This paper re-examines a bronze canine figurine discovered in the so-called “Hilani” temple (Area B) at Karkemish during the Turco-Italian excavations. Found near a disturbed floor context close to a stone threshold, the small bronze quadruped—likely representing a collared dog—was initially interpreted as a votive object connected with the Mesopotamian goddess Nikarawa (Ninkarrak/Gula), whose sacred animal was the dog. However, a reassessment of its archaeological context and comparison with similar bronze canine figurines from Mesopotamian sites suggest an alternative interpretation. While Middle and Late Bronze Age parallels point to a votive function, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian examples indicate an apotropaic role, often associated with foundation or sub-floor deposits. The chronological attribution of the Karkemish figurine—whether to the Late Bronze Age II or to the Iron Age—remains crucial: a Late Bronze date would support a votive interpretation linked to temple cult practices, whereas an Iron Age date would favor a protective, prophylactic function independent of a specific deity.
Marchetti, N. (2024). Ancora su una figurina di canide in bronzo dal tempio 'Hilani' di Karkemish. ARTE A BOLOGNA, 9-10, 18-21.
Ancora su una figurina di canide in bronzo dal tempio 'Hilani' di Karkemish
Nicolò Marchetti
2024
Abstract
This paper re-examines a bronze canine figurine discovered in the so-called “Hilani” temple (Area B) at Karkemish during the Turco-Italian excavations. Found near a disturbed floor context close to a stone threshold, the small bronze quadruped—likely representing a collared dog—was initially interpreted as a votive object connected with the Mesopotamian goddess Nikarawa (Ninkarrak/Gula), whose sacred animal was the dog. However, a reassessment of its archaeological context and comparison with similar bronze canine figurines from Mesopotamian sites suggest an alternative interpretation. While Middle and Late Bronze Age parallels point to a votive function, Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian examples indicate an apotropaic role, often associated with foundation or sub-floor deposits. The chronological attribution of the Karkemish figurine—whether to the Late Bronze Age II or to the Iron Age—remains crucial: a Late Bronze date would support a votive interpretation linked to temple cult practices, whereas an Iron Age date would favor a protective, prophylactic function independent of a specific deity.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


