assyrian nimrod and the phoenicians

8/13/2019 Assyrian Nimrod and the Phoenicians

1/13

More carved ivory has been found at theAssyrian capital city of Kalhu, better knownas Nimrud, in Northern Iraq than anywhereelse in the Ancient Near East. However, themajority was brought there by the Assyriankings as gift, tribute or booty and forms,therefore, an unparalleled record of theminor arts of the areas conquered or con-trolled by Assyria. Nevertheless, they presentan enormous jigsaw puzzle for so little mate-

rial has been found on Levantine or Mediter-ranean sites to enable us to establish theirprobable places and times of production.Their actual archaeological context only pro-vides a window during which they probablyarrived in Assyria, mostly between the reignsof Ashurnasirpal II (883859) and Sargon II(722705).

Recent analysis suggests that most of theivories were influenced by the art of Egyptand can be assigned to the Phoenician tra-dition of ivory carving. This is not surpris-ing, since the Phoenicians were famed inthe Bible and the Iliadas superb craftsmen(1 Kings5: 112; 2 Chronicles2: 13; Iliad23:740745). It is, however, revolutionary for solittle has previously been known of the art ofthis enigmatic group of maritime merchant

princes. They lived in cities with good natu-ral harbours, located along a narrow coastalstrip between Aradus or Arvad and Akko(Fig. 1). Like most Near Eastern people, theywere loyal to their cities, which were ruled byCouncils of Elders; men of Sidon consideredthemselves to be Sidonians, while men ofTyre were Tyrians. They did not use the wordPhoinix or Phoinikes, terms used by theGreeks to describe them. The Greeks, while

admiring their craft, despised them as pro-fessional traders, a way of life incompatiblewith their concept of aristocracy and ethics

Herrmann, G and Laidlaw, S 2013 Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians.Archaeology International, No.16 (2012-2013): 84-95, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611

ARTICLE

Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians

Georgina Herrmann*and Stuart Laidlaw*

* UCL Institute of Archaeology,

London WC1H 0PY, United [email protected],[email protected]

The rst ivories at the Assyrian imperial capital of Kalhu/Nimrud in northern Iraq werefound by Henry Layard in the mid-19th century. Max Mallowan and David Oates (both pro-fessors at the Institute of Archaeology), together with the British School of Archaeologyin Iraq, worked there from 19491963 and found literally thousands more, both in the

palaces of the acropolis and in a large outlying building known as Fort Shalmaneser. Dur-ing the last 50 years the majority has been published in the Ivories from Nimrudseries,so that it is now possible to look at this remarkable corpus as a whole. It immediatelybecomes evident that most were not made in Assyria, but imported from the statesconquered by the Assyrian kings in the early 1st millennium BC. Many show a debt tothe art of Egypt and can be assigned to the Phoenician tradition, thus recording theotherwise little-known art of the Phoenicians, long famed as master craftsmen. Syrian-Intermediate ivories are versions of Phoenician ivories and may represent the art of therecently-arrived Aramaean kingdoms, while the very dierent North Syrian ivories derivefrom earlier Hittite traditions.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611


2/13

Herrmann and Laidlaw: Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians 85

(Aubet, 2001: 127128). This is very differ-ent to the Biblical appreciation of Tyre, thecrowning city, whose merchants are princes,whose traffickers are the honourable of theearth (Isaiah23: 8).

As far as is known, the Phoenicians cre-ated no land-based empire but developeda series of settlements around the Mediter-ranean, wherever suitable good harbourscould be found, in the manner of the muchlater Venetians. Unfortunately, since theychose such fine sites, these have continuedin use to the present day Arvad/Tartus forinstance serves today as a Russian maritimebase. Access to Phoenician levels is there-

fore problematic.

History of discovery and studyThe first ivories were found at Nimrud inDecember 1845 by that great archaeologicalpioneer, Austen Henry Layard, on only thesecond day of his excavation in what provedto be the North West Palace. Layard remainsa shining light in the archaeological historyof the Ancient Near East. Working with lim-

ited funds and on his own in a wild area, hemeticulously recorded not only the Assyrianpalace reliefs, many of which he brought

back to the British Museum, but also thenumerous small antiquities he found, notingtheir relative positions, a feat all too rarelyfollowed by his successors. He immediatelyrecognized Egyptian influence on the ivories(Fig. 2), although he realized that they werenot made there. He speedily published hisfinds at many levels (1849a; 1849b; 1853;1867). His popular books were exciting read-ing and widely read (1852; 1853; 1867) andhe himself was a celebrity. Layards successor,W.K. Loftus, found a horse-load of ivories,all burnt and smashed, in what turned outto be the Burnt Palace. However, Loftus diedbefore he was able to publish them, and as

a result his finds were essentially forgottenuntil the mid-20th century.

