Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:16:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is There a South Syrian Style of Ivory Carving in the Early First Millennium B.C.?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Irene J. Winter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The major assemblages of ivory carving preserved from the first millennium B.C. have generally been divided into two groups, Phoenician and North Syrian, and the classic characteristics of these groups are by now quite well established. However, if one defines Phoenicia as corresponding more or less to the coastal strip west of the Lebanon mountains, from the Carmel to Byblos, with the chief cities in antiquity as Tyre, Sidon, Arka, Arwad, Sarafand and Gebeil, and possibly including the Beka'a Valley and the Anti-Lebanon but certainly not further east; and if one defines North Syria as comprising the city states north of the Orontes Valley and south of the Taurus, from the Habur to the Amanus, including Gozan, Bit-Adini, Carchemish, Kummuh, Maraş, Sam'al, Arpad, Patina/Unqi and possibly Hamath; then it will be noted that the territory occupied by these two regions in no way encompasses the entire Syro-Palestinian Levant. Notably absent is the area of the powerful kingdom of Aram, whose capital was at Damascus, as well as the kingdom of Israel, with its seat at Samaria—both of which geographical and political units figured prominently in the southern coalition of states met by Shalmaneser III of Assyria in 853 B.C. and in subsequent Assyrian campaigns to the West.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1981 , pp. 101 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1981

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 Poulsen, F., Der Orient und die frühgriechische Kunst, Leipzig, 1912, 38–53Google Scholar; Barnett, R. D., “Phoenician and Syrian Ivory Carving”, PEQ 1939, 4–19Google Scholar; idem, Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories in the British Museum, London, 1957 (henceforth, CNI); Winter, I. J., “Phoenician and North Syrian Ivory Carving in Historical Context: Questions of Style and Distribution,” Iraq 38 (1976), 1–22Google Scholar.

2 Luckenbill, D. D., Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vols. I and II, Chicago, 1926 and 1927 (henceforth, ARAB), § 611Google Scholar.

3 ARAB I, §§ 475–76, 740Google Scholar. Cf. in this context also, the reference in Isa. 8: 4Google Scholar to booty from Damascus and the spoils of Samaria being brought before the king of Assyria, which would also pertain to the period of the second half of the eighth century, and the period from Tiglath-pileser III to Sennacherib, including the fall of Samaria.

4 I Kings 22: 39Google Scholar; Amos 6: 4Google Scholar.

5 Reisner, G. A., et al., Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1924 (henceforth, HE)Google Scholar; Crowfoot, J. W. and Crowfoot, G. M., Samaria-Sebaste II: Early Ivories from Samaria, London, 1938 (henceforth, S–S II)Google Scholar.

6 Cf. Kenyon, K., Royal Cities of the Old Testament, New York, 1971, 87–89Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, 4th revised edition, 1970, 319, 321Google Scholar.

7 Katzenstein, H., The History of Tyre, Jerusalem, 1973. 109, 123–124, 136–137Google Scholar.

8 al-Ush, M. Abu-al-Farajet al., Catalogue du Musée Motional de Damas, Damascus, 1969, Fig. 15Google Scholar.

9 Cf. Dunand, M., “Stèle araméenne dediée à Melqart”, BMB 3 (1939) 65–76 and Pl. XIIIGoogle Scholar; and Donner, H. and Röllig, W., Kanaandische und Aramäische Inschriften I, II and III, 2nd editionGoogle Scholar; Wiesbaden, 1962-64 (henceforth, KAI), no. 201, for inscription. A more recent discussion of the issues raised by this stele is presented in Lipiński, E., Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics, I, Leuven, 1975, pp. 15–19Google Scholar. On the basis of a new reading for the patronymic of Bar-Hadad, he argues that the individual named cannot be Bar-Hadad I of I Kings 15, 18–20; rather, this Bar-Hadad, son of one “Idri-Šamš, (who was) father of the King of Aram” may well designate a brother of Hazael (c. 842–803 B.C.), and the King of Aram mentioned is likely to be a reference to Hazael himself. The script of the inscription is taken to be less developed than that of the Zakur inscription that cites Bar-Hadad (II), son of Hazael, which would suggest a date in the second half of the ninth century or very early eighth century for the “Melqart” stele. Finally, Shea, W., “The Kings of the Melqart Stele,” Maarav 1/2 (1979) 159–176Google Scholar, reads “Idr of dmśq (Damascus)” (rather than “Idri-Šamš”) whom he associates with Adad-'Idri (c. 853–842), and thus would see the stele dated around the middle of the ninth century. In any event, the range of dates proposed for the stele-mid-ninth through early eighth century-serve well as contemporary with or just antecedent to the ivories which we shall be discussing.

10 Bossert, H. Th., Altsyrien, Tubingen, 1951, no. 484Google Scholar. On the crown, cf. discussion in Barnett, R. D., “Anath, Ba‘al and Pasargadae”, Mélanges de l'Université Saint Joseph XLV, fasc. 15 (1969), 407–422Google Scholar.

