FOUR UNIQUE DOUBLE-FACED FEMALE HEADSFROM THE AMMAN CITADEL

ABDEL-JALIL eAMR

To date, these four Ammonite sculptures have been discussed only in brief archaeological notes(Tell 1968; Zayadine 1973; Abu-Dayieh 1979; Abu-Assaf 1982; Dornemann 1983; and Prag1987). The primary purpose of the present piece of research, therefore, is a detailed analysis ofthe sculptures to ascertain more precisely their identity and function.

Since S. Tell concluded that the heads are identical in size and form, he describes only oneof them (1968, 9). He claims that they represent Ishtar, who possibly had a temple at theAmman Citadel (1968,10). It was demolished by the Babylonians, however, because theirreligious policy was opposed to that of the Ammonites! Tell identifies Ishtar further asAshtoreth of so-called 'Natural Syria,' a parallel to Ninhursag, the Mother-goddess of theSumerians. F. Zayadine is convinced that the heads 'must be compared to double-faced Hathorheads from Cyprus which were used as capitals.' Then he concludes that heads I, 2, and 4 are ofthe Hathor type, while 3 is from the 'Syro-Phoenician tradition' (1973,34-35). A. Abu-Dayiehfollows Zayadine's suggestion that the heads are of the Hathor type (1979, 363-64). A. Abu-Assaf seems to compare the heads with other statues from Ashur: 'Bei dem derzeitigen Standunserer geringen Kenntnis der ammonitischen Bildtypen wagen wir selbst keinen Versuch, dieDoppelkopfe inhaltlich zu deuten' (1982,59,83). R. Dornemann, who has a photograph of onehead on his book cover, seems to have been attracted by the position of the ears on the heads(1983, 159). He considers their higher position as good evidence that the ears were 'a carry-overfrom the positioning of ears on the Hathor heads,' and thus the sculptures are probably caryatidfigures used to ornament capitals in Hathor's temple (1983,161).

K. Prag quotes F. Zayadine's view that the heads are carved caryatids. She also claims thatthey are related to the proto-Aeolic capitals and 'seem to have served a similar purpose to thewindow balustrades, as impressive ornaments in some important structure' (1987, 122). Thepresent writer dissents from this opinion for the following reasons: (a) the soft limestonematerial from which the heads are made could not bear any loading; (b) they are rounded ontop, whereas, if they had been used as caryatids they should have been flattened; (c) no traces ofcalcite deposits or plaster, which would have resulted from a loading attachment, are discern-ible on the top of the heads; (d) it is clear that the sculptor intended to show the heads from thetop since he marked out, in detail, the braids of hair on the top of the heads. Since she mistakenlysupposes that 'each head is only c. 24 cms. in width', she concludes that 'perhaps at Amman allfour heads stood as balusters in one lower window element' (1987, 123). She adds that the headsare very possibly a dedication to 'Atargatis/Ishtar', and agrees that they are to be dated on theepigraphic evidence, discussed by Bordreuil (1973,37-39), to the eighth century B.C. (1987, 123and 126).

The divergent interpretations of the six writers noted above result in a confusing series ofalternatives, with little evidence on which to make ajudicious decision. This paper will attemptto show that the sculptural heads are representations of two great, well-known Egyptian sister-goddesses who had both funerary and fertility cultic roles.

PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

DESCRIPTION

To avoid confusion in measurements and descriptions the heads are numbered I, 2, 3, and 4,and the two faces are distinguished as 'a' and 'b'. Although it is difficult to determine which facewas carved first and which second, the 'a' faces are described first, while only the differences arenoted for the 'b' faces. The main measurements of each head are the height and the width acrossthe base. Where necessary, more detailed data are noted. All measurements are in centimetres. 'Left'and 'right' are relate to the actual sides of the sculpture, not to the standpoint of the viewer.

Double-Faced Head No. I (Fig. I, I)

Height: 29.3; Width: 20.6. In the centre at the top of the head is a circular hole 3.7 diam. X3.8 deep (see Fig. 3) which serves both faces. To the side of this hollowed-out cavity is a smallerhole (1.2 diam.). The function of these two holes will be discussed later. They divide tenhorizontal, incised braids of hair (c. 1.8 each) at the top of the head, with five braids for eachface. Incised lines around the head below the top braids represent a band across the forehead(Fig. I, I). The distance from the edge of the centre hole to the bottom of the headband is notidentical on each side (8.8 for the Ia face and 9.4 for Ib).

