Some Thoughts on Iconographic Relations between the Arabian Gulf and Syria-Mesopotamia during the...

8/20/2019 Some Thoughts on Iconographic Relations between the Arabian Gulf and Syria-Mesopotamia during the Middle Bro…

1/19

Society for Arabian Studies Monographs No. 7

Series editors D. Kennet & St J. Simpson

Intercultural Relations between

South and Southwest Asia

Studies in commemoration of

E.C.L. During Caspers (1934-1996)

Edited by

Eric Olijdam

Richard H. Spoor

BAR International Series 18262008


2/19

This title published by

ArchaeopressPublishers of British Archaeological ReportsGordon House276 Banbury RoadOxford OX2 7EDEngland

[email protected]

BAR S1826Society for Arabian Studies Monographs No. 7

Intercultural Relations between South and Southwest Asia: Studies in commemoration of E.C.L.During Caspers (1934-1996)

© the individual authors 2008

ISBN 978 1 4073 0312 3

Cover illustration by © J.M. Kenoyer (Kenoyer and Meadow, Fig. 5.3)

Printed in England by Alden HenDi, Oxfordshire

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd122 Banbury RoadOxfordOX2 [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is availablefree from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com


3/19

236

INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS BETWEEN SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST ASIA.STUDIES IN COMMEMORATION OF E.C.L. DURING CASPERS (1934-1996) E. Olijdam & R.H. Spoor (eds)BAR International Series 1826 (2008): 236-252

Some Th oughts on Iconographic Relations between the Arab ian Gulf

and Syria M esopotam ia during the Middle Bronze Age

Luca Peyronel

The indigenous character of Dilmun glyptic has beenunderlined ever since the first seals were found at Failakaand Bahrain at the end of the 1950s (Glob 1954: Fig. 5;Bibby 1957: Fig. 13a-c; 1958). The Danish archaeologicalinvestigations in the Arabian Gulf allowed the identifica-tion of the provenance of some enigmatic seals fromWoolley’s excavations at Ur (Gadd 1932; cf . also Mitchell1986; Peyronel 2000: 190-199), relating them to “a newcultural group” (Glob 1959: 238). The stamp seal impres-sions on a cuneiform tablet from the Yale Collection dat-ing from the reign of Gungunum of Larsa (Hallo & Bu-chanan 1965; Buchanan 1967) provided the first absolutedate for the glyptic material discovered in the Gulf area.At the same time, it also established an unquestionablelink between the land of Dilmun and the cities of theMesopotamian alluvium, matching the textual evidence

for the development of maritime commerce during theUr III and Isin-Larsa periods (Oppenheim 1954; Leemans1960; 1968).

The complex pattern of interrelations that can be infer-red from the seals’ iconography, which was only brieflypointed out by Buchanan (Hallo & Buchanan 1965: 207-208), has been discussed by Porada (1971) in a seminalarticle presented in the occasion of the Third InternationalConference on Asian Archaeology, and, several years later, byKjærum (1986), during the Bahrain Historical Conference,held in Manama in 1983.

The origin of the Arabian Gulf glyptic at the end of the

3rd millennium B.C. is now quite well understood: stampseals from stratified layers at Qala’at al-Bahrain Excava-tion 520 (or North Wall Sounding) show an evolution ofdistinctive typologies, which culminates at the beginningof the 2nd millennium B.C. with the ‘classic’ Early Dilmunseal (Kjærum 1994).1 The presence of an archaic type(Arabian Gulf type) and the identification of a ‘transi-tional’ group (proto-Dilmun type) from Qala’at level IIa(ca. 2100-1950 B.C.) allows us to reconstruct the first stepsof the Dilmunite glyptic tradition.2 It is more difficult toestablish the ‘lower’ chronological limit of Dilmun seals,which appeared during Qala’at period IIb-c (ca. 1950-1800B.C.) and were in use at Failaka also during the Old Baby-lonian (Failaka 3A) and, perhaps, the Early Kassite periods(Failaka 3B-4A).3 Finally, during the later phases (lateEarly Dilmun and Middle Dilmun periods) new styles andtypes were introduced (i.e. Kjærum’s styles II-III, and

bifacial seals), which were directly influenced by Mesopo-tamian glyptic (Peyronel 1997; Denton 1997).4

The most recent effort in Arabian Gulf archaeology isdevoted to problems of relative chronology, pottery typesand re-assessment of stratigraphy, trying to substantiatethe links between the Mesopotamian alluvium, the OmanPeninsula, the Iranian Plateau and the Indus Valleythrough a more refined periodisation.5

In this respect, how should we consider the seals’ ico-nography and stylistic analysis? First of all, when we lookat the figurative patterns of Dilmun glyptic we have toface the problem of correctly reading the motifs engravedon the circular stone disc. Lacking a horizontal alignmentof the scene —as with the cylinder seals— it is necessaryto define a specific methodology so that confusion in theoverall interpretation can be avoided. A useful approach

might be based on three differentiated and hierarchicalanalytical steps:

A) decomposition of the figurative pattern intoseparate elements;

B) identification of the relationships between singleelements;

C) definition of a scene and eventually separation offilling motifs.

More than one hundred single motifs can be identified onDilmun seals from Failaka and Bahrain. They are relatedto three main categories with six ‘possible’ schemes of

relationship:

categories: human and divine figures; animals; objects andsymbols;

relationships: figure/figure; figure/animal; figure/object;animal/animal; animal/object; object/object.

Thus, the concept of ‘relationship’ concerns either a di-rect human/divine/animal ‘action’ towards an object ortowards another figure (i.e. a man holding a drinkingtube, a bull-man holding a standard, a man killing anantelope, a lion attacking a gazelle), or ‘physical’ contactbetween elements (an object placed on a podium, an ani-mal ‘above’ an altar, a figure standing on an animal, etc .).

Steps B) to C) are critical, and in several cases it is quitehard to distinguish if an element could be considered amere filling motif or if it has some direct (or indirect)


4/19

237

relation with another element. Additionally, several sealsshow differently orientated figures, which testifies to anabsence of a main axis of reading. In fact, four basic pat-terns of representation can be distinguished:

1) single orientation for primary axis;

2)

multiple orientation for main axis and secondaryaxis;3) multiple orientation for equal axes;4) circular or radial composition.

The transmission of iconographies originating in anothercultural sphere can be observed at all the levels men-tioned above, with single motifs, peculiar relationshipsbetween figures, and ‘scenes’ adopted and elaboratedagain in the Dilmun glyptic repertoire.

Trying to reconstruct ways and routes of these contactsis certainly only one aspect of the study of Dilmuniteiconography and iconology. Understanding the meanings

of the figures within the Dilmunite cultural sphere ismore important, but also more difficult. It is not a prob-lem of differentiation between ‘foreign’ and ‘local’: thefocus is on building up a framework of the Dilmuniteartistic expression, in which to place the significance ofthe iconographic transmission.

The ‘high’ or ‘classic’ glyptic of the Early Dilmun periodshows the predominance of Mesopotamian iconography:the kaunakes skirts, the horned headdress of the gods, thesupernatural beings such as the bull-men, the erotic andsymposia scenes, standards and astral symbols, peculiaranimals as the monkey and the lion, and the harp withbull-shaped sound-box, represent only the most commonfeatures of an artistic world surely influenced by theMesopotamian one.