11 The one more measured formulation is presented by de Graeve, M-C., in the article on “Intarsien” (RIA V/1–2, 123)Google Scholar, where she proposes to replace the term Phoenician with word “Levantine,” since the alphabetic signs on many of the pieces cannot be distinguished as either Phoenician or Aramaean. At least the category thus encloses both areas equally.

12 Winter, I. J., “Carved Ivory Furniture Panels from Nimrud: A Coherent Subgroup of the North Syrian Style”, Metropolitan Museum Journal 11 (1976), 25–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Barnett, R. D., “Layard's Nimrud Bronzes and their Inscriptions”, Eretz Israel 8 (1967), 1–7Google Scholar.

14 Ibid., 5.

15 Cf. Winter, , Iraq 38, 7, 11Google Scholar.

16 Thureau-Dangin, F., et al., Arslan Tash, Paris, 1931 (henceforth. AT)Google Scholar.

17 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLVII: 112 = KAI, no. 232. It is interesting to note that another fragment of ivory veneer inscribed with the name of Hazael has been found in Room T10 of Fort Shalmaneser at Nimrud, along with shell clappers inscribed with the name of Irhuleni, ruler of Hamath, another ninth century king. Mallowan, M., Nimrud and its Remains, Vol. II, New York, 1966 (henceforth, NR II), 452Google Scholar.

18 AT, Text, p. 140. R. D. Barnett subsequently suggested that while coming from Damascus, they were likely to have been manufactured by Phoenicians, and brought by tributaries of Damascus to their overlord. (“Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians”, Iraq 2 (1935), 184Google Scholar).

19 In addition, six pieces are currently in the collection of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, and although they all reproduce motifs and types from the published assemblage, they themselves are not included in the publication (my thanks to Jean-Baptiste Humber, curator of the collection, and to Agnès Spycket, Musée du Louvre, who will publish them, for permission to refer to the ivories here). It would also appear that a number (about 40) of pieces purchased in 1970–72 by the Badischen Landes-museums, Karlsruhe (cf. Thimme, J., Phönizische Elfenbeine: Möbelverzierungen des 9. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Karlsruhe, 1973Google Scholar) belong to the same stylistic and iconographie group, as do ivories in the Borowski Collection recently given to the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (cf. Muscarella, O. W., editor, Ladders to Heaven (Toronto, 1981), nos. 243–262Google Scholar). They have all been attributed to Arslan Tash, but the history of these pieces backwards from the collections to their source is not clear, and one must at least query whether they be of the same place of manufacture originally, but in fact discovered at another site and attributed to Arslan Tash? Cf. on this, review of Thimme by Barnett, R. D. in the Journal of Hellenic Studies 95 (1975), 287–8Google Scholar.

20 AT, Atlas, Pls. XIX: I–XXIV: 13 (and Thimme, , Phönizische Elfenbeine, p. XVII: K and no. 11Google Scholar).

21 This observation is based upon work done by Richard Fazzini, of the Egyptian Department of the Brooklyn Museum, as a seminar report for the Institute of Fine Arts, New York, in the Spring of 1968.

22 Cf. Barnett, , CNI, 140–141Google Scholar.

23 AT, Atlas, Pls. XXIV: 15 and XXV: 19 (also, Thimme, Phönizische Elfenbeine, nos. 8–10).

24 Cf., e.g., NR II, Fig. 481; and Winter, , Iraq 38, 6Google Scholar.

25 Compare to NR II, Figs. 455, 481, 493 for example.

26 Cf. NR II, 454: inlaid griffin-slayer (1: 5 along diagonal leg, 1: 4½ on a straight line between the legs; Fig. 474: silhouette inlay piece of two winged grasping plants (1: 5); Fig. 485: à jour relief plaque of a griffin-slayer (1: 5); Fig. 493: inlay plaque of two winged males with plants (1: 5),

27 AT, Atlas, Pls. XXVI: 20–21.

28 Ibid., Pl. XXXIII: 39–42.

29 NR II, Figs. 412 and 481.

30 Iraq 38, 4–11Google ScholarPubMed.

31 AT, Atlas, Pls. XXVII: 22–XXXI: 31.

32 MMJ 11, 53Google Scholar.

33 E.g., NR II, Fig. 504.

34 PEQ, 1958, 65–69Google ScholarPubMed.

35 AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXI: 32–34.

36 Compare with both types, NR II, Figs. 465 and 504.

37 Cf. AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXIII: 43//for example, Mallowan, M. and Herrmann, G., Furniture from SW7, Fort Shalmaneser (Ivories from Nimrud, 1949–1963, Fasc. III) Aberdeen, 1074 (henceforth, SW7), no. 2Google Scholar.

