GALOR offprint

a n i n t e r nat i o na l j o u r na lf o r a r c h a e o lo g y, h i s t o ry

a n d a r c h a e o m et ry o fm a r b l e s a n d s t o n e s

8 · 2 0 1 2

p i sa · romafabr iz io serr a ed itore

m m x i i i

offprint

Direttore · Editor

Lorenzo Lazzarini · Università i.u.a.v. (Venezia)

*

Comitato scientifico internazionale · International Scientific Committee

Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte · Archaeology and History of Art

Clayton Fant · Università di Akron (oh)Anna Maria Giusti · Opificio delle Pietre Dure (Firenze)

Olga Palagia · Università di AtenePatrizio Pensabene · Università di Roma «La Sapienza»

Isabel Rodà · Università Autonoma di BarcellonaRolf M. Schneider · Università di Monaco di Baviera

Archeometria · Archaeometry

Aurelio Álvarez Perez · Università Autonoma di BarcellonaClaudio D’Amico · Università di Bologna

James A. Harrell · Università di Toledo (oh)Norman Herz · Università di Georgia (Athens, ga)

Marino Maggetti · Università di Friburgo (ch)Myrsini Varti Matarangas · i.g.m.e. (Atene)

*

«Marmora» is an International Peer-Reviewed Journal.The eContent is Archived with Clockss and Portico.

1. Introduction

uring a recent visit to the Jewish Muse-um of New York I noticed a finely carved

marble fragment with a menorah, a seven-branched candelabrum, hung on the wall ateye level, and identified as one of the prizedartifacts of the Museum’s ancient art collec-tion (Fig. 1). Images of Roman and Byzan-tine period sarcophagi as well as of othercontemporary objects with depictions ofmenoroth immediately flushed through mymind. The piece combines elements that areextremely common for this period, yet thereis also something unfamiliar about it. Whatcalled my attention was not only the fact thatI had discovered a strikingly beautiful objectthat had gone unnoticed in the literature. Mycuriosity to explore the fragment more care-fully was the result of a mixed feeling: a senseof excitement I often have when I see a beau-tiful artifact for the very first time, but also a

sensation that left me with an uncomfortablethought; a suspicion or the fear that this maynot be an authentic piece.

The fragment featuring the menorahflanked by a column was labeled as possiblycoming from Israel and as being Late Romanin date (3rd-4th century ce).1 Since the origi-nal archaeological context is not known, asunfortunately is the case with countless arti-facts of importance displayed in the country’stop-ranked museums, there is much room forspeculation as to the origin and history ofthe object. At present, only a short catalogueentry is devoted to the fragment (Ackerman,Braunstein 1982, 128), and though numer-ous studies dealing with Jewish sarcophagiand similar iconographic themes have beenpublished, no scholarly treatment of the itemhas been attempted. If we are indeed deal-ing with an authentic fragment of a Jewishsarcophagus, it deserves to be properly docu-mented, analyzed and published.2

* Address for correspondence: Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design, Providence (ri, usa); [email protected].

1 After the conclusion of my research the artifact was relabeled and now reads: «Sarcophagus Fragment. Israelor Italy, 3rd-4th century ce. Marble carved.».

2 On ethical concerns regarding the study of unprovenanced artifacts see Kletter and Solimani 2010, 13.

D

«marmora» · 8 · 2012

A MARBLE FRAGMENT WITH MENORAHFROM THE JEWISH MUSEUM OF NEW YORK

Katharina Galor*

Abstract

A unique white marble fragment featuring a menorah flanked by a column is currently on display at theJewish Museum of New York. The object is labeled as possibly coming from Israel and as being Late Ro-man in date (3rd-4th century ce). As the original archaeological context is not known, there is much roomfor speculation as to the origin and history of the piece. To the present, only a short catalogue entry is de-voted to this unique piece, and though numerous studies dealing with Jewish sarcophagi and similariconographic themes have been published, no scholarly treatment of the object has been attempted. Thispaper investigates the fragment by using a two-sided approach, combining a traditional iconographic/arthistorical study with a scientific marble analysis. A systematic comparison of the fragment, taking into ac-count the medium, size and representational characteristics, with other similar known objects from Is-rael and Italy, provides evidence for the function and provenance of the original object. The combined ap-proach of conducting isotope epr and petrography tests confirms the primary conclusions reached onpurely art historical grounds, namely that the object was indeed part of a sarcophagus, fabricated and usedmost likely in Rome.

keywords: Palestine, menorah, Jewish, burials, sarcophagi.

56 katharina galor

My goal has been to investigate the marblefragment from the Jewish Museum of NewYork by using a two-sided approach, com-bining a traditional iconographic-art histori-cal study with a scientific laboratory marbleanalysis. A systematic comparison of thefragment, taking into account the medium,size and representational characteristics,with other similar known objects constitutesthe principal part of the project and the focusof the present paper. The laboratory study ofthe marble was conducted by Julia Cox fromthe University of Georgia and Donato At-tanasio from the Istituto di Struttura dellaMateria at the Consiglio Nazionale delleRicerche in Rome. The results are presentedin the appendix and discussed at the end ofthis paper. My hope at the outset of this studywas to determine the provenance of the ob-ject, its date and its usage.1

2. The artifact

The partially carved, incised and polishedmarble fragment measures 42 cm in height,55.6 cm in length and 6 cm in depth. In thecatalogue entry of the Jewish Museum theobject is referred to as being «part of a sar-cophagus rather than a plaque or tomb-stone, as evidenced by the small portion ofthe preserved base» (Ackerman, Braun-stein 1982, 128).

The seven-branched menorah with a tri-pod base is flanked on the right side by a par-tial design of a columned structure. Repeat-ing circular knobs with a dot in each centerare incised into the marble as ornamentationon the branches of the menorah. The arms ofthe menorah are connected on top by a hori-zontal crossbar. The bottom arms rest on the

1 A poster featuring some of the main issues investigated in the present paper was presented at the ix asmo-sia (Association for the Study of Marble and Other Stones in Antiquity) Conference held in Tarragona, June 8th-13th, 2009.

Fig. 1. Marble fragment with menorah. Jewish Museum, New York(photo by Richard Goodbody, Inc. Courtesy of the Jewish Museum, New York/Art Resource, ny).

a marble fragment with menorah from the jewish museum of n.Y. 57

tripod base, which is typical of the bases ofmenoroth (plural of menorah) depicted on fu-nerary and synagogue art at the time. Thebase has two curled legs terminating inknobs and a triangular-shaped third leg. Theouter legs of the tripod base feature a singleincised knob, the same as those incised onthe branches of the menorah, and are con-nected by incised lines.

3. Iconography of menoroth

Representations of menoroth on sarcophagiare extremely rare in the ancient world gen-erally and in Palestine in particular. At BethShe’arim menoroth are frequently found ontombstones, sealing stones, walls and leadcoffins. However, only one stone sarcopha-gus was decorated with the image of a meno-rah (Avigad 1976, 149-150, pl. xlvi, 2-3). InRome, two sarcophagi as well as two frag-ments featuring menoroth were found(Konikoff 1990, 19-21, 36, 38-41).

Menoroth appeared in Jewish catacombsand tombs primarily as symbols and identifi-cation of the Jewish people. They are lesscommon in tombs in Palestine than in theDiaspora (the area outside Palestine settledby Jews from the 6th century bce onward).However, even at Beth She’arim, the major-ity of menoroth are featured on tombs be-longing to Diaspora Jews.

The menorah, the accompanying ritual ob-jects, the shewbread table and the Torah Arkare Jewish symbols used in the context ofsynagogues and cemeteries. They reflect im-portant values distinctly associated with Ju-daism and were used by Jews throughout lateantiquity in Palestine as well as in the Dias-pora. Derived from the accoutrements usedin the Temple rituals, this limited repertoireplays an important role in the vocabulary ofJewish art. Together with the shewbreadtable and the incense altar, the menorah stoodin the sanctuary of the Second Temple peri-

od.1 These same sacred vessels also stood inthe sanctuary of the First Temple, togetherwith the Ark of the Tabernacle, which waskept in the Holy of Holies.2

For R. Hachlili (2001, 2) the menorah is ex-emplary for tracing the development of amotif into a symbol. During the SecondTemple period, the menorah and shewbreadtable must have reflected the priestly officesand their duties. Only after the destructionof the Temple in 70 ce did the image of themenorah evolve into an official emblem thatbecame widely recognized as Jewish.

