The Edges of the Roman World

Edited by

Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi

and Staa Babi

The Edges of the Roman World,

Edited by Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi and Staa Babi
This book first published 2014
Cambridge Scholars Publishing
12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

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

Copyright 2014 by Marko A. Jankovi, Vladimir D. Mihajlovi, Staa Babi and contributors
All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN (10): 1-4438-5899-4, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5899-1

Table of contents
List of illustrations
List of tables

vii
ix

Foreword: Edges of the Roman world, imperialism and identities

Vladimir D. Mihajlovi & Marko A. Jankovi

Introduction
Richard Hingley

Roman-barbarian interactions and the creation of Dutch national

identity: The many faces of myth
Sergio Gonzlez Snchez
5
The Peoples protests: Accounts of resistance from Cassius Dio to
Bashir-Al-Assad
Lydia Langerwerf
19
The Hellenization process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology
Ivan Vrani

33

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power

Marko A. Jankovi

48

Religion and identity in the Roman Empire: Strategies of civic

consolidation in the 2nd century AD
Roco Gordillo Hervs
61
Knowing your neighbour: Considering some social implications of
layouts of Roman military bases
Anna H. Walas
72
Vinum vires: Trier Black-Slipped wares and constructive drinking in
Roman Britain
Shaun Anthony Mudd
86
Indicating borders or deining sphere of inluence? The Carthaginian
position in the westerm Mediterranean in light of its treaties with Rome
Andrzej Dudziski
105
Headhunting on the Roman frontier: (Dis)respect, mockery, magic and
the head of Augustus from Meroe
Uro Mati
117
The Empire of friends and the house of the father: Celtic and Canaanite
elite under Imperial rule
Aaron Irvin
135

The Edges of the Roman World

vi

Being Roman and Greek: Local response to the inluence from Rome in
northern Asia Minor
Jesper Majbom Madsen
145
On the prefectura orae maritimae on the western coast of the Black Sea
Ligia Ruscu
159
Enemy at the gates? Interactions between Dacians and Romans in the
1st century AD
Mariana Egri
172
Objects in action: Towards the anthropology of exchange of Roman
bronze vessels in the middle Danube region
Vladimir D. Mihajlovi
194
The formation of early Imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia: (Re)
constructing indigenous communities after the conquest
Danijel Dino
219
The Batavians between Germania and Rome: The emergence of a
soldiering people
Nico Roymans
232
Afterword: When empires colapse
Staa Babi
List of contributors
Index

252
257
261

Headhunting on the Roman Frontier:

(Dis)respect, mockery, magic and
the head of Augustus from Meroe
Uro Mati
The bronze head of a Prima Porta type1 portrait of Augustus was, as J.
Garstang, the original excavator described, found just outside the doorway
of temple M 292 in the north-east quarter of the Royal city of Meroe,
buried in a clean pocket of sand (2.5 m from the surface) (Trk 1997a:
146). D. Harting conducted excavations of the same structure during 19831984 and distinguished six construction phases (Shinnie and Anderson
2004, 85). The small pit in which the Augustus head was found, was located
c. 1m from the threshold at a level c. 60-80cm below Garstangs loor level
A, thus, dug into the Garstangs third period porch loor (Trk 1997a:
150). Although it is not entirely clear, it could be assumed that this third
period of Garstang corresponds to phase 4 established by Harting. There are
two uncalibrated C-14 dates taken from the bottom of the Hartings phase 4
walls, 6070 AD (MR1-208; Beta-9868) and 10 B.C60 (MR1-209; Beta9869) (Shinnie and Anderson 2004: 8687).
The interior walls of M292 in this phase were plastered, but, the paintings
were later damaged in a storm, and now no traces of them exist in situ. The
only known records of the paintings are excavation photos, and drawings
made by H. Schliephack which were later rediscovered in Boston Museum
of Fine Arts and published by P. L. Shinnie and R. J. Bradley (1981). The
scene represented on the eastern (E) wall was destroyed above the waist
level of the major igures. At each end of the scene was a depiction of an
enthroned deity. Both footrests of the deities were decorated with small
kneeling igures of prisoners. There were ive prisoners on the footrest
of the right igure. The irst on the left was of light skin and had a beard,
wearing a blue, thigh-length striped robe with a helmet on his head (Shinnie
1 The Prima Porta type portrait of Augustus is one of the oficial portraits of the
emperor Augustus named after the marble statue of the emperor found in the Villa
of Livia at Prima Porta near Rome. It is the most widely attested imperial portrait
type with c. 150 examples. The hairstyle of the portrait (front of the hair, above the
forehead) is used as the irst sign of its identiication (Boschung 1993: 3850). There
are several different dates for the irst appearance of the Prima Porta type statues.
The earliest is the date around 30BC (Boschung 1993, 160), and the suggestion
that the type must have appeared by 27 BC as Augustus restored the Republic on
16. January that year (Ewald and Iorea 2010: 263; Herklotz 2007: 364365).
Hausmann argues that this portrait type irst appeared on coin series issued in the
east 27/26 BC in connection to the restoration of the Republic but did not became
dominant before 25-23 BC (1981: 571). The date of the Prima Porta type in relation
to the ind from Meroe will be discussed in more details in the following chapters
of this paper.

