela
that is quite similar but differs from the previous one in the rendering of the stool – which has
splayed legs curved outwards and lacks horizontal struts and footstool –, and in the smaller
size of the circular attribute that resembles a small globe and is held with the left hand only,
thus leaving the right hand free to perform a gesture of greeting or blessing101 (Fig. 20, b).
    A stela from the Tophet of Sulci preserved in the Museum of Turin reproduces the type of
the female figure dressed in a long robe and holding a “disc” to her breast (Fig. 21), which,
in the standing version, represents the iconographic type most frequently attested in the
Sulci sanctuary102. In the document under examination, a unicum in the Tophet of Sulci, the
female figure is, with all probability, depicted seated, as convincingly proposed by Giovanna
Pisano103. The shape of the footstool and the lack of a backrest suggest that the seat belongs,

and the opening of the shaft of a chamber tomb with a built ceiling (Mazar (2001), 108, 144, T.A.14; see also
Dayagi-Mendels (2002), 12-13, Tomb Z. III). The tomb belongs to Type II.C. of Eilat Mazar’s classification, for
which a date to the 9th c. BC has been proposed (Mazar (2001), 158-159). The bulk of the pottery found in the
tomb has been attributed by Michal Dayagi-Mendels to the 8th-7th c. BC, while a minority to the 7th-6th c.
BC (Dayagi-Mendels (2002), 13). The “plastered concave feature” found around the chamber’s open ceiling of
T.A.19 – also belonging to the Type II.C. – was also referred to cultic activities above the chamber tomb (Mazar
(2001), 106-107, 144.
    95
        See lastly Sader (2021), 52, with references.
    96
        In Carthage, funerary altars were found (Bénichou-Safar (1982): 78) but no hydraulic installations relat-
ed to libations (Bénichou-Safar (1982): 78). In general, for the evidence of a post mortem cult in Carthage see
Bénichou-Safar (1982): 283-287.
    97
        See, for example, the case of the necropolis of Cape San Marco. Here the execution in the archaic period
of such cultic activities is attested by the discovery of shallow “channels” – in some cases found still in con-
nection with archaic dipper juglets and presenting traces of burning – in connection with rock-cut chamber
tombs and rock-cut pit graves (see Fariselli (2021), 306-307, with bibliography). The use of stone installations
equipped with shallow “basins” located outside the graves – such as some “complex altars in composition with
cippi” (for this type of monuments see Del Vais (2013), 101-116, Tipo D.2) and the monolithic tomb covers
equipped with one or two altars (see Del Vais (2013), 116-132, Varianti D.2/a and D.2/b) – was also related to
periodic ceremonies in honour of the dead (Del Vais (2013), 67-68; Fariselli (2021), 307).
    98
        Cintas (1947), 18; Bisi (1980), 68; D’Andrea (2014), 83, 86.
    99
        Gubel (1987), 206.
    100
         Cintas (1947), 22-23, figs. 52-53; Bisi (1967), 96; Bisi (1980), 68-69; Gubel (1987), 206, cat. no. 156,
pl. XL; D’Andrea, Giardino (2013), 11, fig. 6.5.
    101
         Cintas (1947), 21-22, figs. 50-51; Bisi (1967), 96), Gubel (1987), 207, cat. no. 157, pl. XL.
    102
         Moscati (1988), 37-40.
    103
         This interpretation has been proposed by Giovanna Pisano on the basis of specific details of the rendering


                                                       11
                                                  Stefano Floris


in all likelihood, to the type independently documented in the round in the Tophet of Thar-
ros104.
    As for the interpretation of the female figure with a “disc”, they can be read as divine or
profane depictions and the possible interpretations must take into account the context of
their usage and the different iconographic variants. In the context of the Tophet, this iconog-
raphy is generally interpreted as a hand-drum player performing within the framework of the
cult practised in the Tophet, i.e. as a priestess or cultic operator105. The particular iconograph-
ic declination of the subject, seated on a throne with a footstool, however, makes it plausible
to assume a divine or at least superhuman nature for the female character106.
    Remaining in Sardinia, between the 5th and early 4th century BC, the iconography of
the throne composed of a stool and a footstool was selected in Tharros for the creation of a
new type of monument – the stone thrones discussed in this paper – reproducing this type
of furniture in stone and in actual or near actual size, destined to establish itself in that time
span as one of the most widespread types of stone monuments in that Tophet (Figs. 1-2).
    To these attestations can be added a further document also presenting an association be-
tween a female deity seated on a throne and the “disc”/drum (Fig. 22). This is a razor from the
Carthaginian necropolis of Sainte Monique dated to the beginning of the 3rd century BC,
which shows, on the side I, a drummer, standing in profile with a starry, transparent robe –
which finds a close iconographic comparison in a razor from Ibiza107 (Fig. 23, a) and in a stela
from the Tophet of Tharros108 (Fig. 23, b) – and, in the main figurative field of side II, a seated
figure, wrapped in a long robe and with a veiled head holding some attributes interpreted as
a spindle and a distaff109 (Fig. 22). The depiction is incomplete but, from the available repro-
ductions, Colette Picard’s reading as a female figure ruling over the underworld, symbolized
by the serpent depicted below the figure, is convincing110.

    4. Symbolic significance
    The scant documentation from the central Mediterranean seems to indicate that the spread
of thrones from the Levant to the West occurred in two distinct phases.
    In the first phase, to which the models found in Carthaginian necropolises refer, thrones
are found in funerary contexts, associated with models of incense burners and altars. In this

of the figure such as the disproportion of the upper part in relation to the lower part of the body, their realisation
at two different degrees of relief (the upper part is rendered in high relief, the lower part almost in the round)
marked by a step placed below the elbows, the disproportionately long feet leaning forward and resting on a
footrest reminiscent of the stone thrones of the Tophet of Tharros (Pisano (1991), 1145; Pisano (2012), 551).
    104
         The juxtaposition between the image reproduced in the stela of Sulci and the stone thrones of Tharros
was also proposed by Giovanna Pisano: Pisano (1991), 1145; Pisano (2012), 551.
    105
         See Moscati (1988), 38. See also Fariselli (2007), 26-34.
    106
         Giovanna Pisano has demonstrated, however, that in Phoenician and Punic contexts and not only «il
suppedaneo – espressione della comunicazione visiva, rappresentante il concetto, l’idea del divino, che può
servire a congiungere il superiore e l’inferiore ovvero avere la funzione di distinguerli – in mancanza del trono,
peraltro documentato da alcune stele, consente […] di attribuire una connotazione divina o di rango superiore
alla figura seduta riprodotta all’interno dell’edicola» (Pisano (2012), 553).
    107
         Acquaro (1971), 177-178, cat. no. Sp 71; see also below.
    108
         Moscati, Uberti (1985), 48-49, 121, cat. no. 141, fig. 23, pl. LVI; see also below.
    109
         Acquaro (1971), 45-46, 112-113, cat. no. Ca 52.
    110
         Picard (1965-1966), 109. The Author proposes to recognise in the image one of the Fates, a heroised de-
ceased or Athena Iliàs (Picard (1965-1966), 84, 109. See also Enrico Acquaro’s proposal to recognise the icono-
graphic model of the enthroned figure in Taranto numismatics (Acquaro (1971), 112-113) and, more recently,
the identification with Zeus Meilichios proposed by Paola De Vita (De Vita (2015), 37-39).