Various suggestions about the originsof the ivories were made in the late 19thcentury, but it was the German scholar F.Poulsen in the early 20th century who iden-tified two Levantine groups, the Phoenicianand a new group found among the Loftusivories related to sculptures found along theSyro-Turkish borders, now known as North

Syrian (Poulsen, 1912). There are, of course,in addition ivories decorated in the easily rec-ognizable Assyrian style.

Fig. 1:Map of the area with most sites mentioned in text.


3/13

Herrmann and Laidlaw: Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians86

The Layard and Loftus ivories were pub-lished in 1957 by R.D. Barnett, Keeper ofthe Department of Western Asiatic Antiqui-ties in the British Museum (Barnett, 1957).While Barnett was at work on the consider-able task of the conservation and catalogu-ing of this large assemblage, Max Mallowan,Professor of Mesopotamian Archaeology

at the Institute of Archaeology, began amajor series of campaigns at Nimrud from19491963 under the auspices of the Brit-ish School of Archaeology in Iraq (BSAI).He deliberately chose to follow in Layardsfootsteps and started in the North West Pal-ace, locating the room in which Layard hadfound most of his ivories. Mallowan foundsome superb ivories, including the famousMona Lisa and the Ugly Sister, many recov-

ered from the sludge at the bottoms of twowells (Mallowan, 1966: vol. I). Unfortunately,it was at the time too dangerous to emptythe third well, the walls of which were likelyto collapse. This was only achieved in 1975by the Iraqi Department of Antiquities andHeritage, who found and published the fin-est ivories ever discovered in the AncientNear East (Safar and Saied al-Iraqi, 1987;Herrmann and Laidlaw, n.d. [2009]: 4951,179208). Additional discoveries were made

by Muzahim Husain in the 1990s, when con-tinuing the excavation of the North West

Palace (Husain, 2008; 2009). Many antiqui-ties were recovered both from a complex ofvaulted underground rooms, possibly tombs,and from Well 4 in an adjacent courtyard. Inaddition to numerous skeletons it containeda number of bone and ivory kohl tubes.

The majority of the ivories were, however,not found on the acropolis but in an outly-

ing building in the lower town. By 1958Mallowan had handed on direction of theproject to David Oates, also Professor ofMesopotamian Archaeology at the Instituteof Archaeology, who succeeded in a series ofcampaigns in recovering the plan of a hugebuilding, a palace arsenal or ekal masharti,known today as Fort Shalmaneser. Most ofthe ivories, literally thousands, were foundin three great storerooms in the South West

Quadrant, Rooms SW7, SW37 and SW11/12,with a fourth, Room T10, located in theThrone Room block. Smaller groups werefound in a variety of contexts throughoutthe Fort.

The Nimrud assemblageIt is questionable if it is worse for an expedi-tion to find too little or too much. Certainlythe BSAI found an embarrassing wealth ofriches, which quite overwhelmed its small

staff. While much of the initial conservationwork on the ivories was finished in 1968,

Fig. 2: Egyptianizing ivory of seated goddesses flanking a crowned cartouche, discoveredby Henry Layard in the North West Palace and drawn by E. Prentis, in 1848 (Herrmann andLaidlaw, 2009: Colour Plate B).


4/13


the registration and photography is stillincomplete today. This is partly because themajority is stored in the Iraq Museum, Bagh-dad, which has been hard of access or inac-cessible for much of the last 40 years. Their

publication has, therefore, been spread over45 years so far, during which seven volumesof Ivories from Nimrud have appeared,1 inwhich they have been catalogued in differ-ent ways, by function and style, but princi-pally by provenance.