The menorah as represented on the JewishMuseum fragment corresponds to the usualtypes known from ancient Jewish art consist-ing of a vertical central shaft which supportssix branches, three of which are attached toeach side of the shaft. The branches, as in theabove described marble piece, are most oftendepicted curving upwards in a semicircle.Only in a few cases are those angled, occa-sionally attached horizontally to the shaftand then curving vertically upwards. Thebranches, again, just as in the New Yorkpiece, tend to all reach the same height, andsupport a horizontal bar which is laid acrossthem. As the New York menorah, most repre-sentations consist of a tripod base at the footof the shaft. Less common is the solid basewith conical profile. According to E. R.Goodenough (1954, iv, 73-74), M. Smith (1958,297-512) and C. Meyers (1976) the menorahmay in earliest times have reflected the shapeof a plant or a tree. In my opinion, it is diffi-cult, if not impossible, to verify its originalsource of inspiration, as it is mostly in its con-text of an easily recognizable symbol that itsrole endured the centuries.

As we know from biblical sources (Ex.25:37, 30:8) the menorah in the Temple was litby the priests as an important element in cer-emonies carried out during the daily ritual, inthe mornings and in the evenings, to markimportant events (i Macc. 4:49) or dedications

1 The Second Temple was originally built at the end of the 6th century bce and was replaced by King Herodthe Great in the first century bce by a new structure. In Jewish tradition, both temples are considered the SecondTemple.

2 The First Temple was built by king Solomon and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 bce. It has been arguedthat in the Solomonic Temple there were lampstands, consisting of a bowl supported by a single shaft, rather thana menorah. See Meyers 1979.

58 katharina galor

(Num. 8:1-4). During the three annual pil-grimage festivals of Pessach, Shavuoth andSukkoth, the holy vessels (the menorah andshowbread table) were taken out to the Tem-ple court. This was done so that worshipperscould approach them and gaze on them(Safrai 1965, 179-180; 1976, 891).

The earliest artistic representation of amenorah dates to the second half of the first

century bce (Rahmani 1980). The most fa-mous depiction appears on the Arch of Ti-tus in Rome. Here, the menorah is featuredalong with other treasures as they are beingcarried out of Jerusalem as booty by Titus’troops in 70 ce after the destruction of theTemple.

Representations of menoroth can be foundon reliefs, capitals, lintels, synagogue screens,tomb stones and on synagogue mosaic floors(Hachlili 1988, 238). On several synagoguemosaic floors two menoroth are featuredflanking the Ark of the Law (Fig. 2). A num-ber of three-dimensional menoroth that couldbe used, as opposed to two-dimensional artis-tic renderings, are known, among them astone relief from Hammath-Tiberias and abronze menorah from ‘En-Gedi (Fig. 3). Final-ly, numerous oil lamps with representationsof a menorah have been recovered, both fromPalestine and the Diaspora (Fig. 4).

We can observe gradual chronologicalchanges of menorah depictions. Representa-tions between the 1st century bce and the1st century ce appear to have semi-circu-lar branches and a conical base (Hachlili

Fig. 2. Mosaic floor depicting the Ark of the Law flanked by menoroth. Synagogue of Beth Shean,5th century ce (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Fig. 3. Bronze menorah. Synagogue of ‘En-Gedi,6th century ce

(courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).


and Merhav 1985, 259-264). 2nd-century-cemenoroth (primarily on ossuaries and lamps),tend to have a different number of branches,either more or less than seven. The earliestcombination of a conical base with threesmall round legs (such as on the wall paint-ings in the Dura Europos synagogue) datesto the 3rd century ce. From the 4th centuryce onward, the tripod base, as in the NewYork fragment (or the Hammath Tiberiasmosaic floor), appears to establish itself asthe norm (Fig. 5). Chronologically the hori-zontal bar supported by the branches beginsto appear towards the end of the 3rd century(Hachlili 1988, 136-141). If applied to theNew York fragment, its date should be nar-rowed down to the end of the 3rd and the 4thcentury ce.

4. Menorah depictionsin burial contexts

The primary purpose of the menorah intombs and catacombs is to identify the in-terred as Jewish. Menoroth are more fre-quently found in the Diaspora than in Is-rael/Palestine, possibly a result of thestronger need to identify as Jewish in a pri-marily non-Jewish context (Avigad 1976,269-270).1 Numerous menoroth were uncov-ered in hypogea and graves located in com-munal Jewish-Christian-pagan cemeteries(Rutgers 1998, 83-91).

In Palestine menoroth in burial contextscan be carved or incised on tomb doors,tombstones, tomb entrances, or tomb walls.The most frequent occurrence of menoroth

1 The term Israel/Palestine is used here in the context of the region’s modern boundaries, the term Palestinealone is in reference to the region during the Roman era.

Fig. 4. Pear-shaped oil lamp with menorah,Byzantine period


Fig. 5. Detail of 4th-century ce mosaic floor ofHammath Tiberias synagogue, showing menorah


60 katharina galor

can be found within the Beth She’arimnecropolis. In some instances they werepainted, more regularly they were incised orcarved. Only one menorah appears on a stonesarcophagus (Fig. 6), and two on importedlead coffins (Figs. 7 and 8).1 It is interestingto note here that nine out of the fourteenmenoroth that appear in the Beth She’arimcatacombs can be attributed to Jews from theDiaspora (Avigad 1976, 270-272).

The lead coffins form a homogeneousgroup that can be dated to the 4th centuryce.2 They were imported from a workshopin Sidon, which on request added symbolsbefore casting. It appears that two differentstamps were used for two distinct types ofmenoroth (Hachlili 2001, 82-87).

In addition to numerous menoroth featuredin the catacombs of Rome dating to the 3rd-4th century ce, similar representations werediscovered at other sites in Italy (Porto, Mi-lan, and Sicily), Greece, Spain, Pannonia,Malta, Carthage, Libya and Egypt (Hachlili2001, 82-87). As in Rome, the menorah andother Jewish symbols are usually accompa-nied by an inscription.

Sometimes, the menorah was painted onthe ceilings or walls of the burial chambers.Alternatively, it was carved, inscribed or en-graved on marble tomb plaques, sarcophagi,gold glasses, and clay lamps. Numerouspaintings with menoroth can be seen in theJewish catacombs of the Villa Torlonia andthe Vigna Rondanini in Rome. Some otherJewish catacombs were either destroyed orremained unpainted. The custom of paint-ing the walls and ceilings of catacombs inRome probably began in the 3rd century ceand lasted until the 4th (Rutgers 1998, 59-66). Beyond the typical Jewish motifs, such asthe menorah, the Ark of the Law, and otherritual objects, the style and repertoire of mo-tifs and designs correspond to those appear-ing in pagan tombs, such as garlands andwreaths of foliage and flowers, vines withgrapes, doves, peacocks, birds, architecturalfeatures, and sometimes sea creatures suchas dolphins. The menoroth painted in thesecatacombs share certain characteristics: theyare all seven-branched, they stand on a tri-pod base and their lamps are lit. The onlyvariations appear in the ornamentation ofthe arms.

Hundreds of tombstones, as well as tilesand bricks that sealed the arcosolia, loculi, orgraves were uncovered in the catacombs. In-scriptions, nearly half of which are accom-panied by the standard repertoire of Jewishsymbols, enabled archaeologists to identifythe interred. The symbols may have been en-graved first, after which an inscription wassqueezed in around them or added to thestone after the text was carved (Goode-nough 1953, ii, 5). The menorah is either de-picted alone, or flanked by ritual objects,

1 The sarcophagus with menorah was discovered in Room 26 of Catacomb 20. See Avigad 1976, 149-150, pl. xlvi,2-3. For the two imported lead coffins, see ibidem, 268-272, pls. lxiv and lxv; and Hachlili 2001, 87.