                                                         12
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


phase, therefore, it seems that thrones are exclusively related to funerary practices and the cult
of the dead in the narrow sense.
    From the 5th century BC onwards, thrones appear in various forms (not only monumen-
tal as at Tharros) in Tophet – sacred contexts by their nature akin to cemeteries – where they
are associated with a female deity with a “disc”. Such an association, direct in the case of the
stelae found in Sousse and Sant’Antioco, is only conceivable in the case of Tharros. Among
the very rare anthropomorphic iconographies found in the Tophet of Tharros is in fact that of
a female figure in profile, dressed in a transparent robe, holding a “disc” in her hands (Fig. 23,
b). This image closely resembles, as noted by Sabatino Moscati and Maria Luisa Uberti, the
depiction of razor no. Sp 71 in the catalogue of Enrico Acquaro, found in Ibiza but believed
to be a Carthaginian import, dated between the 4th and 3rd century BC111 (Fig. 23, a). On
side II of this artefact is depicted, under a crescent moon, a female figure with a veiled head
and “disc”/drum held on the left sideway at chest height. She wears a klaft wig and a usekh
collar and her naked body and is wrapped in a transparent mantle characterized – like the veil
– by a decoration of large dots112, probably to be intended as stars113. As already observed by
Anna Maria Bisi, the clothing, the nudity and roundness of the belly, as well as the emphasis
on astral connotations, leave little doubt as to its interpretation as a deity linked to fertility
and death, possibly to be identified with Tinnit114. On side I, the depiction of a falcon Horus
and a crouching animal, probably a frog115, Egyptian motifs still vital in the Punic world116,
may have recalled the same eschatological meanings associated with the serpent depicted in
the lower register of side II of the already mentioned Carthaginian razor Ca 52 (Fig. 22),
which features a drummer motif on side I that is entirely similar to that of the razor Sp 71.
    It is precisely the latter Carthaginian document, dated as seen to the 3rd century BC, that
would seem to indicate how the iconography of the stool throne still retained in Late Punic
Period, in association with the goddess (and) with the “disc”, a funerary value, undoubtedly
expressed by the symbolism of side II of the razor and its context of discovery.

   5. The ways of the images
   Monumental stone thrones appear in the Tophet of Tharros in the 5th century BC, repro-
ducing a set of wooden stools and footstools of simple and essential design. Within a century,
the thrones became one of the most widespread stone monuments in the sanctuary. The type
of furniture represented by these stone thrones is widely known in the Eastern Mediterra-
nean. The stylistic and dimensional comparisons offered in particular by the funerary statues
from Tell Halaf indicate that the model came to Tharros from the Levant, along with its as-
sociation with the sphere of religious banquets and the private worship of the dead through
the offering of liquid and solid gifts.
   As far as the mode of transmission is concerned, the attestation of models in Carthaginian
tombs from the 7th-6th century BC makes it possible that the arrival of the iconographic

   111
        Acquaro (1971), 177-178, cat. no. Sp 71, with a date to the 3rd c. BC. For a dating to the 4th c. BC see
Moscati, Uberti (1985), 48.
    112
        Maybe a reflection of a trend in fashion attested in Egypt in the late New Kingdom (Garcia-Ventura,
López-Bertran (2013), 104).
    113
        Bisi (1980), 64.
    114
        Bisi (1980), 64-66.
    115
        Acquaro (1971), 178, 183-184; Pisano (2006), 52. The animal is interpreted as a canid or feline by
Picard (1965-1966), 77 and as a cat by Miguel Azcárraga (2006), 284.
    116
        Cf. Pisano (2006).


                                                      13
                                                 Stefano Floris


model in the West first took place in Carthage and that, subsequently, it spread from there to
North Africa and the colonies beyond the sea.
    The fact that the oldest attestations of the iconography of a female figure with a “disc”
seated on a stool with a footstool come from the sanctuary of Sousse (Fig. 20, a), would seem
to suggest that the introduction of the iconographic motif into the repertoire of the Tophet
stone monuments occurred in North Africa and then spread to Sardinia.
    From this point of view, it would be possible that the stela with enthroned goddess with
a “disc” on her breast (Fig. 21), which is unique in the stone repertoire of Sulci, could be the
result of experimentation by Sulci workshops. However, the overlapping of the iconography
of the seated female figure in profile with a “disc” known from the Sousse stelae with that of
the standing female figure with a “disc” on her breast – the most widespread in Sulci – could
have been dictated by the influence of other classes, such as coroplastics117.
    In any case, the rendering of the front face of the footstool of the stela of the Sulci’ Tophet
seems to indicate, on the other hand, that the stone-cutter from Sulci had some knowledge
of the Tharros thrones or their models.
    It is therefore possible to propose that the stela from Sulci is later than both the Sousse ste-
lae (generally dated to the first half of the 5th c. BC) and the stone thrones from the Tophet
of Tharros (dated to the late 5th and early 4th c. BC).
    If it is therefore plausible that the Sulci workshops had knowledge of the iconography
attested in Sousse, perhaps due to the circulation of “cartons” or to the presence of North
African craftsmen – a suggestive hypothesis considering that a thematic convergence of the
stone repertoires of the two centres is well attested for later periods118 –, it cannot be ruled out
that the North African iconography also reached the workshops of Tharros. The proximity
between the stone stelae production of the Tophet of Tharros and the Carthaginian one is,
moreover, an acquired datum119.
    The high degree of standardization of the thrones from the Tophet of Tharros, however,
makes it likely that the iconography was adopted on the basis of three-dimensional models,
probably smaller than life-size, made of stone or perishable materials, wood or raw clay.
    The funerary models from Carthage might strengthen the impression that the model
reached Tharros through the mediation of the North African metropolis.
    In any case, it is possible to advance an alternative hypothesis, according to which the
models for the iconography attested in Tharros could have arrived in Sardinia via Cyprus.
It is in fact in Cyprus that the closest comparisons for the Tharros throne monuments are
to be found. This is the aforementioned limestone stool from the sanctuary of Golgoi-Ayios
Photios (Fig. 13), similar to the specimens from Tharros in terms of type of monument (con-
sisting of a stool throne unencumbered by anthropomorphic depictions), size (24.1 x 30.5 x
   117
        Although far less common than the standing figures, female figures with “disc” sitting on a throne,
often with footstool, are known in Phoenicia (see e.g. Pritchard (1975), fig. 42, 2: from Sarepta, Shrine I), in
Cyprus (see e.g. Karageorghis, Merker, Mertens (2016), 120, 258-259, cat. nos. 201, 205: from Idalion, late
6th-early 5th c. BC) and in Phoenician and Punic contexts (see e.g. Ferron (1969), 11, fig. 9: from Carthage,
Sainte Monique; Fantar (1986), 311, cat. no. 13; Chérif (1997), 57, cat. no. 143; Uberti (1997), 189-190: from
Kerkouane, first half of the 3rd c. BC). For the osmosis phenomenon between different craft classes in relation
to the iconography of the female figure with “disc”, cf. Moscati (1988), 38-39.
    118
        See the case of the stelae with the iconography of the “passing animal”, whose production in Sulci is dat-
ed to the 3rd-1st c. BC and has been convincingly considered as the outcome of a North African mediation on
the basis of the comparison offered by two stelae from the Tophet of Sousse (Moscati (1981); Moscati (1988),
49-52).
    119
        See e.g. D’Andrea, Giardino (2013), 12.