With the publication of the ivories foundin the North West Palace and the Fort, itis now possible to begin to establish thebroad outlines of the collection as a whole

and to see what general conclusions aboutthis remarkable body of material can bedrawn. Surprisingly, despite amassing ivory,the Assyrian kings themselves appear tohave had little liking for the material. Thisis instantly obvious by comparing the slimvolume dedicated to Ivories from Nimrud II,Ivories in Assyrian Stylewith the other Ivoriesfrom Nimrudvolumes with their thousandsof non-Assyrian pieces. Furthermore, the

distribution of Assyrian ivories is entirelydifferent from that of the Levantine pieces.Assyrian ivories, especially those carved intheir narrative style, were found near thronerooms and other ceremonial areas (Mallowanand Glynne Davies, 1970: 101104; Herr-mann and Laidlaw, n.d. [2009]: 101109).There were none in the storage magazinesof the South West Quadrant. Equally, therewas a similar absence of ivory in the trulyremarkable tombs of the Assyrian queens,

discovered under the floors of the NorthWest Palace by Muzahim Husain (Husain andSuleiman, 2000).

Ancient art served the serious purpose ofprotecting its users from the various haz-ards of life. Obviously the Assyrians chose todecorate their sculptures, doors, furniture,vessels and jewellery in their own style. Theimported ivories on the other hand, whoseprophylactic power had clearly failed, were

stripped of their gold overlays and depos-ited, mostly in a broken state, in large maga-

zines. Their collection reflected the deliber-ate Assyrian removal of the property of hispalace from defeated kings, thus removingfrom them the attributes of royalty.

Analysis of the ivories has been underway

since the 1970s, although based, of course,on incomplete publication. The first advancewas to realize that the Phoenician/North Syr-ian division required refining, and in 1981Irene Winter collected a number of ivoriesbelonging to a derived Phoenician group,with influence from both North Syrian andPhoenician pieces. She called these ivoriesSouth Syrian and suggested that they weremade in Damascus (Winter, 1981: 101130).

Since that time this intermediate group hasbeen greatly expanded and is now known asSyrian-Intermediate. The three main Levan-tine groups or traditions are, therefore, thePhoenician, the Syrian-Intermediate andthe North Syrian. Each of these traditionsconsists of a series of defined groups, such asthe easily recognizable Egyptianizing ivoriesof the Phoenician tradition.

Most of the ivories were used in sets of

similar panels, a fact which made their ini-tial grouping much simpler. Furthermore, itis easy to see that a number of hands, oftenof varying competence, were employed tocarve the various panels or plaques belong-ing to a single set: this suggests, unsurpris-ingly, that ivory workshops consisted of anumber of artisans, perhaps a master and hispupils. However, while it is relatively easy torecognize the work of different hands, it isharder to isolate the work of the same hand

and to carry it across from set to set or acrossdifferent sites. This has been achieved byElena Scigliuzzo of Pisa University. She rec-ognized that some Syrian-Intermediate pan-els were carved by the same hands and thatsimilar panels had been distributed both inNimrud and in the Nabu Temple at Khors-abad, founded by Sargon II (Scigliuzzo, 2005:557607).


5/13


Phoenician ivoriesMost of the ivories found at Nimrud belongto the Phoenician tradition. These con-sist of a series of distinct but related style-groups, often with designs of pairs of figuresarranged symmetrically. The figures, whether

human or animal, tend to be relatively talland leggy with, for instance, the heightfrom the head to the waist and the waist tothe feet of a human figure, or from the wingsto the top of the shoulder and the shoulderto the paws of sphinxes being c.1:2. Propor-tions of Syrian-Intermediate figures, on theother hand, are approximately equal. The useof space is also characteristic, with areas leftempty to empower the design, and there is a

relative absence of violence, even in a violentscene, again sharply differing from Syrian-

Intermediate ivories. This is well illustratedby two versions of a popular subject, a heroslaying a griffin (Fig. 3).

When lists of the different traditions of ivo-ries were drawn up in Ivories from Nimrud VII

(Herrmann and Laidlaw, 2013: chapters 25,with the lists at the ends of the chapters), itimmediately became evident that there wereat least twice as many Phoenician ivories asivories of the Syrian-Intermediate, NorthSyrian and Assyrian traditions combined.This large corpus of Phoenician ivories canbe divided into two approximately equalgroups, those closest to the art of Egypt,known as Classic Phoenician, and the other

Phoenician ivories, still clearly Phoenician instyle but often of slightly lower quality.