2 On lead sarcophagi at Beth She’arim see Avigad 1976, 173-182.

Fig. 6. The ‘menorah sarcophagus’, right side.Beth-She’arim (courtesy of the Israel

Exploration Society).


such as the shofar (ram’s horn trumpet), thelulav (palm branch), the ethrog (citron), vases,and occasionally scrolls.1 In several instancestwo menoroth flank an ark. The majority ofthese menoroth are schematically engravedand did not require much skill (Fig. 9).2

To sum up, the menorah is usually the sym-bol which together with inscriptions can beconsidered to indicate Jewish graves, espe-cially in non-Jewish communities, in com-munal pagan or Christian cemeteries.

1 The four species (citron, palm branch, myrtle twigs and willow branches) are four plants mentioned in theTorah used in the holiday of Sukkot. See Lev. 23:40. 2 See Avigad 1976, pl. xxvi.

Fig. 7. Lead sarcophagus, long side. Beth She’arim, 4th century(courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

Fig. 8. Lead sarcophagus, narrow side.Beth-She’arim


Fig. 9. Epigram with menorah. Beth She’arim(courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

62 katharina galor

5. Sarcophagi

Only few sarcophagi exist from the earlyyears of the Roman Empire. A massive pro-duction of relief sarcophagi emerged at thebeginning of the 2nd century ce, with majorcenters in Rome and Asia Minor, as well asAthens and other provinces. The productioncontinued until the late 3rd century ce and inRome even later. Scholars have tried to quan-tify the existing remains, and to estimate theoriginal numbers. According to Koch (1993,1), we can count some 1,200 to 1,500 piecestoday, some of which only survive in frag-mentary state. If this number representsaround 2% of the original production, thenwe can assume that within the entire RomanEmpire between 120 and 310 ce there existedsome 70,000 sarcophagi. If however, the sur-viving pieces correspond to 5% of the origi-nal production, the total number of sar-cophagi in existence would have been about30,000. The difficulty of determining exactnumbers without a reliable estimate as to thepercentage of the preserved heritage is clear.However, regardless of the precise numberof sarcophagi in existence during the Romanperiod, and even if this method of intern-ment was as common among Jews as amongthe pagan and Christian population, wewould not expect Jewish sarcophagi to rep-resent more than 1% of the total corpus.1

Beyond constituting a valuable source forthe art historian interested in technological,artistic, stylistic and iconographic trends, im-perial sarcophagi can provide important datarelating to economy, trade, religion and soci-ety. Numerous studies have been devoted tothe history and development of Roman sar-cophagi (Koortbojian 1995, McCann 1978,Walke 1990, Zanker and Ewald 2004), andhave influenced other major fields of art his-torical investigations. Even minor remainshave allowed scholars to trace origins of mar-ble, centers of production and distribution,workshops and user communities. Given thelimited number of identifiable Jewish sar-

cophagi, provenance studies of both stoneand marble sarcophagi would help to furtherthe field of ancient Jewish burial customs andrelated craftsman ship, and guide experts alsoin the analysis of fragments void of decora-tive features.

6. Jewish interments in coffins

The biblical evidence suggests that the an-cient Israelites did not use coffins. The onlymention of a coffin appears in Gen. 50:26 re-lating the disposal of Joseph’s body in Egypt(see also discussion in Hachlili 1979, 55).The extended narrative of the ‘pseudo-epi-graphic’ Testaments of the Patriarchs alsorefers to the coffins used for the burial of hisbrothers. In the later Targum pseudo-Jo n-athan, Jacob, the father, is also interred in thesame fashion (Konikoff 1990, 9).

No specific halachic ( Jewish legal) regula-tions exist with regard to the internment incoffins and their use is simply presupposed indifferent passages of the Talmud. The trac-tate Semahot, written towards the end of the3rd century ce, discusses various laws ofmourning, referring here and there to theuse of coffins, but without further judgmentas to its appropriateness for Jewish burials.Though, throughout the Roman and Byzan-tine period, coffins and sarcophagi appear tohave been used as much by the traditionallyminded as by the rest of the population,some individuals may have felt uneasy withregard to this custom. Shortly before hisdeath around 217 ce, Rabbi Judah Ha’Nasi,perhaps the most authoritative of the Tal-mudic rabbis, is cited as not having opposedthe wish of his entourage to be interred in acoffin.2 Apparently, however, by taking astand to the biblical dictum: «For dust thouart, and unto dust shalt thou return» (Gen.3:19), he decreed that a hole be drilled in itsbase so that his body might touch the soil (T.J. Kil’ayim 32 b3).

Based on the archaeological evidence, weknow that primary burial in wooden coffinswas practiced as early as the 1st century bce.

1 Though Strabo, Philo, Seneca, Luke, Cicero and Josephus refer to Jewish populations in the cities of theMediterranean, the numerical significance is highly inconclusive. On the difficulties of estimating ancient popula-tions see Maier 1953-1954, Broshi 1978, Idem 1979. 2 Margolis and Marx 1980, 225.


Coffins were apparently placed in rock-cutloculi tombs, each loculus accommodatingone wooden coffin. The coffins were shapedlike wooden chests with a post at each cor-ner, and they were made by means of mor-tising. The different types of wood usedwere sycamore, Christ’s thorn and cypress.The lid was mostly gabled and consisted ofone plank on each side and a pediment ateach end. Most coffins had painted red andblack geometric patterns and designs; somewere decorated with inlays of wood or bone(Fig. 10). Relatively well-preserved remainswere found at ‘En-Gedi, in a Jericho tomb,and in the Qumran cemetery (de Vaux 1973,46-47, Hachlili and Killebrew 1983, 115).Earlier examples of similar wooden coffins,from the 4th century bce, were uncovered inEgypt and South Russia (Watzinger 1905).

Excavations in Israel/Palestine reveal thatboth primary and secondary burials werepracticed by Jews during late Hellenistic andearly Roman times. Coffins were used forprimary burials and ossuaries for secondaryburials. As Rachmani has noted (1981, 44) theuse of wooden coffins cannot be attested af-

ter the early years of the 1st century ce. Fur-thermore, tombs with coffins lack ossuariesand vice versa. It appears that both the indi-vidual as well as the family played an equal-ly important role. According to Hachlili(1988, 89-92) this is reflected in the plan ofthe loculi tomb, which provided for individ-ual burial of coffins or ossuaries in separateniches while at the same time allowing afamily to be buried together in the sametomb. The newly adopted custom of indi-vidual burials is most likely related to the in-creasing importance placed on the individ-ual in contemporary Hellenistic society, andto the Jewish belief in individual resurrec-tion of the body. According to the writtensources (ii Macc. 7; 12:38-45 and 14:46), this be-lief can be dated to as early as the 2nd centu-ry bce (Rachmani 1961, 117-118, note 6: Idem1981, 174-175).

Though the ratio between wooden andstone coffins is uncertain, as the majority ofthe former types have disintegrated overtime, most Roman and Byzantine period sar-cophagi uncovered in Israel-Palestine, apartfrom a few imported pagan ones, are carved

Fig. 10. Wooden sarcophagus, ‘En-Gedi, 1st century bce(courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

64 katharina galor

of the local limestone.1 Contemporary sar-cophagi in Rome were all made of marble.In addition to stone sarcophagi, the use oflead coffins, both for Christian and Jewish in-ternment in Palestine, became increasinglypopular during the Byzantine era.