However, during the late Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods(ca. 2000-1800 B.C.) the situation is totally different: the‘presentation scene’ and the ‘introduction scene’ whichdominate Mesopotamian iconography during these peri-ods, are not attested on the Dilmun seals.6 In more gen-eral terms this means that if we did not know the EarlyDynastic and Akkadian glyptics we would consider Dil-munite and Mesopotamian sphragistic productions astwo separate and almost totally different entities on both

iconographic and stylistic grounds. A more detailedanalysis reveals that relationships with the Early OldBabylonian seals (some standards and symbols, thesquare hatched-podium) do exist, but these are rathermarginal.7 In this respect we should consider Mesopota-mian iconography in a wider perspective, both from asynchronic and a diachronic point of view. On the onehand, we have to take other broad artistic categories intoconsideration, e.g. the clay figurines and plaques; and, onthe other hand, we must take into account that the Meso-potamian repertoire which passed into the Arabian Gulfarea during the last centuries of the 3rd millennium B.C.subsequently underwent a local transformation.

The ‘evolution’ towards the presentation/introductionscene, which reflected Mesopotamian practice, did notfind the right background in Arabian Gulf culture. TheDilmunites were not interested in the monotonous repe-

tition of a unique scheme of representation; they couldnot use it to create the variety of images that was neces-sary to distinguish each seal from another. The limitedsurface of the stamp (with a diameter usually of less than3 cm) calls for a high number of figurative motifs to cre-ate ‘distinct’ scenes, necessary to distinguish groups/

categories of people or individuals.The major changes that can be observed between Ara-bian Gulf stamps and proper Dilmun seals are surely thedevelopment of the human/divine sphere, which be-comes the protagonist of many scenes; and the moreexplicit articulation of the relationships between figureson the Dilmun stamp seals. Arabian Gulf iconography iscentred around animals and symbols, arranged to coverthe stamp surface; specimens engraved with human fig-ures are very rare (Kjærum 1994: 341-344). This situationis linked to the strong influence of Harappan glyptic dur-ing the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. in Bahrain and inthe Arabian Gulf, witnessed by circular stone seals with

Harappan inscriptions, cubical weights, painted pottery,etc . The distribution pattern of square and circular sealswith Harappan inscriptions in the Gulf, or the Iranianplateau, and in the Mesopotamian alluvium seems toreveal different ‘stages’ of cultural and commercial inter-relations between Mesopotamia and the East, during theperiod immediately before the beginning of the 2nd mil-lennium B.C. (Parpola 1994; Collon 1996; Peyronel 2000).When Dilmunites became the direct referents of theMesopotamian ‘seafaring merchants’, the maritime con-tacts changed and the flow of goods was controlled bysettlements on Bahrain and Tarut, and by their outpostson Failaka at the head of the Gulf.8

There are two main hypotheses that explain the originof a large part of the Dilmunite iconographic repertoire:

A. Mesopotamian provenance — The frequent commer-cial contact between the Arabian Gulf and theMesopotamian alluvium attested during the secondhalf of the 3rd millennium B.C. caused the trans-mission of certain glyptic representations during atimeframe spanning the Early Dynastic II-III andthe late Akkadian period.9

B.

Syrian and Cappadocian provenance — The classicNear Eastern iconographies came from the Syrianregions and were elaborated and assimilated inDilmun, reflecting a strong ethnic presence ofAmorites in the Gulf.10

What is clear is certainly the progressive retreat ofHarappan sphragistics,11 which relates to the new roleundertaken by the Dilmun civilisation in the Arabian Gulfand, at the same time, to the crisis and changes in theIndus Valley during the first centuries of the 2nd millen-nium B.C.

This is not the place for an exhaustive iconographic

analysis of the Dilmun repertoire, but it can be quite in-structive to discuss some peculiar motifs to test thestrength of the abovementioned hypotheses.


5/19

238

Fig. 1: Dilmun seals with gods. A) al-Sindi 1994: no. 17; B) al-Sindi 1994: no. 18; C) al-Sindi 1994: no. 19; D) Kjærum 1983: no. 185; E)Kjærum 1983: no. 186; F) al-Sindi 1994: no. 23.

The god and the bull man

The most evident ‘cultural’ traits linking Dilmun glypticwith Syria and Mesopotamia are the supernatural beingsand divine figures: the bull-man and the god with hornedheaddress appear in several stamps from Failaka and

Bahrain interacting with humans, animals and ‘cultic’objects such as standards and hatched podia.We can distinguish the god only by the horned tiara,

usually of ‘simple’ type with one pair of curved horns,

albeit sometimes a double crown is attested (Kjærum1983: no. 185; al-Sindi 1994: no. 19) [Fig. 1c-d].

Gods are attested on seven seals from Failaka (Kjærum1983: nos. 81, 185-186, 193, 212, 274; Pic 1990: no. 19) andon nine seals from Bahrain (al-Sindi 1994: nos. 17-20, 23-24, 56-58), indicating a balanced situation between the

two seal corpora. Finally, among the handful of Dilmuniteseals found outside the Gulf, one from Ur depicts a scenewith a seated garbed god with a bull and two bull-men(Gadd 1932: no. 14; Mitchell 1986: no. 10; Peyronel 2000:

E

C

F

A B

D


6/19

239

Fig. 2: Dilmun seals with gods. A) al-Sindi 1994: no. 24; B) al-Sindi 1994: no. 57; C) Kjærum 1983: no. 212; D) Kjærum 1983:no. 81; E) Kjærum 1983: no. 274; F) Kjærum 1983: no. 193.

no. 4.14).The divine figure is always depicted en profile with a

horned crown and a sort of pigtail hanging over hisshoulders, dressed in a kaunakes skirt, seated on a ‘throne’(a square plain or hatched seat), involved in some ritual‘acts’ or associated with animals. The god is the main

person-age of the representation and only in two sealsdoes he appear twice (Kjærum 1983: no. 81; al-Sindi 1994:no. 17). Naked male figures, bulls and gazelles, symbolsand standards, and drinking tubes with jars are motifs

that recur with deities.

The god interacts with humans, animals and objects:Relation with humans:

direct/indirect: god with a naked or garbed attendantbehind or before [Figs. 1c-f, 2e-f]12

direct/indirect: god with bull-men as attendants (Pey-ronel 2000: no. 4.14) [Fig. 3a]

direct: god holding/touching a kneeling figure (Pic1990: no. 19)

C

A B

D

E F


7/19

240

Relation with animals:direct: god grasping/touching a gazelle [Fig. 2c-d]13 indirect: god seated on a stool/throne ‘above’ a bull

[Fig. 1d-e]14 Relation with objects:

direct: god drinking through a tube leading to a jar; god

holding a cup [Fig. 1a-f]15

direct: god holding/touching a crescent-standard (Pey-ronel 2000: no. 4.14) [Fig. 3a]

indirect: god seated on a stool/throne16

When we look at the composition as a whole, two differ-ent ‘scenes’ can be recognised in which gods are possiblyinvolved:

A) god drinking with a tube — symposia scene;B) god stressing his powerful supremacy over the

animals — master of animals scene.

Generally speaking, the gods —who are attested on lessthan 5% of Dilmun seals— can be related to specific icono-graphic themes, which do not exclusively belong to thedivine sphere but are also common to what appear to behuman figures. In the first case, seals with a ‘drinkingscene’ —the so-called symposia scene— constitute a rathersubstantial group on Failaka and Bahrain.17 The introduc-tion of this motif probably happened during the end ofthe 3rd millennium B.C., as revealed by some Arabian Gulfand proto-Dilmun seals (Kjærum 1994: 343; al-Sindi 1994:nos. 10-11, 13-15, 26-27 from Saar, Hamad Town andCharnel House). The specimens show pairs of humanfigures drinking through short straws from a common

jar; in the field above the vessel a symbol (crescent, star,schematic footprint, small animal) is usually placed, inthe same way as later Dilmun seals.