Fig. 3:A Classic Phoenician version of a hero fighting a griffin on the left, and a Syrian-Intermediate version on the right (drawing: A. Searight).


6/13


Classic Phoenician ivoriesClassic Phoenician ivories are an exception-ally coherent group, linked by subject, ele-gant style and sophisticated techniques ofcarving and inlaying, for which it is possible

to suggest not only that they were made inworkshops located in a single centre, but alsoin which centre they may have been carved.

The most immediately recognizable style-group of the Classic Phoenician tradition isthe Egyptianizing, of which about 100 exam-ples have been identified. Unlike the rest ofthe series, most designs are unique and arecarved on single panels, often of unusualshapes. Designs tend to be set in flowering

fields of papyrus or in sun-boats, or consistof scenes of worship (Fig. 2), and are clearlydirectly derived from Egypt. Fig. 4a showsone such scene. Two Ba-birds with Egyp-tian crowns ride in a sun-boat with papy-rus prows saluting the central sun disc andwedjat eye, which is crowned with a triplecrown flanked by uraeior cobras. The designreflects a theological design seen on the jew-elry of Tutankhamun. Another Egyptianizing

panel, of an unusual shape, shows a manedlioness suckling one cub with another cub infront of her, the whole set in a field of papy-rus (Fig. 4b). Both these panels would havebeen overlaid with gold and highlighted withelaborately-shaped, coloured inlays.

A small group of panels with goddessesand some three-sided furniture elementsconnects the Egyptianizing group with otherClassic Phoenician ivories (Fig. 5). The god-desses with tripartite wigs and long, loose,

shawled garments or mantles were oncethought to form part of the Egyptianizinggroup, so close in subject, design, style andtechnique are they. However, they formparts of sets rather than being unique. They

are linked to some furniture fittings with adesign of a central youth flanked by side pan-els with similar goddesses (Fig. 5). The youthsthemselves form close links with other Clas-sic Phoenician groups, the Pharaoh statu-ettes (Fig. 6), which are versions in the roundof the youths, panels with Pharaohs withsceptres and jugs (Fig. 7) and panels of theso-called Ornate Group (Fig. 8). Diagnosticare their short Egyptian style wigs, decorated

with inlays held by raised pegs and knownas pegged wigs, and their short skirts withsloping overskirts and elaborate aprons. Theaprons are decorated with a central, chev-roned section and pendant uraei. However,while these diagnostics form a useful pointerto building sets and groups, they must bereinforced by other factors, including styleand proportion, framing, the carving of thebacks, the presence/absence of fitters marks

and methods of fixing.The Pharaoh statuettes (Fig. 6) were meantto be seen from the front and sides, since thebacks were left relatively rough: there are nosigns of any fixing. They are shown standingwith one arm flexed, the hand on the chestholding some staff or sceptre, the other bythe side, probably holding an ankh. One legis in front of the other in a typical Egyptianstance. They wore the Egyptian double crownset on a pegged wig, an elaborate collar and

Fig. 4:Two Egyptianizing panels with scenes set in the marshes, found in Room SW37,Fort Shalmaneser.


7/13


an aproned skirt. They were usually but notalways inlaid. They were made up from anumber of sections, cut according to thesize of available ivory, such as the crown, thehead, body and the arms and legs, and areof varying sizes. Unfortunately, no completePharaoh statuette has survived, although the

head and chest survive of the Blue Boy, oneof the largest examples, while the mono-chrome ND 7987 from SW37 is relativelycomplete, although missing head, arms andlower legs.

Similar Pharaoh figures (Fig. 7) arecarved on two sets of panels found in RoomSW11/12. These show pairs of Pharaohsequipped with ram-headed sceptres andjugs flanking stylized trees, above which are

friezes of uraeiand winged discs. The motif ofa worshipper raising the ram-headed staff inone hand and holding a pitcher in the other

was a popular one, once again originating inEgypt and then travelling across the Levant(Cecchini, 2005: 243264; Herrmann andLaidlaw, 2013: 34, 5758, figs 3a-b, and 90,fig. 4j). In addition to the Classic Phoenicianpanels, there are Phoenician as well as Syr-ian-Intermediate versions.

