Pisa University Press S.R.L.

IVORY HAND BOWLS

Author(s): Elena Scigliuzzo
Source: Egitto e Vicino Oriente, Vol. 27 (2004), pp. 109-120
Published by: Pisa University Press S.R.L.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24233349
Accessed: 11-05-2017 22:14 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24233349?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Pisa University Press S.R.L. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Egitto
e Vicino Oriente

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
EVO XXVII (2004)

IVORY HAND BOWLS

Elena Scigliuzzo*

Art in Iron Age Syria is documented not only by way of monumental dc

Syro-hittite citadels but also by a considrable production of luxury handic
stone, bronze and ivory vessels, cosmetic containers, harness dcorations an
niture1. Among the stone vessels, a group known as "spoon-stoppers" o
bowls" is particularly well documented with around one hundred records, sca
wide area between Assyria and the Greek islands2. Unfortunately, no centre
has been identifed for these objects. A possible exception would relate to v
uted to a hoard from Rasm et-Tanjara, a site in the Ghab that could have be
ized handicraft centre for the production of ointment containers3.
Apparently, since the spoon-stoppers occur in a large variety of styles and
were produced in many places, to be sought in Northern-central Syria becaus
eral consistency of style and iconography with stone reliefs.
Much debate has surrounded the function of these very peculiarly shaped
starting point for any functional interprtation, anyway, should be the tubu
extending from the vessel wall and communicating with the vessel itself vi
vessel "has to some extent the general appearance of a combustible pipe bow
no traces of burning have been found in stone (steatite) bowls, while such a f
be excluded for those of ivory and faence5. A use as spoon-stoppers to be fit
mouth of ointment containers in order to extract a small amount of liquid is
ble and more consistent with the intrinsic characteristics of the vessels6.

* The hand bowls discussed in this paper represent some of the ivories from the B
Nimrud I studied at the British Musum in August-October 2003 and Aprii 2004.1 am deeply
Christopher Walker and the staff of the Department of the Ancient Near East of the Britis
their assistance and kindness during my visits to the Study Room. I wish to thank Dr Walke
me to publish here photographe I took myself.
1 On arts in Iron Age Syria, MAZZONI 1997; 2001.
2 Muscarella 1974; Athanassiou 1977; Mazzoni 2001,293.
3 The Rasm et-Tanjara bowls, now scattered among musums and private collections, we
a PhD dissertation (Athanassiou 1977) but the majority of them are stili unpublished. On t
of the site being a centre that specialized in the production of steatite vessels, see Mazzoni 1
4 Athanassiou 1977,44.
5 A reconstruction as incense-burners was originally suggested in PRZEWORSKI 1930.
6 A complete discussion on function, based on an accurate study of the morphology of sp
is Athanassiou 1977, 50 ss. The idea of these bowls being stoppers was proposed in Ba

109

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 These objects are also known as "hand/lion bowls". In this case, the name drivs from
the dcoration on the vessels. Indeed, many spoon-stoppers are carved with a hand as if
cupping the bottom of the vessel (Figs. 7-9, 15) or-and with the forequarters of a lion
masking the tubular appendix and holding the bowl with extended paws (Figs. 17-19).
As for this terminology, one has to keep in mind that spoon-stoppers are also decorated
with other motifs, such as a cross and a palmette, and that many of them do not show a li
on's forepart. A functional term, such as "spoon-stoppers", or one with a morphological
connotation, such as "tube bowls", would appear to be more desirable.
On the other hand, a typological classification based on dcoration can be very helpful.
A classification of bowls according to the motifs depicted on the underside recognized
the following typologies7 (each attested with or without lion foreparts):
I: plain;
II: hand;
III: palmette;
IV: cross;
V: pair of lions.
To these typologies, I would suggest adding a sixth, characterized by two symmetrical
sphinxes standing at the sides of a palmette8.