118

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

and Bradley 1981: 167170). D. E. L. Haynes (1983, 178) describes the

helmet as unmistakably Roman, identiiable as such by the hemispherical
crown with a small knob on the top, the tapering brow-pieces reminiscent of
a visor and nape-guard, however it is impossible to tell from the photograph
if there are cheek pieces. Haynes connects this representation with a helmet
appearing on Trajans column and with a silver example probably from
Emesa, now kept in Toledo Museum of Art (Ohio). The Roman helmet from
Toledo Museum of Art is a silver helmet with cheek pieces hinged to the
brow piece, produced in Julio-Claudian or early Flavian period (Vermeule
1960: 911). Interpretation of the igure on the footrest as Roman is
accepted by various authors (Shinnie and Bradley 1981: 170; Trk 2009:
455456). Similar bound prisoner igures are represented on the relief on
the west wall of the Sun temple M 250 in Meroe (Hinkel 2001: 159),
on one of the bronze bells found in Begrawiya North 16 (Dunham 1957:
137141), on a wall painting from the Meroitic temple at Qasr Ibrim (Rose
2007: 42), a stela of Amanishakheto from Naga (Wildung 2011: 37) and
possibly on a three step dais from Naga in front of the temple of Amun
(Wildung 2011: 4549).
The standing igures depicted between the enthroned deities on the
eastern wall of M292 are interpreted as the king and queen of Meroe with
their entourage of priests, oficials or most likely royal princes (Shinnie
and Bradley 1981: 170; Trk 1989-1990: 184; 1997a: 148149). L.
Trk (1997a: 149) identiies the royal pair as king Natakamani and queen
Amanitore, while Haynes (1983: 178) identiies them as Amanirenas and
Akinidad. Amanirenas and Akinidad are by some scholars identiied with
Candace and her son referred to by Strabo in his narrative on Roman conlict
with Meroe (Trk 2009: 500). Therefore, the identiication of the depicted
couple can not be entirely certain as the dates for the phase 4 of the temple
M 292 and the rule of different royal couples are estimations. However, a
date close to or during the reign of Natakami and Amanitore (around the
50 AD) (Baud 2010: 287) is more in accordance to dating of the Hartings
phase 4 of the temple M 292 (Shinnie and Anderson 2004: 8687).
There is also an enigma of authenticity of the human skull inserted into the
wall near the right edge of the E wall scene, visible on Garstangs photos
(Negatives 378, 379). The skull is not mentioned in the excavation records
or the published records. It lacks the lower mandible suggesting that it was
deleshed before it was inserted into the wall. Shinnie and Bradley (1981:
167) suggested that if the skull was not recent it may have been the skull of a
sacriiced prisoner, perhaps built into the wall as a parallel to the bronze head
of Augustus buried outside. Trk warned that the Garstangs reports usually
emphasize inds from places interpreted as places of sacriices and unusual
burials, and that this lacks in the case of the skull from M292. Based on the
number of small juvenile sketches and scribblings made by Schliephack
in Meroe he believes that the skull is a joke of Schliephack (Trk 1997a:
148). What can certainly be argued based on the photos (Negatives 378,
379) is that the plaster area around and above the skull is much damaged.
Therefore the main question is was the skull placed in the wall construction
before or after the plastering? Was it a later intrusion in regards to the
paintings? Judging on the photos it can be noted that there is no visible
niche or a special type of installation in the wall for the skull. The shadows
cast by the skull and the wall remains in surrounding area are suggesting

Uro Mati

119

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

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

120

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

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

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

Haynes had suggested that the head of Augustus might have been given to
the Meroites as a gift by Gallus, but also argued against this, stating that this
is unlikely because Gallus was more interested in placing his own portraits
in Egypt than the portraits of Augustus. He also writes that the Meroites
would have considered this kind of a gift from Gallus to be humiliating
(Haynes 1983: 180). Haynes based his idea of the Gallus preoccupation
2 Triakontaschoinos (Land of the thirty [Greek] miles) was a Ptolemaic
governmental unit between the irst and the second cataract irst appearing as a
geographical term around 150 BC in the inscription of Boethos, Ptolemaic oficial
(Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010: 287; Trk 1989-1990: 173; Trk 2009: 384).

Uro Mati

121

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

Scenario 2: Headhunting across the First cataract

Eventually, from reasons still debated in scholarship, Gaius Cornelius
Gallus, the irst prefect of Egypt fell from grace, was forced to return
to Rome and in the end killed himself (Minas-Nerpel and Pfeiffer 2010,
265).
Augustus ordered Lucius Aelius Gallus, second prefect of Egypt to
prepare a military expedition against Arabia Felix. He regrouped the forces
stationed in Egypt and took c. 8000 of the 16.800 men in three legions
and 5500 of the auxiliary forces. The expedition was carried out in 26-25
BC and ended with Roman defeat. The inhabitants of Triakontaschoinos
received the news of Aelius Gallus failure in Arabia and revolted in
the summer of 25 BC. The aim of the revolt was to end the previously
established status of Triakontaschoinos and the obligation of paying poll tax
to Rome. Concurrently with this revolt there were local rebellions against