7. Sarcophagi from Palestine

Only a limited number of stone sarcophagihave been uncovered in Israel-Palestine,with less than two dozens coming from theJerusalem area (Hachlili 2005, 115-125) and125 from Beth She’arim (Mazar 1973). Sever-al sarcophagi in fragmentary condition wererecently discovered at Herodium. The mostelaborate one is believed to have been usedfor the burial of king Herod.2

The majority of the Jerusalem sarcophagicome from five tombs of royal and promi-nent families (Rachmani 1994a, Foerster1998). Like contemporary examples fromother regions of the Roman Empire, sar-cophagi from Palestine were usually largeand heavy, with a rectangular body and agabled or vaulted lid.

As a rule, sarcophagi in ancient Palestineare believed to have served primary burial.However, either no bones were found inthem or the condition of the bones was suchthat it was impossible to determine if the de-ceased were in primary or secondary burial.Some have suggested the burial of the headof the family was primary and the bones ofclose relatives were later placed in the samesarcophagus (Hachlili 2005, 115). Many sar-cophagi, both in Jerusalem and at BethShe’arim, were found together with ossuar-ies in the same tomb. Hachlili speculates (ibi-dem) that most sarcophagi functioned aslarge ossuaries for secondary burial ratherthan as sarcophagi for primary burials.

The ‘cushion’ or headrest, a recess orledge placed in the interior of some of thesarcophagi resembles a similar feature found

in some of the early Roman sarcophagi andis considered to represent an early variation(Foerster 1998, 330). Most of the sarcophagiare decorated. The repertoire of motifs dur-ing the early Roman period is strictly ani-conic (Avi-Yonah 1961, 16, 21, 23), consistinglargely of geometric and floral patterns:rosettes, acanthus scrolls, acanthus calyx,wreath, grapes, fruits, and discs (Fig. 11).3The stylized vine-scroll is a favorite design.The sarcophagi also show distaste for emptyspaces, horror vacui. This early type of orna-mentation is closely related to the ossuarydecoration, and apparently derives from thesame sources as those for the Jerusalemmonumental tombs and their environs (Avigad 1971, 191; Rahmani 1994b, 27-29;Hachlili 1988, 113; Eadem 2005, 155). Duringthe late Roman period, representations ofhumans and animals became standard, fea-tured prominently on the long and shortsides as well as on the lids of the BethShe’arim sarcophagi (Fig. 12).4 Depictionsof mythological scenes, gods and goddesses,humans in togas, eagles, lions and pea-cocks, are particularly popular (Chancey2006, 211-212).

8. Sarcophagi from Rome

Outside of Palestine, only a small number ofsarcophagi can be connected to the burial ofJews. All of them have been related to theJewish catacombs of imperial Rome (Ko -nikoff 1990, 9-11; Rutgers 1995; Idem 2000,146-153), only outnumbered by those uncov-ered at Beth She’arim. In the context ofRome, only sarcophagi or fragments withexplicit Jewish inscriptions or symbols can ir-refutably be classified as having been usedfor the burial of Jews. As mentioned above,the Jewish catacombs were dated to the 3rdand 4th centuries ce and they were mostlikely used and reused until the 5th centuryce (Rutgers 1998, 45-71).

1 On marble sarcophagi at Beth She’arim see Avigad 1976, 164-169. On imported marble sarcophagi in Pales-tine see Watzinger 1905, 102-103.

2 The discovery was made by E. Netzer after conducting several excavations at the site over the course of fourdecades. See Netzer et alii 2013, 253-255; Foerster 2013.

3 See Vincent and Steve 1954, 346-362, pl. xciii, fig. 2.4 On the ‘lions’ sarcophagus see Avigad 1976, 139-140 and pl. xl, fig. 1.


The authentication of fragments is partic-ularly problematic, as not all were found insitu. In total, twenty-three sarcophagi havebeen associated with Jewish burials owing totheir location, the epitaphs appearing onthem, or their decoration (Konikoff 1986;Rutgers 1992, 104-105; Idem 1998, 67-68;Hachlili 1998, 285-291; Idem 2001, 95).

Among those, four sarcophagi dated be-tween the 2nd and 4th century ce featuringa menorah and some other Jewish symbols,have been documented. At the onset of theByzantine period, open-air cemeteries re-placed the underground burials. In 1602, A.Bosio, sometimes referred to as the Colum-bus of the catacombs, rediscovered them in

Fig. 11. Sarcophagus from the Tomb of Queen Helene of Adiabene. Jerusalem(courtesy of the École biblique et archéologique française).

Fig. 12. The ‘lions’ sarcophagus. Beth She’arim (courtesy of the Israel Exploration Society).

66 katharina galor

a vineyard on the slope of the Janiculum, to-day’s Monteverde Nuovo. Though publishedposthumously in his classic Romana sotter-anea, it was only by chance that the Mon-teverde catacomb was relocated in 1904(Rossi 1864-1867).

Unfortunately, by then most of the con-tents had been looted. About two hundredand fifty years after Bosio’s discovery, an ad-ditional Jewish burial complex was identifiedon the Via Appia Antica and explored by E.Herzog and R. Garrucci. Finally, in 1920 twoadjacent catacombs on the Via Nomentanaunder the Villa Torlonia were uncovered.

First visited by R. Paribeni, they were thenthoroughly investigated by H. W. Beyer andH. Lietzmann and later again by U. Fasola.The most comprehensive and updatedoverview on the Jewish catacombs of Romewas published by L. Rutgers (1995).1 A.Konikoff’s (1990) catalogue deals specificallywith the sarcophagi.

In contrast to the frequent appearance ofthe menorah on funerary plaques, which usu-ally consist of schematic renderings that areincised, only three of the four sarcophagi fea-turing menoroth, are carved in relief. The onefragment that was found in situ within the Vi-gna Rondanini Catacomb on the Via Appiahas been housed in the Staatliche Museen zuBerlin since the early twentieth century.2 Theother two were not found in their original

context. One, almost entirely preserved, wasfirst reported to be seen in the Palazzo Gi-raud in the Borgo in 1827 and was later trans-ferred to the Garden of the Villa Torlonia onthe Via Nomentana.3 The other, probablythe most famous of all Jewish sarcophagi inthe Diaspora, is a fragment, which is on dis-play at the Museo delle Terme in Rome. Theso-called ‘Faustina Sarcophagus’ lid frag-ment (Konikoff 1990, 41-44, pl. iii-15), with amenorah, a shofar, lulav and the word«shalom» in Hebrew letters will not be dis-cussed here, as the rendering of the Jewishsymbols are mere incisions that typological-ly fit into the category of epitaph tablets.4

The Vigna Rondanini sarcophagus frag-ment (58 × 191 cm), now in Berlin, features inits center a (five-branched?) menorah, flankedby two vertical bands (Fig. 13).5 The arms aregenerously and regularly spaced with theirlights burning. To the left and right of thebands are representations of palm-trees, twoon each side with proportionately adequatedepictions of a shofar, lulav and ethrog (Ko -nikoff 1990, 19-22, pl. 5, ii-4; Hachlili 1998,286, fig. vi-14; Idem 2001, 95). On the extremeleft and right are representations of discs orplates, the one on the left being empty, theone on the right enclosing an unidentifiedobject.6

The dating of the Villa Torlonia sarcoph-agus is somewhat debated (Fig. 14). Konikoff

1 In 2000 Rutgers published his short, but very useful catacomb guide. Un updated edition of H. Leon’s TheJews of Ancient Rome (1960), was recently published (1995) by Hendrickson Publishers with a new introduction byC. Osiek. His principle contribution remains the translation and analysis of the 600 inscriptions uncovered in thecatacombs. My d.e.a. (diplôme d’études approfondis) thesis on Les Juifs dans la Rome antique, which I defended at theUniversité d’Aix-Marseilles i in 1991, corresponds largely in scope to Rutgers work. For a brief summary on theJewish sarcophagi from Rome see Levine 2012, 150-152.

2 The sarcophagus was acquired by Kaiser Friedrich Wilhelm in 1908. K. Wessel (1957) prepared the Catalogueof the Museum’s early Christian-Byzantine collection, in which the fragment (inv. no. 16123) is described in detailunder the heading: «Fragmente einer Sarkophag-Vorderwand, Marmor, aus Rom (Vigna Rondanini) 3. Jahrhun-dert». For additional details on the history of the piece and a more in depth iconographic analysis see Frey 1934.Goodenough 1953, vol. ii, 25-26; ibidem, vol. iii, fig. 788. Idem 1965, vol. xii, 35. Rutgers 1988.