The two sets illustrate the relatively subtledifferences between Classic Phoenician andPhoenician versions of this motif. The Clas-sic Phoenician versions are carved on rectan-gular panels of a standard size with doubleframes at top and bottom, while the Phoe-nician examples are of varied sizes, shapes,proportions and framing. Equally, the dressdiffers, the Phoenician Pharaohs wear ashawled upper garment and shendyt kilt

instead of the pleated apron skirt, so typicalof the Classic Phoenician workshop.

Fig. 5:Reconstruction of the designs on a three-sided furniture panel with a central youthflanked by goddesses (drawing: D. Wicke).


8/13


Fig. 6:Parts of two Pharaoh statuettes: the head and chest of the Blue Boy (H. 17.7cm), oncecrowned with the Egyptian double crown, forming part of one of the largest statuettes fromSW11/12; and the body of a rare example lacking inlays (H. 17.0cm), from SW37.

Fig. 7:Two versions of the popular motif, a pair of Pharaohs with sceptres and jugs flankinga stylized tree, with the Classic Phoenician example on the left, and the Phoenician onthe right.


9/13


One of the largest Classic Phoeniciangroups, and perhaps the most attractive, is

the Ornate Group (Fig. 8). This consists ofsets of mostly openwork panels with tall ele-gant figures pleasingly located within dou-ble frames. Double frames are, surprisingly, asignificant diagnostic, essentially confined toClassic Phoenician pieces. An equally impor-tant clue to identifying Ornate Group piecesis the pegged wig. Not all Ornate Group wigsare pegged, some may be inlaid with stripsof glass, but the majority is, both on human

figures and on sphinxes.By far the most popular subject is the

Pharaoh or youth, sometimes winged andshown standing or occasionally kneeling.He may wear the Egyptian double crown,sometimes set on a pegged wig, or a falconheaddress. Sometimes he spears a griffin,without apparent force (Fig. 3a). Rampantgriffins and sphinxes were also popular, aswere sphinxes striding over fallen youths again a motif derived from Egypt with thesphinx representing Pharaoh triumphant.The sphinxes and griffins may flank stylizedtrees or altars.

Other Classic Phoenician pieces includethe Unusually Shaped Ivories, of which

there are, as usual, both inlaid and mono-chrome examples (Fig. 9). Their form is non-standard, and their purpose is hotly debated.They were carved on concave panels withoutward curving sides, designed to be seenfrom the front, since the backs were rough.They were fixed at top and bottom, not atthe sides. They are of varying sizes, and thereare both solid and openwork examples.The principal motifs were set within the

expanded, arching branches of an abbrevi-ated stylized tree and were usually a pairof griffins, back to back (Fig. 9a), althoughtypical Egyptianizing motifs such as a Horussitting on a lotus, sphinxes or scarab beetleswere also employed.

It is possible, although unproven, thattwo of the finest plaques found in Well NNof the North West Palace formed the centralfeature of an unusually large version of thepanels, the famous pair of a lioness killing afallen youth with a pegged wig (Fig. 9c). Intypically Phoenician fashion, this shockinglyviolent scene seems more an act of love or

Fig. 8:Three Ornate Group panels: (a) a winged youth holding an uraeus, inlaid with blue;(b) a male with falcon headdress and elaborate apron with red and blue inlays; and ( c) awinged, human-headed sphinx striding over a youth, the wigs with blue inlays and someivory cylinders held by the pegs, the rest with red and blue inlays.


10/13


voluntary sacrifice than a youth having histhroat ripped out.

Despite the strong linkage to Egypt andEgyptian art, the range of subjects illus-trated on Phoenician ivories is surprisinglylimited. There is no narrative art: insteadthere is a focus on ritual. Although Phoeni-cian craftsmen borrowed Egyptian motifsand designs, they did not slavishly copythem but adapted them to serve their own

purposes and meanings. Even those ivoriesclosest to the art of Egypt, the Egyptianizingivories, show sufficient deviation from theaccepted canon that both Layard in the 19thcentury and Kitchen in 1986 (in Herrmann,1986: 3746) dismissed the idea that theywere made in Egypt.