122

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

the pressure of taxation in Upper Egypt (Jameson 1968: 77; Trk 2009:
441). The rebels might also have received help from the king of Meroe.
Meroe probably tried to use the opportunity presented by the revolt in
Triakontaschoinos and Upper Egypt to establish the northern frontier in the
region of the First Cataract (Trk 1997b: 449; Trk 2009: 441).
Strabo narrates how the rebels used their opportunity of Aelius Gallus
absence to attack the three cohorts left at Syene (Aswan), taking Syene,
Elephantine and Philae, enslaving the inhabitants and pulling down the
statues of Caesar (Augustus) (Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg,
Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957: 139). The majority of scholars
have interpreted the bronze head of Augustus from Meroe as the head of
one of the statues taken as booty by the rebels and later buried in front
of the temple M 292 (Burstein 1979: 9697; 1988: 20; Grzymski 2004:
167; Haynes 1983: 180; Hintze 1978, 100; Kirwan 1957: 19; Shinnie 1978:
247248; 1996: 116). Trk thinks that it is unlikely that an example of this
type existed at Syene, Elephantine and Philae as early as 25 BC because it
appears for the irst time on coinage in 27/26 BC. (Trk 1989-1990: 181).
The possibility of the statues early existence and placement in Syene,
Elephantine and Philae will be discussed in the concluding chapters.

Scenario 3: Headhunting in Qasr Ibrim

The Roman response to the activities of the rebels came quickly. The irst
campaign of Publius Petronius, the third prefect of Egypt, occurred between
Autumn 25 BC and late Spring 24 BC. The Meroites were defeated and
Lower Nubia was occupied by the Romans as far as the Second Cataract
(Jameson 1968: 74; Trk 2009: 441442). According to Strabo Petronius
forced the Meroites to withdraw to Pselkis, sent envoys to demand what had
been taken at Syene and Elephantine and asked for reasons for starting the
war. The Meroites answered that they had been wronged by the nomarchs.3
Hostilities continued, Petronius captured the generals of Meroe and sent
some of the prisoners to Alexandria. Then he attacked and captured Pselkis
and went to Premnis (Qasr Ibrim), which he fortiied and left a garrison and
food for four hundred men for two years and set out for Alexandria (Strabo.
Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831; Jones 1957:
139).
There are rather poorly preserved and understood remains of Roman
military installations in Lower Nubia some of which can be dated to the
campaigns of Petronius (Welsby 1998: 161164). The only substantial
evidence for the Roman presence in Lower Nubia during this period is at Qasr
Ibrim (Premnis). The girdle wall surrounding the fort, apparently originally
built in the late Ptolemaic times was later enlarged and strengthened at least
twice during the Roman period (Adams 1983: 96; Adams, Alexander and
Allen 1983: 57; Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006: 65).
Roman occupation of Qasr Ibrim is also attested by 4 refuse levels
accumulated against the Roman girdle wall. Beside pottery of Ptolemaic and
Nubian origin there are large quantities of trans-Mediterranean and Roman3 Nomarchs are the heads of the local administration of the nome; here probably
referring to district inancial oficers (Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831).

Uro Mati

123

Egyptian pottery types. Among the refuse material are large quantities of
military boots and shoes, cloth and fragments of papyri written in Latin,
Demotic and Greek, together with Roman and Ptolemaic coins. Particularly
interesting are the deposits of sling ammunition and c. 1000 sandstone
ballista balls with names and inscriptions in Greek (Adams 1983: 9697;
Adams, Alexander and Allen 1983: 58; Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006).
Among the 40 ballista balls inscribed with carbon-ink is the one (British
Museum EA 71839) having inscription KANAH/Kandaxe4 in the second
line, and according to the authors the inscriptions in second and third line
can be understood as a personal message for the queen: Just right for you
Kandaxe! (Wilkins, Barnard and Rose 2006: 71).
How long did the Roman presence last at Qasr Ibrim is still debated.
W. H. C Frend assessed the occupation in decades rather than years (1980:
927928). W. Y. Adams, J. A. Alexander and R. Allen also suggested that
the Roman occupation probably lasted longer than two years mentioned by
Pliny and Strabo, probably even continuing until the end of the irst century
AD if not later (Adams 1983: 9798; Adams, Alexander and Allen 1983:
59). M. Horton argues that the archaeological evidence does not indicate
Roman occupation deep into the irst century AD as imported Roman
pottery from the military levels all dates to irst century BC.
Pamela Rose argues that the foundation of the Meroitic temple complex
at Qasr Ibrim took place immediately after the Roman withdrawal from
the fort in the early irst century AD. The decoration on the painted plaster
fragments from the temple are similar to those from temples in Butana and
Meroe dated to the irst century AD, suggesting that craftsmen were sent
from the Meroitic heartlands, as the construction of the temple was the
states project (Rose 2007: 165166).
There is an opinion that the bronze head of Augustus found in Meroe
once belonged to a statue which was placed in the Roman fort of Qasr Ibrim
(Frend 1980: 928929; Plumley 1971: 1819; Trk 1989-1990: 182;
Trk 1995: 130; 2009: 455). Trk suggested the existence of a sacellum
where the statue could receive the homage of troops and locals (1989-1990:
182; 1995: 130). Martin Plumley identiies the Podium as the place were the
statue once stood, seen only by approaching from the South (Plumley 1971:
1618). This identiication of the place for the statue can now be taken as
invalid as the Podium can be safely assigned to the Ptolemaic period, both
by radiocarbon dating and based on the architectural grounds (Rose 2010:
425). It should also be mentioned that the statue could not have been seen
approaching from the south, or if it was possible then not much of it was
visible. Frend suggested that the statue stood on a circular pavement 4m in
diameter found in 1974 at Qasr Ibrim near the south wall and facing south
up the Nile (Frend 1980: 928929). However, next to this pavement there
was another one found at Qasr Ibrim (Plumley 1975: 16), and they are both
stratigraphically pre-Roman.5 Therefore the statue could not have stood
4 Kandaxe (Kandake, Candace) is a female royal title deriving from Meroitic kdis,
kdite, kdiw (sister), meaning kings sister (Trk 2009: 442).
5 I would like especially to thank Pamela Rose (Austrian archaeological institute
in Cairo) for this information, a view of the photos of the site and its surroundings
and for the overall discussion on the issue of Roman levels of Qasr Ibrim and ideas
presented in this paper.