The first appearance of figures drinking through astraw from a vessel placed on the ground or on a tablecan be recognised in Mesopotamia during the Early Dy-nastic II, as testified by a gypsum plaque from the InannaTemple VII at Nippur. The general theme of the banquetwas quite popular during the Early Dynastic III and Ak-kadian period, when we find male and female figuresrelated to drinking tubes or holding cups, in a scene‘summarising’ a banquet probably connected to different

ritual or ceremonial occasions (Selz 1983; Pinnock 1994).At the end of the 3rd millennium B.C. such a representa-tion became uncommon and, at the beginning of the 2ndmillennium B.C., it was probably connected only to repre-sentations of sexual intercourse. Terracotta figurines andmoulded clay plaques depict a man and a woman per-forming a sexual act whereby the female figure bendsdown from the waist sometimes drinking from a jarthrough a tube and the naked standing man is shownpenetrating her from behind (cf . Pinnock 1996).18 It isinteresting to underline that these examples of ‘eroticart’ find exact parallels in a very limited amount of stampseals from the Gulf, without doubt directly influenced by

the Old Babylonian clay plaques.19 Contrary to Southern Mesopotamia, the banquet motif

was preserved in the Syrian, Syro-Cappadocian and Ana-tolian glyptics of the Middle Bronze Age. Old Syrian relief

and Mature Old Syrian glyptic usually show a couple ofpersonages holding a cup on both sides of a loaded table,or figures approaching a seated person with a bowl in hishand, relating the banquet to the kingship and possibly tothe funerary ritual of royal ancestors (cf . Matthiae, Pin-nock & Scandone Matthiae 1995: nos. 254, 290-291, 470).

However, several cylinder seals are engraved with per-sons drinking through tubes, witnessing the survival ofthe iconographic theme during the 2nd millennium B.C.(de Graeve 1982: 20-23).20

The presence of drinking scenes on Arabian Gulf typeseals firmly points to a transmission from Mesopotamiaduring the late Akkadian period and suggests an originalelaboration during the first centuries of the 2nd millen-nium B.C. Moreover, the success of the motif in the ma-ture Dilmun glyptic is testified by the theme adopted as awhole (pairs of drinking personages) and, additionally bythe motif matched with other iconographic relationships.The god drinking through a tube seems to be a strong

clue for direct Mesopotamian influence, albeit drinkinggods are quite uncommon in Mesopotamia proper duringthe Akkadian period (de Graeve 1982: 19-20). What iscertainly interesting to note is the similar process ofadaptation which happened in Syria and in the ArabianGulf during the Middle Bronze Age, revealing a common‘cultural’ behaviour.

The iconography of the god as ruler of the animal worldis also very common in the Dilmun repertoire. It is cer-tainly linked to the peculiar role of the bull/gazelle/antelope in the ritual performances and also by thestrong links between other animals and ‘cultic’ symbolsor presumed altars/podia attested on several Dilmunseals but also in Arabian Gulf specimens. Therefore, rela-tionships between different personages and animals are aconstant trait of Dilmun sphragistic, raising the problemof a correct interpretation of these figures: are they hu-mans or gods? This is particularly difficult to establish forthe master of animals scenes, where we can observe verysimilar compositions adopted for horned deities and non-horned figures.

We consider this theme to be a local elaboration re-flecting Dilmunite religious belief, almost totally unre-lated to the contemporary Syro-Mesopotamian spheres.

The roots can be identified in the Mesopotamian andIranian glyptic of the 4th and 3rd millennia B.C. (Amiet1986), but the evolution should be better reconstructedwithin the context of Arabian Gulf cultures. Human fig-ures (naked or with flounced skirts) only frequently ap-pear in the proto-Dilmun and Dilmun seals introducing anew kind of representation, where relations and actionsbecame the focus of what can be now called a scene. Theanimalistic repertoire (elaborated during the previousperiod) now interacts with the human sphere giving birthto several figurative schemes. One of the most popular isthe ‘master of animals’, the conceptual sublimation of hu-man predominance over nature, often translated on a

ritual level. If humans at the high level of the social hier-archy with the ruler in primis answer for the cosmic orderon earth, as in the Mesopotamian world, the two spheresoverlap in the master of animals’ scene, obscuring any


8/19

241

Fig. 3: Dilmun seals with bull-men. A) Peyronel 2000: no. 4.14; B) Kjærum 1983: no. 208; C) Kjærum 1983: no. 121; D) Kjærum 1983:no. 122; E) al-Sindi 1994: no. 254; F) Kjærum 1983: no. 274.

precise distinction. It is equally possible that the hornedgod only represents a deity with a Mesopotamian connec-tion or the main god of the local pantheon. Moreover, wecan think of symbolic representation of deities throughstandards, astral symbols, altars, etc ., which are wide-

spread elements in Dilmunite seals but appear to lack adirect relationship with certain recurrent figures. Amarked difference between Dilmun and Mesopotamia-Syria is in fact the absence of divine attributes which can

help to identify specific gods.21 In this respect it seemsmore probable that Dilmun people prefer to represent‘ritual’ or ‘cultic’ acts through these religious elementsrather than referring to specific deities.

We know from Mesopotamian cuneiform sources the

connection between the land of Dilmun and the god Inzakwith his spouse Meskilak/Ninsikila (Alster 1983; Nashef1984). Inscriptions from Failaka and Bahrain on stampseals, cylinder seals and steatite objects (Nashef 1984;

E F

C D

BA


9/19

242

Glassner 1984) report the names of Enki, Inzak andPA.NI.PA and attest the presence of sacred buildings inDilmun.22 In Nashef’s opinion, Inzak and Ninsikila mightbe considered the Dilmunite identification of the Mesopo-tamian pair Enki and Dagmalnuna, according to a syncre-tism process (Nashef 1984: 6-7). Moreover, Inzak of Dil-

mun (and/or Agarum) should have been worshipped asthe god of the date-palm23 and, consequently, the sche-matic plant as well as the more realistic date-palm at-tested on stamp seals should be regarded as Inzak’s sym-bols. However when we turn to the glyptic evidence, outof more than a hundred examples that depict schematicvegetable elements only two seals show a direct relationbetween gods and plants [Fig. 2e-f]:24 the first shows adeity and a garbed figure each holding a branch in theirraised hands (Kjærum 1983: no. 193), the second has aseated deity stretching out his arms towards a nakedattendant holding a branch (Kjærum 1983: no. 274).25

Finally, it is interesting to point out that the only seal

which attests a relation between bull-men and gods wasfound at Ur: the scene represents a garbed deity wearinga horned tiara, who is seated on a hatched stool appar-ently placed on the back of a bull, between two bull-men.Each of these holds a crescent standard, while one is alsograsped by the god. Relationships between bull-man/god, bull-man/crescent-standard, and god/crescent-stan-dard never occur on Failaka and Bahrain, pointing to astronger link for this seal with Mesopotamia: we aretempted to identify the owner as an alik Tilmun, whomarked his seafaring commercial activity with an objectthat recalls specific Mesopotamian iconography.

Bull-men occur in 31 Dilmun seals, of which 26 comefrom Failaka, only 4 from Bahrain and one from Ur asmentioned above.26 Single figures are attested on tenseals, couples on 21 seals. Generally speaking, depictionsof the bull-man occur from the Early Dynastic II onwards,with a human torso, bull’s legs and tail, human face withbull’s ears and horns (in profile or full-face), sometimesithyphallic (cf . Black & Green 1992: 48-49). However, theDilmunite bull-man is always represented in profile, ap-parently beardless with horns that resemble those of thegod’s crown. Kjærum has pointed out the existence of twodifferent styles of execution, reflecting a chronological

evolution: the stamp seals found in the lower levels atFailaka (style IA) bear taller figures with a peculiar ‘sack-like’ body, while seals related to style IB show more linearfigures with slender bodies (Kjærum 1980: 46).