Ivory spoon-stoppers are less numerous than stone ones and less widespread. The ma
jority of them were brought to light by Loftus during his excavations at the Burn Palace
of Nimrud and are now in the British Musum9. A few other specimens were found in the
Well AJ of North-West Palace and in Fort Shalmaneser (Nimrud), in Hasanlu, Teli Halaf,
Megiddo, Samos and Crete. A fragment was also found by Mallowan during his excava
tions at the Burn Palace10.
Some diffrences between the stone and ivory bowls may be observed. Ivory bowls are
generally very small, compared to the stone ones. An extraordinary bowl found by an
Iraqi team in Well AJ of North-West Palace, Nimrud, is remarkably large (16.3xl3x5)n
and matches the stone bowls but can be considered a rarity (Fig. 19). Ivory bowls are nor
mally just a few centimtres long.
Moreover, from an iconographical point of view, the majority of ivory lion bowls (i.e.
decorated with lion's forequarters) have a plain, un-decorated underside, while stone
bowls are normally decorated with a cross, a palmette and so on. In contrast to the variety
of stone bowls, fewer typologies are seen in ivory bowls: I (plain bottom), II (hand),
V (double lions), VI (double sphinxes and palmette).

92. For further discussion and suggestions, see Fritz 1987; Mazzoni 2001, 2004.
7 Merhav 1980.
8 For bowls of this typology, see below.
9 Barnett 1957, Pis XLIX-L.
10 North-West Palace: Safer/Al-Iraqi 1987, 23, 41-45, 46-47, 50-61; Oates/Oates 2001, fig. 60, Pl. 9.
Fort Shalmaneser: Herrmann 1986, cat. 1370. Hasanlu: Muscarella 1980, cat. 222-225. Tell Halaf:
Hrouda 1962, Pl. 10:59a-c. Megiddo: May 1935, Pl. XVII, M 5202; Samos: Freyer/Schauenberg 1966,
Pl. 28; Crete: Galling 1969-70; Mallowan's excavations at the Burnt Palace: Mallowan 1966, fig. 177.
11 See n. above.

110

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 A third diffrence concerns the tube shape. Apart from very few exceptions, in stone
bowls the tube has a narrower, un-decorated extension (Figs 7-8, 15). This extension may
be considered an attachment, that was inserted into the missing ointment vessel in order
to fix the spoon-stopper to it. We may cali it a 'positive' attachment, like a plug into an
electrical socket.
Some ivory spoon-stoppers also have this kind of attachment (Fig. 2) but others instead
have a 'negative' attachment: the tube has no extension; it was fixed to the other vessel
like the socket to the plug (Figs 1, 19). This is probably due to a diffrence in shape (and
function?) of the missing vase joined to the ivory specimens. It should be remembered
that the ointment vessels used in association with ivory spoon-stoppers were possibly
made in ivory, too, and in this case they might have some connection with the figurate
women alabastra found in the Burn Palace or Well AJ in the North-West Palace12. Stone
bowls, on the other hand, cannot be fixed to ivory vessels, otherwise they broke them. It
is far more likely that a leather container was used as a complment to the stone spoon
stoppers13.
This paper will focus on the bowls decorated with a hand (hand bowls), and particular
ly on a small group made from ivory and found in the Burnt Palace of Nimrud. Only
three ivory hand bowls are known. What follows is a description of each14.

BM 127577 - S. 85 (Fig. 1): the bowl is blackened by Tire, but it is almost intact. Only
the upper section of the tube and a fragment of the vessel are missing. The attachment is
'negative'. The firn and the wall are quite thick. The bottom is decorated with a hand that
has slightly splayed fingers. The thumb is represented in profile. The wrist concides with
the tube, as if to conceal it, in a very naturai way. The hand is carved in very fiat relief.
The nails are incised with a triangular shape, with a short horizontal line at the base. The
thumb-nail is in profile and has a slightly protruding end.

BM 126578 - S. 86 (Figs. 2-3): Its colour is light grey; it consists of only a fragment of
the rim and wall and a larger fragment incorporating the tube. The 'positive' attachment
is composed of a broken extension at the end of the tube. The bottom was decorated with
a hand that had splayed fingers. Only two fingertips remain. The fingers are carved in a
very light relief. The nails are represented by two curved incisions. The tube is decorated
with two rings and its upper side is seen to be slightly hollowed out, as if representing the
inner side of a wrist. The nail ends have a short vertical incision.

