ceterum censeo read the just city

Benjamin Foster’s Gilgamesh condenses all the different tablets we’ve found together to make one cohesive narrative which is way less intimidating and therefore my go-to if you want something that feels cohesive while also sticking very close to the language of the original. 10/10

Andrew George is the most thorough and up-to-date, and sticks as close to the text as you can get. It does, however, separate out all the different tablets, and feels very unedited in its style. Definitely not a “pretty” version. 10/10 cuz he’s a legend and this is the most definitive scholarly edition but don’t start with it.

Maureen Kovacs has a lovely translation with some very interesting footnotes on word choices. Her Ninsun is absolutely incredible and if you want to cry your eyes out over Gilgamesh’s fate that’s the one for you. It’s one step up from Foster’s in terms of poetic-ness but still pretty close to the original. 8/10

Sophus Helle is more poetic than Kovacs but BRILLIANT, one of my favourite Enkidus and his Shamhat is wonderful. Top favourite of all time. This is a very good starting point. 9/10

I wouldn’t recommend Sandars simply because it’s prose, and also condenses the twelfth tablet into a nice tidy ending that doesn’t really work with the Standard Babylonian narrative. 6/10

Lewis’ Gilgamesh Retold is more of a poetic retelling than a translation; it’s beautiful but definitely not a starting point. Sweet and gentle Enkidu though, very charming. 7/10

Stephen Mitchell I’m not a fan of. He smooths the poem out into something tame and very expected. This is my personal bias but I really dislike his Shamhat. His Enkidu and Gilgamesh are also explicitly more like brothers, which is a valid interpretation but also again not one I lean towards. 5/10

Herbert Mason’s Gilgamesh has some stunning moments in it (Enkidu! They do not know you like I know you!) However it is nowhere near the real text BUT closer than Lewis’. Changes the ending of the poem so it’s about Gilgamesh mourning Enkidu rather than mourning his own mortality; a much sadder conclusion with less resolution than in the Standard Babylonian. 7/10

BONUS ROUND:

Derek Hines’ play GILGAMESH is fucking DERANGED guys. Ten Gilgillion out of ten.

Lost Kitchen Scrolls

It has a huge variety of historical recipes from different regions, taken from manuscripts, transcribed and translated, and a whole section of notes about the context for the recipe. It's really fun and I AM going to try a couple of these recipes.

Look at how this lamb recipe is presented:

This is just such a fun way to learn more about historical foodways and discover traditional cuisine.

Look at all the filters you can use:

Maybe if I can forage some good blackberries this year, I can make a 300 year old recipe for blackberry wine!

Thank you!! It's a bit frustrating because on the one hand a lot of non-specialists (like Nolan tbh) overwhelmingly blame the Sea Peoples for the Entire Bronze Age Collapse, even though systems collapse theory has been around for decades, but on the other hand Wilson's response calling them "a now debunked 19th-century theory about maritime tribes who were thought to have attacked Egypt around 1200 BCE" is just such an extreme pivot in the opposite direction that straight up ignores the primary texts from Medinet Habu!! Like, we can debate who the Sea Peoples specifically were/what they were doing/where else they went/their impact/etc until the heat death of the universe, but at the end of the day they're still epigraphically attested in some sort of conflict with Egypt! Same with how she describes Nolan's "we are the Sea Peoples" schtick as him "creating a characteristic narrative twist about the identity of ‘the sea peoples" when,,, afaik the similarity between 'Denyen' & 'Danaan' has been and continues to be generally accepted in scholarship?? Unless there's been a sudden shift in the past like 6 months?? From what I can tell, Wilson doesn't work on LBA archaeology at all, which is probably why this part of the review is so weak compared to her great analysis of the Polyphemus scene, thematic aspects, and misogynistic elements (since the text is more her wheelhouse). But since she has so much influence in how general audiences are introduced to Homeric epic (and by proxy its LBA/EIA setting), her sweeping generalizations about the Sea Peoples feel a little irresponsible? If only because I worry that some people are going to walk away with the assumption that there were no 'sea peoples' fighting Rameses III.