The bull-man interacts with humans, animals and objects:

Relationship with humans:direct: bull-man grasping/touching a naked male figure

(Beyer 1986: no. 170)direct: bull-man grasped/touched by a naked male fig-

ure (Kjærum 1983: no. 208) [Fig. 3b]

Relationship with animals:direct: bull-man grasping an animal [Figs. 3b-f, 4a, c-d]27 indirect: bull-man standing ‘above’ an animal [Figs. 3d,

5c-d]28

Relationship with objects:direct: bull-man holding/touching a ‘ritual’ object or a

branch [Figs. 3a, 4b, f, 5a-f]29 indirect: bull-man standing on a hatched podium (Kjæ-

rum 1983: no. 93) [Fig. 4a]

When we look at the composition as a whole we candistinguish three main groups of ‘scenes’:

a) a pair of bull-men or a single bull-man with ahuman figure placed on both sides of ‘ritual’ ele-ments (standards, schematic gates, offering ta-bles, podia) or animals — simple worshipping scene30

b) bull-men related to ‘ritual’ elements or animalstogether with other figures involved in differentrelationships — complex worshipping scene31

c) bull-man as centre of the representation —worshipped (?) bull-man’s scene32

It seems that bull-men participate quite exclusively in‘ritual’ scenes, not only because of their own ‘religious’connotations but also because they always occur togetherwith peculiar cultic equipment. The relationship betweenbull-men and superimposed bulls or bull and gazelle(Kjærum 1983: nos. 247-249) [Fig. 4c-d] again suggests thecomplex pattern of ideological meanings which hidesbehind the animal repertoire in Dilmun stamp seals.33

Two crossed bull-men with raised hands stand across anet podium on a unique seal from Failaka (Kjærum 1983:no. 261) [Fig. 4e], according to a figurative scheme espe-cially known for antelopes and gazelles (Kjærum 1983:nos. 256-260; al-Sindi 1994: nos. 195-197) and possiblyrelated to the Syro-Anatolian milieu where crossed fig-ures (also bull-men) are quite common (cf . Özgüç 1991:Fig. 31; Teissier 1994: nos. 157-165, 312, 341, 387-389).

Another meaningful seal is engraved with a schematicshrine or door with symbols inside (hatched podium, sun-ring, hatched lentoid, net podium), flanked by a bull-manand a garbed man grasping the door-frame (Kjærum 1983:no. 51) [Fig. 4f]. Rectangular structures appear on 9 seals(Kjærum 1983: nos. 51-54, 126; al-Sindi 1994: nos. 202-203,

205, 263): they have symbols or human figures within andthey can be considered schematic gates or chapels/shrines, without doubt linked with peculiar ritual func-tions, as revealed also by astral symbols, mythologicalfigures (serpent monsters or bull-men) and worshipperson their sides.34 In Mesopotamia we find a winged ‘shrine’placed on the back of a bull during the Old Akkadian pe-riod (Boehmer 1965: 105-109, nos. 589-619) and a repre-sentation of a ‘gate’ with heroes, bull-men or deities asguardians, through which the sun-god Shamash emergesat his rising from the mountains (van Buren 1947; Boeh-mer 1965: nos. 392-428). An original elaboration of thefirst theme can be recognised in the Old Syrian culture,

where it occurs, sometimes winged and/or placed onbulls, together with the nude goddess flanked by bull-men (cf . Amiet 1960: 224-227; Matthiae 1987: 476-480).35 Therefore we can argue for a transmission of the sacred


10/19

243

F ig. 4: Dilmun seals with bull-men. A) Kjærum 1983: no. 93; B) Kjærum 1983: no. 70; C) Kjærum 1983: no. 248; D) Kjærum1983: no. 249; E) Kjærum 1983: no. 261; F) Kjærum 1983: no. 51.

‘gate’ or ‘chapel’ from Mesopotamia from the Akkadianperiod onwards, although we cannot exclude a link withthe Old Syrian milieu.

The balanced presence of divine figures on seals fromFailaka and Bahrain cannot be matched with that of the

bull-man. Only four seals from Bahrain attest the knowl-edge of this iconography in the Dilmunite heartland,whereas only a few examples were found at Failaka F3and F6. This difference might be ascribed to a later

transmission of the motif from the Syro-Mesopotamianregions, albeit we cannot also exclude a socio-economicreason which may link a specific group of Dilmunitesresiding at Failaka with the bull-man’s iconography. Sincethe foundation levels at Failaka roughly correspond toQala’at IIb-c, we can conclude that the first appearance of

the motif in Dilmun dates at the latest from the middleIsin-Larsa period, at the end of the 20th century B.C. Inthis case the Failaka settlement should be contemporaryto late Qala’at IIb (cf . Højlund 1987: 157-158, fig. 707).

A B

C D

FE


11/19

244

Fig. 5: Dilmun seals with bull-men. A) al-Sindi 1994: no. 115; B) al-Sindi 1994: no. 116; C) al-Sindi 1994: no. 117; D) Kjærum 1983:no. 115; E) Kjærum 1983: no. 116; F) Kjærum 1983: no. 141.

However it is equally reasonable to argue that the iconog-raphy was first introduced at Failaka and never became afigurative theme of the Bahrain seals, except for a fewspecimens (apparently three of style IA and one of styleIB). It is certainly adopted at Failaka on ‘mature’ Dilmunseals during periods 2 and 3, until the beginning of Kas-

site period, and occurs also on style II seals.36

Bull-men are attested in Mesopotamian glyptic fromthe Early Dynastic II onwards (Karg 1984: 42-44). Theiconographic elaboration probably happened at the end

of the 4th or at the beginning of the 3rd millennium B.C.in the Iranian milieu, where stamp and cylinder sealsshow hybrid creatures with mixed human and animalfeatures since the prehistoric periods (cf . Amiet 1972: nos.219-220, 1013-1017; 1986: 16-30).

Bull-men were represented during the Early Dynastic

period only in contest scenes together with rampantanimals, the naked hero and the human-headed bull. Alenghty discussion on these figures has involved NearEastern scholars, some proposing to identify Enkidu and

C

E

B

F

D

A


12/19

245

Gilgamesh with the bull-man and the hero with long hairwith curls (cf . Afanesyeva 1971), others preferring torecognise in these figures different aspects of the godDumuzi (Moortgat 1949). More recently a simplistic cor-relation between Early Dynastic supernatural beings andthose known from mythological tales was submitted to a

strong criticism (Lambert 1987), despite the unequivocalconnection with the religious sphere.37 It is now widelyaccepted that the ‘nude hero’ must be considered a pro-tective and beneficent deity, in later periods associatedwith Enki (Akkadian period) or Marduk (from the 2ndmillennium B.C.), known by the name Lahmu (Black &Green 1992: 115).

During the Akkadian period bull-men occur again incontest scenes, albeit some rare cylinders show the figurein relation to the sun-god Utu/Shamash (Collon 1987: no.765; Amiet 1980: 39; Matthiae 1987: 481-482). A new elabo-ration of iconographic features and scenes in which bull-men were involved can be placed at the end of the 3rd

millennium B.C., during the Ur III and Isin-Larsa periods.A ‘true’ horned tiara became the bull-man’s headdressand the figure is now shown also grasping standards,gate-posts, spears and carrying animal offerings.38