BM 126579 - S. 87 a-b (Figs. 4-6): there are two fragments from the same bowl. Their
colour, thickness and carving are very similar. The colour is a yellowish brown. The bowl
originally represented a hand and two birds roosting under the rim. Fragment 87a shows a

12 BARNETT 1957, Pis LVII-LX; Safer/Al-Iraqi 1987, 30-32.

13 A leather container, rather than in ceramic or any other non-perishable material, was suggested on the
basis of the complete lack of suitable containers among archaeological evidence. See Amiran 1962 for a
discussion on Bronze Age antcdents.
14 Each bowl was published in Barnett 1957, Pl. XLIX.

Ili

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
finger partly covered by a bird's wing and tail. The finger is carved in a very light relief,
the nail is defined by two circular incisions. The wing and tail are rendered in a higher re
lief. Fragment S 87b represents a bird's body and tail. The body and wing base are in
cised with a cross-hatch motif. The wing base has a U-shaped outline. The bird is roost
ing just under the vessel's rim and its short claws are visible. It is carved in a very high
relief, as if protruding from the wall.

The most distinctive trait of bowl S. 85 is the triangular drawing of the nails (Fig. 1).
When comparison is sought with ail published stone spoon-stoppers, this characteristic
only appears in a very fine bowl discovered by Woolley in Yunus, now in the British
Musum15 (Fig. 7). A thumb in profile, with a pointed, slightly curved tip, is represented
on the Yunus bowl. A common origin for the two bowls, the one ivory and the other
stone, is very probable.
Unfortunately, the Yunus bowl is unique and bears no connection to any other stone
bowl. The tube dcoration, with an ovai petal frieze, lacks comparisons, though petals are
very common among stone bowls. As for the stone reliefs from Carchemish, the nails are
very carefully and finely depicted in 8th century sculptures16 but they are ne ver triangular.
It has been suggested17 that a fine, naturai rendering of nails is a characteristic of the
8th century BC. Indeed, finely carved nails can be seen on monumental reliefs dating
from this century, such as the above-mentioned Carchemish sculpture, the Ivriz rock re
lief and, in particular, steles from Marash. In support of this suggestion, it may be ob
served that stone spoon-stoppers discovered in contexts dating back to the 8th century BC
have finely carved, delicate, natural-looking nails: examples are a bowl from Tell Afis,
and others in the Louvre, from Hazor, Zincirli, and Kinneret18.
A group with very naturalistic hands and nails and characteristically thin fingers is seen
in bowls from Marash (Fig. 8), Zincirli and a bowl in the Kofler-Truniger Collection
(Lucerne)19 (Fig. 9). In this case, the bowls can be dated back to the 8th century BC be
cause of the archaeological context (Zincirli) and the pendant-petal frieze around the tube
of the Marash bowl. This dcoration is peculiar to North-Western Syria in the second half
of the 8th century BC, being attested in stone column bases and sculptures from Zincirli
and Tell Taynat and in ivories from Zincirli20.
Although the bowls from Yunus and the Burn Palace feature nails that are triangular,
their rendering is extremely delicate; the thumb nail, in particular, is naturai. The two

15 Fritz 1987, 236.

16 See for example Woolley/Barnett 1952, Pl. B.64.
17 Mazzoni 2004.
18 See Mazzoni, op. cit.
19 Marash: Przeworski 1934, Pl. XXVII:3. Zincirli: ANDRAE/VON LUSCHAN 1943, Pl. 13:c,d. Kofler
Truniger: Van Loon 1962, 17, lower right. The faence lion bowl from Kinneret also has a similar hand:
Fritz 1987.

20 Zincirli: Von Luschan 1898, Pl. XXXIII; Andrae/Von Luschan 1943, Pis 61-63. Tell Taynat
Hawkins 2000, Pis. 189-90. Spoon-stoppers with the same kind of frieze include a bowl in Haifa and on
in the Kollek Collection, Jrusalem (Merhav 1980, Pl. V, 1-4). The hand of the Kollek bowl has fine, r
stic nails, thus supporting the attribution of this stylistic trait to the 8th century.

112

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
bowls, in short, appear to conform to the 8th century BC stylistic trend21.

