Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:41:03.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early Bronze ‘Trinket’ Moulds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Jeanny Vorys Canby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Six or seven years ago a tourist bought a small carved ‘Hittite stone’ in Izmir as an attractive souvenir. Returning to Washington she read that I had been on Hittite excavations and asked me to look at her curio. One maybe grateful for her layman's interest, for her piece, which turned out to be one half of an ancient trinket mould, sheds an interesting light on trade between Anatolia and Mesopotamia at the end of the Third Millennium B.C.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Spring 1965 , pp. 42 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For similar reasons it seems unlikely that “Irgendein flacher Stein” could have served as the back face for many other moulds (Cf. Opitz, 1933, p. 181).

2 Cf. lead stamp seal, p. 44; lead bull pendant, p. 45; lead figurine, p. 48.

3 Cf. Speiser, E. A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra, I: Levels I-VIII. Philadelphia, 1935, p. 120Google Scholar.

4 OIP, 28, p. 81, fig. 87: c 1481Google Scholar; ibid, pp. 183, 258 and fig. 186: c 740; Cf. also (in extrusive context) OIP 29, fig. 250: d 747; ibid, fig. 478: e 1126.

5 Goldman, 1956, fig. 392: 15.

6 Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin, Oxford, 1953, p. 108, fig. 70Google Scholar.

7 Bittel, K., “Der Depotfund von Soli-Pompeio-polis”, ZA, XLVI (1940), p. 198, pl. VIGoogle Scholar.

8 OIP, 28, p. 81, fig. 87Google Scholar; e 576.

9 Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, p. 275, fig. F–4, p. 272, no. 7.

10 Annuario III (1921), p. 59, fig. 29Google Scholar.

11 OIP, 29, fig. 478: c713.

12 Akurgal, 1962, pl. VII above (standard); pl. XV lower left (gold cup); Kosay, 1951, pl. CXXXIV, middle (appliqué) Cf. Koşay, H., Akok, M., Belleten, LV (1950), p. 481 ff, pl. XXXVIII: 8 (gold jug from Amasya)Google Scholar.

13 Arik, 1935, pl. CCLI, Al. 1528–1534, Tomb T.

14 Goldman, 1956, p. 237, fig. 392: 14; Bronze.

15 SS, Beilage I, bottom, nos. 5976, 5903, 5978, 5981; for date cf. Blegen etc. 1950, p. 210.

16 Bernabò Brea, 1957, p. 211, fig. 30, pl. III.

17 Goldman, 1956, p. 300, fig. 434: 4, 6.

18 Ibid, p. 347 ff.

19 Koşay, 1951, p. 141, pl. LXXXVIII: 4.

20 Riis, P. J., Les Cimetières à Cremation, Hama Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938, II/3, 1948, p. 129, fig. 158Google Scholar.

21 Woolley, 1934, pl. 219, Type I; cf. pls. 128, 129, 138: P G 1237.

22 Bernabò Brea, 1957, p. 211, fig. 30 top, fig. 31 b.

23 SS p. 234, Beilage II: 5878, 5880.

24 Woolley, 1934, pl. 133: U. 8565; cf. pl. 39, U 11806, a, b.

25 Frankfort, H., OIC, 17 (1934), fig. 29Google Scholar.

26 Andrae, 1922, pl. 29: p; cf. pl. 55: ab, and p. 84.

27 Özgüç, T., “Early Anatolian Archaeology in the Light of Recent Research”, Anatolia, VII (1963), p. 13, Pl. VII: 2Google Scholar.

28 Woolley, 1934, pl. 134: U. 9656; cf. pl. 220; and variations pl. 219, U 8374, U 8007; Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., “The Ur Jewellery”, Iraq, XXII (1960), pp. 105–115, pl. XII: 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Iraq IX (1947), pl. XV: 3Google Scholar; Woolley, 1934, pl. 142: U.11232, 11776; cf. Ibid, U.10943 with high horns.

30 Iraq IX (1947), pl. XV: 1, 2Google Scholar; Frankfort op. cit., fig. 28, 29.

31 Andrae, 1922, pl. 29: p.

32 Iraq IX (1947), pl. XXXII: 1; p. 170Google Scholar.

33 Goldman, 1956, p. 301, T.48.25; fig. 435: 11.

34 Akurgal, (1962), pl. 14; Coloured Plate V: Al.242 from Tomb B.M.; Arik, 1935 pl. CCXXXV, and coloured plate XIII: Al.1082; Koşay, 1951, pl. CXLVII, Al. b—D—8, from tomb D; Ibid, pl. CLXV: Al.e—25, from Tomb E.