3 Unlike Beyer and Lietzman 1930 neither Paribeni 1920 nor Frey 1931 believed that the sarcophagus was orig-inally located in the Torlonia catacombs. Konikoff 1990, 36 states that the sarcophagus was recently placed intostorage. It is not clear, however, if it is stored on the grounds of the Villa Torlonia or elsewhere. For additionaliconographic comments see Goodenough 1953, vol. ii, 41; Idem 1953, vol. iii, fig. 818; Idem 1954, vol. iv, 146.

4 The Greek inscription «Here lies Faustina», which appears alongside the Jewish symbols and three well-carvedThespian masks, now at the Museo Nazionale Romano, apparently refers to an actress (Schultze 1880. Frey 1934,289. Leon 1960, 217-218; 234, note 1; 306, pl. xxvii, fig. 46).

5 See Beyer and Lietzmann 1930, pl. 27.6 Garrucci 1862, 12 provides one of the earliest descriptions and a comparison with two other sarcophagi frag-

ments. For placing its iconographic theme into the larger context of Greco-Roman symbolism see Goodenough1950-1951; Vermeule 1981, 4-44, fig. 27; Gutmann 1984.


(1990, 40-41, pl. 11, iii-13) considers it as theearliest Jewish sarcophagus in Rome, datingbetween the end of the 2nd and the begin-ning of the 3rd century ce. Hachlili dates itto the late 3rd century ce (1998, 287-288, fig.vi-15; Idem 2001, 96). Given the relativegeneric iconography and even style, and

most importantly the fact that the sarcopha-gus was not found in situ, it is nearly impos-sible to make any definitive statements as tothe artifact’s date. It is preserved with itsmassive lid, which is, as was commonly thecase, slightly wider and longer than its base.A seven-branched menorah is represented in

Fig. 13. Vigna Rondanini sarcophagus fragment, late 3rd century ce, pcas Ran S 1.

Fig. 14. Vigna Torlonia sarcophagus, 2nd-3rd century ce (Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Rom).

68 katharina galor

the center of the frontal space. To its left arethe usual depictions of an ethrog and shofar.To its right appears a plant identified as aturnip by Konikoff (1990, 37), sometimes re-placing the traditional lulav on several funer-ary plaques in Rome and on a fresco in oneof the Torlonia catacomb arcosolia.

The partially preserved front (70 × 126 cm)of the so-called Season sarcophagus of theMuseo delle Terme includes a seven-branched menorah on a three-legged basefeatured on a clypeus held by two Victories(Fig. 15).1 The menorah is featured in place ofthe commonly depicted portrait of the de-ceased or of a monogram of Christ. Fourseasons, personified by nude winged malefigures, flank the victories; only one sur-vives, Autumn, on the right, holding a basketof fruit in one hand, a fowl in the other. Tohis right stands Winter, of which only tracessurvive. Three putti tread grapes in a vat dec-orated with lion-head spouts under themedallion. Two other putti, one riding ahare, the other a dog, are represented on ei-ther side of Autumn. Based on the style andsubject the sarcophagus can be dated to thelate 3rd century ce.

According to Konikoff (1990, 47) amongthe twenty-two sarcophagi identified asclearly Jewish, the ones adorned exclusivelywith Jewish symbols or inscriptions mayhave been made by Jewish artisans. The mostconspicuous in form, she claims, reflect thepropensities of pagan masons. As the reper-

toire of Jewish motifs, however, is extremelylimited, in most cases not going beyond therepresentation of the menorah, occasionallyaccompanied with a lulav, shofar, ethrogand/or incense shovel, this ethnic or reli-gious separation of artisanship appears high-ly unlikely to me. The execution of thosemotifs neither require specialized skills nor isthere any indication in the written sourcesthat the sages would have had a preferencefor Jewish rather than pagan or Christian ar-tisans for the production of sarcophagi orany other funerary installations. As in Pales-tine (Hachlili 1983, 387-391) one would ex-pect that also in Rome, and in the Diasporaat large, workshops produced uniform orconventional designs which would be ac-ceptable to the various ethnic clientele. Special decorative designs or religious sym-bols could then be added at the request ofthe customer, such as Jewish symbols forJews, Christian symbols for Christians, andmythological depictions for Pagans (ibidem,388). Other than the typical Jewish motifs,Jewish burials can be easily identifiedthrough the presence of Hebrew names orwords written in Greek or Latin letters, orAramaic and Hebrew texts usually inscribedon funerary plaques or sometimes directlyon the catacomb walls. These epitaphs tendto be executed in rather rudimentary fash-ion, and don’t seem to be the product of ahighly skilled person. The same phenome-non can be observed in the context of funer-

1 Though sometimes mistakenly attributed to the Vigna Rondanini catacomb (Beyer and Lietzmann 1930, 46and pl. 28) the exact provenance of the fragment is unknown (Frey 1931, 288; Konikoff 1990, 38). The present own-er of the object is the Museo Nazionale Romano.

Fig. 15. Season sarcophagus fragment, late 3rd century ce (photo Staatliche Museen zu Berlin).


ary inscriptions in Palestine, including epi-taphs on the walls of tombs and burial com-plexes, as well as on ossuaries and sarcopha-gi. It would thus make far more sense toconclude that the catacomb sarcophagi iden-tified as Jewish were most likely not specifi-cally produced for Jewish clients. They weremuch more likely chosen by the bereavedfamilies from a stock of sarcophagi availablein the stonecutter’s store.

As in the case of Palestine, most of theJewish patrons of the artisans who fashionedsarcophagi belonged to the privileged andwealthier class of the community. Indeed, ofthe thirteen epitaphs related to Jewish cata-comb sarcophagi, eleven refer to people ofstanding, and nine of these were synagoguedignitaries. It appears that in Rome, as intheir homeland, some Jews in late antiquitybegan burying their dead in coffins and oc-casionally sarcophagi. The type of orna-mentation used suggests that this new cus-tom was adopted by both, the Romanizedand traditionalist families.

9. Marble studies

Systematic marble studies for Roman Pales-tine have been devoted primarily to architec-tural fragments and three-dimensional sculp-ture (Fischer 1988, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999,2007; Foerster 1998; Gersht 1996). Nostudy has been devoted entirely to reliefs orsarcophagi, neither from an art historical per-spective nor from a scientific one. Beyond theabove traditional stylistic and iconographicstudy, the marble fragment with menorahfrom the Jewish Museum in New York un-derwent a laboratory marble analysis.

Generally speaking, the primary aims ofmarble studies are to determine the produc-tion atelier and ancient pathways of tradingnetworks, which facilitate indirect dating ofartifacts and sometimes the identification offorgeries. Unfortunately, however, prove-nancing white marbles used in antiquity stillconstitutes a major problem in archaeome-try.1 Although research on ancient marblesbegan some 100 years ago (Lepsius 1890), itdid not result in one specific method, en-

abling scientists to distinguish all the impor-tant marble quarries from the Mediter-ranean area. This led to the idea that unam-biguous provenancing would only bepossible when combining the data obtainedby different scientific disciplines, usingchemical, isotopic and petrographic analysisof samples (Moens et alii 1988). More re-cently, neutron activation analysis has beenused to determine trace elements in differ-ent materials (Meloni et alii 1988). Surfaceweathering crusts and patinas on ancientsculpture and other artifacts have been in-vestigated by stable isotope mass spec-troscopy, scanning electron microscopy,electron microprobe and pixe techniques(Margolis and Showers 1988). Analysis ofpolished cross-sections and the chemical,isotopic and petrographic characteristics ofthe weathering crusts appear to be excellentindicators of antiquity and authenticity.