In S 86 and S 87a (Figs. 2 and 3-4) nails are depicted in a very diffrent way compared
with S 85. The contour line is large and round, expanding to the whole of the fingertip;
the base is defined by two curved lines. Such nails are not to be found in stone spoon
stoppers but, instead, are typical of ivory fragmentary bases, possibly from fly-whisk
handles, such as were found in the Burnt Palace together with the lion/hand bowls22.
In S 243 the figure standing on the base has fingers quite similar to S 86 (Figs. 11-12).
Another fragment with similar nails is S 241 (Fig. 10). Here the thumb nail is circular and
double-lined, closely matching the S 87a nail. The particular pendant petal dcoration of
S 24323 suggests that the missing figure of S 243 was one of the nude iemale caryatids of
the North Syrian tradition of ivory carving. These figures may be linked in particular to
the 9th century BC Flame and Frond school, on the basis of comparisons with similar
faces and headdresses that can be seen, for example, on two spectacular findings from
Well AJ, a lion bowl (Fig. 19) and a carved horn attributed to this school24.
It is rather odd that only toenails, not fingernails, are represented on the fly-whisks.
However, a link between the two hand-bowls and the Flame and Frond School can also
be supported by the bird in S 87 (Figs. 4-6).
In fact, every dtail of this creature can be compared with the bird represented on a
fragment of lion bowl from Hasanlu (Iran), numbered 22425 (Fig. 14), with its cross
hatched and U-shaped wing base, three-feathered tail, and position under the rim. The li
on's claws of the Hasanlu bowl are typical of the Flame and Frond stylization, as docu
mented in particular by the sphinxes and lions on the above-mentioned bowl and on pyx
ides from the Burnt Palace and Well AJ of North-West Palace26.
Other fragments of Flame and Frond lion bowls were found at Hasanlu27. Among
them, fragment 223 (Fig. 13) is carved with two bird's wings spread under the rim and is
very probably a part of the same bowl as 224. The wing feathers of 223 are plain, un-pat
terned and disposed in two vertically divided parts just as the wings of S 87a. In short, the
S 87a-b bowl from the Burnt Palace is closely comparable to the 223-224 bowl from
Hasanlu. The latter being a Flame and Frond bowl, S 87a-b appears to be from the same
school of ivory carving.
It is not possible to know whether S 87 was also a lion bowl. No traces of a lion can be

21 As a further support to this chronology, it is worth remembering that in a faence bowl from Kinneret,
found in a late 8th century BC context, the tube is carved in a wrist shape just as in S 85.
22 Barnett 1957, Pl. LXXVII.
23 It decorates also S 236, S 211, S 212 (Barnett 1957, Pis LXXIII, LXXV, LXXVII).
24 Safer/al-Iraqi 1987, 30-40; Oates/Oates 2001, Fig. 54, Pl. ll.b. On the Flame and Frond School,
Herrmann 1989.
25 Muscarella 1980, 119.
26 Barnett 1957, Pis XX; Safer/al-Iraqi 30-40,50-61; Oates/Oates 2001, fig. 60, Pl. 9.
27 Muscarella 1980, 118-119. Two fragments catalogued 222 are from a single bowl and represent the
claws of a lion and two originally inlaid wings. The latter might have belonged either to birds or
sphinxes. An other fragment, 225, shows again the claws of a lion and the tip of a bird's tail but cannot
from the same bowl as 224.

113

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
seen on the fragments. On the other hand, the Hasanlu fragments don not seem to be from
a hand bowl. The link between the two is nothing other than the bird.
A Flame and Frond lion bowl very similar to what the Hasanlu fragments reveal could
be a bowl from Samos28: a lion's forepaws grasp the bowl and the wings of two birds,
shown roosting under the rim. Another interesting comparison is with an ivory fragment
from Tell Halaf29 (Fig. 16). Here, too, a bird roosts under the rim and is quite similar to
the one of S 87, because of the protruding position, the cross-hatched body and especially
the claws. Nevertheless, since only a little part of the vessel is preserved, we cannot tell
how the bottom was decorated: as far as we may infer from the Hasanlu, Samos and Tell
Halaf bowls, there is no evidence for ivory bowls decorated both with birds and a hand
cupping the bottom other than S. 87.
Consequently, it is worth noting that this dcoration (absent in Merhav's typology) is
attested by a unique stone hand bowl, a very fine piece in the Louvre30 (Fig. 15). Unlike
S 87, the fingers are U-shaped and the rim is patterned, but the position of the birds is
quite similar, in a way that the intact Louvre bowl allows us to reconstruct the original
appearance of the Burn Palace fragments.
On the Louvre hand bowl, the wrist is adorned by a wavy pattern that may also be seen
on fragments from Hasanlu and on fragments from the Burnt Palace31, but it is difficult to
say whether this pattern is peculiar trait of 9th century BC, since it also occurs on pyxis
lids and a hand bowl from Tell Afis, found in a context dating back to the end of the 8th
century BC32, and even among the Megiddo ivories, dating back the Late Bronze Age33.