35 Cf. jugs cited in note 34 and Koşay, 1951, pl. CXXXII: 120, 118 from Tomb H; pl. CLXXVI, above, Al–D–i–k, pl. CLXXIX, Al–D–39–k, both from Tomb K; pl. CXCVI: Al–D–I–13.

36 Akurgal, 1962, pl. 16.

37 Ibid. pl. 21, lower left.

38 Cf. J. Mellaart, Anatolia c. 4000–2500 B.C., CAM. Vol. I Chap. XVIII, 1962, p. 34Google Scholar.

39 Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, pl. XXII: 7–9, Level XIV; cf. p. 176, fig. 39.

40 Ibid, fig. P.41: 5c.

41 Ibid, p. 176, fig. P.39:6.

42 Ibid, p. 135.

43 Ibid, fig. P.45: 5, pl. 188; pl. XXIV: 3, Level XIII.

44 Bittel, K., Kleinasiatische Studien, Istanbuler Mitteilungen, V (1942), p. 176 ff, pls. 34–39Google Scholar.

45 I.L.N., 11 28, 1959, p. 754 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 10, 11.

46 Mellaart, J., “Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau”, AS, XIII, 1963, p. 220, fig. 11: 16, 23, 25, 27–29Google Scholar.

47 Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, p. 214, fig. P.53: 15, pl. XXVI: 5.

48 Ibid, p. 200.

49 Blegen etc. 1951, p. 27, pl. 72: 33.154, 33.179.

50 Ibid, p. 243, pl. 245: 3; note reference to SS.1516, 1867.

50a But cf. Mellink, M. J., AJA 69, (1965), p. 244. pl. 61: 14Google Scholar.

51 Goldman, 1956, p. 304, fig. 436: 11.

52 From Tarsus, Goldman, 1956, fig. 446: 45–47, fig. 448: 35, 36; fig. 449: 59, fig. 450: 76; Beycesultan, Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, fig. F–5: 1, p. 274; Alaça Hüyük, Arik, 1935, pl. XLVII: Al.–37; Alisar, , OIP, 28, fig. 201Google Scholar: C2112, fig. 273: C884, C137, fig. 276: e1109.

53 Troy: SS, 4726, pl. III, 5430, pl. IX; Blegen etc, 1951, fig. 57: 33.175; Bozhüyük, , Körte, , “Kleinasiatische Studien, IV”. AM, XXIV, 1899, pl. 13Google Scholar.

54 SS, Pl. IX: 5490; Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, fig. F–5: 1, p. 274, Level XIII, fig. F–6: 1, p. 278, Level XI.

55 SS, 6446, p. 255; Opitz, 1933, pl. VI: 5; cf. Götze, Alfred in Dörpfeld, W., Troja und Ilion, I. Athens, 1902, p. 363f.Google Scholar

56 BM.: 91902 cf. note 85; Louvre: AO 5685, cf. note 88. The pieces have frequently been discussed. Cf. Opitz, 1933, pp. 192 ff; Dussaud, R., Les Civilisations Préhelléniques dans le Basin de la Mer Égée, (2nd ed.), Paris, 1914, pp. 192 ffGoogle Scholar; Idem, La Lydie et ses Voisinsaux Hatites Epoques, Paris, 1930, pp. 71 ff. Idem, Prélydiens, Hittites et Achéens, Paris, 1953, Chap. VI; Müller, V., Frühe Plastik in Griechenland und Vorderasien, Ihre Typenbildung von der Neolithischen bis in die Griechisch-Archaische Zeit, Augsburg, 1929, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar; Bittel, K., Prähistorische Forschung in Kleinasien, Istanbuler Forschungen, VI (1934), pp. 39 ff.Google Scholar for some of the discussion. Most scholars have concluded that, although these pieces are somehow related to the lead figurines and moulds for figurines from the Cappadocian colonies, they are probably earlier. Recently, however, Nimet Özgüç concluded that the stylistic difference between the two groups is not a matter of date (cf. Özgüç, 1959, p. 105). She therefore places both groups in the late Colony Age, Kültepe Ib, 19th century B.C. (‘high’ chronology cf. Goetze, A., Kleinasien (2nd ed.) Kulturgeschichte des alten Orients, III, I (1957), p. 69Google Scholar). The comparative material for the figurine as well as for the other objects on the mould published here renders this date impossible (cf. below p. 51). Actually the majority of Colony Age pieces are stylistically quite different from ours. Many seem closely related to the iconography of contemporary Mesopotamian clay plaques (cf. the frequent “dieu dans le sarcophage” type as in Kültepe (Özgüç, 1959, pl. XXXIV: 3, 4) with R. Opificius, Das Altbabylonische Terrakottarelief, Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie (Erganzungsbande zur Z.A., N.F.) II (1961), p. 214, and fig. 291, 299, 310, pl. 7; Ziegler, Charlotte, Die Terrakotten von Warka, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka, VI, (1962), p. 160, pl. 9: 142–148Google Scholar. For mother and child cf. Ibid, pl. 11: 184, pl. 12: 185–186; For couples cf. Ibid, pl. 10: 165 and Opificius, op. cit, pl. 9: 382, a, b. The fact that the Cappadocian moulds were for casting figurines only is another good reason for separating the groups cf. below p. 54.