Given the state of the field, I decided tosend samples (of 10 mg each) for a measure-ment of isotopes as well as the stable isotoperatios. This analysis was carried out by Prof.Julia Cox of the Stable Isotopes Lab in theDepartment of Geology at the University ofGeorgia. Further samples (also of about 10mg) were used for epr analyses and petro-graphic studies which were conducted byProf. Donato Attanasio of the Istituto diStruttura della Materia at the ConsiglioNazionale delle Ricerche in Rome.

The fragment was clearly shown to beCarrara marble which reinforces the conclu-sions reached in the above iconographicstudy. Carrara marble was and still is ex-tracted from a quarry located in proximityto the ancient city of Luni. Carrara marbleis known to have been primarily used local-ly in Rome and other places within the Ital-ian Peninsula. In spite of the extensive Car-rara marble supply, imperial projects werealso supplied by additional marble typescoming from quarries in Asia Minor, theGreek Islands and to a more limited extendfrom North Africa (Fischer 1998, 40; Herzand Waelkens 1988). Carrara marble wasexported with its primary customers beingGaul and Hispania. Luni marble is found

1 For a more detailed survey on provenancing ancient marbles, see Attanasio et alii 2006, Lazzarini 2004.

70 katharina galor

only in very small quantities in the easternprovinces, not including Palestine. In gener-al terms, the use of marble in Palestine wasextremely limited (Fischer 1998, 35, 40). Inspite of the fact that Josephus’s descriptionsof Herodian monuments include several ex-plicit references to marble, it has beenshown that those statements were faulty(Idem 1994, 79-80, 83). The use of coloredstucco was meant to imitate the much morecostly stone and has proved itself as the pri-mary type of decoration used for buildingsin the Herodian era. A rare example of mar-ble sculpture from the 1st century ce wasuncovered at Herodium (Netzer et alii2005, 37). However, to date no similar objectshave been uncovered in the region. A moreintense use of marble can be observed in3rd-4th century ce Palestine with the pri-mary sources of supply coming from AsiaMinor and Greece. The marble used for thesarcophagi at Ascalonn, Beth Shearim, Cae-sarea and Ptolemais were shown to be Pro-connesian and Pentelic (Fischer 1998, 205-210). In other words, the identification ofCarrara marble for the fragment from theJewish Museum of New York makes it high-ly unlikely that it was used in Palestine. Fur-thermore the largest Jewish community out-side of Palestine during our considered timeframe was in Rome. With the proximity ofthe Luni quarries and the parallel of the nu-merous Jewish sarcophagi made of whitemarble as well as the four marble sarcopha-gi with menoroth, makes any other locationfor the use of the plaque very unlikely.

10. Concluding remarks

Rather than referring to the fragment as pos-sibly coming from Israel and dating to the3rd-4th century ce as originally stated on theMuseum label and in the Catalogue entry,the above iconographic study suggests that itprobably originated from Rome and shouldnot be dated prior to the late 3rd century ce.

Though the results of the scientific studyhave confirmed that the marble was extract-ed from the Carrara quarries, additionalsampling of Jewish sarcophagi from Romewould be helpful to reach more definitiveconclusions. The most suitable referencegroup for additional marble sampling – con-sidering the presence of a menorah on themarble fragment – would be the cataloguedJewish marble sarcophagi from Rome. Theonly evidence at this point that does not sup-port that the Jewish Museum fragment orig-inates from one of the Jewish cemeteries inRome is the fact that in spite of the early doc-umentation of all Jewish sarcophagi (in theearly sixteen hundreds) known to this day, nomention has been made of the artifact stud-ied in this paper. It is also rather unlikely thatthe piece was exported from Rome prior tothe time when scholars started documentingthe existence of similar artifacts and prior tothe time when interest in the city’s Jewish an-tiquities arose. Though we may never find aconclusive answer with regard to the piece’sprovenance – in particular as the dealersHarmer Rooke Numismatists, ny and Joel L.Malter & Co., ca, who gave away the artifactduring their Alpha Sale of May 3, 1978 wereunable to track down any previous owners –the present study may have contributed to il-luminate and expose the artifact’s enigmaticand equivocal origins. Daniel M. Frieden-berg who acquired the artifact donated it tothe Jewish Museum in 2002.

APPENDIX

Donato Attanasio1

The marble of the Jewish sarcophagus frag-ment can be safely assigned to the quarriesof Carrara (Italy). The brief report belowprovides the scientific basis for the attribu-tion. Two different samples were analyzed,furnishing practically identical results as de-tailed in Table 1.2

1 Istituto di Struttura della Materia at the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome.2 It may be noted that the values of the maximum grain size (mgs), measured by reflection microscopy after

polishing the sample surface, appear to be rather small for Carrara marbles. Similar values, however, are not out-side the quarry range and do not raise any doubt on the provenance as determined by the statistical procedurebriefly described below.


The average of the most relevant quarry sitesare given in the above Table but the assign-ment has been carried out by using a data-base including 16 different possible prove-nance sites.

The provenance (statistical discriminantanalysis using the five most powerful vari-ables listed in Table 1) is obtained in terms ofthree different parameters and is consideredto be reliable when the values above areproperly defined thresholds. The three pa-rameters are defined as follows:

Distance: it is the distance of the sample un-der consideration from the center of the el-lipse that represents the quarry’s probabilityfield. The central point of the ellipse ex -presses the average and hence most charac-teristic values of a quarry. The closer a pointis to the center of an ellipse, the more likely isthe provenance from that marble site.

Relative (posterior) probability: it is the prob-ability of the sample to belong to some

group with the assumption that it originatesin any case from one of the groups amongthe selection. The threshold is 60%. Low val-ues indicate that the sample can be assignedto two or more groups.

Absolute (typical) probability: it is a distancedependent parameter measuring the ab-solute probability that the sample belongs tothe chosen group or, in other words, is a typ-ical representative of the group properties.The threshold is 10%, corresponding to sam-ples on the edge of the 90% probability el-lipse. Low values indicate anomalous sam-ples (outliers) or samples possibly notbelonging to any group in the selection. Thevalues obtained for the sarcophagus frag-ment are listed in Table 2.

The numerical results can be illustratedusing the isotopic graph and one of themany possible statistical graphs. Note, how-ever, that these graphs, although useful, arenot suitable for straight sample assignment.

Table 1. Experimental results and average quarry valuesfor fine grained and Proconnesian marbles.present; ±, trace).

No. Sample or quarry site(no. of quarry samples) ‰18O ‰13C epr

intensity epr

linewidth mgs

1 Marble fragment withmenorah Sample 1 -1.34 2.60 1.138 0.778 0.30

2 Marble fragment withmenorah Sample 2 -1.34 2.60 0.966 0.780 0.30

1 Afyon (65) -4.32 1.80 2.425 0.539 0.86

2 Carrara (112) -1.89 2.11 0.685 0.634 0.80

3 Göktepe 3 (45) -3.40 1.80 0.039 0.551 0.64

4 Göktepe 4 (18) -3.43 1.78 0.216 0.464 0.68

5 Hymettos (41) -2.17 2.20 0.142 0.460 0.69

6 Pentelicon (154) -7.00 2.63 2.263 0.582 0.96

7 Proconnesos (348) -2.26 2.66 0.050 0.585 1.71

Table 2. Provenance results and statistical probability parameters as defined in the textfor the two samples of the marble fragment with menorah.

No. Label Provenance Distance Relativeprobability

Absoluteprobability

1 Sample 1 Carrara 4.2 100% 52%

2 Sample 2 Carrara 4.2 100% 52%

72 katharina galor

The provenance is obtained only from thenumerical calculations which take into ac-count, the multi-dimensional nature of theproblem.

Acknowledgements

I am thankful for Susan L. Braunstein fromthe Jewish Museum in New York for havingfacilitated and supported the scientific re-search of the marble fragment and am alsograteful to Donato Attansio and Julia E. Coxfor their cooperation on the scientific analy-sis of the above fragment. I am also gratefulto the Kress Foundation and to the Human-ities Fund from the Rhode Island School ofDesign which allowed me to participate inthe ix asmosia (Association for the Study ofMarble and Other Stones in Antiquity) con-ference in Tarragona in June 2008. My con-versations there with Moshe Fischer wereparticularly helpful.