The hand bowl S. 87 from the Burnt Palace cannot be considered without some reflec
tions on its particular iconography. As noted above, a dcoration with birds roosting on
the front part of the bowl is rare, as far as we can tell from erratic documentation.
On the other hand, these records may be complemented by some hand/lion bowls tha
represent a pair of winged sphinxes in the same position as the birds. These are an
Egyptian blue bowl from Hasanlu (Fig. 17), the above-mentioned ivory bowl from Well
AJ of the North-West Palace of Nimrud (Fig. 19) and a fragmentary stone bowl from
Ashur(Fig. 18)34.
In the Hasanlu Egyptian blue hand bowl the sphinxes have couchant bodies in profile
and frontal heads, their wings open and embracing the rim ali around until they meet th
lion's claws. As for the Well AJ and the Ashur bowls, despite their being stylistically u
like, iconographically they are very close to each other. They are both lion bowls with
their bottom representing two symmetrical sphinxes walking on the sides of a central

28 Freyer/Schauenberg 1966, Pl. 28.

29 Hrouda 1962, Pl. 10:59a-c.
30 Parrot 1964, Pl. XIV:3-4.
31 Barnett 1957, PI. XXX:S 36; LXVIII, S 167; LXIX:S 169. Muscarella 1980, cat. 226, 228, 230,
234, 235.
32 Mazzoni 2001, 296-97, fig. 9 and rfrencs in Mazzoni 2004.
33 Loud 1939, Pis 17-18, 25, 28-30, 39, 46,
34 Hasanlu: VN Loon 1962; Well AJ: see n. 10; Ashur: Muscarella 1974, 28, fig. 1-3.

114

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
palmette35. The sphinxes have frontal, protruding faces. This is type VI, to be added as
an improvement to Merhav's typology (see above).
From a stylistic point of view, the Well AJ bowl is a 9th century BC Flame and Frond
produci and the most complex and distinctive of ali spoon-stoppers, because of the multi
plication of lions and the magnificent inlaid dcoration. It has even two tubes, instead of
one, passing through the lions' bodies. The Ashur bowl, on the other hand, is more appro
priately traceable to the 8th century BC36.
The most striking trait of these two bowls is the position of the sphinxes, that look
ahead from the front part of the bowl. This position does not appear to be associated with
a mere decorative function. Sphinxes, especially the frontal ones, have a ritual, protec
tive, and apotropaic significance in the Near East, and particularly in Iron Age Syro
Hittite art37. In this context, sphinxes were put at the gates of citadels and public build
ings in order to protect the evil attracting passageway between the external and internai
domains. In a similar way, sphinxes (and lions as well) on spoon-stoppers did their duty
in protecting the sacred liquid (oil?) poured into the vessel, or more probably, the ritual
action performed by using the liquid38.
One might suggest that the birds roosting under the rim could be associated with a
similar function. They are obviously predatory birds39: eagles or hawks similarly to, in a
particularly fitting parallel in the lion/hand bowls, the birds on the ritual palette from
Well AJ (Fig. 20), that roost on the little cavity rim with long, rapacious claws. In this
extraordinary work of art, predatory birds are associated with sphinxes and lions, in a
composition emphasizing the dominion of rapacious beings over the weaker ones40. This
also applies to the stone eagles on a perch found in front of the Westpalast of Teli Halaf,
that although not located in the portai itself, form a part of the entrance complex dcora
tion41.