                                                       14
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


29.2 cm) and chronology (being doubtfully dated to Classical period, and, more specifically
to the 5th c. BC120) and of manufacturing technique, being the legs and the horizontal rein-
forcement square-sectioned and made by retracting the plane representing the empty spaces
(according to a strategy adopted at Tell Halaf and Tharros). The monument must have had
a votive function – since in the upper band is a syllabic inscription dubiously interpreted as
a dedication to the goddess Paphia – and, at the same time, a practical function, since the
upper surface shows traces of burning121. This artefact recalls a scene of adoration of a person
prostrate in front of a throne-burner, framed by two lunar sickles arranged above and below
the figurative field, engraved in a scarab from Salamis122 (Fig. 24).
   The only significant morphological difference between the Golgoi stool and the thrones
from the Tophet of Tharros is the absence of a footstool. This difference may actually derive
from the fact that this was not carved from the same block as the stool and it is entirely plau-
sible that the Cypriot throne was also originally associated with a footstool. In fact, from the
same Golgoi comes a limestone monument, also with a syllabic inscription and part of the
Cesnola Collection, interpreted as a base for a statue, which has the features of a footstool
and is dimensionally perfectly compatible with the footstool from Ayios Photios (7.9 x 29.8
x 6.4 cm)123 (Fig. 14).
   Lastly, the possibility of recognizing the goddess of Paphos as the recipient of the Cypriot
offering appears highly suggestive if one considers that an inscription from the Tophet of
Tharros dating to the 4th century BC – the reading of which is, however, highly uncertain –
has been interpreted as evidence of a pilgrimage made by a citizen of Tharros to the goddess’
sanctuary in Paphos124.

    Concluding remarks
    In conclusion, the stone monuments of the Tophet of Tharros known as “stepped altars”
can be hypothetically interpreted as stone thrones linked to a goddess with prerogatives con-
nected to the sphere of fertility and death who, from the 5th century BC at least, has the
“disc” among her attributes and is, perhaps, in a certain way similar to the goddess of Paphos.
    The name of this deity is not known, but given the context of the discovery of the thrones
from Tharros and the stelae of Sousse and Sulci and the comparison offered by the Punic ra-
zors from Cartahge and Ibiza, a proposed identification with Tinnit, “face of Baal” Hammon
and “Lady” of Tophet, whose link with the world of the dead and whose close relationship
with the goddess Astarte are well documented125, does not seem out of place.
    Turning finally to the function of the monuments from the Tophet of Tharros, the Cypri-
ot document with a possible dedication to the goddess of Paphos might suggest for them a
votive function similar to that of the more common cippi and stelae erected in Tophets and,
at the same time, a practical use as altars in the context of specific rituals performed in the
urnfield of the sanctuary at the time of the deposition of urns, the erection of stelae or other


   120
        https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/241878.
   121
        Hermary, Mertens (2015), 298, cat. no. 419.
    122
        Boardman (2003), cat. no. 17/59.
    123
        See above.
    124
        Garbini (1993), 225-229, cat. no. Tharros 30, figs. 3-4. According to a more recent hypothesis, the in-
scription would instead be the result of a devotional act performed during a “feast” celebrated in the Tophet of
Tharros by a person of Eastern origin, devoted to Astarte (Fariselli (2019), 133).
    125
        On the goddess Tinnit see lastly Marín Ceballos (2021), with bibliography.


                                                      15
                                                   Stefano Floris


occasions126. It is difficult to further connote these circumstances, but the comparison offered
by the altar-statues of Tell Halaf and the Carthaginian furniture models may suggest that the
stone thrones of the Tophet of Tharros were means of interaction between the living and the
dead127, probably through the mediation of the goddess128, and functioned as altar-tables for
the deposition of offerings.




           Fig. 1. Stone throne from the Tophet of Tharros, drawing re-elab. from (Acquaro (1976).




     Fig. 2. Stone throne from the Tophet of Tharros, photos (from Moscati, Uberti (1985), cat. no. 187).



   126
        Lastly on the rite of the performed in the Tophet of Tharros, Floris (2022), 259-270.
   127
        In the present state of knowledge, it is not known what status the infants assumed once they were cre-
mated and deposited in the Tophet (lastly Garbati (2022), 108-114, with references). However, it is very sugges-
tive to note that Hélène Bénichou-Safar has proposed that divinatory practices centred on the dead newborns
were regularly carried out in the Tophet of Carthage (Bénichou-Safar (2008)) and that an inscription from the
Tophet of Tharros – the reading of which is, however, very doubtful and problematic – has been interpreted as
evidence of the performance of such practices (Garbini (1994), 220-221, no. Tharros 32; Fariselli (2019), 134-
138; Floris (2022), 215-216, 319-320).
    128
        It might be worth noting that the throne had an important role in the royal funerary ritual in ancient
Ugarit described in KTU 1.161 (Tsumura (1993), with bibliography; see also Hunziker-Rodewald (2015), 176-
177), in which the solar goddess – maybe in a nocturnal form – played a central role as a psychopomp and infer-
nal goddess (Tsumura (1993), 54-55). This is quite suggestive considering that a lion-headed clay statue wearing
two sets of jewellery in gold and silver respectively, traditionally interpreted as a symbolical reference to the solar
and lunar cycles (Barreca (1990), 125), was found in the area of the Tophet of Tharros (Acquaro (1984), 49-51).
The statue – probably a cult statue in the last phase of Tophet’s life – is usually dated no earlier than the 2nd
century BC and is generally considered the representation of a male deity, Saturn Frugiferius (Acquaro (1984),
49-51; Barreca (1990), 125), but according to a recent proposal, it cannot be excluded that it depicts a female
deity, maybe Tinnit (see lastly Floris (2022), 193, with references).


                                                         16
                        From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




                          a




                          b



                                                                                 c




                                                                           d



Fig. 3. Stone altars from the Tophet of Tharros: a) Base-altar with plinth and Egyptian gorge cat. no. 174;
b-c) “Stepped” base-altar with plinth and Egyptian gorge cat nos. 178 and 177; d) Altar cat. no. 179 (from
                               Moscati, Uberti (1985) and Acquaro (1976)).


                                                   17
                                              Stefano Floris




   Fig. 4. Tharros, Tophet. Stone thrones reused in a building structure (from Moscati, Uberti (1985)).