38 AT, Atlas, Pls. XXXVII: 63–XLII: 83; École Biblique nos 28.5 and 28.6; Thimme, Phönizische Elfenbeine, nos. 23, 24, 28. In addition, pieces in the Borowski Collection (see fn. 19 above), include nos. 245–250.

39 Bossen, H. T., Altkreta, Berlin, 1923, Figs. 82–83Google Scholar; Guglielmi, W., Reden, Rufe und Lieder auf altägyptische Darstellungen der Landwirtschaft, Viehzucht, des Fisch- und Vogelfangs von Mittleren Reich bis zur Spätzeit, Bonn, 1973, Pl. vi—bottom, from Tomb 15 at Beni HasanGoogle Scholar.

40 Cf. Gjerstad, E., “Decorated Metal Bowls From Cyprus”, Op. Arch. VI (1946), Pl. XIGoogle Scholar; and Poulsen, Die Orient, Fig. 18.

41 NR II, Fig. 514, from Room SW37, Fort Shalmaneser.

42 Ibid., Fig. 425, from SW2, Fort Shalmaneser.

43 Compare, e.g., AT, Atlas, Pls. XXXVII: 63 and XXXIX: 71 with XLI: 77.

44 Ibid., Pls. XLI: 75 // XXXIII: 43.

45 Caquot, A., Sznycer, M., and Herdner, A., Textes Ougaritiques, Tome I: Mythes et Légendes, Paris, 1974, 288–9Google Scholar. As will be noted below, p. 118, there are some plaques with this motif from Nimrud, particularly from Fort Shalmaneser Rooms N21 and SW37, which are clearly a part of the Arslan Tash group. And then there are pieces, like Plate X e, which raise questions of “boundaries” for stylistic groups, as it includes straight stems of papyrus blossoms flanking the animals instead of twisted tendrils—thus linking it with the Phoenician bowls and ivories from Nimrud, and yet while the animal bodies press neither against each other nor really against the borders, the cow does touch the upper border as in the more “Syrian” pieces (cf. Plate X e, from Fort Shalmaneser, Rm. SW 11–12 currently in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, unpublished). I raise the question here without being able to provide a simple answer of where to draw lines between intra- and intersite variability.

46 Meshel, Z., “Kuntilat 'Ajrud—An Israelite Site on the Sinai Border”, Qadmoniot IX: 4 (1976), 119–124Google Scholar (in Hebrew) and Pl. 3. A more complete publication is currently being prepared by Dr. Pirhiya Beck, Tel Aviv University.

47 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLV: 97, 98.

48 Loud, G., The Megiddo Ivories (O.I.P. 52), Chicago, 1939, Pls. 6: 14 and 35: 167Google Scholar; McEwan, D.et al., Soundings at TellFakhariyeh (O.I.P. 79), Chicago, 1956, Pls. 59–61Google Scholar; and Ward, W., “La Déesse nourricière d'Ugarit”, Syria 46 (1969), Figs. 3 and 4Google Scholar, for the best photographs of the complete panels of the Ras Shamra bed, including the side plaques.

49 Cf. NR II, Figs. 467, 481, 506 and 508.

50 E.g., SW7, nos. 89–91.

51 AT, Atlas, Pls. XLVI: 105-107 and 104, respectively.

52 Cf. Porada, E., “Notes on the Sarcophagus of Ahiram”, JANES 5 (1973), Pls. 1 a and 1 bGoogle Scholar.

53 Winter, , Iraq 38, 4–5Google Scholar.

54 Barnett, , Eretz Israel 8, Pl. IV: iGoogle Scholar; and Layard, A. H., A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh, London, 1853 (henceforth, MN II), Pl. 61Google Scholar.

55 Crowfoot, , S–S II, 41Google Scholar, reports that also four fragments of incised guilloche design from Arslan Tash were stained (with reference to AT, Atlas, Pl. XLVII: 108–111).

56 Orchard, J. J., Equestrian Bridle-Harness Ornaments (Ivories From Nimrud 1949–1963), Fasc. I, Part 2), Aberdeen, 1967, nos. 109-114Google Scholar.

57 Cf. a typical “Phoenician” spade-shaped blinker, ibid., no. 116, and the discussion of Phoenician use of space in Iraq 38, 7 ff.Google ScholarPubMed

58 Reisner, , HE I, 28Google Scholar (catalogue of bone and ivory objects), and 93–122 (Excavations of the Israelite Period); and Crowfoot and Crowfoot, S-S II, passim.

59 Dozens of unpublished fragments still in original excavation boxes are currently housed in the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, where I was generously permitted to study them in June 1979. All were essentially duplicated by published material.