124

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

on these pavements. Additionally, bronze statues were usually fastened

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

Agencies and (dis)respect

The Meroe head of Augustus was recently mentioned in the context of the
study of the agency of art (Eck 2010: 645). The discussion of objects having
a sort of agency was opened in archaeology not so recently (Miller 2005: 11
15; Fahlander 2008: 131136; Knappet and Malafouris 2008). Theoretical
insights were taken from A. Gell (1998) and B. Latour. Gell was particularly
interested in agency of art and approached art as a system of action,
intended to change the world rather than encode symbolic propositions
about it (1998: 6). He rejected semiotic approach arguing that art is not
like a text and put more emphasis on agency, intention, causation, result
and transformation. Four terms are essential for Gells theory: prototype,
artist, index and recipient, where prototype is an entity represented in the
image, index is the art work/object/image, and recipient is the observer.
These concepts are in mutual agent-patient relation, thus allowing material

Uro Mati

125

culture to affect the observer and to captivate him (Gell 1998). Exactly this
potential of art work for agency, in relation to the head of Augustus from
Meroe, will be discussed in the following lines.
Roman cult images were regularly clothed, fed, given offerings and
sacriices, decked with garlands, kissed, consulted, asked for favors,
painted, tended and anointed. They were occasionally considered to move,
speak, sweat and bleed, some were even bound or chained to keep them
in place and to control them. These images were treated as if they were
alive, embodying the represented deities and mediating the emperors
exposure to the populace (Stewart 2003: 112; 2006: 243246; 2007: 159
162). The statues of the emperor were main elements of every legion as
they were venerated by the troops (Lozano 2011: 153). Most inhabitants of
the Roman Empire never have seen the ruler so his portraits would embody
his presence. Ruler portraits were presented with petitions, appealed to for
asylum, venerated and feared (Stewart 2003: 170; 2006: 243244; 2007:
169170). Gell would relate this to the distributed personality of the
emperor (1998: 102104). Venerations, worship and sacriices to statues of
Roman emperors were one of the signs of submission, separating Roman
from non-Roman, and friends from enemies (Lozano 2011: 154156). Thus
the statues of the emperor are not placed randomly, their agency being most
important about them. However, these statues also received other forms
of treatment. Destruction of images of bad emperors was a spectacle of
symbolic violence and crowds of Rome pulled statues from their bases,
dismantled, abused and dragged them through the streets. Such violence
was inlicted upon the body of the emperor himself, but there was only
one corpse, and thousands of statues (Stewart 2003: 268; 2006: 246).
Placing statues of Augustus in the sites such as Syene, Elephantine and
Philae would allow the presence of the emperor on the edges of the empire.
However, foreign objects and practices (e.g the imperical cult) can cause
hatred and resistance towards them by those people who did not want to be
affected by them (Lozano 2011: 150151). One probable example of this
resistance can be recognized in the actions of the rebels when they sacked
the statues of Augustus at Syene, Elephantine and Philae. The very notion
of Gells approach to art work as having agency and at the same time maybe
diminishing the role of symbolicity has to be mediated. Postcolonial theory
warns us that social encounters are unpredictable, uncertain and sometimes
cause misunderstanding. These social encounters are not limited to people
only, but rather include other agents too e.g objects, and are particularly
present in contact zones, space of negotiation, borderlands and frontiers
(Bhabha 1994; Cornell and Fahlander 2007: 1; Fahlander 2007: 25; Naum
2010: 101107). Obviously, statues were important to the Romans, because
they wanted them back from the Meroites together with the living prisoners
(Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831;
Jones 1957: 139).
Most of the previous authors did not deal with the ultimate direction
of violence conducted by sacking the statues of Augustus by the rebels. It
can be easily assumed that the rebels intended to mock Augustus; however,
there is another likely possibility to be considered. Strabo narrates how
when Petronius sent envoys of the queen of Meroe to Caesar (Augustus),
they however replied that they did not know who Caesar was nor where
to ind him, and Petronius gave them escort to go to Samos and meet with