Many Classic Phoenician ivories werelike jewels, with colour achieved by finelyshaped glass inlays set on a frit beddingwithin cloisons covered in gold foil. A rangeof sophisticated techniques was employed,such as the raised pegs of the pegged wigs,holding coloured cylinders, or ribs of alter-nately raised ivory and inlaid cylinders, oreven with the design worked in reverse,when the background was left high and thedesign hollowed out and subsequently filledwith a frit bedding and an inlay. The workwas of the highest standard and is confinedto Classic Phoenician ivories, none being

recognized among the standard Phoenicianivories. However, not all Classic Phoenician

ivories were highlighted with inlays. As hasbeen mentioned above, nearly every groupincluded modelled examples, which them-selves would have had sections overlaidwith gold.

Most Classic Phoenician panels wouldhave been used to decorate furniture, thebacks of chairs, the footboards of beds, orchests. But there was, unsurprisingly, alsoa range of small objects, including a series

of plaques, making up hexagonal or circu-lar stands, a range of small boxes, womenflasks and bowls, as well as some bridleharness. Sets of superbly carved bridle har-ness blinkers and frontlets (Fig. 10), foundin the wells of the North West Palace, arestrongly linked to Egypt. The hinged front-lets with friezes of uraei show winged god-desses in Hathor crowns on tripartite wigsabove gods crowned with solar discs flankedby

uraei. The blinkers are decorated with

winged and seated sphinxes crowned withsun discs and uraei. Both frontlets and blink-ers are embellished with cartouches withhieroglyphs, as are many Phoenician ivories.

Distribution and dateMore examples of Phoenician art have beenfound at Assyrian Nimrud than anywhereelse. The few examples found elsewhereknown to date are confined to Samaria,

Salamis in Cyprus, the Idaean Cave in Creteand the Bernardini tomb in Etruria, all areas

Fig. 9:Three Unusually Shaped Ivories: (a) richly inlaid with a pair of griffins, back to back;(b) a seated, human-headed sphinx; and (c) one of a pair of panels from the North WestPalace showing a lioness killing a youth.


11/13


within the Phoenician trading network. Thegreatest range was found at Samaria, unfor-tunately in a disturbed area, with Egyptian-izing ivories, a goddess panel, fragments

of Ornate Groups and Unusually ShapedIvories: their context only suggests a date

probably before the sack of Samaria in c.720(see survey in Herrmann and Laidlaw, n.d.[2009]: 7981). Equally, a series of fine pan-els found in Tomb 79 at Salamis are similarlydated to the late 8th century. These includetwo superb Ornate Group panels, one show-ing a sphinx and the other a stylized tree,whereas a series of gilded and modelledpanels probably decorated the footboard ofa bed. Fragments of a Pharaoh figure, theface and part of the body, were found in theIdaean Cave in Crete. Finally, a number ofClassic Phoenician inlaid fragments werefound in the Bernardini tombs in Etruria,a goddess figure and some inlaid wings.

Unfortunately, none of these help to definethe time or place of production.

The Phoenicians were famed in antiquityas skilled craftsmen, particularly of bronzeand silver bowls. A reference in the Iliadshows how highly regarded such bowlswere for it records that Achilles offered alarge silver krater a masterpiece of Sido-nian craftsmanship as a prize at the funeralof Patroclus (Aubet, 2001: 100). Sidon was

the pre-eminent Phoenician centre in the11th century, being superseded by Tyre inthe 10th during the reign of Hiram, King ofTyre (971931). Phoenician craftsmanshipwas so well regarded that Solomon askedHiram to send him a skilled artisan to helpto build the Temple (Chronicles 2: 13). Themost probable centre, therefore, for theproduction of the finest ivories found atNimrud is probably one or both of the twomost important and well-known Phoenician

cities, Sidon and/or Tyre. These flourishedfrom the 11th century, so Classic Phoenicianivories were probably being made at Sidonand/or Tyre between the 11th and late 8thcenturies, by which time most were prob-ably deposited at Nimrud.

Note 1 The seven fascicules in the Ivories from

Nimrud series are: Orchard, 1967; Mal-

lowan and Glynne Davies, 1970; Mal-lowan and Herrmann, 1974; Herrmann,

Fig. 10: Classic Phoenician bridle harness:

a blinker with a seated, winged sphinxwith uraeus; and below, the lower sectionof a hinged frontlet with a god supportingMaat figures on his hands, crowned car-touches beside him.