60 S–S II, 49.

61 Watzinger, C. K., Denkmäler Palästinas I, Leipzig, 1933, 112–114Google Scholar; Avigad, N., “The Ivory House that Ahab Built”, in Eretz Shomron, ed. Aviram, Y., Jerusalem, 1974, 75–85 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

62 E.g., S–S II, Pls. I–III, IV: 1, VII: 1, 13, 14, etc.; and CNI, C. 44, G.7, C.48–55, D.9; NR II Figs. 427, 434, 455, 466, 477, 493, 513, 527, etc.

63 S–S II 14, 16Google ScholarPubMed.

64 Ibid., Pls. XIV–XV // NR II, Figs. 474–5, 500 and 502; and Barnett, R. D., “A Review of Acquisitions …”, BMQ 27 (1963), Pl. XXXIV: dGoogle Scholar.

65 S–S II, Frontispiece and Pl. XXIV: 11. On examination of fragments in the Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem, it was interesting to note that the ivory in this group is more highly polished than other types, the cutting contributing to a suggestion that this is a group apart from the “partial” inlays of established Phoenician type. Other fragments are said to be housed in the Palestine Exploration Fund in London.

66 Muscarella, O. W., ed., Ancient Art: The Norbert Schimmel Collection, Mainz, 1974, no. 208Google Scholar. Other New Kingdom Egyptian glass inlay pieces have been published by Cooney, J. D., Catalogue of Egyptian Art in the British Museum IV: Glass, London, 1976, especially 73–88Google Scholar.

67 I am grateful to David Silverman for the information that the Temple will eventually be fully published by Professor Edward Wente of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

68 Cf. “The Report of Wen-Amon”, Simpson, W. K., Faulkner, R. O. and Wente, E. F. Jr., The Literature of Ancient Egypt, New Haven and London, 1972, 142–155Google Scholar, and especially 149–151, regarding material relations between the two at the end of the Late Bronze Age.

69 Cf. Barnett, R. D., “Phoenicia and the Ivory Trade”, Archaeology 9 (1956), discussion 94–97Google Scholar.

70 S–S II, Pl. XIII: 2 // AT, Atlas, Pls. XXXIV: 45-XXVI: 60.

71 S–S II, 29 and Fig. 4.

72 Cf. S–S II, Pl. IX: 3 and 5.

73 Compare with, e.g., AT, Atlas, Pl. XIX.

74 S–S II, Pl. IV: 4, turned incorrectly in the published photograph; it should be rotated 45 degrees from east to northeast.

75 Cf. especially AT, Atlas, Pl. XXIII: 12.

76 S–S II, Pl. VI: 2.

77 Ibid., 20 and Pl. VI: 1. Several fragments of a large volute-tree might belong here. Based upon the drawing presented by Crowfoot rather than the actual fragments (ibid., Pl. XXII: 1 and 1 a), the volute has been discussed as an independent element and called a representation of a proto-Aeolic capital, linked to architectural capitals found at Ramat Rahel, Hazor, Jerusalem and elsewhere in Palestine (cf. Shiloh, Y., “The Proto-Aeolic Capital—The Israelite ‘Timorah’ (Palmette) Capital”, PEQ., 1977, 39–52Google Scholar for the architectural type, and Avigad, Eretz Shomron, 79 for the ivory). What Avigad calls the upper platform, or abacus, could as well be the remains of the upper edge of the plaque, or the date-shoots that often issue from the top of a volute, the arms of which then being simply part of a large floral element. The size of the piece further corresponds well with the scale of the sphinxes, as it measures some 15 cm across, and would be in exactly the correct proportion for a large frieze including the 20-cm long winged creatures.

78 E.g., AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXIX: 26.

79 Cf. S–S II, Pl. V: 1–3 // AT, Atlas, Pls. XXX: 29–XXXI: 31.

80 E.g., S–S II, Pl VI: 1, 2 // AT, Atlas, Pl. XXVIII: 25.

81 S–S II, Pl. V: 1.

82 Cf., e.g., CNI, S. 1, S. 6, S. 13, etc.

83 AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXIII: 43.

84 HE II, Pl. 66 h.

85 Cf. Layard, MN II, Pl. 59 E.

86 S–S II, Pl. VIII: 1, 4.

87 CNI, Fig. 11; and Riis, P. J., Sūkās I: The North-East Sanctuary …, Copenhagen, 1970, Fig. 59Google Scholar; for the position of the shoulder fragment in relation to the rest of the body, cf. CNI, S. 57 a.

88 CNI, S. 60, S. 73, and the S. 1 fragment on Pl. XXV.

89 Cf. S–S II, Pl. X: 2 // AT, Atlas, Pl. XLI: 75, especially.

90 S–S II, Pl. X: 1 // AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXVI: 61 and 62.

91 S–S II, Pl. X: 8 and drawing, 8 a.

92 S–S II, 26.

93 Cf. Barnett, , Eretz Israel 8, Pl. VI: 2Google Scholar; Layard, MN II, Pl. 61 A.

94 CNI, S. 149 (= Barnett, , Eretzlsrael 8, Pl. V: 2Google Scholar).

95 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLV: 101–103 // Layard, MN II, Pls. 57 E and 58 E.