The headband of face Ia has fourteen small, raised stones (possibly representing beads)across the forehead. Five vertical, incised braids hang down on each side of the face. The totalnumber of braids, therefore, is ten for Ia and lb. Accordingly, both the left-right and the right-left sides of the head have ten braids each. Since the artist did not divide the space equally, thewidth of the left braids of the Ia face (7.3) is slightly narrower than the right braids (7.6) of theIb face. Two braids are carved in between the two ears of the left-right side of the head, whilethere are three between the ears of the right-left side.

The left ear of Ia is shorter (8.3 X 3.5) than the right ear of the same face (lOX 3).Accordingly, the left earring ofIa is longer (3.3 X 3.9) than the right (2.7 X 4.2). While the leftearring hangs down almost on the braids, the braids of the right side are cut back below theearring. The eyebrows are incised for inlays: the left one is smaller (6.6 X 0.8) than the right

1

la

Fig. I.

Ib

FEMALE HEADS FROM THE AMMAN CITADEL 57(6.7 x I). Also the left socket of the almond-shaped eyes is smaller (6. I X 2.4) than the right one(5.9 X 2.8). The white of the left eye is partially missing while all the white is gone in the righteye. The nose (6.7 X 4. I) and mouth (4.910ng) are comparatively large. The left cheek issmaller in width (8.2) than the right one (8.8), and both are slightly prominent. The length ofthe face (16.5) is less than its width (2 I. I).

Two narrow, horizontal raised bands of stone, 2.5 cms. apart, represent a necklace. Threeholes (2 ..1 diam.) centred in the necklace probably held beads. The length of the neck (6.7) is lessthan its width (8.3). There are traces of red paint visible in places.

The Ib face bears great similarity to la. However, the headband, slanting downwards,covers part of the right eyebrow. Moreover, it has sixteen (rather than fourteen) raised stones(beads). The width of the hanging braids on both sides of Ib (8.4) is larger than those of I a. Theleft ear is slightly smaller in size (8.8 X 3. I) than its right counterpart (8.8 X 3.3). The leftearring is longer (3.3 X 3.5) than the right (2.4 X 3.5), and on both sides the braids do not showany cutting back below the earrings.

The left eyebrow looks smaller in size (6.2 X 0.8), but it is hard to be sure because quite abit of the right one is covered by the slanting headband. Both eyebrows are deeply incised forinlays. The left eye-socket is comparatively larger (5.6 X 3) than the right one (5.6 X 2.2). Theleft eye is still in place, but the right eye is missing. The nose (6.4 X 4. I) and the mouth(5. I long) are well proportioned in form and size. The cheeks are identical in width (g). Thelength of the face (15.3) is less than its width (22.1).

The outline of the necklace in Ib is hardly visible, but three holes (2.3 diam.) indicatewhere the beads were inserted. The Ib neck is narrower (8. I) than that of Ia. There is a smallhole (3.4 X 2.4) at the base of the head, but no smaller hole inside it. Traces of black paintremain in places.

Double-Faced Head NO.2 (Fig. 2, 2)Height: 30.3; width 25.0. The stone of the NO.2 head is more sandy than No. I. As in No. I, thissculpture has a central hole in the middle of the top of the head (4.2 X 3.4), with a tiny hole(1.3 diam.) at its side. The head is parted in the middle by an incised line that crosses the mainhole and runs down to the middle of the forehead in both faces (Fig. 2, 2a and 2b). The width ofthe braids at the top is not equal. On both sides of the partition line (4.4 long) of the 2a face, thebraids form an upside-down lotus flower (Fig. 3, 2C). There are seven braids on the left side ofthe 2a face, while there are eight on the right side. Consequently they are the opposite of the 2bface, which has seven braids to the right of the incised line and eight to the left. The incised lineswhich outline the headband are similar to their counterparts in sculpture No. I, but with largermeasurements. The depth of the 2a face is less (7.6) than that of the 2b face (I I.g).

The headband off ace 2a has thirteen raised stones (beads). Since only four vertical, incisedbraids hang down on each side of the face, the total number of 2a is eight, and 2b has the samenumber. There is a divider braid in the middle of the eight hanging braids on the left-right sideof the statue head, and the same is true on the right-left side. All braids hang down behind theears. As in the No. I head, the artist of No. 2 has not balanced the pairs offacial features. Thenecklaces of the NO.2 head (Fig. 2, 2a and 2b) are similar to those of No. I.-The neck is partlybroken and mended. There are traces of red paint on a white background in places.