57 Andrae, 1922, pl. 27: a, pl. 28: b, c, p. 54. Dales, G., “Necklaces, Bands and Belts on Mesopotamian Figurines,” R.A., LVII (1963), p. 22Google Scholar dates the piece on technical grounds to Ur III, but this disregards its fine context.

58 Andrae (Andrae, 1922 p. 55) suggested that the piece may have been a copy of the cult statue of the temple.

59 There is only one figurine surely from G: Andrae, 1922, pl. 51: a, p. 87.

60 Ibid, pp. 55–58, pl. 29: a–e.

61 Ibid, fig. 43, p. 56, pl. 29: b.

62 Ibid, fig. 46, p. 57, pl. 29: d.

63 Ibid, fig. 46, p. 57.

64 Dales, op. cit. p. 22.

65 Woolley, 1934, pp. 242, 369.

66 Dales, op. cit. pp. 37 ff.

67 Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, 1954, pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar

68 Parrot, André, Mission Archéologique de Mari, I, Le Temple d'Istar, BAH, LXV, Paris, 1956, p. 200, pl. LXVIII, M 50Google Scholar.

69 Akurgal, 1962, p. 28, colour pl. VIII, pl. 22. Ankara Museum 13922, ht. 26 cm.

70 A nude figure standing with right arm under left on torso is typical of many varieties of Cycladic figurines: Zervos, Christian, L'Art des Cyclades du Début a la Fin de l'Age du Bronze, 2500-1100 Avant notre Ère, (Paris), 1957, figs. 46–51, 104, 107–115, 162–163, 174–175. 244–252, 254–255Google Scholar.

71 For slender figure with high, widely separated, small breasts, cf. Ibid, figs., 46, 111–115, 163, 164, 175, 244, 245, 248, 249; with an elongated torso: Ibid, figs. 47, 48, 112, 113.

72 Ibid, figs. 104–115, 155, 159–161, 166; cf. rare representation of ears and mouth Ibid, figs. 177–178.

73 Mellink, M., “The Royal Tombs at Alaca Hüyük and the Aegean World”, The Aegean and The Near East, Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, New York, 1956, pp. 47 ff, 52 ffGoogle Scholar.

74 E.g. Mellaart, J., “Excavations at Çatal Hüyük”, A.S., XIII (1963), p. 90, pl. XXII a, bGoogle Scholar; Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, p. 269 ff, fig. F: 1, pl. XXXII; O.I.P., 28, fig. 183: d 114 (Bittel, K., Prähistorische Forschung in Kleinasien (Istanbuler Forschungen VI, 1934), pl. IX: 4, p. 75Google Scholar). Bossert, H., Altanatolien, Berlin (1942), nos. 125 (Kusura), 129 (Yortan)Google Scholar; Mellink, M. J., “Excavations at Karataş-Semayük in Lycia 1963”, A.J.A., LXVIII (1964), p. 277, pl. 82: 24Google Scholar.