96 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLV: 97–98 // S-S II, Pl. XXI: 2 and XVII: 4, with the same treatment of edges and proportions of volute curls and arms.

97 AT, Atlas, Pls. XLV: 100 // S–S II, Pl. XXI: 1.

98 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLIV: 94–96 // S–S II, Pls. XVIII–XX.

99 S–S II, 35. At least 20 of these are among the fragments in the collection of the Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem.

100 HE II, Pl. 66 h.

101 NR II, Figs. 503, 572 and 580; AT, Text, 131, Fig. 47; and for the Karatepe relief, cf. Orthmann, W., Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst, Bonn 1971, Pl. 18 dGoogle Scholar. This is barely visible in the published photographs, but has been observed in situ by the present author, and is discussed further in Winter, I. “On The Problems of Karatepe: The Reliefs and Their Context”, An. St. 29 (1979), 115–152Google Scholar.

102 S–S II, 39.

103 Esp. Loud, Megiddo Ivories, Pl 6: 14.

104 Cf. An. St. 29, tr. 122, fn. 40.

105 S–S II, Pl. XVI: 1, 2 and 7, and XVI: 5 and 6, resp.

106 Ibid., Pl. XXI: 6 and 7.

107 Ibid., Pl. XXIV: 2 // AT, Atlas, Pl. LVII: 113–117.

108 I have purposely omitted to include here the several pieces of carved bone and ivory found at Hazor, although the site falls within the broad geographical range of southern Syria, and the objects found do seem to fit well with the group being established from Arslan Tash and Samaria. The first, an ivory pyxis carved with alternating kneeling male figures and winged sphinxes or griffins opposite a palmette plant (Yadin, Y., et al., Hazor I, Jerusalem, 1958, Pl. CLV, and discussion, pp. 41–43Google Scholar), is related in type to some of the North Syrian pyxides from Nimrud, but the proportions of the box itself are different, and the style of the figures is much more closely related to the Arslan Tash ivories of men opposite plants and to the head of the “South Syrian” sphinx from Samaria (cf. our Plate VIII d compared to Plates VIII c and XII c). The second, a bone handle showing a file of winged men grasping tendrils of volute plants (ibid., Pls. CL and CLI and discussion, p. 16), has the men wearing a yoked bib and kilt similar to some figures from Arslan Tash, and the squatter proportion of the figures is clearly “South Syrian” rather than Phoenician, as articulated above (compare our Plate IX a and b with Plate VII a and b). On the third piece, an ivory cosmetic spoon (Yadin, et al., Hazor II, Jerusalem, 1960, Pls. CLXVII–VIII and discussion, pp. 35–37Google Scholar), the crude female face at the back of the spoon is too damaged to place stylistically, but the stacked volute plant in three tiers fits in well with plant forms from both Arslan Tash and Samaria. All three carvings, therefore, fall into the confines of the South Syrian group as I have tried to define it, and are distinct from both Phoenician and North Syrian works. What I leave to further analysis is the question whether the pieces are sufficiently distinct also from the Arslan Tash-Samaria ivories to suggest perhaps a regional sub-group within the South Syrian style. Thus, while they aid in the creation of a general category, they do not help in the formulation of the primary group (on which problem, see further below, p. 129).

109 Loud, G. and Altman, C. B., Khorsabad II (O.I.P. 40), Chicago, 1938 (henceforth, Khor. II), Pl. 55: 58 and 59, and text, p. 97Google Scholar.

110 Ibid., Pl. 55: 57.

111 S–S II, Pl. XXI: 4 and 5.

112 Khor. II, Pl. 56: 69–70.

113 AT, Atlas, Pl. XLIV: 92 and 93, and Text, p. 90.

114 NR I, Fig. 71, from the well in Room NN of the Northwest Palace.

115 Khor. II, Pls. 52: 42–54: 56.

116 École Biblique no. 2.84 (meas. 8.7 × 7.7 × 0.7 cm).

117 Cf. Khor. II, Pl. 52: 38–40 // esp. AT, Atlas, Pls. XXIV: 13–16 and XXV: 17–19.

118 CNI, C. 12–20; NR II, Figs. 429 and 555.

119 CNI, C. 10, G. 1; NR I, Figs. 179–181; NR II, Fig. 482.

120 BMQ 27, Pl. XXXVI: d.

121 CNI, S. 160 // S–S II, Pl. IV: 3 and 5.

122 AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXIII: 44 // NR II, //, Fig. 440 and BMB 3 (1939), Pl. XIII.

123 E.g., CNI, A.4 // S–S II, Pl. V: 3; NR II, Figs. 483–4 // S–S II, Pl. VI: 2 and AT, Atlas, Pls. XXVII: 22–XXX; NR II, Fig. 44 // Khor, II, Pls. 53–54.