126

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

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

Magic and mockery

Many scholars argue that the deposition of the head in a pit in front of the
temple M292 threshold was itself a magical ritual. Inge Hofmann proposes
that it was perceived as the head of a statue of a foreign god and therefore
that the head was ritually deposited in a pit in front of the temple entrance
(1995: 28492850). If the statue was perceived by the Meroites as a foreign
god we can not say, but if we suppose that it was originally placed in the
complex of a temple, this is a valid assumption. Trk also suggests a
magical ritual performed with the head as does R. K. Ritner. Ritner even
connects it to the famous Middle Kingdom Mirgissa deposit6 (Ritner 1993:
135136; Trk 1995: 132; 2009: 455). Haynes and S. M. Burstein view
it as ritual humiliation with everyone entering the building stepping on the
head, as a symbol of triumph associated with the scene inside the temple
(Burstein 1988: 1920; Haynes 1983: 179). If we accept, based on all the
evidence available (deposition of the head in the clean pocket of sand; the
bound prisoner motif on the footrest on the E wall), that what Garstang
found were material remains of a form of execration magical ritual, then
we inevitably argue for sympathetic magic (like produces like) as
deined by early anthropologists. However, before taking this as a deinite
interpretation we should bear in mind that the deposition of the head in
a pit in front of the temple has nothing to do with the skull found in the
E wall as argued by Shinney and Bradley (1981: 167). The problem of
the skull was already discussed at the beginning of the paper. The skull
itself together with the statue head deposition was however interpreted as
an execration ritual through an analogy with quite older Mirgissa deposit
6 Mirgissa deposit was found 600m from the Middle Kingdom (c. 1911-1870 BC)
fort of Mirgissa in a small sandy depression. It contained 5 unbroken crucibles, 197
inscribed broken red vases, 437 uninscribed broken red vases, 346 mud igurines, 3
limestone igurines and a head of the fourth, 4m from the deposit a skull lacking lower
mandibule was found with traces of wax dyed with red ochre. The deposit is interpreted
as an execration ritual against the enemies of Egypt (Ritner 1993: 135136).

Uro Mati

127

(c. 1950 years chronological difference!). This analogy is not justiied as

there is no similiarity between the Meroe pit and the Mirgissa deposit.
Often added to the argument of magical ritual is the depiction of the bound
captives, among them one of the Roman type. Caution should be held
with this connection as the stratigraphic relation of the head deposition with
the phase of the building in which the mentioned paintings were done is not
at all deinitely clear.
Further, it is interesting not only, as previous scholars argued, that there
is an association between the deposition of the head in front of the temple
and the motifs in the interior, but that a particular motif of bound prisoner
got an iconographical addition. Around the middle of the 1st century AD,
at least according to available so far discovered and dated material, there
emerges a topos of the Roman enemy in Meroitic iconography. We ind
it on the temple walls of M292 and M250 (Sun temple) at Meroe and
the Meroitic temple complex at Qasr Ibrim as a bound prisoner, also on a
stela of Amanishakheto from Naga, and possibly on a three step dais from
Naga in front of the temple of Amun (Shinnie and Bradley 1981: 170;
Rose 2007: 42; Wildung 2011: 3749). The construction of these temples
is interpreted as connected to a message of Meroitic supremacy (Rose
2007: 165166). Another depiction is on the bell from Begrawiya North 16.
Here the prisoner in question is not only iconographically close to the ones
previously mentioned, but is also the only one depicted as being stabbed
by a knife, while all other bound prisoners are depicted pierced by arrows
(Dunham 1957: 137141). This is a clear way to distinguish him from the
others for the viewer. Therefore, the bound prisoner motif in iconography
had its own life course and changes in Meroitic art serving the need of its
own historically speciic decorum and ideology.
The Candace of these confrontations is described as a masculine oneeyed woman, her troops as not keen for ighting, clearly emasculating
the men of Meroe, de-feminising the women and mocking both genders
(Strabo. Geography, 17. I. 54; Eide, Hgg, Pierce and Trk 1998: 831;
Jones 1957: 139). This is evidently ideological gender inversion used as a
sign of barbarism usual regarding the foreign women in the work of Strabo
(McCoskey 2005: 6168). The results of the encounter were echoing on
both the physical and symbolic plain (iek 2004: xi). Roman-Meroitic
encounter is thus a peculiar example not of often argued mocking
mimicry in recent postcolonial scholarship (sensu Bhabha 1994), but of
direct mockery on both conlicted sides.