Since the sculptor of the 2b head forgot one braid on the left side, he divided one of the otherbraids into two equal parts, thus indicating that a specific number of braids was intended. The2b face looks unhealthy in comparison to 2a. Also the chin is partially destroyed and mended. Abigger hole (3.4 X 3.4) than that of head No. I, together with a tiny one (1.2 diam.), are carvedout at the base of the head. Traces of black paint are visible.

2

2a

PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

2b

Fig. 2.

Double-Faced Head NO·3 (Fig. 4,3)Height: 30.4; width: 24.2. The whole head is broken in the middle and the faces are badlydamaged (Fig. 4, 3a and 3b), yet the headbands are visible. On the other hand, the necklaces arein better condition than those in heads No. I and 2. The hole in the top of head is slightly smaller(4.2 X 3.6) than that of head NO.2, and there is no tiny hole to the side of it. Each face has fivebraids hanging on both sides of the neck. This means that the left-right side of the head has tenbraids, four of which are placed between the ears. The right-left side of the head also has fourbraids between the ears, but a divider braid brings the total to eleven. Nine beads remain on theheadband of the 3b face and there are traces of black paint visible on the face. There is a hole(3.5 X 4), with a smaller one (1.2 X 1.2) inside it, at the base of the head.

2c

Fig. 3.

FEMALE HEADS FROM THE AMMAN CITADEL

-----1

II

59 I

Double-Faced Head NO·4 (Fig. 5,4)Height: c. 30; width: c. 22.2. This head is severely damaged, but parts of the two faces (Fig. 5, 4aand 4b) can be distinguished. It shares the same features of the other three heads: headbands,top and side braids, and the three holes of the necklaces.

PARALLEL EXAMPLES AND DATING

The stone heads of the Amman Citadel are unique, and the present writer has failed to find anysimilar 0bj ects among the sculptures of the Levant or Mesopotamia. The closest parallel tothese heads can be seen in the wall paintings of the Theban tombs and in the mythologicalpapyn.

3

4

38

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

3b

60 PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

Goff, for example, describes two goddesses as standing back-to-back on a papyrus. Theyare together carrying the solar bark among four baboons, two on each side (1979, Fig. 9 I). Thedeceased on the south wall of the burial chamber of Ankhefenmut NO.3 (1979, 120) appearstwice, while making offerings to the gods Re-horachte and Atum, deities seated back-to-back.Also King Pepy I appears twice seated in back-to-back form (Abu-Bakr and Shukri 1954, 207,Fig. 78). Abu-Bakr and Shukri suggest that these double figures represented the deity or king asruler over Lower and Upper Egypt (1954, 207). Such representation, in the writer's opinion, isreasonable, because Upper and Lower Egypt, although united, were always geographically andeconomically distinct.

In another scene Osiris is ,enthroned on a double staircase (Fig. 6, I) under which twohuman figures are kneeling back-to-back, while their arms are tied back to a post. The twogoddesses, standing side-by-side behind the seated god Osiris, have the first hieroglyphic sign oftheir names placed on each of their heads ( ~ , stands for Isis, and V, represents Nephthys).They are almost identical, and bear some similarity to the female heads under discussion,especially in respect of the headband and the general features. The main difference lies in thefact that they are not represented in back-to-back positions as in the case of our stone sculptures(Fig. 6, I and 2).

On a papyrus belonging to Nestanebttawy, the same two goddesses appear standing ateither side of the solar bark (Goff 1979, 197)' Their complete names, Isis and Nephthys, arewritten beside them. In addition to their headband, each figure is represented with the so-called'Festal Cone' placed in the middle of the head, identifying each figure with the deceased. Theholes bored in the middle of the Amman Citadel heads were most probably for inserting suchFestal Cones. Isis and Nephthys, with their names written beside them (Fig. 6, I and 2), areshown carrying the Ankh sign, symbol of protection and fertility. Their headbands and featuresare quite close to those of the Amman Citadel.

On the same papyrus Isis and Nephthys are depicted on opposite sides of the so-calledanimate Djed above a heaven sign (Goff 1979, Fig. 123), as well as a hoeing scene on the earth(Goff 1979, Fig. 94). Their figures are almost identical, reminding one of the similarity theAmman faces bear to each other. The cones on top of their heads rise above the headbands(Fig. 7, I and 2). These representations, together with their facial features, suggest a fairly closeparallel to some aspects of the Amman heads.