124 CNI, G.2, from Rooms V-W of the Northwest Palace // S–S II, Pl. VI: 1 and p. 20.

125 CNI, C. 22–23, 29. 31–32, 34 // AT, Atlas, Pl. XXXVIII: 66–XL: 74.

126 NR II, Figs. 436 and 437.

127 Ibid., Figs. 435 and esp. 439, 550 and 553.

128 Cf. AT, Atlas, Pl. XLI, but also especially, École Biblique no. 28.6, where the plant is narrower and more attenuated than any published, rather on the order of the twisted papyrus stalks of the Arslan Tash frontal man plaque.

129 CNI, B. 11 // AT, Atlas, Pl. XLV: 101–103.

130 CNI, S.164c.

131 CNI, K.2 and NR II, Fig. 441; and cf. also the incised winged disc fragment from Room HH of the Northwest Palace (CNI, J.3), with regard to the stained and incised example from Arslan Tash cited above.

132 NR II, Figs. 503, 572 and 580 // S–S II, Pl. XX: 3–5 and XXI: 2.

133 “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud”, Iraq 24 (1962), 50–51Google Scholar, esp. re: Pl. XXIV c // AT, Atlas, Pl. XXVI: 21.

134 It must be added that parallels also exist at Nimrud for the two inlay groups from Samaria. The silhouette pieces have been cited above; the modelled inlay group includes CNI, C. 48–54 and d. 9; NR II, Figs. 477–479. However, as these are likely classic Phoenician pieces and thus imported into Samaria, there is no point in pursuing these pieces at Nimrud, as they could have reached the Assyrian capital from any of the Phoenician cities as well.

135 E.g., von Luschan, F.et al., Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli V, Berlin, 143Google Scholar (henceforth, AiS V), Pl. 71 an (horse and chariot fragment ) // SW7, no. 1; CNI, S.l (the hunt pyxis), and NR II, Fig. 462—a plaque fragment from Room SW37, F.S.; also, Ais V, Pl. 71 a–aa (nibbling goat pyxis ) // Hrouda, B., Tell Halaf IV, Berlin, 1962, Pl. 10: 63–69Google Scholar and CNI, S.49.

136 AiS V, Pls. 64–65a.

137 S–S II, Pl. IX: 1.

138 Virtually identical ivory lions have been found in excavations of the Artemision on the island of Thasos in Greece (Plate XVI d), published by Salviati, F., “Lions d'ivoire orientaux à Thasos”, BCH 86 (1962), 95–116Google Scholar, and discussed more recently by Graham, A. J., “The Foundation of Thasos“, BSA 73 (1978), esp. 86–7 and fn. 249Google Scholar.

139 AiS V, Pl. 651-h, 66 a—f and 67.

140 CNI, 78.

141 Cf. AiS V, Pl. 67 c // S-S II, Pl. XIII: 13.

142 Cf. AiS V, Pl. 66 b // S–S II, Pl. XII: 15.

143 AiS V, Pl. 70 a // S–S II, Pl. XVII: 4, 10, etc.

144 AiS V, Pl. 61 k and reconstruction, Pl. 62.

145 AiS V, Pl. 62.

146 Woolley, C. L. and Barnett, R. D., Carchemish III, London, 1952, Pl. 71: f and p. 167Google ScholarPubMed.

147 Turner, G., “The Palace and ‘Bâtiment aux ivoires’ at Arslan Tash: A Reappraisal”, Iraq 30 (1968), 67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

148 AT, Text, p. 40.

149 Turner, , Iraq 30, 65Google Scholar, feels certain of the architectural features could be as late as Shalmaneser V or very early Sargon II; Parrot, , Archéologie Méso-potamienne I, 467Google Scholar, also suggests that a wing of the royal apartments is Sargonid.

150 AT, Text, pp. 89–91.

151 Art and Architecture, 192–196.

152 Joseph Naveh, personal communication; Millard, A. R., Iraq 24, 51Google Scholar. Thimme (Karlsruhe catalogue, p. xix) has further noted that the letter forms on the reverse of several of the grazing stags purporting to be from Arslan Tash are very similar to those from Samaria. He quotes W. Röllig as being of the opinion that despite the paucity of early inscriptions with which to compare these letters, they should be put before the mid-eighth century.

153 Parpola, S., Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970, 141Google Scholar.

154 Cf. Postgate, J. N., “Ḫadāt(t)u”, in RIA IV, 38Google Scholar.

155 ARAB I, § 575Google Scholar (= year 18). In year 11, Shalmaneser had referred to Adad-idri (Bar-Hadad II) as king of Damascus (cf. ARAB I, § 568Google Scholar, and Wiseman, D.J., “Hadadezer”, in RlA IV, 38Google Scholar). The campaign against Hazael in year 19 is further mentioned in the Kurba'il statue inscription (Kinnier-Wilson, J. V., “The Kurba'il Statue of Shalmaneser III”, Iraq 24 (1962) 95, ll. 21–24Google Scholar), but it is significant that Shalmaneser describes fighting with Hazael in the mountains of the Anti-Lebanon, pursuing him to Damascus and besieging the city; he does not mention sacking the city or any booty or tribute from there-only spoils from surrounding villages, and tribute subsequently from Tyre, Sidon and Jehu of Israel. Since he is so specific about these latter, if he had acquired goods from Damascus at the time, we may perhaps assume it would have been mentioned.

156 ARAB I, § 740Google Scholar. This possibility had been suggested by Barnett (Iraq 2 (1935), 185Google Scholar).

157 Pazarçık stele, rev., ll. 5–8, currently in the Maraş Museum, which will be published by Kemal Balkan.

158 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, F., “L'inscription des lions de Til-Barsib”, RA 27 (1930), 11–22Google Scholar.

159 ARAB I, § 779Google Scholar; Wiseman, D. J., “A Fragmentary Inscription of Tiglath-pileser III From Nimrud”, Iraq 18 (1956), 117 ff.Google Scholar

160 Wiseman, op. cit., 120–121; Saggs, H. W. F., “The Nimrud Letters, 1952—Part II”, Iraq 17 (1955), 153Google Scholar.

161 HE I, 368.

162 Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, K. M., Samaria-Sebaste III: The Objects from Samaria, London, 1957, 94–97Google Scholar.

163 Crowfoot, J. M., Kenyon, K. M. and Sukenik, E. L., Samaria-Sebaste I: The Buildings at Samaria, London, 1966, 110–111Google Scholar. In fact, the date of the “Ahab” palace itself has been questioned, and may be as late as Jeroboam II (cf. Finegan, J., Light from the Ancient Past, Princeton, 1946, 155Google Scholar).

164 S–S II, 2–4.

165 HE II, Pl. 56: g (vase fragment) and Pl. 56: f (à jour fragment of winged and crowned uraeusserpent in ivory).

166 Cf. discussion of this very point in Winter, I.J., review of Mallowan and Herrmann, SW7, in AJA 80 (1976), 203Google Scholar. Cf. also the mention in Mallowan and Herrmann, SW7, 60 and fn. 12, of a scarab of Osorkon I or probably II also found in Tomb 2 at Salamis on Cyprus, where it was clearly an heirloom.

167 Dr. Daniela Salz, of the Israel Exploration Society, Jerusalem, has pointed out this passage to me, and will write in the future on the etymology of the Hebrew words for the furniture, which will, in fact, provide further links to Damascus. I am grateful for her permission to make reference to the forthcoming study in the present context.

168 ARAB I, § 772Google Scholar.

169 Cf. Frankfort and Kenyon, cited fn. 6, above.

170 Denkmäler Palästinas I, 112–114 (more recently followed by Avigad, in Eretz Shomron, 75–85.

171 W. F. Albright had raised the question of Damascus (“The Northeast Mediterranean Dark Ages and the Early Iron Age Art of Syria”, in Weinberg, S., ed., The Aegean and the Near East: Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman, Locust Valley, 1956, 161Google Scholar), but only as a shot in the dark, suggesting that the whole North Syrian group from Nimrud attributed by Barnett to Hamath could just as well have been manufactured in Damascus.

172 Cf. I Kings 16: 23 fGoogle Scholar; and on the history of Samaria and the location of Tirzah, Kenyon, , Royal Cities, 72–73Google Scholar, and Tadmor, H., “On the History of Samaria in the Biblical Period”, in Eretz Shomron, Aviram, Y., ed., Jerusalem, 1973, 67–74 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

173 Kenyon, , Royal Cities, 73–74Google Scholar; Parrot, A., Samaria: Capital of the Kingdom of Israel, London, 1958, 24Google Scholar; Unger, M. F., Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus, Grand Rapids, 1957, 63Google Scholar; Lemaire, A., “Milkiram, nouveau roi de Tyr?”, Syria 53 (1976), 88Google Scholar; and Yadin, Y., “The ‘House of Baal’ in Samaria and Judah”, in Eretz Shomron, Aviram, Y., ed., Jerusalem, 1973, 52–66 (in Hebrew, English summary, pp. xiv–xv)Google Scholar.

174 On this, cf. Tadmor, in Eretz Shomron, op. cit.

175 On this, cf. Mazar, B., “The Aramaean Empire and its Relations with Israel”, BA 25 (1962), 102–107Google Scholar. Unger, Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus, 61, feels the term “Samaria” referred not only to the capital in this case, but to the whole country, but I find this unconvincing as the parallel phrasing puts city to city, not country to country: thus, Damascus: Samaria, not Aram: Samaria. In her dissertation on “The Material Culture in the Area of the Kingdom of Israel during the eighth and seventh centuries, B.C.”, for The Hebrew University, Shulamit Geva has suggested that she can recognize such a commercial quarter in Hazor, Area G. This includes a storage building, heavily fortified, yet not the regular Israelite storage building, and set in an area adjacent to, but outside, the city gate (hence hūṣoth, from Hebrew hūṣ, “outside”), which would establish the tradition of such quarters within the kingdom of Israel generally in our period.