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

128

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

statue of Augustus of Prima Porta type could not have stood at Syene/
Elephantine/Philae already in 25 BC because the earliest portraits of this
type are known from coins dated to 27/26 BC and not from statuary (Trk
1989-1990: 181). The possible reason for the existence of the earliest
portraits dated to 27/26 BC solely on coins is the fact that even though
bronze was the preferred material for honorary statues it had high scrap
value and was melted (Hjte 2005: 14). The problem is that the Prima Porta
portrait type was by L. Trk dated using coinage iconography. It is highly
unlikely that a proile would appear on coin obverse before the existence
of a portrait model suggesting that most probably the same portrait existed
simultaneously in statue form. Statues of Augustus with Prima Porta type
portrait could have reached the borders of Egypt as a province relatively
fast.7 The suggestion that the head of Augustus from Meroe belonged to a
statue which was sacked by the Meroites when they conquered Qasr Ibrim
is not collaborated with the available evidence. The previous identiications
of places and architectural features for the placement of the statue at Qasr
Ibrim turned out to be earlier than the statue itself. New evidence of the site
fortiication and machinery defense during the Roman occupation, together
with records of Strabo, argue that the Meroites most probably negotiated
when they were confronted with the strong defenses and the incoming army
of Petronius. We are safe to assume that the Roman army had the time to
leave the fort and take the presumed statue (if there ever was one there) with
them. This leaves the scenario in which the original context of the statue was
in Syene/Elephantine/Philae as indeed the most probable one. The question
which of course remains is: who did the rebels from Triakontaschoinos saw
in the statues they sacked? Did they recognize the emperor or the prefect
of Egypt? Did they saw in statues the nomarchs to whom they were forced
to pay taxes? Did they see a foreign god in the statues? Was this ultimately
important or the sacking of the statues was not related to any one of them in
particular but rather to the whole enemy side? The fact that the statues were
not only sacked but also carried away and kept speaks not only of mocking
and victorious boosting but in some way also of respect (cf. Harrison 2012).
That this was taken as a serious offence by the Roman side collaborates the
narrative of Strabo stating that they wanted the statues back. Apparently,
some of the statues were not returned after the Samos treaty and stayed with
the Meroites. Presumeably, the head of one of these statues was deposited in
a pit just outside the entrance to temple M292 in the city of Meroe.
7 Particularly interesting for this discussion is a relief fragment of Augustan date
from the Khnum temple at Elephantine. The inscribed text has a peculiar rendering
of Egyptian hieroglyph Hr in the form of Prima Porta type portrait (LaskowskaKusztal 1996: 108; Kiss 2003). The connection between the record of Strabo,
mentioning the sacking of the statues, and the Hr sign in form of the Prima Porta
type, as an indication that the statues of this type were present there in 25 BC was
already stressed by Z. Kiss. He also refers to the bronze head of Augustus from
Meroe (Kiss 2003, 390). I would like to express my gratitude to Ewa LaskowskaKusztal for pointing me to this ind and to related publications in our discussion at
the German excavation house on Elephantine Island. Moreover, statue bases with
sockets are present at Elephantine and are related to the temple of Khnum, however
they are, for the time being only roughly dated to Roman period. The statue bases
are currently studied by Tobias Krapf to whom I thank for sharing this information.

Uro Mati

129

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

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

References
Adams, W. Y. 1983, Primis and the Aethiopian Frontier,.Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt XX, 93101
, Alexander, J. A. and Roger A. 1983, Qar Ibrm 1980 and 1982,
The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 69,: 4360
Baud, M. (ed.). 2010, Mro: Un empire sur le Nil, Paris : Muse du Louvre
ditions
Bhabha, H. K. 1994, The Location of Culture, London: Routledge

130

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

Boschung, D. 1993, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag
Braund, D. 1984, Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client
Kingship, London and Canberra: Croom Helm
Burstein, S. M. 1979, The Nubian Campaigns of C. Petronius and
George Reisners Second Meroitic Kingdom of Napata, Zeitschrift fr
gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 106, 95105
Burstein, S. M. 1988, Cornelius Gallus and Aethiopia, The Ancient
History Bulletin 2 (1), 1620
Cornell, P. and Fahlander, F. 2007, Encounters Materialities
Confrontations: An Introduction. In Encounters, Materialities,
Confrontations. Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited
by Per Cornell and Fredrik Fahlander, 114. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholar Press
Dunham, D. 1957, Royal Cemeteries of Kush: Royal Tombs of Meroe and
Barkal, vol. IV, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts
Eck, C. van 2010, Living Statues: Alfred Gells Art and Agency, Living
Presence Response and the Sublime, Art History 33. 4: 642-659
Edwards, D. N. 1998, Meroe and the Sudanic Kingdoms, The Journal of
African History 39 (2), 175193
Eide, T. Hgg, T. Holton, R. P. and Trk L. (eds.). 1998, Fontes Historiae
Nubiorum. Textual Sources for the History of the Middle Nile Region
between the Eighth Century BC and the Sixth Century AD. Vol. III. From
the First to the Sixth Century AD. Bergen: University of Bergen
Ewald, B. C. and Iorea, C. F. 2010, The Emperor and Rome: Space,
Representation, and Ritual, Yale Classical Studies 35. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Fahlander, F. 2007, Third Space Encounters: Hybridity, Mimicry and
Interstitial Practice In Encounters, Materialities, Confrontations.
Archaeologies of Social Space and Interaction, edited by Per Cornell
and Fredrik Fahlander, 1541. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press
. 2008, Differences That Matter: Materialities, Material Culture and
Social Practice In Six Essays on the Materiality of Society and Culture,
edited by Hkon Glrstad and Lotte Hedeager, 127154. Lindome:
Bricoleur Press
Frend, W. H. C. 1980, Augustus Egyptian Frontier: Qasr Ibrim? In
Roman Frontier Studies: Papers presented to the 12th International
Congress of Roman Frontier Studies. BAR International Series 71,
edited by William S. Hanson and Lawrence J. F. Keppie, 927930.
London: Archaeopress
Gell, A. 1998, Art and Agency, An Anthropological Theory, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Grzymski, K. 2004, Meroe In Sudan: Ancient Treasures, edited by
Derek A. Welsby and Julie R. Anderson, 165-167. London: The British
Museum Press
Harrison, S. 2012, Dark Trophies. Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern
War, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books
Hausmann, U. 1981, Zur Typologie und Ideologie des Augustusportrts,
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen Welt II: 513598
Haynes, D. E. L. 1983, The Date of the Bronze Head of Augustus from
Mero. In Alessandria e il Mondo Ellenistico-Romano: Studi in
Onore di Achille Adriani, Vol I. Studi e Materiali 5, edited by Nicola