In the Syro-Anatolian regions, bull-men are frequentlydepicted involved in ‘ritual’ scenes, often as standard-bearers, suggesting a more striking connection with theArabian Gulf evidence (Özgüç 1965: 70-71; 1991: 308-309).The corpus of seal impressions from Kültepe karum II (ca.1920-1850 B.C.) verifies the occurrence in the Anatolian,Syro-Cappadocian, Old Syrian, and Old Assyrian styles(Özgüç 1965; 1989; Leinwand 1992; Teissier 1994). Thefigure appears in the Old Babylonian group only in con-test scenes and in the Old Assyrian group as a terminalelement in introduction or supplication scenes, some-times grasping a spear, or with both hands joined at thewaist.39 A unique occurrence is a seal with a row ofbearded bull-men in full-face holding a kind of crescentstandard, apparently linked to the Assyrian style (Teissier1994: no. 148). In the Anatolian group we quite frequentlysee bull-men (single or pairs) as standard-bearers, hold-ing a flowing vase, struggling with animals, or carrying abull.40 It is striking that the bull-man was adopted duringthe Old Anatolian period also in the local stamp seals, sofar known especially from Kültepe, Karahöyük, Acem-

höyük, Boghazköy and Alishar (Alp 1968; Özgüç 1980; vonder Osten 1937: 210-229; Boehmer & Güterbock 1987: 19-56).41 The quite heterogeneous Syro-Cappadocian (SyrianColony) group often shows bull-men in different atti-tudes, pointing to the importance of the motif in the OldSyrian milieu (Pinnock 2000: 1402). They usually holdstandards or spears, although they can also be placed oneach sides of the nude goddess who is unveiling herself.42 Finally, this mythological being occurs in the mature OldSyrian glyptic from North Syrian workshops, mainly con-nected to the royal style of the Yamkhad-kingdom datingto the 18th century B.C.43 Moreover, the bull-man appearsalso in Old Syrian sculpture and relief, as testified by

Ishtar’s stele, and is carved on basins and ritual basesfrom Tell Mardikh-Ebla dating from the Middle Bronze I-IIA (ca. 2000-1700 B.C). The bas-reliefs show bull-men infull-face as apotropaic figures and, in the case of the stele

from Sanctuary G3, as guardians of Ishtar’s winged shrineplaced on a bull (see Matthiae 1989: Pls. 121, 134-135;Matthiae, Pinnock & Scandone Matthiae 1995: nos. 291,236, 238).

Summing up, the bull-man’s role in Dilmun seals seems

to be mainly ‘ritual’ or ‘cultic’. He was related to sacredparaphernalia such as standards, podia and altars, or toanimals with a ‘symbolic’ meaning such as the snake.Moreover, he has a weaker ‘direct’ relationship with hu-man figures. The main subjects of seals with bull-men arethe worshipped ‘symbols’ or animals. A similar icono-graphic adaptation is never attested in Mesopotamia andinfrequently in Syro-Anatolian regions; in the latter areawe find bull-men with standards, albeit often as ‘secon-dary’ elements in ceremonial scenes with enthroneddeities or kings. Generally speaking, it seems that there isa probable link with the Syro-Cappadocian evidence,which points out to a common ‘cultural’ sensibility to-

wards specific artistic expression, rejecting the contestscene’s use in favour of ‘new’ religious functions. Accord-ing to the distribution of seals with bull-men, we haveseen that this theme was adopted, probably later in Dil-mun, with respect to the iconography of gods and drink-ing figures.

The offering table with bull hooves

We would like to conclude this brief contribution with adiscussion on what is certainly the most striking similar-ity between Dilmunite and Syro-Cappadocian glyptic. In asmall group of stamp seals from Failaka a peculiar offer-ing table with curved legs and bull’s hooves is visible(Kjærum 1983: nos. 163-168; Pic 1990: nos. 12-13?). All thespecimens come from Failaka, where the motif is alsoattested in one seal of style II (Kjærum 1983: no. 43),probably dating from the Old Babylonian period.

The table is formed by a slightly concave top, a centralstraight column, in one case moulded (Pic 1990: no. 12),and two legs with terminal bull hooves. Different kinds ofsymbols or objects are apparently placed on the table,and seated/standing garbed/naked figures or bull-menappear at its sides.

Relationship with humans:direct: table grasped/touched by bull-men or humans(Kjærum 1983: no. 166; Pic 1990: no. 12) [Fig. 6c]

Relationship with animals:direct: table grasped/touched by monkeys (Kjærum

1983: no. 168) [Fig. 6e]Relationship with objects:

direct/indirect: symbols/objects apparently placed onthe table [Fig. 6a-e]44

direct/indirect: table apparently placed on a ‘podium’(Kjærum 1983: nos. 163, 166) [Fig. 6a, c]

The overall representation often includes other symbols

and animals (monkey, snake, plant, star and crescent, netpodium), suggesting a ‘ritual’ character of the main scene,centred around the offering table. The figurative schemewith two bull-men or seated men flanking the table is


13/19

246

Fig. 6: Dilmun seals with offering tables. A) Kjærum 1983: no. 163; B)Kjærum 1983: no. 165; C) Kjærum 1983: no. 166; D) Kjærum 1983:no. 167; E) Kjærum 1983: no. 168.

certainly linked with ceremonial activity in which thefurniture fulfils a specific, pivotal role. We can distinguishbetween a ceremonial banquet with loaded tables, whenthe human figures hold cups, and a worship scene, whenthe figures ‘touch’ the table or raise arms toward it.

Moreover, a seal from F3 (Kjærum 1983: no. 169) shows

a naked standing man holding a table with the sameshape of the offering tables but with human legs, repeat-ing a figurative composition identical to the erotic scenes:it is a meaningful example of ritual elements combinedtogether revealing a complex local ideology, often diffi-cult to understand on the basis of the iconographic evi-dence.

As correctly pointed out by Kjærum (1986: 272) thistable resembles furniture which is very common in Syro-Anatolian regions during the Middle Bronze Age, andknown especially from cylinder seals but also from ivoryobjects, bas-reliefs and sculptures.45

The bottom of a basalt offering table was recently

found at Tell Mardikh-Ebla, reused as a well-curb nearthe Temple P2 in the Sacred Ishtar Area (Matthiae 1994:173-177, Figs. 3-4). It has established without doubt theexistence of cultic furniture in temples of the Old Syrianperiod and the tripod shape of the equipment. The samefurniture occurs on many cylinder seals in Syrian, Syro-Cappadocian and Anatolian styles,46 whereas it is virtuallyunknown from contemporary Mesopotamian glyptic.47 Itmust, therefore, belong to the Syrian milieu where it wasused in ceremonial activities involving banquets andcultic libations. Several variants can be recognised fromthe glyptic evidence (Matthiae 1994: 175-176): the basicshape has a plain top, a central column diverging into twolegs with bull’s hooves, and lateral supports connectingthe legs with the top. The Eblaite basalt table demon-strates that the furniture may also have a solid base,which is lacking in the more schematic seal’s representa-tion.

The existence of similar tables in Dilmunite stamp sealstestifies to a direct link to the Syrian region, albeit theiconography is different in the concave top and the lackof lateral supports. They are more similar to the motifknown from ‘classic’ Old Syrian cylinder seals (ca. 1850-1720 B.C.),48 although it does not necessarily mean a‘later’ transmission. It seems more probable that in the

Gulf area an autonomous elaboration occurred during the19th-18th centuries B.C., which could have been parallelto that of the Syrian milieu where this kind of offeringtable disappears at the end of the 18th century B.C.

Dilmunite seal designs with offering tables might tes-tify not only to the iconographic knowledge but also to acirculation of that type of ceremonial furnishing betweenWestern Syria and Arabian Gulf, i.e. as real imports. Froman artistic point of view the land of Dilmun again showsthe trend to assimilate themes and figurative motifs per-taining to the ‘Amorite’ Western and Northern Syrianmilieu dating from the very beginning of the 2nd millen-nium till the end of the 17th century B.C.

Concluding Remarks

It seems that iconographic relationships with Syria and

A

C

D

B

E


14/19


15/19


16/19

249

‘shrine’, surmounted by a sun-crescent and flankedby horned dragons and garbed seated figures. Thispeculiar ‘religious’ scene could suggest a divine char-acter of the personage inside the ‘temple-niche’ and,therefore, a link between a Dilmunite god and theschematic plant.

25.