Fig. 5. Tharros, Tophet. The plan shows the main architectural and functional features of the Tophet during
                 Phases B and Aii (end of the 6th-half of the 3rd c. BC; elab. of the Author).




                                                    18
                 From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




no. 145                             no. 146                                    no. 147




                                     no. 220




    no. 148                            no. 149                            no. 150




 Fig. 6. Cippi-thrones from the Tophet of Tharros with relative bases (from Floris (2022)).




                                            19
                                              Stefano Floris




Fig. 7. Tharros, Tophet. The plan shows the main architectural and functional features of the Tophet during
    Phase Ai (second half 3rd-2nd/1st c. BC). The red halo indicates the concentration map of the urns
                                           (elab. of the Author).




           Fig. 8. Tharros, Tophet. Stone throne no. 176, in situ (from Moscati, Uberti (1985)).


                                                    20
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




                                                                                         b

                                                             a

 Fig. 9. Wooden stools: a) from Deir el-Medina (from Baker (1966)); b) from Baghouz (from Du Mesnil du
                                             Buisson (1949)).




                       a                                                         b
Fig. 10. a) Akkadian seal with “drinking scene” (from Metzger (1985)); b) Old Babylonian plaques depicting a
                           carpenter and a musician (from al Gailani Werr (1996)).




                             Fig. 11. Painted jug from Ugarit (from Yon (2006)).



                                                     21
                                           Stefano Floris




                  Fig. 12. Limestone stool model from Carthage (from Gubel (1987)).




            Fig. 13. Stone stool model from Golgoi (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York 74.51.2324, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76; Link: https://www.metmu-
                         seum.org/art/collection/search/241878 (06.03.2023)).




        Fig. 14. Stone model of footstool (?) from Golgoi (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
York 74.51.2301, The Cesnola Collection, Purchased by subscription, 1874–76; Link: https://www.metmu-
                         seum.org/art/collection/search/241855 (06.03.2023)).


                                                 22
                  From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




Fig. 15. Enthroned bronze figurine from Enkomi. Detail of the throne (from Schaeffer (1952)).




                                            a




                                            b
Fig. 16. Funerary statues from Tell Halaf, front and side view (from Opitz, Moortgat (1955)).




                                             23
                                      Stefano Floris




Fig. 17. The funerary statues from Tell Halaf in their context found on or beside shaft tombs
                       (from Langenegger, Müller, Naumann (1950)).




      Fig. 18. Funerary statues from Tell Halaf, detail (from Opitz, Moortgat (1955)).




                                            24
                       From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




          Fig. 19. Miniature furniture from the necropolis of Carthage (from Hattler (2004)).




                                a                                                           b
Fig. 20. Stelae from the Tophet of Sousse: a) Cb 1076 (photo, from Picard (1955); drawing, re-elab. from
                         Picard (1955)); b) Cb 1077 (photo, from Picard (1955)).



                                                  25
                                      Stefano Floris




        Fig. 21. Stela from the Tophet of Sant’Antioco (re-elab. from Curto 1996)).




Fig. 22. Razor from Carthage, necropolis of Sainte Monique (re-elab. from Acquaro (1971)).




                                           26
                        From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.




                                                                         b

                    a
Fig. 23. a) Razor from Ibiza (re-elab. from Acquaro (1971)); b) Stela from the Tophet of Tharros no. 141
                                      (from Moscati, Uberti (1985)).




                        Fig. 24. Scarab from Salamis (from Boardman (2003)).




                                                  27
                                                   Stefano Floris


References


Acquaro E. (1971), I rasoi punici, Roma: CNR (= Pubblicazioni del Centro di studio per la Civiltà Fenicia e
   Punica, 11; Studi Semitici, 41).
Acquaro E. (1976), Tharros – III. Lo scavo del 1976, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 4, 197-203.
Acquaro E. (1984), Tharros - XI. La campagna del 1983, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 12, 47-51.
Acquaro E. (1990), Il tofet di Tharros: note di lettura, Riti funerari e di olocausto nella Sardegna fenicia e punica.
   Atti dell’incontro di studio (Sant’Antioco 3-4 ottobre 1986), Cagliari : Edizioni della Torre (= Quaderni.
   Soprintendenza archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano, 6, Suppl.), 13-22.
Acquaro E. (1993), Il tofet: un santuario cittadino, La città mediterranea. Eredità antica e apporto arabo-islamico
   sulle rive del Mediterraneo occidentale e in particolare nel Maghreb, Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Bari,
   4-7 maggio 1988), Serra L. [ed], Napoli : Istituto universitario orientale, 97-101.
al Gailani Werr L. (1996), Domestic Furniture in Iraq, Ancient and Traditional, The Furniture of Western Asia
    Ancient and Traditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute for Archaeology, University College
    London (June 28 to 30, 1993), Herrmann G. [ed], Mainz am Rhein : von Zabern, 29-32.
Amiet P. (1992), Sceaux-cylindres en hématite et pierres diverses, Paris : Éditions Recherches sur les civilisations (=
  Ras Shamra-Ougarit, 9; Corpus des cylindres de Ras Shamra-Ougarit, 2).
Aubet M. E. (2014), Mortuary Analysis and Burial Practices, The Phoenician Cemetery of Tyre-Al Bass II. Archae-
   ological Seasons 2002-2005. Volumen 2, Aubet M. E., Nunez F. J., Trellisó L. [eds], Beyrouth : Ministère de la
   Culture, Direction Générale des Antiquités, (= BAAL. Bulletin d’Archeologie et d’Architecture Libanaises.
   Hors-Série, IX).
Baker H. S. (1966), Furniture in the ancient world, London: The Connoisseur.
Barreca F. (1969), Lo scavo del tempio, Ricerche puniche ad Antas. Rapporto preliminare della Missione archeologi-
   ca dell’Università di Roma e della Soprintendenza alle antichità di Cagliari, Roma : Istituto di studi del Vicino
   oriente, Università di Roma, (= Studi semitici, 30), 9-46.
Barreca F. (1990), Osservazioni sulla spiritualità e sull’escatologia fenicio-punica, Riti funerari e di olocausto nella
   Sardegna fenicia e punica. Atti dell’incontro di studio (Sant’Antioco 3-4 ottobre 1986), Cagliari : Edizioni
   della Torre (= Quaderni. Soprintendenza archeologica per le province di Cagliari e Oristano, 6, Supplemen-
   to), 123-134.
Bartoloni P. (1976), Le stele arcaiche del tofet di Cartagine, Roma : CNR, (= Collezione di Studi Fenici, 8).
Ben Younès H. (1982). Ameublement d’habitation punique, De Carthage à Kairouan. 2000 ans d’art et d’histoire
   en Tunisie (Musée du Petit Palais de la Ville de Paris, 20 octobre 1982-27 février 1983), Paris : Association
   francaise d’action artistique, 55.
Bénichou-Safar H. (1982), Les tombes puniques de Carthage. Topographie, structures, inscriptions et rites funéraires,
   Paris : CNRS.
Bénichou-Safar H. (2008), Une stèle carthaginoise bien prolixe: une scène de magie punique, Ephesia Gramma-
   ta. Revue d’études des magies anciennesi, 2, 1-30.
Bernardini P., Ibba A. (2015), Il santuario di Antas fra Cartagine e Roma, SACRVM NEXVM: alianzas entre el
   poder político y la religión en el mundo romano, Cabrero Piquero J., Montecchio L. [eds], Madrid-Salamanca
   : Signifer Libros (= Thema Mundi, 7), 75-138.
Berlejung A. (2022), s.v. Throne/s, Encyclopedia of Material Culture in the Biblical World. A New Biblisches
   Reallexikon, Berlejung A., Michèle Daviau P. M., Kamlah J., Lehmann G. [eds], Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck,
   966-975.
Bisi A. M. (1967), Le stele puniche, Roma: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente (= Studi Semitici, 27).