And you make a fantastic point re: Nolan's messy chronological approach! I think his costuming/props wouldn't have stuck out so much if:

He didn't put in so much dialogue about "the people from the sea" and lines like "our age of bronze is coming to an end." Which just reinforces the chronological discrepancies.

They didn't look so jarringly different. The helmets were already giving off the vibes of a slightly cheaper 300, but the Viking-style longship throws the aesthetic forward by ~2000 years!!! I didn't actually really comprehend that gap until just now but. Can you imagine an adaptation of Julius Caesar where its still the Late Republic but they use American horse-and-buggies in the background?? People are bound to comment on that! And his anachronisms stand out even more when you look in the background and see (what looks like) Protogeometric pottery?? It's all over the place, aesthetics-wise.

And the time discrepancy is what drives me up the wall. I once described that in a similar context to a friend as watching a movie about the Norman conquest of England, in which the Anglo Saxons are wearing chain mail, the Normans 16th century plate armour, there is a tank somewhere in the background, William the Conqueror is dressed like Napoleon and also he´s riding a unicorn. And if you are really unlucky, the movie gets marketed as historically accurate.

I'm not sure if there's an actual term for it, but the main (and perhaps only) point of reference that everyone seems to use is this painted plaster head of a woman from Mycenae c. 12th century BCE (National Archaeological Museum Athens inv. 4575). it's a unique and pretty unusual object for the period, but apparently there are a couple of other (less well-preserved or less impressive) examples of women's faces depicted with these red suns/stars/rosettes on their cheeks and chins in Mycenaean art. there's some thought that it might be a representation of some sort of makeup worn by real women in late Bronze Age Mycenae, potentially royalty and/or priestesses in official ritual contexts. alternatively it could be an artistic marker of divinity or non-human status with absolutely no relation to women's appearances in real life, since this head may have belonged to a statue of a goddess or a sphinx. we do have a decent number of Mycenaean wall painting fragments depicting female figures, and I don't believe any of them have these markings on their faces-- the trend of depicting mythic or historical Bronze Age Greek women like this really does seem to all come back to this one object.

Answering the first question, the term you're looking for is 'rosette', or more specifically - depending on the academic - 'dot-rosette'. This was a common LBA iconographic motif in the Near East & Aegean, depicted on a variety of materials; from ceramics to textiles, architecture, metalwork, jewellery, stone carving, etc etc. These depictions could be simple & stylised, more realistic/flower-like, or even quite sophisticated and complex - the dot style seen on NAM.4575 (the plaster head that OP linked & pictured above) being on the simpler, more stylised side.

It, as OP pointed out, is a very singular object for the LBA. Not only is NAM.4575 a large scale three dimensional human figure, but it has so much surviving pigment!! As per gendered iconographic norms (e.g. skin colour) for the LBA Aegean it clearly depicts a female, however there is debate over the specifics depicted. Is she real or divine, human or mystical? It certainly comes from religious context, excavated in the Cult Centre of Mycenae, and the headdress she wears (known as a Polos) has strong links to ritual practice. Worn by (likely) goddesses, mortal figures of high religious or social significance (e.g. priestesses), as well as sphinxes (but not exclusively! older scholarship skewed towards majority sphinxes but our understanding of Poloi wearers has improved over time and tbh there are more occurrences of being worn by human/human-like divinities than by a sphinx). This led to the initial identification of NAM.4575 as a sphinx, however more recent consensus in scholarship interprets her (IMO more correctly) as a goddess or mortal woman of high ritual/social status. Either way, wherever she falls on the mortal/divine divide, it is clear NAM.4575's facial markings hold some form of ritual function for high status women.

However, as mentioned briefly by OP, she is not the sole depiction of facial rosettes from the archaeological record - similar markings *do* appear occasionally elsewhere.

Brief Overview of Rosette facial markings within the archaeological material:

Earlier examples of painted facial rosettes (as well as so many other simple designs) can be seen on some Early Cycladic Figures, such as this EC II marble female head from Keros pictured below on the left, displayed at the Karlsruhe Badisches Landesmuseum (inv.70/550). While the condition of the figure's pigment has deteriorated, traces of pigment on the cheeks and chin in a dot-rosette pattern can still be seen.