Uro Mati

131

Bonacasa, Achille Adriani and Antonio di Vita, 177181. Roma: LErma

di Bretschneider
Herklotz, F. 2007, Prinzeps und Pharao: Der Kult des Augustus in gypten.
Frankfurt am Mein: VerlagAntike
Hinkel, F. W. 2001, Der Tempelkomplex Meroe 250. Forschungs-Archiv
F. W. Hinkel. The Archaeological Map of the Sudan Supplement I. 1,
Berlin: Selbstverlag Herausgebers
Hintze, F. 1978, The Kingdom of Kush: The Meroitic Period In Africa in
Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan, Volume I, edited
by Sylvia Hochield and Elizabeth Riefstahl, 89105. Brooklyn: The
Brooklyn Museum
Hoffmann, F. 2010, Lost in translation? Beobachtungen zum Verhltnis
des Lateinischen und Griechischen Textes der Gallusstele In Tradition
and Transformation: Egypt under Roman Rule. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Hildesheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum
3-6 July 2008, edited by Katja Lembke, Martina Minas-Nerpel, Stefan
Pfeiffer, 149157. Leiden: Brill
Hofmann, I. 1995, Die meroitische Religion, Staatskult und
Volksfrmigkeit. In Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt:
Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung, edited
by Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 28012868. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter & Co
Horton, M. 1991, Africa in Egypt: New Evidence from Qasr Ibrim In
Egypt and Africa: Nubia from Prehistory to Islam, ed. William V.
Davies, 264277. London: British Museum Press
Hjte, J. M. 2005, Roman Imperial Statue Bases from Augustus to
Commodus, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press
Jameson, S. 1968, Chronology of the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C.
Petronius, The Journal of Roman Studies 58, 1 & 2, 7184
Jones, H. L. trans. 1957, The Geography Vol. VIII. London: William
Heinemann Ltd.
Kiss, Z. 2003, Un portrait dAuguste en tant que signe hiroglyphique,
In Faraoni come Dei-Tolomei come Faraoni. Atti del V Congresso
Internazionale Italo-Egiziano, Torino, Archivio di Stato-8-12 dicembre
2001, edited by Nicola Bonacasa, Anna Maria Donadoni Roveri, Sergio
Aiosa, Patrizia Min, 388391. Torino-Palermo: Museo Egizio di
Torino-Universit dgli Studi di Palermo
Kirwan, L. P. 1957, Rome beyond the Southern Frontier, The Geographical
Journal 123 (1), 1319
. 1994 The Boethos Stela and Ptolemaic and Roman Qasr Ibrim In
tudes Nubiennes. Confrence de Genve 3-8 Sept. 1990. Vol. II, edited
by Charles Bonnet, 16. Genve: Socit d'tudes nubiennes
Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. 2008, Material and Nonhuman Agency:
Introduction In Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric
Approach, ed. Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris, ixxix. New
York: Springer
Kopytoff, I. 1986, The cultural biography of things: commoditization
as process In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural
perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 6494. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Kormysheva, E. Y. 1989, Political relations between the Roman Empire