35 In the Ashur bowl the second sphinx is missing and only the tip of the palmette is stili visible, but the
original scene may be easily reconstructed as consisting of two symmetrical sphinxes walking on the sides
of a centrai palmette.
36 The long curls of the sphinx's headdress (Spirallocken) occur on the Zincirli and Sakagzu sculptu
res from this period: cfr. Orthmann 1971, Pis. 49-51, 63-65.
37 Mazzoni 1997. Braun-Holzinger 1999 for a survey of apotropaic figures in the III-II millennia.
See also Watanabe 2002, 121-25.
38 It should be remembered that a dfinition of spoon-stoppers as 'cosmetic containers' does not imply a
frivolous function - or as one might say, a fminine one. Ointments were used in religious, royal and gene
rally officiai rituals in the ancient Near Eastern as well as in many other societies. For a discussion on the
apotropaic meaning of lions and the ritual function of spoon-stoppers, and especially on the big lion bowl
from Well AJ, see ClAFALONl 1996.
39 A synthesis on predatory birds in art of the cultural area concerned here is in Boardman/Moorey
1986,45.
40 Oates/Oates 2001, fig. 59. Safer/AL-Iraqi 1987, 18-24. The Louvre bowl with eagles and the Well
AJ palette were linked iconographically by Mazzoni 2004. For a fresh interprtation of the palette, see
WlCKE 2003, in which drawings of the object are also available. A predatory bird is represented as standing
(possibly menacingly?) on a deer's back in the Herzfeld stone pyxis: Orthmann 1971, PI. 70.
41 Moortgat/Opitz 1955, PI. 136-138. See the originai location, a few metres ahead of the portai, in
Naumann 1950, PI. 7:2. Eagle-headed griffins were included among the statues of the hilani's portai: see
Moortgat/Opitz 1955, PI. 116.

115

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 It is possible that a protective, rather than an apotropaic significance, was prdominant
in relation to the spoon-stopper birds, judging by the wings spread in an embrace around
the vessel. Since the ivory bowl S. 87 (and possibly also the Tell Halaf fragment) can be
attributed to the Flame and Frond School, it appears to be consistent with the richly
meaningful iconographical complexity of many ivory containers derived from the North
Syrian tradition, such as the ritual palette and the numerous pyxides from Well AJ and the
Burn Palace of Nimrud.

References

Amiran R., 1962: "The arm-shaped vessel and its family", JNES XXI-3,161-74.

Andrae W. - LUSCHAN F. Von, 1943: Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli

V (Mitteilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen XV), Berlin.

ATHANASSIOU H., 1977: Rasm et-Tanjarah: A Recently Discovered Syrian Teli in the Ghab. Part
I: Inventory ofthe Chance Finds (PhD Diss.), Ann Arbor.

Barnett R.D., 1957: A Catalogue ofthe Nimrud Ivories, London.

Boardman J. - Moorey R., 1986: "The Yunus Cemetery Group: Hematite Scarabs", in M.
Kelly-Buccellati ed., Insight Through Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada, Malibu, 35
48.

Braun-Holzinger E.A., 1999: "Apotropaic figures at Mesopotamian Temples in the Third and
Second Millennia", in T. Abusch, K. van der Toorn eds., Mesopotamian Magic. Textual,
Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, Groningen, 149-72.

Ciafaloni D., 1996: "Su una coppa in avorio con leoni da Nimrud: contributo alla lettura dell'i
conografia leonina", in E. Acquaro ed., Alle soglie della classicit. Il Mediterraneo tra
tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, Pisa-Roma, 609-27.

Freyer-Schauenberg B., 1966: Elfenbeine aus dem samischen Heraion, Hamburg.

Fritz V., 1987: "The Lion Bowl from Kinneret", Biblical Archaeologist, Dee. 1987, 232-40.
Galling K., 1969-70: "Ein phonikisches Kultgerat(?) aus Kreta", Die Welt des Orients V, 100
107.

Hawkins J.D., 2000: Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwan Inscriptions I, Berlin.

HERRMANN G., 1986. Ivories from Nimrud (1949-1963) IV. Ivories from Room SW 37, Fort
Shalmaneser, London.

HERRMANN G., 1989: "The Nimrud Ivories 1: The Flame and Frond School", Iraq 51, 85-109.

HROUDA B., 1962: Die Kleinfunde aus historischer Zeit (Teli HalaflV), Berlin.