It is possible that one of Inzak’s symbols could havebeen a date-palm branch, but there is no sure proofof this sense. The only piece of evidence is the so-called Durand stone from Bahrain engraved with theinscription ‘palace of Rimum, servant of Inzak of Aga-rum’ close to a incised schematic branch (Butz 1983).Nashef’s claim of a seal with a legend bearing a dedi-cation to Enki together with a date-palm branch(Kjærum 1983: no. 350) was rejected by J-J. Glassner,who read the cuneiform signs a-na dPA-NI-PA (Nashef1984: no. 16, contra Glassner 1984: no. 5).

26. Failaka: Kjærum 1983: nos. 51, 70, 93, 115-119, 121-122, 133, 141-142, 166-167, 208, 247-249, 261, 273, 276,

282; Beyer 1986: nos. 170, 173; Pic 1990: no. 14; Bah-rain: al-Sindi 1994: nos. 115-117, 254; Ur : Peyronel2000: no. 4.14.

27. Gazelle: Kjærum 1983: nos. 121, 276; bull: Kjærum 1983:no. 249; al-Sindi 1994: no. 254; bucranium: Kjærum1983: no. 93; snake: Kjærum 1983: no. 122; Beyer 1986:no. 173; composite animal: Kjærum 1983: no. 273.

28. Antelope: Kjærum 1983: no. 261; al-Sindi 1994: no. 116;bull: Kjærum 1983: nos. 115, 122.

29. Hatched podium: Kjærum 1983: nos. 70, 248; gate with symbols: Kjærum 1983: no. 51; standards: Kjærum 1983:nos. 115-118, 141; Beyer 1986: no. 170; Pic 1990: no. 14;al-Sindi 1994: nos. 115-117; offering table: Kjærum1983: no. 166; branch: Kjærum 1983: nos. 142, 167.

30. Kjærum 1983: nos. 51, 115-119, 121-122, 141-142, 166,167, 273, 276; Beyer 1986: no. 170; Pic 1990: no. 14; al-Sindi 1994: nos. 115-117.

31. Kjærum 1983: nos. 70, 133, 247-249, Beyer 1986: no.173; Peyronel 2000: no. 4.14; al-Sindi 1994: no. 254.

32. Kjærum 1983: nos. 93, 208, 261.33. Several elements underline this ritual function: ani-

mals placed on altars/podia or at each sides of stan-dards, animals touched/grasped by gods, animalssurmounted by astral symbols. Moreover, the bucra-nium, which occur on more than 30 seals (Kjærum

1983: nos. 13, 68-69, 72, 75, 86, 93, 117, 150, 154, 174,176, 184, 206, 258, 296), has certainly a symbolic valuelinked with local cult (Kjærum 1986: 273). The motifhas no parallel in Mesopotamian glyptic and resem-bles only in a general way the bull-heads from Cappa-docian and Old Syrian glyptic (cf . Otto 2000: 264).

34. Kjærum (1994: 333-334) considers the shield-likeobject (visible on more than 50 stamp seals fromFailaka and Bahrain) as a symbol of the schematic sa-cred gate: this assumption is based on two sealswhere it is represented on both sides of a standinggarbed man or placed standing on an element of thesame shape (Kjærum 1983: nos. 66-67). Other scholars

maintain the shield-hypothesis (Hallo & Buchanan1965: 205, n. 16; Porada 1971: 337; Beyer 1989: 147,150), especially in the case of objects which are tallerand plain (called by Kjærum ‘notched podia’; cf . Kjæ-

rum 1983: nos. 75-76; al-Sindi 1994: nos. 209-210). Inour opinion the earlier glyptic material from Bahrainseems to confirm the latter claim, although it is quitereasonable to consider the object as ritual/ceremo-nial equipment released from any war-like connota-tion.

35.

Another god which appears inside a sacred structureis Enki/Ea, identified by streams of water around hisshrine or enthroned and flanked by nude heroesholding gate-posts (Boehmer 1965: nos. 488-489, 500-501, 518-520, 522-523; Barrelet 1970). Since Enki’s cultmight be attested to in Dilmun, we cannot exclude aconnection between the deity of the Abzu and thepresumed shrines of stamp seals.

36. Kjærum 1983: nos. 43, 44, 120, 143-144, 304, 307; Pic1990: no. 21. Finally, an Old Babylonian cylinder sealwith a contest scene formed by three pair of figures,among which is a bull-man fighting against a ramp-ant lion, represents ‘direct’ evidence for the trans-

mission of the iconography to the land of Dilmun(Kjærum 1983: no. 374).

37. See the still enlightening discussion on the problemin Frankfort 1939: 62-67.

38. See i.e. Porada 1947: nos. 370, 384, 421; Collon 1986:41, nos. 21, 89, 144, 152, 155, 379, 460. For similar sub-

jects on terracotta plaques cf. Opificius 1961: nos. 402-420.

39. Cf . Teissier 1994: nos. 136-139, 145-147, 156, 190 (OldAssyrian), 586, 615, 632, 636-639, 641, 643 (Old Baby-lonian).

40. Cf . Özgüç 1965: Pls. I.1, II.7, XV.46, XIX.56, XX.61,XXI.63, XXVI.78; Teissier 1994: nos. 330-331, 335, 342,349.

41. Cf . in particular von der Osten 1937: Fig. 250.d745(Alishar); Özgüç 1980: 75, Fig. III.41 (Acemhöyük).

42. Cf . Teissier 1994: nos. 467, 478-481, 496-500, 502-503,508, 525, 529b, 531, 541-542, 546-547, 550, 551-554,564-566.

43. See i.e. Collon 1981: nos. 12-13, 21; Buchanan 1981:nos. 1202, 1239; Teissier 1984: no. 543.

44. Simple dots: Kjærum 1983: no. 163; flat breads and fish:Kjærum no. 165; bird: Kjærum no. 166; astral symbols:Kjærum nos. 167, 169; low hatched podium?: Pic 1990:no. 12.

45.

The evidence from carved reliefs includes two stelae from Hama and Furayjah (Pinnock 1992: 110-112),two ritual basins from temples B1 and D at Ebla (Mat-thiae, Pinnock & Scandone Matthiae 1995: nos. 290-291), and the so-called ivory talisman from the“Tomb of the Lord of the Goats” at Ebla (Matthiae,Pinnock, Scandone Matthiae 1995: no. 470).

46. Cf. Teissier 1984: nos. 350-353, 359, 361 (Archaic OldSyrian), 400, 416, 417, 418, 427 (Syro-Cappadocian),459, 462, 464 (Mature Old Syrian); 1994: nos. 96, 192,209, 219, 241, 269 (Old Assyrian group), 290, 291, 305,320-322, 328, 331, 336, 347-348 (Anatolian), 466, 491,515, 518, 541, 551 (Syro-Cappadocian), 586, 593-594,

626 (Babylonian Provincial).47. Kjærum (1986: 272, n. 27) has pointed out a unique

tablet in the Yale Babylonian Collection with a sealimpression belonging to Akalla, ensi of Umma under


17/19

250

the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur (Buchanan 1981: no. 652).We can add one Elamite sealing from the same collec-tion (Buchanan 1981: no. 1093A) and three post-Akkadian/Ur III seals from the British Museum (Col-lon 1982: nos. 299, 415, 428).

48. Cf . Otto 2000: 265 and for some examples Porada 1948:

nos. 913, 915, 944; Buchanan 1966: no. 856; Teissier1984: nos. 459, 464.

References

Afanasyeva, V.K. 1971. Gilgameš and Enkidu in Glyptic Art and inthe Epic. Klio 53: 60-75.

Alp, S. 1968. Zylinder und Stempelsiegel aus Karahöyük bei Konya.Ankara.