132

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

and Meroe In Studia Meroitica 10: Proceedings of the ifth International

Conference for Meroitic Studies, edited by Sergio Donadoni and Steffen
Wenig, 49215. Berlin: Akademie Verlag
Laskowska-Kusztal, E. 1996, Die Dekorfragmente der ptolomischrmischen Tempel von Elephantine. Elephantine XV. Mainz am Rhein:
Verlag Philipp von Zabern
Lozano, F. 2010, Arx aeternae dominationis: Emperor Worship Rituals in
the Construction of a Roman Religious Frontier, In Frontiers in the
Roman World. Proceedings of the Ninth Workshop of the International
Network Impact of Empire (Durham, 16-19 April), edited by Olivier
Hekster and Ted Kaizer, 149156. Leiden and Boston: Brill
Lukaszewicz, A. 2010, Cornelius Gallus and the Beginnings of Roman
Policy in Nubia In Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the
11th Conference of Nubian Studies Warsaw University, 27 August2 September 2006, Part two, fascicule 2, edited by Wodzimierz
Godlewski and Adam Lajtar, 535540. Warswaw: The Polish Center of
Mediterranean Archaeology, Warsaw University
Mauss, M. 1990, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic
Societies. London: Routledge
McCoskey, D. E. 2005, Gender at the crossroads of empire: locating
women in Strabos Geography In Strabos Cultural Geography: The
Making of a Kolossourgia, edited by Daniela Dueck, Hugh Lindsay and
Sarah Pothecary, 5672. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Minas-Nerpel, M. and Pfeiffer, S. 2010, Establishing Roman Rule in Egypt:
The Trilingual Stela of C. Cornelius Gallus from Philae In Tradition
and Transformation: Egypt under the Roman Rule. Proceedings of the
International Conference, Hildsheim, Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum,
3-6 July 2008. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East Vol. 41,
edited by Katja Lembke, Martina Minas-Nerpel and Stefan Pfeiffer,
265298. Leiden: Brill
Miller, D. 2005, Materiality: An Introduction In Materiality, edited by
Daniel Miller, 150. Durham: Duke University Press
Naum, M. 2010, Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and
Historical Archaeology of the Borderlands, Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 17 (2), 101131
Plumley, M. J. 1971, Pre-Christian Nubia (23 B.C.-535 A.D.) Evidence
from Qasr Ibrim, tudes et Travaux 5, 724
. 1975, Qar Ibrm, 1974, The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
61, 527
Ritner, R. K. 1993, The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice,
Studies in Oriental Civilization No. 54. Chicago: The Oriental Institute
in Chicago Press
Rose, P. J. 2007, The Meroitic temple complex at Qasr Ibrim. Excavation
Memoir 84. London: Egypt Exploration Society
. 2010, Ptolemaic Qasr Ibrim: the Podium revisited, In Beyond the
Horizon, Studies in Egyptian Art, Archaeology and History in Honour
of Barry J. Kemp, ed. Salima Ikram and Aidan Dodson, 424439. Cairo:
The Supreme Council of Antiquities
Shinnie, P. L. 1978, The Nilotic Sudan and Ethiopia, c. 660 BC to c. AD
600 In The Cambridge History of Africa, Volume 2, from c. 500 BC to
AD 1050, edited by John D. Frage, 210271. Cambridge: Cambridge

Uro Mati

133

University Press
. 1996, Ancient Nubia, London and New York: Kegan Paul
International
. and Bradley, R. J. 1981, The Murals from the Augustus Temple,
Meroe In Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan; Essays
in honor of Dows Dunham on the occasion of his 90th birthday, June 1,
1980, edited by William Kelly Simpson, 167172. Boston: Department
of Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts
. and Anderson, J. R. 2004, The Excavations In The Capital of
Kush 2. Mero Excavations 1973-1984, edited by Peter L. Shinnie and
Julie R. Anderson, 588. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag
Stewart, P. 2003, Statues in Roman Society. Representation and Response,
Oxford: Oxford University Press
. 2006, The image of the Roman emperor In Presence: The
Inherence of the Prototype within Images and Other Objects, edited by
Robert Maniura and Rupert Shepherd, 243258. Burlington: Ashgate
. 2007, Gells Idols and Roman Cult. In Arts Agency and Art
History, edited by Jeremy Tanner and Robin Osborne, 158178. Oxford:
Blackwell
Trk, L. 1989, Kush and the external world In Studia Meroitica 10:
Proceedings of the ifth International Conference for Meroitic Studies,
edited by Sergio Donadoni and and Steffen Wenig, 49215. Berlin:
Akademie Verlag
. 1989-1990, Augustus and Meroe, Orientalia Suecana XXXVIIIXXXIX, 171190
. 1995, Meroe: Six Studies on the Cultural Identity of an Ancient
African State. Studia Aegyptiaca XVI, Budapest: Etvs Lornd
University
.1997a, Meroe City, an Ancient African Capital: John Garstang's
excavations in the Sudan, London: Egypt Exploration Society
. 1997b, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic
Civilization, Leiden: Brill
. 2009, Between the Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between
Ancient Nubia and Egypt 3700 BC-500 AD. Probleme der gyptologie
Band. 29, Leiden and Boston: Brill
Vermeule, C. C. 1960, A Roman Silver Helmet in the Toledo (Ohio)
Museum of Art, The Journal of Roman Studies 50, parts 1 and 2, 811
Welsby, D. A. 1998, Roman Military Installations along the Nile South of
the First Cataract, Archeologie du Nil Moyen 8, 157182
Wildung, D. 2011, Gtter und Herrscher-Gods and Rulers In Knigsstadt
Naga/Naga Royal City: Grabungen in der Wste des Sudan/Excavations
in the Dessert of the Sudan, edited by Karla Krper, Sylvia Schoske and
Dietrich Wildung, 2251. Mnchen and Berlin: Naga Projekt Berlin and
Staatliches Museum gyptische Kunst Mnchen
Wilkins, A. Barnard, H. and Rose, J. P. 2006, Roman Artillery Balls from
Qasr Ibrim, Egypt, Sudan and Nubia 10, 6478
Zach, M. H. 2010, Sacred Act or Profane Death? Human Sacriice in
Meroitic Temples? In Between the Cataracts: Proceedings of the
11th Conference of Nubian Studies Warsaw University, 27 August2 September 2006. Part two, fascicule 2. Polish Archaeology in the
Mediterranean Reports 2. 2, edited by Wodzimierz Godlewski and

134

Headhunting on the Roman frontier

Adam Lajtar, 541550. Warsaw: The Polish Center of Mediterranean

Archaeology, Warsaw University
iek, S. 2004, Organs without Bodies: Deleuze and consequences, New
York: Routledge