LOON M. Van, 1962: "A Lion Bowl from Hasanlu", Expdition 4/4, 14-19.

LOUD G., 1939: The Megiddo Ivories, Chicago.

LUSCHAN F. VON, 1898: Ausgrabungen in Sendschirli II, Berlin.
MALLOWAN M.E.L., 1966: Nimrud and Its Remains, London.

116

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
MAZZONI S., 1988: "Strategie adattive e sviluppi artigianali: qualche esempio di diversit tra Siria
e Mesopotamia", in A. Zanardo ed., Stato Economia Lavoro nel Vicino Oriente Antico, Milano,
302-12.

Mazzoni S., 1997: "L'arte siro-hittita nel suo contesto archeologico", Contributi e Materiali di
Archeologia Orientale VII, 287-314.
MAZZONI S., 2001: "Syro-Hittite Pyxides between Major and Minor Art", in J-W. Meyer, M.
Novak, A. Prufi, Beitrge zur vorderasiatischen Archologie. Winfried Orthmann gewidmet,
Frankfurt am Main, 292-309.

Mazzoni S., 2004: "Pyxides and hand-lion bowls: a case of minor arts", in C.E. Suter, Ch.
Uehlinger eds., Crafts and Images in Contact. Studies in eastern Mediterranean minor art of
the first millennium bce (OBO 210), Fribourg-Gottingen, in press.

MAY H.G., 1935: Material Remains ofthe Megiddo Cult, Chicago.

Merhav R., 1980: "The Palmette on Steatite Bowls in Relation to the Minor Arts and
Architecture", Israel Musum Journal 26, 89-106.

MUSCARELLA O.W., 1974: "The Third Lion Bowl from Hasanlu", Expdition 16/2, 25-29.

MUSCARELLA O.W., 1980: The Catalogue of Ivories from Hasanlu, Iran, Philadelphia.

MOORTGAT A. - D. 1955: Die Bildwerke (Teli HalaflII), Berlin.

OATES J. - OATES D., 2001: Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperiai City Revealed, London.

Orthmann W., 1971: Untersuchungen zur spthethitischen Kunst, Bonn.

Parrot ., 1964: "Acquisitions et indits du Muse du Louvre ", Syria XLI, 213-50.
NAUMANN R., 1950: Die Bauwerke (Tell Halaf II), Berlin.

Przeworski S., 1930: "Notes d'archologie syrienne et hittite. Les encensoirs de la Syrie du
Nord et leur prototypes gyptiens", Syria XI, 133-45.

PRZEWORSKI S., 1934: "Antiquits de Marash a Moscou et a Tiflis", Syria XV, 222-25.

Saper F. - Al-Iraqi M.S., 1987: Ivories from Nimrud, Baghdad.

Watanabe C.E., 2002: Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia. A Contextual Approach, Wien.

WlCKE D., 2003: "Die elfenbeinerne Kosmetikpalette IM 79501 - zwischen Kosmologie und
Ornament", Baghdader Mitteilungen 33, 229-80.
WOOLLEY L. - Barnett R.D., 1952: Carchemish III, London.

117

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Figg. 1/6 - Were taken by the author and are here published by permission of the Trustes of the British Musum.

118

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 II B

fill

10 11 12

13 14 15

Fig. 7 - Fritz 1987, 236. Fig. 8 - Przeworski 1934, Pl. XXVII:3. Fig. 9 - Van Loon 1962, 17, lower right.
Figg. 10/12 - were taken by the author and are here published by permission of the Trustes of the British Musum.
Fig. 13 - Muscarella 1980, 224. Fig. 14 - Muscarella 1980, 223. Fig. 15 - Parrot 1964, PI. XIV:3-4.

119

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 w *
r **L.

16 17

aaMMBi w _

18 19

Fig. 16 - Hrouda 1962, Pl. 10:59a-c. Fig. 17 - Van Loon 1962, 17, upper left. Fig. 18 - Muscarella 1974, f
Fig. 19 - Oates/Oates 2001, fig. 60, PI. 9. Fig. 20 - Oates/Oates 2001, fig. 59.

120

This content downloaded from 154.59.124.59 on Thu, 11 May 2017 22:14:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms