The Aramaeans in Ancient Syria

(avery) #1

246 dominik bonatz


the strong impact that this luxury item had on the assyrian élite is con-
firmed by the large number of images of imported ivory furniture on
assyrian reliefs and the impressive finds of high-quality ivory carvings
from calah and, to a lesser extent, Dūr-Šarrukin.196 Yet it is difficult to
draw on this secondary evidence and use of ivory to determine where the
ivory originated from.
In their comprehensive studies of western asian ivory in the early 1st
millennium B.c., r. Barnett, G. herrmann, and I. J. Winter have nonetheless
managed to distinguish a phoenician, north syrian, and south syrian (or
“intermediate”) group.197 they date the peak of syrian ivory production to
the 9th and 8th centuries B.c.198 as G. herrmann and I. J. Winter empha-
size, stylistic criteria are of central importance in identifying ivory-cutting
workshops or schools, since iconography and themes can appear in diffe-
rent media and cross linguistic and political boundaries.199 Furthermore, I. J.
Winter persuasively argues that there were at least two centers of ivory
production in the aramaean cities of samʾal and Damascus—one for the
north syrian stylistic group, the other for the south syrian group.200 More
recent finds of ivory from til Barsib suggest that large amounts of ivory
goods were also produced—or at least “hoarded”—in Bit adini.201 this
view is confirmed in the annals of assurnasirpal II (883–859 B.c.), which
list large amounts of ivory dishes, couches, chests, and thrones among the
tributes from Bit adini.202
since a more detailed discussion of the ivory production in the ara-
maean territories would go beyond the scope of this survey, the discussion
will be confined to important characteristics and trends.


196 For a comprehensive study of the written, iconographic, and archaeological evi-
dence, see Bär 1996. For a discussion of the assyrian context of syrian ivory carvings, see
also Bonatz 2004: 393–396.
197 see esp. Barnett 1982; herrmann 1986; ead. 1989; ead. 1996; Winter 1976a; ead. 1981.
herrmann favors the term “intermediate style” as an alternative to “south syrian style”
(herrmann 1986: 52).
198 production probably ceased as a result of the final assyrian occupation in the late
8th century. the works were increasingly replaced by phoenician ivories (Winter 1976a:
19f; herrmann 1986: 50).
199 herrmann 2000: 268; Winter 2005: 25; cf. Winter 1988.
200 For samʾal, see Winter 1976b: esp. 53; for Damascus, see Winter 1981: 129f. One issue
that was heatedly debated was whether Guzana was an additional center of ivory produc-
tion. Whereas Winter claims it was not (Winter 1989: 331 and in response to herrmann,
Winter 1998: 150f ), herrmann considers it highly likely that the “flame and frond” style
that she identified in ivory art had its origins in Guzana (herrmann 1992 and in response
to Winter, herrmann 2000: 275f ).
201 Bunnens 1997a.
202 Grayson 1991: a.O.101.1 iii 61.

Free download pdf