75 Opitz (Opitz, 1933, p. 198), came to a somewhat similar conclusion.

76 cf. Mellink, M. J. in Ehrich, R., Relative Chronology in Old World Archaeology, (1965)Google Scholar and “The Prehistory of Syro-Cilicia”, Bi. Or. XIX (1962), pp. 223 ff.Google Scholar J. Mellaart correlates Troy II with Cilician EB II (cf. Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, chart p. 112, p. 264; Mellaart, Anatolia c. 4000–2300 B.C., C.A.H., Vol. I, Chap. XVIII (1962), p. 44Google Scholar) in spite of the obvious contacts between Troy II and Cilician EB III (cf. Mellink, M., J.A.O.S., LXXXV (1962), p. 571Google Scholar).

77 Bittel, K., “Beitrag zur Kenntnis anatolischer Metallgefässe der zweiten Hälfte des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr.”, in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, LXXIV (1959), pp. 26 ff.Google Scholar

78 Lloyd and Mellaart, 1962, p. 140.

79 For seal cf. Bernabò Brea, 1957, p. 206, fig. 1, 25: for lion cf. A.A., 1935, p. 234Google ScholarPubMed.

80 The Cappadocian tablets speak of a metal anāku(m), which was used in small quantities AN.NAak qātim, by merchants to defray minor travelling expenses (Landsberger, B., “Assyrische Handelskolonien in Kleinasien aus dem dritten Jahrtausend”, A.O., XXIV 4, (1925), p. 22Google Scholar; Lewy, J. “Studies in the Historical Geography of the Ancient Near East”, Or., XXI (1952), pp. 421 ff.Google Scholar). Anāku(m) was originally thought to mean lead but many Assyriologists, with the notable exception of J. Lewy, have since decided that it means tin. (For summary cf. Limet, H., Le Travail du Métal au Pays de Sumer au Temps de la IIIe Dynastie d'Ur, Paris (1960), p. 50Google Scholar; Laessøe, J., “Akkadian Annakum ‘Tin or Lead’”, Acta Orientalia, XXIV (1959), pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar For Lewy cf. “Some Aspects of Commerical Life in Assyria and Asia Minor in the 19th pre-Christian Century”, J.A.O.S., LXXVIII (1958), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar: P. Garelli, Les Assyriens en Cappadoce (1963), pp. 269 ff. It is reassuring to the archaeologist that von Soden (A. Hwb., p. 49) gives “Zinn und wohl auch Blei”, for the word. The translation ‘tin’ seems logical when texts speak of a metal imported in large quantities to lead-rich Anatolia, or a metal needed to make weapons, but it is difficult to believe that a metal of so specialized a use-bits of which, in contrast to lead (Özgüç 1948, p. 202; Özgüç, 1949, p. 197; O.I.P., 29, p. 264, fig. 297Google Scholar) have not been found in colony sites-was generally negotiable as ‘cash’.

81 On Metalgeräte Geld cf. Lewy, J., “Studies in Old Assyrian Grammar and Lexicography”, Or., XIX (1950), p. 19Google Scholar.

82 Forbes', R. J. listing in Studies in Ancient Technology, VIII, Leiden, 1964, pp. 213 ff.Google Scholar, is so poorly documented that it is virtually unusable. Ryan, C. W., A Guide to the Known Minerals of Turkey, Ankara, 1957 (reprint, 1960), pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar, lists silver deposits in the Troad, Halys bend, and Cilicia, but only lead for the Konya, Antalya region (cf. ibid p. 12). I have been unable to locate Forbes' Tris Maden in the Sultan Daǧ. The most interesting of these mines is Bulgar Maden in the Cilician Taurus. (Cf. ibid, pp. 11 ff.; Karajian, H., Mineral Resources of Armenia and Anatolia, New York (1920), pp. 153 ff.Google Scholar; for description of the site: Schaffer, F., “Cilicia”, in Ergänzungsheft no. 141 zu Petermanns Mitteilungen, Gotha (1903)Google Scholar; pp. 83 ff. plus map; Bossert, H., “Die Felsinschriften von Sirzi”, A.f.O., XVII (1954–1955) p. 61Google Scholar; Mellaart, J., “Second Millennium Pottery from the Konya Plain and Neighbourhood”, Belleten, LXXXVII (1958), p. 316Google Scholar: Garstang, J., Land of the Hittitcs, 1910Google Scholar, Frontispiece and p. 43). It has been long associated with the “Silver Mountains” of Mesopotamian texts (Meissner, B., “Wo haben die Assyer Silber bezogen ?”, O.L.Z., 1912, p. 147Google Scholar; Lewy, J., “Narim-Sin's Campaign to Anatolia”, Halil Edhem Hatira Kitabi, I, Ankara, 1947, p. 17Google Scholar). Mellaart, J. (Anatolia c. 4000–2300 B.C., CAM., I Chap. XVIII (1962), p. 37Google Scholar speaks of an Early Bronze II vessel found at the mines. Machteld Mellink kindly informed me that there is a “metallic ware” jug in the Ashmolean museum (AE 1213) labeled from “near Bulgar Maden, Taurus, 1900, J. G. C. Anderson”. The implication is that the mines were already being worked in the period under discussion here.