                                                          28
                            From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


Bisi A. M. (1980), Les déesses au tympanon de la Mésopotamie à Carthage, Assyriological Miscellanies, 1, Dia-
    konoff I. M., Jeyes U., Alster B., Moller E., Bisi A. M. [eds], Copenhagen : Institute of Assyriology, Univer-
    sity of Copenhagen, 57-85.
Boardman J. (2003), Classical Phoenician Scarabs, Oxford : Archaeopress. Publishers of British Archaeological
   Reports (= BAR International Series, 1190).
Bonatz D. (2000), Das syro-hethitische Grabdenkmal. Untersuchungen zur Entstehung einerneuen Bildgattung in
   der Eisenzeit im nordsyrisch-südostanatolischen Raum, Mainz : von Zabern.
Bonatz D. (2001), Il banchetto funerario. Tradizione e innovazione di un soggetto sociale nella Siria-Anatolia
   dal Bronzo Antico all’età del Ferro, Egitto e Vicino Oriente, 24, 159-174.
Bonatz D. (2016), Syro-Hittite Funerary Monuments Revisited, Dining and Death: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
   on the ‘Funerary Banquet’ in Ancient Art, Burial and Belief, Draycott C. M., Stamatopoulou M. [eds], Leuven
   – Paris – Bristol, CT : Peeters (= Colloquia Antiqua, 16), 173-193.
Bonatz D. (2020), How to Cope with the Dead in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology. New Sources, Approach-
   es, and Comparative Perspectives in the Light of a Recent Publication, Asia Anteriore Antica. Journal of
   Ancient Near Eastern Cultures 2, 79-94.
Bondì S. F. (2019), Il tempo della storia, Il tempo dei Fenici. Incontri in Sardegna dall’VIII al III secolo a.C., Del
   Vais C., Guirguis M., Stiglitz A. [eds], Nuoro : Ilisso, 41-45.
Bonetto J. (2009), L’insediamento di età fenicia, punica e romana repubblicana nell’area del foro, Nora, il foro
   romano. Storia di un’area urbana dall’età fenicia alla tardo-antichità, 1, Lo scavo, Bonetto J., Ghiotto A. R.,
   Novello M. [eds], Padova : Italgraf, 41-511.
Caubet A., Yon M. (1996), Le mobilier d’Ougarit (d’après les traveaux récents), The Furniture of Western Asia
   Ancient and Traditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute for Archaeology, University College
   London (June 28 to 30, 1993), Herrmann G. [ed], Mainz am Rhein : von Zabern, 61-72.
Chérif Z. (1997), Terres cuites puniques de Tunisie, Roma: Bonsignori.
Ciasca A. (1996), Un arredo cultuale del tofet di Mozia (Sicilia), Alle soglie della classicità: il Mediterraneo tra
   tradizione e innovazione, Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, Acquaro E. [ed], Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poli-
   grafici internazionali, 629-637.
Ciasca A. (2002), Archeologia del tofet, Molk como concepto del sacrificio púnico y hebreo y el final del dios Moloch,
   Wagner C. G., Ruiz Cabrero L. A. [eds], Madrid : Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos, 121-140.
Cintas P. (1946), Amulettes Puniques, Paris : Institut des Hautes Etudes de Tunis (= Publications de l’Institut des
   Hautes Etudes de Tunis, 1).
Cintas P. (1947), Le sanctuaire punique de Sousse, Revue africaine, 91, 1-80.
D’Andrea B. (2014), I tofet del Nord Africa dall’età arcaica all’età romana (VIII sec. a.C.-II sec. d.C.). Studi arche-
   ologici, Pisa – Roma : Fabrizio Serra Editore (= Collezione di Studi Fenici, 45).
D’Andrea B. (2018), Bambini nel «limbo». Dati e proposte interpretative sui tofet fenici e punici, Rome : École
   française de Rome (= Collection de l’École française de Rome, 552).
D’Andrea B., Giardino S. (2013), Il tofet dove e perchè. L’identità fenicia, il Circolo di Cartagine e la fase tardo
   punica, Bollettino di Archeologia on line, 4, 1-29.
Dayagi-Mendels M. (2002), The Akhziv cemeteries : the Ben-Dor excavations, 1941-1944, Jerusalem : Israel An-
   tiquities Authority (= IAA Reports, 15).
Debergh J. (2004), Olbia conquistata dai Romani nel 259 a.C.?, Da OlbÌa ad Olbia: 2500 anni di storia di una
  città mediterranea. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Olbia, 12-14 maggio 1994), Mastino A., Rug-
  geri P. [eds], Sassari : Chiarella, 235-249.
Del Vais C. (2013), Stele, cippi e altarini funerari dalle necropoli puniche di Tharros, Lugano: Agorà & Co (=
   Biblioteca di Byrsa, 9).