176 Cf. Haran, M., “The Rise and Fall of the Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash”, VT 17 (1967), 278–284Google Scholar.

177 II Kings 15: 37 and 16: 5Google Scholar; Isa. 7: 2Google Scholar; and ARAB I, § 772Google Scholar, for tribute of Rezin of Aram and Menahem of Samerina to Tiglath-pileser III. See also Oded, B., “The historical background of the Syro-Ephraimite War reconsidered”, CZQ 34 (1972), 153–165Google Scholar.

178 BA 25, 113, 116Google ScholarPubMed.

179 Cf. Millard, A. R. and Tadmor, H., “Adadnirari III in Syria”, Iraq 35 (1973), 64Google Scholar.

180 S–S II, Pl. XXII: 3, the only fragment published, measures 103 cm long × 5·3 cm in diameter.

181 Information courtesy of Yigael Shiloh, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem. I am grateful to Dr. Shiloh for showing me the fragments, and as far as it is possible to determine, they are indeed waste flakes and not just exfoliated sections following the natural lamination of the tusk.

182 NR I, pp. 204–5; NR II, pp. 384–390.

183 ARAB II, §§ 137–138Google Scholar.

184 Mallowan, M. E. L., “The Excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu), 1949–50: Ivories From the North-west Palace”, Iraq 13 (1951), 19–20Google Scholar and Pl. X: 2; Iraq 14 (1952), 47, fn. 29 and 49, Pls. XVII left (= NO 906A) and XVIIIGoogle Scholar.

185 ARAB I, §§ 475, 476 and 590Google Scholar.

186 Ibid. §§ 734, 740.

187 This is confirmed by the Eponym Canon Cb2: “against Damascus”, given for the year 773 (cf. A. Ungnad), “Eponymen”, in RlA II, 450Google Scholar.

188 ARAB I, § 769Google Scholar; and cf. Unger, , Israel and the Aramaeans of Damascus, 103Google Scholar, with regard to the later rebellion and the Eponym Canon.

189 II Kings 17: 15Google Scholar; and Tadmor, H., “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assyria: A Chronological Historical Study”, JCS 12 (1958), 37–38Google Scholar.

190 Parrot, , Samaria, 28–29Google Scholar.

191 Cf. the ivory in NR II, Fig. 581; and comment in Naveh, J., The Development of the Aramaean Script, Jerusalem, 1970, Fig. 2: nos. 2 and 3Google Scholar, and Millard, , Iraq 24, 51Google Scholar.

192 The Carchemish ivories have been discussed in my Ph.D. dissertation, “North Syria in the Early First Millennium B.C., with special reference to Ivory Carving”, Columbia University, 1973, 390Google Scholar. Inscribed bricks from Carchemish do attest to Sargon's having built there after 717 (cf. Woolley, and Barnett, , Carchemish III, 167 and 211Google Scholar); and the fact that these ivories are not of the North Syrian group but rather Phoenician or else “South Syrian”, yet are the only ivories found at the site, requires some special explanation, since generally it can be established that the ivories of North Syrian and Phoenician style occupy distinct areas of distribution centring around their respective homelands (cf. Winter, , Iraq 38, 21Google Scholar). Transport to Carchemish after the Assyrian occupation would be one possible solution.

193 Naumann, R., Architektur Kleinasiens, Tübingen, 1955. 363–365Google Scholar.

194 Donner-Röllig, KAI, no. 215; and Landsberger, B., Sam'al, Istanbul, 1947, 70Google Scholar. The ivory lions similar to those from Sam'al found at Thasos (cf. above, fn. 138) are unfortunately of no help in dating, either. However they might have arrived at the sanctuary of Artemis, their context is secondary, coming from fifth-century fill. Associated objects in the fill do not date earlier than the mid-seventh century, but this is not to say (with Graham, , BSA 73Google Scholar, fn. 249) that the ivories could not have been part of a valued antique (throne!) even at that time. On the other hand, as Thasian stamped amphora handles have been found in sixth-fifth century contexts at Akko on the Palestinian coast and at Samaria (M. Dothan, Lecture at the University of Pennsylvania, 11 February, 1980), it is also conceivable that the ivories were acquired and carried to Thasos quite late.

195 Cf. Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. I (Pinder-Wilson, R., ed.), 200–201Google Scholar; Arts of Islam (London, 1976) 147–156Google Scholar; Roux, J. P., L'Islam dans Us collections nationales (Paris, 1977), 75, 89, 93Google Scholar.

196 Winter, , MMJ 11, 52Google Scholar.