Alster, B. 1983. Dilmun, Bahrain and the Alleged Paradise inSumerian Myth and Literature. Pp. 39-74 in D.T. Potts (ed)Dilmun. New Studies in the Archaeology and Early History of Bah-rain. (BBVO 2). Berlin.

Amiet, P. 1960. Notes sur le répertoire iconographique de Mari à

l’époque du palais. Syria 37: 215-232.———. 1972. Glyptique Susienne. Des origines à l’époque des Perses

Achéménides. (MDAI 43). Paris.———. 1980. The Mythological Repertoire in Cylinder Seals of

the Agade Period. Pp. 35-60 in E. Porada (ed) Ancient Art inSeals. Princeton.

———. 1986. Le problème de l’iconographie divine en Mésopota-mie dans la glyptique antérieure à l’époque d’Agadé. Contributie Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 1: 1-66.

Barrelet, M.T. 1954. Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopo-tamie antique. Paris.

———. 1970. Etude de glyptique akkadienne. L’imagination figu-rative et le cycle d’Ea. Orientalia 39: 213-251.

Beyer, D. 1986. Les sceaux. Pp. 89-103 in Y. Calvet & J.-F. Salles

(eds) Failaka. Fouilles Françaises 1984-1985. (TMO 12). Lyon.———. 1989. The Bahrein Seals (Early Dilmun Period to Tylos

Period). Pp. 135-166 in P. Lombard & M. Kervran (eds) NationalMuseum Archaeological Collections. Vol. 1: A Selection of Pre-Islamic

Antiquities from the Excavations 1954-1975. Manama.Bibby, T.G. 1957. The Hundred-Metre Section. Kuml 1957 : 128-163.———. 1958. The “Ancient Indian Style” Seals from Bahrain.

Antiquity 32: 243-244.Boehmer, R.M. 1965. Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Ak-

kad-Zeit . (UAVA 4). Berlin.———. 1986. Einflüsse der Golfglyptik auf die Anatolische Stem-

pelglyptik zur Zeit der Assyrischen Handelniederlassungen.Bagdhader Mitteilungen 17: 292-298.

Boehmer, R.M. & H. Güterbock. 1987. Die Glyptik von Bö ğazköy. Vol.

2: Die Glyptik aus dem Stadtgebiet von Bo ğazköy 1931-1939, 1952-1978. Berlin.Braun-Holzinger, E.A. 1996. Altbabylonischen Götter und ihre

Symbole ‒ Benennung mit Hilfe der Siegellegenden. BaghdaderMitteilungen 27: 235-362.

Brunswig, R.H., S. Parpola & A. Parpola. 1977. The MeluḫḫaVillage: Evidence of Acculturation of Harappan Traders inLate Third Millennium Mesopotamia? Journal of Economic andSocial History of the Orient XX: 129-165.

Buchanan, B. 1966. Catalogue of the Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Vol. I: Cylinder Seals. Oxford.

———. 1967. A Dated Seal Impression Connecting Babylonia andAncient India. Archaeology 20: 104-107.

———. 1981. Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collec-tion. New Haven.

van Buren, E.D. 1947. The Guardians of the Gate in the AkkadianPeriod. Orientalia 16: 312-332.

Butz, K. 1983. Zwei kleine Inschriften zur Geschichte Dilmuns.Pp. 117-126 in D.T. Potts (ed) Dilmun. New Studies in the Archae-

ology and Early History of Bahrain. (BBVO 2). Berlin.Collon, D. 1981. The Aleppo Workshop. Ugarit-Forschungen 13: 33-

43.———. 1982. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British

Museum. Cylinder Seals II: Akkad, Post-Akkadian and Ur III Periods.London.

———. 1986. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British

Museum. Cylinder Seals III: Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods .London.

———. 1987. First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East .London.

Crawford, H. & R. Matthews. 1995. Seals and Sealings: Fragmentsof Art and Administration. Pp. 47-58 in H. Crawford, R. Killick& J. Moon (eds) The Dilmun Temple at Saar. Bahrain and its Ar-chaeological Inheritance. London.

Crawford, H. & M. Woodburn. 1994. London-Bahrain Archaeo-logical Expedition: 1991-2 Excavations at Saar. Arabian Archae-ology and Epigraphy 5: 89-105.

Denton, B.E. 1994. Pottery, Cylinder Seals, and Stone Vesselsfrom the Cemeteries of al-Hajjar, al-Maqsha and HamadTown. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5: 121-151.

———. 1997. ‘Style III’ Seals from Bahrain. Arabian Archaeologyand Epigraphy 8: 174-189.———. 1999. More Pottery, Seals and a ‘face-pendant’ from

Cemeteries on Bahrain. Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 10:134-160.

During Caspers, E.C.L. 1971. New Archaeological Evidence forMaritime Trade in the Persian Gulf during the Late Proto-literate Period. East and West 21: 21-44.

———. 1972. Harappan Trade in the Arabian Gulf in the ThirdMill. B.C. Mesopotamia VII: 167-191.

———. 1979. Sumer, Coastal Arabia and the Indus Valley in theProtoliterate and Early Dynastic Eras. Journal of Economic andSocial History of the Orient XXII: 121-135.

———. 1982. Sumerian Trade and Businessmen Residing in the

Indus Valley Cities: A Critical Assessment of the Archaeologi-cal Evidence. Annali d’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli 42:337-380.

Erlenmeyer, H. & M.-L. Erlenmeyer. 1966. Über Beziehungen desAlten Orients zu den Frühindischen Stadtkulturen. Archiv fürOrientforschung 21: 21-31.

Eidem, J. & F. Højlund. 1993. Trade or Diplomacy? Assyria andDilmun in the Eighteenth Century B.C. World Archaeology 24:441-448.

Franke, J.A. 1977. Presentation Seals of the Ur III/Isin-LarsaPeriod. Pp. 15-23 in R.D. Biggs & McG. Gibson (eds) Seals andSealing in the Ancient Near East . (BiMes 7). Malibu.

Gadd, C.J. 1932. Seals of Ancient Indian Style Found at Ur. Pro-ceedings of the British Academy XVIII: 191-210.

Gasche, H., J.A. Armstrong, S. Cole & V. Gurzadyan. 1998. Datingthe Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology.(MHEM 4). Ghent & Chicago.

Glassner, J-J. 1984. Inscriptions cunéiformes de Failaka. Pp. 31-50in J.-F. Salles (ed) Failaka. Fouilles Françaises 1983. (TMO 9). Lyon.

———. 1996. Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha: Some Observations onLanguage, Toponymy, Anthroponymy and Theonymy. Pp.235-248 in J. Reade (ed) The Indian Ocean in Antiquity. London.

Glob, P.V. 1954. Bahrain, Island of the Hundred Thousand BurialMounds. Kuml 1954: 92-105.

———. 1959. Archaeological Investigations in Four Arab States.Kuml 1959: 238-239.

de Graeve, M.-C. 1982. A Drinking Scene on a Late Akkadian Seal.Pp. 17-24 in J. Quaegebeur (ed) Studia Paulo Naster Oblata II: Ori-entalia Antiqua. (OLA 13). Leuven.

Groneberg, B. 1992. Mari et le Golfe Arabico-Persique. Pp. 69-80in J.-M. Durand (ed) Florilegium Marianum. Recueil d’études enl'honneur de Michel Fleury. (Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 1). Paris.

Hallo, W.W. & B. Buchanan. 1965. A “Persian Gulf” Seal on an Old


18/19

251

Babylonian Mercantile Agreement. Pp. 199-209 in H.G. Güter-bock & T. Jacobsen (eds) Studies in Honor of Benno Landsbergeron his Seventy-Fifth Birthday April 21, 1965. (AS 16). Chicago.