83 For a recent summary of the evidence cf. Gadd, C. J., The Dynasty of Agade and the Gutian Invasion, C.A.M., I, Chap. XIX (1963), pp. 11 ff.Google Scholar See also Anatolia VII (1963), pp. 101 ff.Google Scholar

84 Cf. note 82.

85 BM.91902; from Abu Habbah (l); British Museum Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities, 2nd ed. p. 117Google Scholar; 3rd ed. p. 188; Opitz, 1933, pl. VI: 6. For literature on the piece cf. above note 56.

86 Starr, 1937–1939, pl. 56: G, Pavement III, Pit, L 4; p. 24.

87 Akurgal, 1962, pl. 6; Cf. pls. 3–5.

88 Louvre: AO 5685, acquired 1912; cf. Dussaud, , Les Civilisations préhelléniques dans le Bassin de la Mer Égée, 2nd ed. Paris, 1914, p. 365, fig. 270 for first publicationGoogle Scholar. Cf. note 56 above for other literature.

89 I.L.N., Aug. 3, 1957, p. 198, fig. 5.

90 Iraq IX (1947), pp. 171 ffGoogle Scholar; Mellink, M., “The Royal Tombs at Alaca Hüyük and the Aegean World” Studies presented to Hetty Goldman, New York (1956), p. 51Google Scholar; Culican, W., “Spiral-end Beads in Western Asia”, Iraq, XXVI (1964), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar For bead from Horoztepe cf. Özgüç and Akok, 1958, pl. XIX, 8.

91 Akurgal, 1962, pl. 12 right, pl. 8, 9. Özgüç and Akok, 1958, pl. XIV: 2, pl. XVII.

92 The birds on the “Chalcolithic” hoard of bronzes from Palestine (Bar-Adon, P., “Expedition C, The Cave of Treasure, The expedition to the Judean Desert, 1961”, I.E.J., XII (1962), pp. 216 ff, pl. 40Google Scholar; Archaeology, XVI (1963), pp. 251 ff.Google Scholar; p. 258 top) are very close. Many of these objects have a remarkable resemblance to Anatolian objects of the Early Bronze period.

93 Bernabò Brea, 1957, pl. III, opp. p. 212; I.L.N., Aug. 3. 1957, P- 199, fig. 6.

94 SS 6133.

95 The perching of pots on pins at Troy vaguely reminds one of the decorative tradition of the ritual objects of central Anatolia, i.e. SS 6133 cf. Dörpfeld, W, Troja und Won, I, Athens, 1902, p. 355, fig. 292Google Scholar: b, e; Blegen etc. 1950, p. 367, pl. 356,357: 37·709.

96 Akurgal, (1962), pl. 19 top; Koşay, 1951, pl. CLXXXVI above, Tomb K.

97 The same area that produced a gold bead with bird perched on it in the Ur tombs? Woolley 1934, pl. 142: U. 8005.

98 Louvre A 1526; Delporte, L. J., Catalogue des Cylindres, Cachets, et Pierres Gravées de Style Orientale, Musée du Louvre, Paris, 1920–1923, p. 231, 611, pl. 128Google Scholar: 3 In addition to the literature cited in note 56 cf. Perrot, G. and Chipiez, C., History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria and Lycia, New York and London, 1892, pp. 292 ff., fig. 209Google Scholar.

99 In making a cast from the mould the plaster evidently stuck to the top (cf. distorted sealing face) thus making the boss look like a bead.

100 Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East, London, 1939, p. 51, pl. XIIGoogle Scholar.

101 Nuzi mould, Starr, 1937–1939, pl. 56: G, p. 24; Nineveh mould, BM.91901, Opitz, 1933, pl. VI: 3.

102 For a pendant of the type from Alaca Hüyük, cf, Koşay, 1949 pl. CXXIV, bottom left, Tomb H.

103 Cf. figurine on a mould from Assur, Andrae, 1922, pl. 55: ab.