Bibliography

Ackerman A. and Braunstein S. 1982, Israel inAntiquity: The Jewish Museum/New York, NewYork.

Attanasio D., Brilli M. and Ogle N. 2006, Theisotopic signature of classical marbles, Rome.

Avigad N. 1971, The Burial-Vault of a Nazarite Fam-ily on Mt. Scopus, «Israel Exploration Journal»,21, 185-200.

Avigad N. 1976, Beth She’arim; report on the exca-vations during 1953-1958, vol. iii, Catacombs 12-23,New Brunswick (nj).

Avi-Yonah M. 1961, Oriental Art in Roman Pales-tine, Rome.

Beyer H. W. and Lietzmann H. 1930, Die jüdische

Katakombe der Villa Torlonia in Rom, Berlin-Leipzig.

Broshi M. 1978, Estimating the Population of An-cient Jerusalem, «Biblical Archaeology Review»,4, 10-15.

Broschi M. 1979, The Population of Western Pales-tine in the Roman-Byzantine Period, «Bulletin ofthe American Schools of Oriental Research»,236, 1-10.

Chancey M. 2006, Greco-Roman Culture and theGalilee of Jesus, Cambridge («Society for NewTestament Studies Monograph Series», 134).

Fischer M. 1988, Marble imports and local stone inthe architectural decoration of Roman Palestine:marble trade, techniques and artistical taste, inHerz and Waelkens (eds.) 1988, 161-170.

Fischer M. 1995, The Basilica of Ascalon: Marble,Imperial Art and Architecture in Roman Palestine.With contributions by Antje Krug and Z. Pearl, inThe Roman and Byzantine Near East: Some RecentArchaeological Research, Ann Arbor (mi) («jra»,Suppl., 14), 121-150.

Fischer M. 1996, Marble, Urbanism, and Ideology inRoman Palestine: The Caesarea Example, in A. Ra-ban and K. G. Holum (eds.), Caesarea Maritima.A Retrospective after Two Millennia, Leiden, 251-261.

Fischer M. 1998, Marble Studies. Roman Palestineand the Marble Trade, Konstanz («Xenia. Kon-stanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschun-gen», 40).

Fischer M. 1999, The Fate of the Holy Land Marble:Remarks to Recycling in the Past, in M. Schvoerer(ed.), asmosia iv, Archeomateriaux, Marbles etAutres Roches, Actes de la Conférence Interna-tionale (Bordeaux, 9-13 octobre 1995), Bor-deaux, 281-284.

Fischer M. 2007, Marble Imports and Local Coun-terparts: Luxury Business in Roman Palestine,Tours («Topoi», Suppl., 8), 249-269.

Fischer M. and Grossmark T. 1996, Marble Im-


ports and Marmorarii in Eretz Israel during the Ro-man and Byzantine Periods, in R. Katzoff (ed.),Classical Studies in Honor of David Sohlberg, Ra-mat Gan, 319-352.

Fischer M. and Stein A. 1994, Josephus on the Useof Marble in Building Projects of Herod the Great,«Journal of Jewish Studies», 45, 79-85.

Foerster G. 1998, Sarcophagus Production inJerusalem from the Beginning of the Common Eraup to 70 ce, in G. Koch (ed.), Akten des Sympo-siums “123 Jahre Sarkophag Corpus”, 1995, Mainzam Rhein, 295-310.

Foerster G. 2013, The Sarcophagi from the Mau-soleum Unearthed at Herodium, in S. Rozenbergand D. Mevorah (eds.), Herod the Great. TheKing’s Final Journey, Jerusalem, 266-277.

Frey J.-G. 1931, Inscriptions juives inédites, «Rivistadi Archeologia Cristiana», viii, 84.

Frey J.-G. 1934, La question des images chez les Juifs àla lumière des récentes découvertes, «Biblica», xv,283-284.

Garrucci R. 1962, Cimitero degli antichi Ebrei sco-perto recentemente in Vigna Rondanini, Roma.

Gerst R. 1996, Imported Marble Sarcophagi fromCaesarea, «Assaph» (B), 2, 13-26.

Goodenough E. R. 1951, Menorah among Jews ofthe Roman World, «Hebrew Union College An-nual», xxiii, 2, 456.

Goodenough E. R. 1953, Jewish Symbols in the Gre-co-Roman Period, vols. ii and iii, New York.

Goodenough E. R. 1954, Jewish Symbols in the Gre-co-Roman Period, vol. iv, New York.

Goodenough E. R. 1965, Jewish Symbols in the Gre-co-Roman Period, vol. xii, New York.

Gutmann J. 1984, Early Synagogue and Jewish Cata-comb Art and its Relation to Christian Art, inanrw, ii, 21, 2, 1335.

Hachlili R. 1988, Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeol-ogy in the Land of Israel, Leiden.

Hachlili R. 2001, The Menorah, the Ancient Seven-Armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form, and Signifi-cance, Leiden.

Hachlili R. 2005, Jewish Funerary Customs Prac-tices and Rites in the Second Temple Period, Lei-den.

Hachlili R. and Killebrew A. 1983, Jewish Fu-nerary customs during the Second Temple Period inLight of the Excavations at the Jericho Necropolis,«Palestine Exploration Quarterly», 115, 109-139.

Hachlili R. and Merhav R. 1985, The menorah inFirst and Second Temple times in the Light of thesources and Archaeology, («Eretz-Israel», 18 [Avi-gad vol.]), 256-267 [Hebrew; English Summaryp. 74*].

Herz N. and Waelkens M. 1988 (eds.), ClassicalMarble: Geochemistry, Technology, Trade, Dord-recht-London-Boston («nato asi Series», 153).

Kletter R. and Solimani G. 2010, Archaeologyand Professional Ethical Codes in Israel in the Mid80s: The Case of the Association of the Archaeolo-gists in Israel and Its Code of Ethics, «The Journalof Hebrew Scriptures», 10, article 4, 2-44.

Kloner A. 1980, The Necropolis of Jerusalem in theSecond Temple Period, Ph.D. thesis, HebrewUniversity [unpublished, Hebrew].

Koch R. 1993, Sarkophage der Römischen Kaiserzeit,Darmstadt.

Konikoff A. 1990, Sacrophagi from the Jewish Catacombs of Ancient Rome. A Catalogue Raison-neé, rev. edn., Stuttgart.

Koortbojian M. 1995, Myth, meaning, and memo-ry on Roman sarcophagi, Berkeley (ca).

Lazzarini L. 2004, Archaeometric aspects of whiteand colors marbles used in antiquity, the state of theart, in G. M. Bargossi, M. Franzini and B. Mes-siga (eds.), A showcase of the Italian research inApplied Petrology, «Periodico di Mineralogia»,3rd Special Issue, lxxiii, 233-242.

Leon H. J. 1960, The Jews of Ancient Rome, 1st edn.,Philadelphia.

Leon H. J. 1995, The Jews of Ancient Rome, 2nd edn.,with a new introduction by C. Osiek, Peabody(ma).

Lepsius G. R. 1890, Griechische Marmorstudien, Ber -lin.

Levine L. 2012, Visual Judaism in Late Antiquity.Historical Contexts of Jewish Art, New Haven.

Maier F. G. 1953, Römische Bevölkerungsgeschichteund Inschriftenstatistik, «Historia», 2, 318-355.

Margolis S. V. and Showers W. 1988, Weatheringcharacteristics, age and provenance determinationson ancient Greek and Roman marble artifacts, inHerz and Waelkens (eds.) 1988, 233-242.

Margolis L and Marx A. 1980, A History of theJewish People, New York.

Mazar B. L. 1973, Beth She’arim; report on the exca-vations during 1936-1940, vol. i, New Brunswick(nj).