                                                         29
                                                  Stefano Floris


De Vita P. (2015), Note su Zeus Meilichios a Selinunte e la cultualità punica, cultualità punica, La città inquieta.
   Selinunte tra lex sacra e defixiones, Milano - Udine : Mimesis (= Diádema, 2), 36-43.
Du Mesnil du Buisson R. (1948), Baghouz. L’ancienne Corsôtè. Le Tell Archaïque et la Nécropole de l’âge du
  Bronze, Leiden : Brill (= Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui, 3).
Ennabli A. (1995), Carthage retrouvée, Tunis : Cérès.
Fantar M. H. (1986), Kerkouane. Cité punique du Cap Bon. Tome III. Sanctuaires et cultes – societe – economie,
   Tunis: Institut national d’archeologie et d’art.
Fantar M. H. (1993), Carthage. Approche d’une civilisation, Tunis : Alif-Les editions de la Méditerranée.
Fariselli A. C. (2007), Musica e danza in contesto fenicio e punico, Eventi sonori nei racconti di viaggio prima e
    dopo Colombo, Atti del convegno (Genova, 11-12 ottobre 2006), Firenze : SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo
    (= Itineraria, 46), 9-46.
Fariselli A. C. (2019), Giovanni Garbini a Tharros, E non appassisca il tuo germoglio spontaneo”. Studi fenici e
    punici in ricordo di Giovanni Garbini, Callieri P., Fariselli A. C. [eds], Lugano : Agorà (= Biblioteca di Byrsa,
    N.S. 11), 127-152.
Fariselli A. C. (2020), Culti comunitari, devozione privata e pietas funeraria a Tharros − Capo San Marco in
    età punica: dati dalla ricerca sul campo e nuove linee di intervento, Un viaje entre el Oriente y el Occidente
    del Mediterráneo, Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos, Mérida : Instituto de
    Arqueología (= MYTRA, Monografías y Trabajos de Arqueología, 5).
Fariselli A. C. (2021), Rituali colletivi ed escatologia privata nel paesaggio funerario tharrense: dati dalla ne-
    cropoli punica di Capo San Marco (Penisola del Sinis), La muerte y el más allá entre fenicios y púnicos . XI
    Coloquio Internacional del CEFYP (EIVISSA, 2019). Homenaje al Profesor Manuel Pellicer Catalán, Costa
    Ribas B. – Ruiz Cabrero L. A. – Bofill Martínez M. [eds], Eivissa : Edicions MIC, 301-316.
Ferron J. (1969), Les statuettes au tympanon des hypogées puniques, Antiquités africaines, 3, 11-33.
Floris S. (2014-2015), Architettura templare a Tharros – I. Il “Tempio monumentale” o “delle semicolonne dor-
   iche” fra tarda punicità e romanizzazione, Byrsa. Scritti sull’Antico Oriente mediterraneo, 25-26/27-28, 39-79.
Floris S. (2022), Il tofet di Tharros, Roma : CNR (= Collezione di Studi Fenici, 52).
Frankfort H. (1965), Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of Ancient Near East, London
   : Macmillan.
Garbati G. (2022), Al di là. Gli uomini, gli dèi, la morte in contesto fenicio, Roma : Edizioni Quasar (= Le religioni
   e la storia, 5).
Garbini G. (1993), Tharros – XVIII-XIX. Iscrizioni fenicie a Tharros – II, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 21, 219-230.
Garbini G. (1994), Tharros – XX. Iscrizioni fenicie a Tharros – III, Rivista di Studi Fenici, 22, 215-222.
Garcia-Ventura A., López-Bertran M. (2013), Music and Death. Razors, Stelae and Divinities in the Punic
   Mediterranean, Music & Ritual. Bridging Material & Living Cultures, Jiménez R., Till R, Howell M. [eds],
   Berlin: Ekho Verlag (= Publications of the ICTM Study Group on Music Archaeology, 1), 93-115.
Garnand B. (2022), Phoenician Synthesis. Patterns of Human Sacrifice and Problems with Ritual Killing, The
   Value of a Human Life. Ritual Killing and Human Sacrifice in Antiquity, Innemée K. C. [ed], Leiden : Side-
   stone Press (= PALMA, 26), 69-91.
Gauckler P. (1915), Nécropoles puniques de Carthage, Paris : Picard.
Gómez Peña Á., Carranza Peco L. M. (2021), El ritual de la apertura de la boca en la tradición religiosa feni-
  cio-púnica, SPAL. Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Sevilla 30.1: 96-136. https://doi.
  org/10.12795/spal.2021.i30.04
Gubel É. (1987), Phoenician Furniture: a typology based on Iron Age representations with reference to the icono-
  graphical context, Leuven : Peeters (= Studia Phoenicia, 7).
Hall I. H. (1872), The Cypriote Inscriptions of the Cesnola Collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
   New York City, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 10, 201-218, https://doi.org/10.2307/592129


                                                         30
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


Hattler C. (2004), Miniaturmöbel, Hannibal ad portas: Matcht und Reichtum Karthagos. Grosse Sonderaus-
   stellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg im Badischen Landesmuseum Schloss Karlsruhe 25.9.2004-
   30.1.2005, Karlsruhe : Badischen Landesmuseum Karlsruhe, 270-271.
Hawkins D. (2015), The Soul in the Stele?, Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the
  57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome, 4-8 July 2011, Archi A. [ed], Winona Lake, Indiana :
  Eisenbrauns, 49-56.
Hermary A., Mertens J. R. (2015), The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Stone Sculpture, New York : The Met-
   ropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/The_Cesnola_Collection_of_
   Cypriot_Stone_Sculpture (06.03.2023).
Hunziker-Rodewald R. (2015). Thrones in Sheol: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif in Isaiah 14:9», Iconographic
  Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament, Bonfiglio R., De Hulster I., e Brent A. Strawn B. A. [eds], Göt-
  tingen : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 165-180. https://doi.org/10.13109/9783666534607.165.
KAI = H. Donner – W. Röllig, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I-III, Wiesbaden 1966-2002 (I5 2002;
  II2 1966; III2 1969).
Karageorghis V., Merker G. S., Mertens J. R. (2016), The Cesnola Collection of Cypriot Art: Terracottas, New York
   : The Metropolitan Museum of Art, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublications/The_Cesnola_Col-
   lection_of_Cypriot_Terracottas (06.03.2023).
Kenyon K. M. (1960), Excavations at Jericho. Vol. 1. The Tombs excavated in 1952-4, London : British School of
   Archaeology in Jerusalem.
Kryszkowska O. H. (1996), Furniture in the Aegean Bronze Age, The Furniture of Western Asia Ancient and Tra-
   ditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute for Archaeology, University College London (June
   28 to 30, 1993), Herrmann G. [ed], Mainz am Rhein : von Zabern, 85-103.
KTU = Dietrich M., Loretz O. Sanmartín J. (2013), Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani und
  anderen Orten. Dritte, erweiterte Auflage. Münster : Ugarit-Verlag (= Alter Orient und Altes Testament,
  360/1).
Langenegger F., Müller K., Naumann R. (1950), Die Bauwerke, Berlin : De Gruyter (= Oppenheim M., Tell
   Halaf, 2).
Lehmann R. G. (2005), Die Inschrift(en) des Aḥīrōm-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes 5. in Jbeil
   (Byblos), Mainz am Rhein : von Zabern (= Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus Byblos und Zy-
   pern, 1.2; Forschungen zur phönizisch-punischen und zyprischen Plastik, II 1.2).
Lehmann R. G. (2008), Calligraphy and Craftsmanship in the Aḥīrōm Inscription: Considerations on Skilled
   Linear Flat Writing in Early First Millennium Byblos, MAARAV, A Journal for the Study of the Northwest
   Semitic Languages and Literatures, 15/2, 119-164.
Lewis T. J. (2014). Feasts for the Dead and Ancestor Veneration in Levantine Traditions, In Remembrance of
   Me: Feasting with the Dead in the Ancient Middle East, Rimmer Herrmann V., Schloen J. D. [eds], Chicago:
   The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (= Oriental Institute Museum Publication, 37), 69-74.
Loud G. (1939), The Megiddo Ivories, Chicago : The University of Chicago Press, (= Oriental Institute Publi-
   cations, 52).
Marín Ceballos M. C. (2021), s.v. Tinnit, Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Phoenician Culture, II.1: Religion – Deities
  and Mythical Characters, Nier H., Xella P. [eds], Leuven – Paris – Bristol : Peeters, 277-235.
Martin L. (2010), Das Lehmziegelmassiv, Tell Halaf. Im Krieg zerstörte Denkmäler und ihre Restaurierung, Cho-
  lidis N., Martin L. [eds], Berlin : De Gruyter, 211-219.
Mayer-Opificius R. (1981), Untersuchungen zur Statue und Inschrift des Königs Idrimi von Alalah. Archäo-
  logischer Kommentar zur Statue des Idrimi von Alalah, Ugarit-Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuch für die
  Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas, 13, 279-290.
Mazar E. (2001), The Phoenicians in Achziv. The Southern Cemetery. Jerome L. Joss Expedition. Final Report of the
  Excavations 1988-1990, Barcelona : Carrera (= Cuadernos de Arqueologia Mediterranea, 7).