More contemporary with NAM.4575 both in time (LBA) and location (found within the Mycenae Cult Center complex) is MM.294, a LH IIIB2 ceramic female figurine. As can clearly be seen in the middle picture below (taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Mycenae) two facial dot-rosettes are detailed, with one on each cheek. They are less sophisticated then those seen on the plaster head, unsurprising with the differences in material and quality between the two artefacts. Other body markings are also present.

Another LBA dot-rosette example can be seen on CMS II 052, a LM I hematite seal stone now located in the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion. While not depicted explicitly on a human face, the seal consists of 4 'floating' objects isolated from any background - an eye, ear, and two dot-rosettes. CMS II 052 (pictured below right) therefore provides evidence of an explicit association of dot-rosettes with other human facial features.

With the explicit proviso I have yet to find scholarly discussion regarding a link to facial markings specifically (unsurprising with how extremely niche of a subtopic this is), through my own research I've found some fragmentary examples of apparent facial dot-rosette markings on phi Φ type figurines. As currently for many phi Φ types no comprehensive pigment analysis exists, or if undertaken most technical reports are not publicly available, so my interpretation of painted facial markings cannot at this stage be definitively confirmed. This identification is instead based solely on visual surveying of available material, with some examples seemingly depicting dot-rosette facial markings that have degraded due to pigment loss over time. One such example is below, a LH III phi Φ type grave good from Tanagra, now displayed in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes (where this picture was taken, by me). On the figurine's left cheek two dots are visible, potentially once part of a larger dot-rosette motif (especially considering pigment loss is evident elsewhere on the figure).

Facial Markings more generally in the archaeological record:

Looking not *just* at dot-rosettes but more broadly at the practice of facial markings in the LBA Aegean there is a greater body of evidence. They appear within a larger variety of contexts, depicted on votive offerings, grave goods, religious objects, and as artistic imagery within high status urban complexes, domestic spaces, peak sanctuaries, and even rock shelters. Notably, while many of these depictions may hold ritual purposes they are represented not just on goddesses but also on explicitly confirmed non-divine women (in fact, I'd argue the majority are mortal rather than divine). This suggests that facial markings were practised by real LBA women in the Aegean, albeit likely not as common, everyday practice for majority of the population. At current, there is no absolute consensus on whether this was achieved by temporary cosmetics (most likely?), tattooing, scarification, or some other method with a variety of generally simple geometric designs depicted within the archaeological record.

The simplest design of facial markings - red, blush-like circular blobs on the cheeks - can be seen on multiple frescoes, see below pictured examples of women within the House of the Ladies Fresco from LBA Akrotiri, Thera; as well as another female plaster head from Mycenae, the smaller and more damaged NAM.7712 pictured below right.

Simple cheek circle markings are also represented on other figurines such as ceramic head AMH.Π1102 from Agious Antonios (pictured below left & centre), or on this stunning clay woman's head found at the Pisokephalo peak sanctuary, with a very distinct red pigmented mark on her left cheek (pictured below right, taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion)

Diamond facial marks also occurred, evident on a few terracotta Mycenaean figures, MM.320 (left) and MM.1552 (right), both images taken at the Archaeology Museum of Mycenae by me

A favourite of mine from Agia Triada, the fragmentary AHM.Π3085 shows unique fragmentary forehead marks of concentric semi or full circles. (below left taken by me at the Archaeological Museum of Heraklion)

Appearing significantly more frequently are depictions of (painted?) red ears, for example seen in the West House Priestess Fresco from Akrotiri (below right taken by me at the Prehistoric Museum of Thira)

The above examples of facial markings designs are not exhaustive, but with many of the remaining extant designs being unique and/or in poor condition I've tried to only discuss those that are of most relevance.