12/13


1986; Herrmann, 1992; Herrmann andLaidlaw, n.d. [2009]; and Herrmann andLaidlaw, 2013.

References

Aubet, M E2001 (2nd ed) The Phoeniciansand the West, Politics, Colonies and Trade.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, R D1957 (reprinted 1975)A Cata-logue of the Nimrud Ivories in the BritishMuseum. London: British Museum Publi-cations.

Cecchini, S M 2005 The Suivant du Charroyal: a case of interaction between vari-ous genres of minor art. in C Suter and C

Uehlinger (eds) Crafts and Images in Con-tact, Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Artof the First Millennium BCE. Orbis Bibli-cus et Orientalis 210. Fribourg: AcademicPress; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupre-cht, pp. 234264.

Herrmann, G1986 Ivories from Nimrud IV,Ivories from Room SW37, Fort Shalmanes-er. London: British School of Archaeologyin Iraq.

Herrmann, G 1992 Ivories from Nimrud V,the Small Collections from Fort Shalma-neser. London: British School of Archae-ology in Iraq.

Herrmann, Gand Laidlaw, SNo date [2009]Ivories from Nimrud VI, Ivories from theNorth West Palace (18451992). London:British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Herrmann, G and Laidlaw, S 2013 Ivoriesfrom Nimrud VII, Ivories from RoomsSW11/12 & T10, Fort Shalmaneser. Lon-

don: British School of Archaeology inIraq.

Husain, M M 2008 Recent excavations inNimrud. in J E Curtis, H McCall, D Collonand L al-Gailani Werr (eds) New Light onNimrud, Proceedings of the Nimrud Con-ference 11th-13th March 2002. London:British School of Archaeology in Iraq,pp. 8391.

Husain, M M 2009 The Well 4 Ivories. in

Herrmann and Laidlaw, n.d. [2009], pp.512, 223226.

Husain, M M and Suleiman, A2000 Nim-rud, A City of Golden Treasures. Baghdad:Al Huriyeh Printing House.

Layard, A H1849a Nineveh and its Remainswith an Account of a Visit to the Chal-

dean Christians of Kurdistan, and theYezidis, or Devil-worshippers, and an En-quiry into the Manners and Arts of theAncient Assyrians, I and II. London: JohnMurray.

Layard, A H1849b The Monuments of Nin-eveh, first series. London: John Murray.

Layard, A H1852A Popular Account of Dis-coveries at Nineveh. London: John Murray.

Layard, A H1853 Discoveries in the Ruins

of Nineveh and Babylon. London: JohnMurray.

Layard, A H1867 Nineveh and Babylon. Lon-don: John Murray.

Mallowan, M E L1966 Nimrud & its Remains,I and II. London: Collins.

Mallowan, M E L and Glynne Davies, L1970 Ivories from NimrudII, Ivories in As-syrian Style. London: British School of Ar-chaeology in Iraq.

Mallowan, M E L and Herrmann, G 1974Ivories from Nimrud III, Furniture fromRoom SW7, Fort Shalmaneser. London:British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Orchard, J J 1967 Ivories from Nimrud I,Equestrian Bridle Harness Ornaments.London: British School of Archaeologyin Iraq.

Poulsen, F 1912 Der Orient und die Frhg-riechische Kunst. Leipzig (reprinted Rome1968).

Safar, Fand Saied al-Iraqi, M1987 Ivoriesfrom Nimrud (in Arabic). Baghdad: StateOrganization of Antiquities and Heritage.

Scigliuzzo, E2005 The wig and wing work-shop of Iron Age ivory carving. UgaritForschungen37: 557607.

Winter, I J1981 Is there a south Syrian styleof ivory carving in the early first millen-nium B.C.? Iraq43: 101130.


13/13

Herrmann and Laidlaw: Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians

How to cite this article: Herrmann, G and Laidlaw, S 2013 Assyrian Nimrud and the Phoenicians.Archaeology International, No. 16 (2012-2013): 84-95, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611

Published:24 October 2013

Copyright: 2013 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

Archaeology Internationalis a peer-reviewed open access journalpublished by Ubiquity Press

OPEN ACCESS
http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ai.1611

assyrian nimrod and the phoenicians

Documents