                                                       31
                                                  Stefano Floris


Melchiorri V. (2016a), I santuari infantili a incinerazione della Sardegna. Una rassegna preliminare, Santuari
   mediterranei tra Oriente e Occidente. Interazioni e contatti culturali. Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Civi-
   tavecchia – Roma 2014), Russo Tagliente A., Guarnieri F. [edd], Roma: Scienze e Lettere, 271-282.
Melchiorri V. (2016b), Identità, identificazione sociale e fatti culturali: osservazioni sul mondo della diaspora fe-
   nicia e alcune sue trasformazioni (VIII-VI sec. a.C.), Transformations and crisis in the Mediterranean: identity
   and interculturality in the Levant and Phoenician West during the 8th-5th centuries BCE, Garbati G., Pedrazzi
   T. [eds], Roma : CNR ( = Rivista di Studi Fenici, 44 Suppl.), 149-171.
Meloni P. (2012), La Sardegna romana, Nuoro : Ilisso [re-issue of Meloni P. 1990, La Sardegna romana, Sassari
   : Chiarella (1st edition 1975)].
Metzger M. (1985), Königsthron und Gottesthron. Thronesformen un Throndarstellungen in Ägypten und im Vor-
  deren Orient in dritten und zweiten Jahrtausend vor Christus und deren Bedeutung über den Thron im Alten
  Testament, Kevelaer : Butzon & Bercker (= Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 15/1-2).
Miguel Azcárraga B. (2006), Las navajas de afeitar púnicas de Ibiza, Eivissa : Museo arqueologico de Ibiza y
   Formentera (= Treballs del Museu Arqueològic d’Eivissa i Formentera, 57).
Montet P. (1928), Byblos et l’Égypte. Quatre campagnes de fouilles à Gebeil 1921–1922–1923–1924, Paris :
  Geuthner.
Moscati S. (1980), Stele monumentali puniche scoperte a Tharros, Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lin-
  cei, Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, VIII, 35, 553-566.
Moscati S. (1981), Stele sulcitane con animale passante, Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di
  scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, VIII, 36, 3-8.
Moscati S. (1987), Le officine di Tharros, Roma : La roccia (= Studia Punica, 2).
Moscati S. (1988), Le officine di Sulcis, Roma : La roccia (= Studia Punica, 3).
Moscati S., Uberti M. L. (1985), Scavi al tofet di Tharros. I monumenti lapidei, Roma : CNR (= Collezione di
  Studi Fenici, 21).
Niehr H. (1994), Zum Totenkult der Könige von Sam’al im 9. und 8. Jh. v. Chr., Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici
   sul Vicino Oriente Antico, 11, 57-73.
Niehr H. (2006)a, Bestattung und Ahnenkult in den Königshäusern von Sam’al (Zincirli) und Gūzāna (Tell
   Halāf ) in Nordsyrien, Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, 122/2, 111-139.
Niehr H. (2006)b, Der Sarkophag des Königs Aḥīrōm von Byblos, TEKMERIA. Archäologische Zeugnisse in
   ihrer kulturhistorischen und politischen Dimension: Beiträge für Werner Gauer, Kreutz N., Schweitzer B. (eds),
   Münster : Scriptorium, 2006, 231-243.
Niehr H. (2012), Herrscherrepräsentation und Kult im Bildprogramm des Aḥīrom-Sarkophags, Organization,
   Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyr-
   iologique Internationale at Würzburg 20–25 July 2008, Gernot W. (ed), Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisen-
   brauns, 559-578.
Nigro L. (2020), Nuovi scavi al Tofet di Mozia (2009-2014): il Tempio di Astarte (T6), l’Edificio T5 e il sacello
   T8, Cartagine, il Mediterraneo centro-occidentale e la Sardegna. Società, economia e cultura materiale tra Fenici
   e autoctoni. Studi in onore di Piero Bartoloni, Guirguis M., Muscuso S., Pla Orquín R. [eds], Sassari : SAIC
   Editore (= Le Monografie della SAIC, 3), 121-146. https://pubblicazioni.scuolacartagine.it/wp-content/
   uploads/2020/06/09_Nigro.pdf
Novák M., Pfälzner P. (2003), Ausgrabungen im bronzezeitlichen Palast von Tall Mišrife – Qaṭna 2002, Mit-
  teilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 135, 131-166.
Opitz D., Moortgat A. (1955), Die Bildwerke, Berlin : De Gruyter ( = Oppenheim M., Tell Halaf, 3).
Oppenheim M. (1931), Freiherr von Der Tell Halaf : Eine neue Kultur im ältesten Mesopotamien, Leipzig : F.A.
  Brockhaus.
Paradiso S. (2011), La brocca rs 24.440 da Ugarit: rappresentazione di una scena di offerta, Vicino & Medio
   Oriente, 15, 77-100.