McCann A. M. 1988, Roman sarcophagi in the Met-ropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Meloni S., Oddone M., Mello E. and MonnaD. 1988, Neutron activation analysis: a powerfultechnique in provenance studies, in Herz andWaelkens (eds.) 1988, 293-302.

Meyers C. 1976, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Syn-thetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult, Atlanta (ga) («American Schools of OrientalResearch Dissertation Series», 2).

Meyers C. 1979, Was There a Seven-Branched Lamp-stand in Solomon’s Temple, «Biblical Archaeolo-gy Review», 5, 5, 46-57.

Moens L., Roos P., De Rudder J., De Paepe P.,Van Hende J. and Waelkens M. 1988, A mul-timethod approach to the identification of white

74 katharina galor

marbles used in antique artifacts, in Herz andWaelkens (eds.) 1988, 243-250.

Netzer E., Kalman Y. and Laureys-Chachy R.2005, The Tomb Complex at Herodium, in S.Rozenberg and D. Mevorah (eds.), Herod theGreat. The King’s Final Journey, Jerusalem, 253-255.

Paribeni R. 1920, Catacomba giudaica sulla via No-mentana, «Notizie degli scavi di antichità»,xvii, 155 and fig. 2.

Rahmani L. Y. 1980, Depictions of Menoroth on Os-suaries, «Qadmoniot», 51-52, 114-117 [Hebrew].

Rahmani L. Y. 1981, Ancient Jerusalem’s FuneraryCustoms and Tombs. Part One, «Biblical Archae-ologist», 44, 43-53.

Rahmani L. Y. 1994a, A Catalogue of Jewish Os-suaries in the Collection of the State of Israel,Jerusalem.

Rahmani L. Y. 1994b, Sarcophagi of the Late Sec-ond Temple Period in Secondary use, in H. Geva(ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed, Jerusalem,231-234.

Rossi G. B. 1864-1867, La Roma sotterranea Cris-tiana, descritta ed illustrate dal cav. G. B. de Rossi,pub. Per ordine della santità di n. s. papa Pio Nono,Roma.

Rutgers L. V. 1988, Ein in situ erhaltenes Sar -kophagfragment in der jüdischen Katakombe an derVia Appia, «Jewish Art», xiv, 26, no. 58.

Rutgers L. V. 1995, The Jews in Late Ancient Rome.Evidence of Cultural Interaction in the Roman Di-aspora, Leiden.

Rutgers L. V. 2000, Subterranean Rome: in searchof the roots of Christianity in the catacombs of theeternal city, Leuven.

Safrai S. 1965, Pilgrimage at the Time of the SecondTemple, Tel Aviv [Hebrew].

Schultze V. 1980, Archäeologische Studien überaltchristliche Monumente, Vienna, 271, no. 21.

Smith M. 1958, The Image of God, «Bulletin of theJohn Rylands Library», 40, 473-512.

de Vaux R. 1973, Archaeology and the Dead SeaScrolls, London.

Vermeule C. 1981, Jewish Relations with the Art ofAncient Greece and Rome, Boston.

Vincent L.-H. and Steve A. 1954, Jérusalem del’Ancien Testament: recherches d’archéologie etd’histoire, vols. i-iii, Paris.

Walker S. 1990, Catalogue of Roman sarcophagi inthe British Museum, London.

Watzinger C. 1905, Griechische Holzsarkophageaus der Zeit Alexanders des Grossen, Leipzig.

Wessel K. 1957, Rom-Byzanz-Russland: ein Führerdurch die Frühchristliche-byzantinische Samm-lung, Berlin.

Zanker P. and Ewald B. Chr. 2004, Mit MythenLeben: die Bilderwelt der Römischen Sarkophage,Munich.

Rivista annuale · A yearly Journal

*

Indirizzo redazione scientifica · Scientific Committee AddressLorenzo Lazzarini · l.a.m.a. (Dip. di Storia dell’Architettura),

Università i.u.a.v., San Polo 2468, i 30125 Venezia, tel. + 39 041 2571413, -459,fax +39 041 2571434, [email protected]

*

Amministrazione e abbonamenti · Administration & Subscriptions

Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · RomaCasella postale n. 1, Succursale n. 8, i 56123 Pisa,

tel. +39 050 542332, fax +39 050 574888, [email protected]

Uffici di Pisa: Via Santa Bibbiana 28, i 56127 Pisa, [email protected] di Roma: Via Carlo Emanuele I 48, i 00185 Roma,

tel. +39 06 70493456, fax +39 06 70476605, [email protected]

I prezzi ufficiali di abbonamento cartaceo e/o Online sono consultabilipresso il sito Internet della casa editrice www.libraweb.net.

Print and/or Online official rates are available at Publisher’s website www.libraweb.net.

I pagamenti possono essere effettuati tramite versamento su c.c.p. n. 17154550o tramite carta di credito (American Express, Visa, Eurocard, Mastercard).

*

Autorizzazione del Tribunale di Pisa n. 11 del 15 · 04 · 2005Direttore responsabile: Fabrizio Serra

Sono rigorosamente vietati la riproduzione, la traduzione, l’adattamento, anche parziale o per estratti,per qualsiasi uso e con qualsiasi mezzo effettuati, compresi la copia fotostatica, il microfilm,

la memorizzazione elettronica, ecc., senza la preventiva autorizzazione scritta dellaFabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma.

Proprietà riservata · All rights reserved© Copyright 2013 by Fabrizio Serra editore®, Pisa · Roma.

Fabrizio Serra editore incorporates the Imprints Accademia editoriale,Edizioni dell’Ateneo, Fabrizio Serra editore, Giardini editori e stampatori in Pisa,

Gruppo editoriale internazionale and Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.

Stampato in Italia · Printed in Italy

www.libraweb.net

issn 1824-6214issn elettronico 1826-8072

SOMMARIO

saggi

Beatrice Basile, Lorenzo Lazzarini, The archaeometric identification of the marblesof the Greek statuary and architectural elements of the «Paolo Orsi» Museum in Syracuse 11

Carmelo G. Malacrino, Architettura ionica nell’antica Kaulon. Alcune riflessioni sullecolonne e i blocchi lapidei rinvenuti a Capo Cocinto (Monasterace Marina, rc) 33

Katharina Galor, A marble fragment with menorah from the Jewish Museum of NewYork 55

Javier Á. Domingo, El coste del mármol. Problemas e incertidumbres de una metodología decálculo 75

Martina Rugiadi, Lorenzo Lazzarini, Marble sources and artifacts from Ghazni (Af-ghanistan), and their archaeometric characterization 93

Antonio Bartelletti, Alessia Amorfini, Emma Cantisani, Fabio Fratini, TheLate Medieval ‘marble’ inlays of the floor of the San Martino Cathedral in Lucca (Italy) 105

Stefano Medas, Due relitti con carichi lapidei rinvenuti al Bacàn (bocca di Porto di Lido,laguna di Venezia) 115

Roberto Bugini, Luisa Folli, Three important stones of Italian Baroque and Rococoarchitecture: Macchiavecchia, broccatello and rosso di Arzo (Ticino, Switzerland) 127

note e discussioni

Paola Novara, Appunti su una lastra marmorea frammentaria proveniente da Sant’Apolli-nare Nuovo di Ravenna 149

recensioni

Diana Craig Patch (ed.), Dawn of Egyptian Art (F. Carò) 157Anna Gutiérrez Garcia, Pilar Lapuente Mercadal, Isabel Rodà de Llanza (eds.), Inter-

disciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone, Proceedings of the ix asmosia Conference (L.Lazzarini) 158

Dario Del Bufalo, Porphyry. Red imperial porphyry, power and religion = Porfido rossoimperiale, potere e religione (L. Lazzarini) 159

Il manto di pietra della basilica di San Marco a Venezia. Storia, restauri, geometrie del pavi-mento, a cura di Ettore Vio (C. G. Malacrino) 161

Marcello Spanu, Diokaisareia in Kilikien. Ergebnisse des Surveys 2001-2006, 2, The Theatre of Diokaisareia (C. G. Malacrino) 162

GALOR offprint

Documents