Of these examples, majority come from secure religious contexts and while some could potentially depict divinity, many can also be ruled out as not depicting goddesses at all - but rather real women. While most likely these would be high ranking priestesses, worshippers, holders of some other specific ritual function, or otherwise high status individuals (rather than the average woman) it is clear that some form of cosmetic facial marks were practised by some LBA women. The rarity of depictions likely means these markings held a specific ritual or social meaning no longer evident today. Regarding rosettes specifically, it was a much more widespread motif in textiles, art, architecture, and jewellery then depicted as a facial marking, however several examples *do* exist - with NAM.4575 being the most spectacular and well known.

For more in depth discussion and research on rosettes and/or facial markings within the LBA Aegean I've listed a few articles in the readmore below. I've tried to only add ones that are freely available online, but for the ones that aren't feel free to dm for pdf copies. All imagery not taken by me are from publicly available sources (wikimedia commons, the Arachne CMS database, open access publications, and online museum digital collections)

These bottles were created and used as unguentaria (otherwise known as balsamaria) which are ancient vessels that were typically filled with scented oils, cosmetic powders, balms, or ointments. Unguentaria could be crafted from ceramic, glass, or stone, and they came in various shapes and sizes, but dove-shaped vessels made of glass were especially popular during the second half of the 1st century CE, when they were produced and distributed throughout the Roman Empire.

Above: a dove-shaped unguentarium with residue from the original contents still visible inside

Each bottle was crafted from blown-glass that was carefully modeled into the shape of a bird; the inner cavity was then filled with perfume or cosmetic powder, and the tip of the tail was reheated and compressed, effectively sealing the vessel.

Above: dove-shaped vessels that were opened and emptied long ago, c.50-100 CE

As this article explains:

The vessels were produced with glass blowing pipes by so-called "free blowing," and are for this reason extremely thin-walled, with body thicknesses significantly below 0.1 cm.

After the containers had been filled, the tail feathers were sealed airtight by reheating to protect the contents from moisture. Parts of the containers, such as the head or tail feathers, had to be broken off in order to access the contents of the vessels, which means that they were disposable packaging.

Above: vessels with the tips of their tails broken off

Most of these bottles were made from clear or pale blue Roman glass, but some were crafted with a dark blue, green, purple, or yellow appearance instead:

As cheap, mass-produced goods, the packaging consisted mainly of the conventional thin-walled and transparent Roman glass with an unintentional light blue colouring. Specimens made of intentionally coloured transparent glass (e.g. dark blue, dark green, violet or yellow) are less common. This may also have to do with the fact that the pink or white contents could be visually better distinguished and marketed if the vessels were made of the conventional Roman glass, which offered more transparency to the beholder than the intentionally coloured glass.

Above: a sealed unguentarium that likely contains scented oils and cosmetic residue, from Rovesenda, Italy, c.50 CE

Research suggests that many of these bottles were filled with powder, including pink substances that have been described as "blush" or "rouge," while others were filled with liquid.

Above: more dove-shaped unguentaria from the Roman Empire

Vessels with this design (which is also known as Isings form 11) have been unearthed at Roman-era sites located throughout Europe:

Evidence shows that these glass containers were widely marketed in the Roman Empire. The main areas of distribution are the central and northern Italian regions of Campania et Latium, Venetia et Histria, and Transpadana, along with the northwestern provinces of Gallia Belgica, Gallia Lugdunensis, Germania inferior and Germania superior [in what is now Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands].

There is also evidence from the Balkan and Danube region in the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia, and also from the eastern Mediterranean in the provinces of Achaea, Creta et Cyrenae and Macedonia. The distribution in the western Mediterranean seems to be limited to Hispania Tarraconensis.

Above: the severed heads of two bird-shaped unguentaria

Sources & More Info:

Glassware and Glassworking in Thessaloniki: 1st Century BC-6th Century AD: Bird-Shaped Inguentaria (Isings Form 11)

The Austrian Archaeological Institute: New Finds of Bird-Shaped Glass Vessels with Residues of their Former Content

The British Museum: Roman Perfume Bottle in the Shape of a Bird

Società Friulana di Archeologia: Glass Doves and Globes from Thessaloniki: North Italian Imports or Local Products?

Analytical Chemistry for Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: Compositional Analysis of Greco-Roman Unguentaria Residues

Hmmm, maybe I could listen to their song without walking into the sea…

Maybe this rope could help… but how…?