                                                        32
                           From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


Pardee D. (2009), A New Aramaic Inscription from Zincirli, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
   356, 51-71.
Parr P. J. (1996), Middle Bronze Age Furniture from Jericho and Baghouz, The Furniture of Western Asia Ancient
    and Traditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute for Archaeology, University College London
    (June 28 to 30, 1993), Herrmann G. [ed], Mainz am Rhein : von Zabern, 41-48.
Pfälzner P. (2009), Meisterwerke der Plastik – Die Ahnenstatuen aus dem Hypogäum. Schätze des Alten Sy-
    rien. Die Entdeckungen des Königreichs Qatna, Stuttgart : Landesmuseum Wüttemberg, 205-207.
Pfälzner P. (2016), Royal corpses, royal ancestors and the living: the transformation of the dead in Ancient
    Syria, How to Cope with Death: Mourning and Funerary Practices in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of
    the International Workshop (Firenze, 5th - 6th December 2013), Felli C. [ed], Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz
    Verlag, 241-270.
Pfälzner P. (2019), Der Königsgruftkomplex im Palast von Qaṭna. Eine Zusammenfassung der Befunde in Kor-
    ridor und Vorkammer, Der Königsgruftkomplex von Qaṭna Teil 1: Befunde und Fundverteilung im Korridor
    und in der Vorkammer, Wiesbaden : Harrassowitz Verlag (= Qatna Studien, 8), XXXIII-L.
Picard C. G. (1965-1966), Sacra punica. Étude sur les masques et rasoirs de Carthage, Paris : Librairie C. Klinck-
    sieck (= Karthago, 13).
Pinnock F. (1994), Considerations on the “Banquet Theme” in the Figurative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria,
   Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held
   in Rome (May 17-19 1990), Milano L. [ed], Padova : Sargon (= History of the ancient Near East. Studies,
   6), 15-26.
Pisano G. (1991), Antichità puniche nei musei di Torino, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Studi Fenici e
    Punici (Roma, 9-14 Novembre 1987), Roma: CNR, 1143-1150.
Pisano G. (2006), L’“Egittizzante punico” a Ibiza: la rana, il serpente e il fiore di loto», Varia iconographica ab
    Oriente ad Occidentem, Pisano G. [ed], Roma : Tipografia della Pace (= Studia Punica, 14), 49-61.
Pisano G. (2012), L’iconografia della figura seduta riprodotta sulle stele puniche, EPI OINOPA PONTON.
    Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico in ricordo di Giovanni Tore, Del Vais C. [ed], Oristano : S’Alvure, 551-559.
Pompianu E. (2017), 255. Altare funerario, Sardegna fenicia e punica. Storia e materiali, Guirguis M. [ed],
   Nuoro : Ilisso, 423.
Pritchard J. B. (1975), Sarepta. A Preliminary Report on the Iron Age. Excavations of the University Museum of
    the University of Pennsylvania, 1970-72, Philadelphia : The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
Rehm E. (2004), Der Ahiramsarkophag, Mainz: von Zabern (= Dynastensarkophage mit szenischen Reliefs aus
   Byblos und Zypern, 1.1; Forschungen zur phönizisch-punischen und zyprischen Plastik, II 1.1).
Ribichini S. (2020), Caducità infantile e riti di guarigione in ambito fenicio e punico. A proposito di molchomor
   e mlk’mr, La medicina allo specchio del sacro. Incontri e confronti tra scienza e religione, Moreschini C. [ed],
   Brescia : Morcelliana (= Scienze Umane, 17), 27-45.
Sader H. (2021), Phoenician Funerary Customs in the Homeland. A Survey of the Recent Archaeological
   Evidence, La muerte y el más allá entre fenicios y púnicos . XI Coloquio Internacional del CEFYP (EIVISSA,
   2019). Homenaje al Profesor Manuel Pellicer Catalán, Costa Ribas B. – Ruiz Cabrero L. A. – Bofill Martínez
   M. [eds], Eivissa : Edicions MIC, 49-59.
Schaeffer C. F. A. (1952), Enkomi – Alasia. Nouvelles missiones en Chypre 1946-1950, Paris : Librairie C. Klin-
   cksieck (= Publications de la mission archeologique francaise et de la mission du governement de Chypre a
   Enkomi, 1).
Slim H. (2001), La Tunisie antique: de Hannibal a saint Augustin, Paris : Menges.
Theodossiadou G. (1996), Cypriote Furniture and its Representations from the Chalcolithic to the Cypro-Ar-
   chaic, The Furniture of Western Asia Ancient and Traditional. Papers of the Conference held at the Institute for
   Archaeology, University College London (June 28 to 30, 1993), Herrmann G. [ed], Mainz am Rhein : von
   Zabern, 73-83.



                                                       33
                                                  Stefano Floris


Tore G. (1971-1972), Due cippi-trono del tophet di Tharros, Studi Sardi, 22, 99-248.
Tsumura D. T. (1993), The Interpretation of the Ugaritic Funerary Text KTU 1.161, Official Cult and Popular
   Religion in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East -The City and Its
   Life Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 20-22, 1992, Matsushima
   E. [ed], Heidelberg : Universitatsverlag C. Winter, 40-55.
Uberti M. L. (1997), La tipologia e l’iconografia, Terres cuites puniques de Tunisie, Chérif Z., Roma: Bonsignori,
  174-213.
Wagner C. G., Ruiz Cabrero L. A. [eds] (2002), Molk como concepto del sacrificio púnico y hebreo y el final del dios
  Moloch, Madrid : Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Punicos.
Xella P. [ed] (2013), The Tophet in the Phoenician Mediterranean, Verona : Essedue edizioni (= Studi epigrafici e
    linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico, 29-30).
Xella P. (2020), The ideology of the tophet. Some ethno-anthropological remarks, Un viaje entre el Oriente y el
    Occidente del Mediterráneo. Actas del IX Congreso Internacional de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos (Mérida,
    22-26 de Octubre de 2018), Celestino Pérez S. – Rodríguez González E. [eds], Mérida : Instituto de Arque-
    ología, Mérida (CSIC-Junta de Extremadura) (= Mytra, 5), 271-279.
Yon M. (2006), Remarques sur le “style linéaire figuré” dans les céramiques du Levant à la fin de l’Âge du
   Bronze, Syria. Archéologie, Art et histoire, 83, 259-278. Published on 01 July 2016, accessed on 14 February
   2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/syria/245; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/syria.245
Zucca R. (2019), Il tempio di SID ADDIR B’BY, Il tempio del Sardus Pater ad Antas (Fluminimaggiore, Sud
   Sardegna), Zucca R. [ed], Roma : Giorgio Bretschneider (= Monumenti antichi. Serie miscellanea, 24; Mon-
   umenti antichi, 79), 35-66.




                                                        34
                       From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.


Riassunto /Abstract


   Riassunto: Nel repertorio dei monumenti lapidei eretti nei santuari punici comunemente
noti come “tofet”, i cosiddetti “altari a gradino”, rinvenuti solo a Tharros (Sardegna), rap-
presentano un unicum assoluto. Da un punto di vista morfologico, la proposta di una loro
appartenenza alla categoria dei “troni” a suo tempo avanzata da Sabatino Moscati può essere
considerata un dato acquisito. Tuttavia, il loro ruolo all’interno del rituale del tofet di Thar-
ros rimane poco chiaro. Il presente lavoro discute la funzione di questi monumenti di pietra
attraverso una revisione del loro contesto archeologico e un approfondito esame iconografico.

   Abstract: Within the repertoire of the stone monuments erected in the Punic sanctuaries
known as “Tophets”, the so-called “stepped altars” represent an absolute unicum since they
were found only at Tharros (Sardinia). From a morphological point of view, their affiliation
to the category of “thrones” at the time proposed by Sabatino Moscati can be considered an
established fact. Still, their role within the ritual of the Tophet of Tharros remains unclear.
This paper discusses the function of these stone monuments through a review of their archae-
ological context and an in-depth iconographic examination.

   Parole chiave: Tofet; Tharros; troni; monumenti lapidei; altari

   Keywords: Tophet; Tharros; thrones; stone monuments; altars




   Come citare questo articolo / How to cite this paper
   Stefano Floris, From the Levant to Sardinia, via North Africa and Cyprus.Some remarks
on the stone thrones known as “stepped altars” from the Tophet of Tharros, CaSteR 8 (2023),
doi: 10.13125/caster/5573, http://ojs.unica.it/index.php/caster/




                                                 35