On the other hand, these figures are drawn face-to-face and in complete forms, with nonecklace shown. While on some 21St Dynasty paintings Isis and Nepththys have the famousEgyptian flowing necklace (Patrick 1972, PIs. 22, 90), it is quite dissimilar to any Ammonite-type necklaces.

The best evidence for dating the Amman Citadel heads are the letters inscribed on the backof the eyes. The epigraphy is similar to letters inscribed on some Ammonite seals dating,according to L. Herr (1978, Figs. 42:3 I, 44; 43:25; and 45:3 I, 36), from the 7th-6th centuriesB.C.

The incised, upside-down lotus flower on head NO.2 (Fig. 3, 2C) reminds one of the similarlotus flower placed upside-down above the forehead of the high priest Pi ankh on his funeralstela, but no hole or cone appears in the middle of that head. Piankh, holding a lotus flower in hisright hand, is seated before an offering table full of lotus flowers (Goff 1979, 226, Fig. 149). TheFestal Cones and lotus flowers above the foreheads can also be noticed on the heads of severaldrawings of women from the tomb of Sen nut em, a member of the royal family during the 19thDynasty (Patrick 1972, PI. 31).

In the upper panel of the same drawings, Isis and Nephthys are represented as two kitesbewailing Osiris. This scene, showing Tutu, wife of a scribe Ani of the 18th Dynasty with a lotus

FEMALE HEADS FROM THE AMMAN CITADEL 61

5

l

t ~IIArItl

"2..Jl~-' .*o.ur.

p;I[ ....._. f~. o.

2Fig. 6.

---_.__ .--:--~L,

aT •- tffi ,I.-4e

~. ~nif

,•- ..--.---

PALESTINE EXPLORATION QUARTERLY

2

Fig. 7.

FEMALE HEADS FROM THE AMMAN CITADEL

flower on her head (1972, PI. 79), reminds one of the incised lotus flower on the 2a face of theAmman Citadel head (Fig. 2, 2a and Fig. 3, 2C). The same representation ofa Festal Cone and alotus flower is also to be seen on a papyrus ofHunefer, dated to the 19th Dynasty, in which thedeceased wears these ceremonial and funeral signs on his head (Patrick 1972, PI. 86).

The incised lotus flower has also appeared in an upside-down position just above theforehead ofa human face on the coffin lid ofa pottery anthropoid coffin from Deir el-Balah. Thiscemetery on the Palestinian coast is dated in the 14th-13th centuries B.C. (Dothan 1982, 146,PI. 4, Group B). One of the two Iron I coffins from Lachish (Tufnell 1953,219, PI. 126) bears apainted hieroglyphic inscription and crude representations of the deities Isis and Nephthysplaying their customary roles in such funerary practices. This crude depiction, according toDothan (1982, 145), is the only Egyptian example in the land of Canaan.

Finally, one should note that the custom of using lotus flowers at funerals began during the18th Dynasty and continued down to the period to which the Amman Citadel heads are dated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abu-Assaf, A., 1982. 'Untersuchungen zur Ammonitischen Rundbildkunst,' Ugarit-Forschungen 12, 7-102.Abu-Bakr, A., and Shukri, M., 1954. The Ancient Egyptian Religion (Cairo) [in Arabic].Abu-Dayieh, A., 1979. The Ammonite Art ofSculpturefrom9th-6th Centuries B.C. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of

Jordan, Amman [in Arabic].Bordreuil, P., 1973. 'Inscriptions des tetes a double face', Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 18, 37-39.Dornemann, R., 1983. The Archaeology of the Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages (Milwaukee).Dothan, T., 1982. The Philistines and Their Material Culture (Westford).Goff, B., 1979. Symbols of Ancient Egypt in the Late Period. The Twenty First Dynasty (The Hague/Paris).Herr, L., 1978. The Scripts of Ancient Northwest Semitic Seals (Missoula, Montana).Patrick, R., 1972. All Colour Book of Egyptian Mythology (London).Prag, K., 1987. 'Decorative Architecture In Ammon, Moab andJudah', Levant 19,121-27.Tell, S., 1968. 'New Ammonite Discoveries', Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 12-13, g-12 [in Arabic].Tufnell, 0., 1953. Lachish III, the Iron Age (London).Zayadine, F., 1973. 'Recent Excavations on the Citadel of Amman', Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 18,

17-35·

5*