Haussperger, M. 1991. Die Einführungsszene. Entwicklung einesmesopotamischen Motivs von der altakkadischen bis zum Ende deraltbabylonischen Zeit. (Münschener Vorderasiatische StudienXI). Munich & Vienna.

Højlund, F. 1987. Failaka/Dilmun: the Second Millenium Settlements.Vol. 2: The Bronze Age Pottery. (JASP XXVII:2). Munskgaard.

———. 1989a. The Formation of the Dilmun State and the Amo-rite Tribes. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 19: 45-64.

———. 1989b. Some New Evidence of Harappan Influence in theArabian Gulf. Pp. 49-53 in K. Frifelt & P. Sørensen (eds) South

Asian Archaeology 1985. (SIAS OP 4). London.———. 1992. Holy Architecture in Bronze Age Bahrain. Dilmun 15:

73-79.———. 1993. The Ethnic Composition of the Population of Dil-

mun. Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 23: 45-53.Højlund, F. & H.H. Andersen (eds). 1994. Qala’at al-Bahrain. Vol. 1:

The Northern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress . (JASP XXX:1).

Munskgaard. Jansen, M. 1993. Pre-, Proto-, Early-, Mature-, Urban-, Late-,Post-Harappan: Linearity, Multi-Linearity: “Babylonian Lan-guage Confusion” or Ideological Dispute? Pp. 135-148 in A.J.Gail & G.J.R. Mevissen (eds) South Asian Archaeology 1991. Stutt-gart.

Karg, N. 1984. Untersuchungen zur älteren frühdynastichen GlyptikBabyloniens. Mainz.

Kenoyer, J.M. 1991. The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan andWestern India. Journal of World Prehistory 5: 331-385.

Kjærum, P. 1980. Seals of “Dilmun-Type” from Failaka, Kuwait.Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 10: 45-54.

———. 1983. Failaka/Dilmun. The Second Millennium Settlements. Vol.1: The Stamp and Cylinder Seals. (JASP XXVII:1). Munskgaard.

———. 1986. The Dilmun Seals as Evidence of Long-DistanceRelations in the Early Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 269-277 inShaikha H.A. Al-Khalifa & M. Rice (eds) Bahrain through the

Ages: The Archaeology. London.———. 1994. Stamp-seals. Pp. 319-350 in F. Højlund & H.H. An-

dersen (eds) Qala’at al-Bahrain. Vol. 1: The Northern City Wall andthe Islamic Fortress. (JASP XXX:1). Munskgaard.

van Koppen, F. 1997. L’expédition à Tilmun et la révolte desbédouins. M.A.R.I . 8: 417-429.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1988. The ‘Intercultural Style’ CarvedVessels. Iranica Antiqua 23: 45-73.

Lambert, W.G. 1987. Gilgamesh in Literature and Art: The Sec-ond and First Millennia. Pp. 37-52 in A.E. Farkas (ed) Monstersand Demons in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds. Papers Presentedin Honor of Edith Porada. Mainz am Rhein.

———. 1997. Sumerian Gods: Combining the Evidence of Textsand Art. Pp. 1-10 in I.L. Finkel & M.J. Geller (eds) Sumerian Godsand their Representations. (Cuneiform Monographs, 7). Gronin-gen.

Leemans, W.F. 1960. Foreign Trade in Old-Babylonian Period. Leiden.———. 1968. Old Babylonian Letters and Economic History. Jour-

nal for the Economic and Social History of the Orient XI: 171-226.Leinwand, N. 1992. Regional Characteristics in the Styles and

Iconography of the Seal Impressions of Liv. II at Kultepe. Jour-nal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society XXI: 141-172.

Matthiae, P. 1987. Una stele paleosiriana arcaica da Ebla e lacultura figurativa della Siria attorno al 1800 a.C. Sienzedell’Antichità 1: 447-495.

———. 1989. Ebla. Un impero ritrovato. Dai primi scavi alle ultime

scoperte. Turin.———. 1994. Old Syrian Basalt Furniture from Ebla Palaces and

Temples. Pp. 167-177 in P. Calmeyer, K. Hecker, L. Jakob-Rost& C.B.F. Walker (eds) Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archäologieund Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda zum 65. Geburt-

stag. Wiesbaden.Matthiae, P., F. Pinnock & G. Scandone Matthiae (eds) 1995. Ebla.

Alle origini della civiltà urbana. Trenta anni di scavi in Siriadell’Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’ . Milan.

Moortgat, A. 1940. Tammuz: der Unsterblichkeitsglaube in der altori-entalischen Bildkunst . Berlin.

Nashef, K. 1984. The Deities of Dilmun. Akkadica 38: 1-33.

Opificius, R. 1961. Das altbabylonische Terrakottarelief . (UAVA 2).Berlin.

Oppenheim, A.L. 1954. The Seafaring Merchants of Ur. Journal ofthe American Oriental Society 74: 6-17.

von der Osten, H.H. 1937. The Alishar Hüyük. Season of 1930-32. PartIII . (OIP 28) Chicago.

Otto, A. 2000. Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Klassisch-SyrischeGlyptik. (UAVA 8). Berlin & New York.

Özgüç, N. 1965. The Anatolian Group of Cylinder Impressions fromKültepe. (Türk Tarıh Kurumu, Series V/22). Ankara.

———. 1968. Seal and Seal Impressions of Level Ib from Karum Kanish (Türk Tarıh Kurumu, Series V/25). Ankara.

———. 1980. Seal Impressions from the Palaces at Acemhöyük.Pp. 61-100 in E. Porada (ed) Ancient Art and Seals. Princeton.

———. 1991. The Composite Creatures in Anatolian Art Duringthe Period of Assyrian Trading Colonies. Pp. 293-317 in M.Mori, H. Ogawa & M. Yoshikawa (eds) Near Eastern Studies Dedi-cated to H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa on the Occasion of His Sev-enty-Fifth Birthday. Wiesbaden.

Parpola, A. 1994. Harappan Inscriptions. Pp. 304-315 in F.Højlund & H.H. Andersen (eds) Qala’at al-Bahrain. Vol. 1: TheNorthern City Wall and the Islamic Fortress. (JASP XXX:1). Munsk-gaard.

Peyronel, L. 1997. La glittica a stampo dilmunita in età paleo-babilonese classica e cassita. Contributi e Materiali di ArcheologiaOrientale 7: 407-435.

———. 2000. Sigilli harappani e dilmuniti dalla Mesopotamia edalla Susiana. Note sul commercio nel Golfo Arabo-Persico tra

III e II Mill. a.C. Vicino Oriente 12: 175-240.———. 2003. L’architettura sacra del Paese di Dilmun. I luoghi diculto nel Golfo Arabo-Persico dell’Età del Bronzo. Contributi eMateriali di Archeologia Orientale 9: 269-338.

Pic, M. 1990. Quelques éléments de glyptique. Pp. 125-140 in Y.Calvet & J. Gachet (eds) Failaka. Fouilles Françaises 1986-1988.(TMO 18). Lyon.

Pinnock, F. 1992. Una riconsiderazione della stele di Hama6B599. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 4: 101-121.

———. 1994. Consideration on the “Banquet Theme” in the Figu-rative Art of Mesopotamia and Syria. Pp. 15-26 in L. Milano(ed) Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks inthe Ancient Near East . Padua.

———. 1996. Erotic Art in the Near East. Pp. 2521-2531 in J.M.Sasson (ed) Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (4 volumes).New York.

———. 2000. Some Thoughts about the Transmission of Icono-graphies between North Syria and Cappadocia, End of theThird-Beginning of the Second Millennium B.C. Pp. 1397-1416in P. Matthiae, A. Enea, L. Peyronel & F. Pinnock (eds) Pro-ceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology ofthe Ancient Near East . Rome.

Porada, E. 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North Ameri-can Collection. Vol. 1: The Collection of the Pierpont Morgan Library.(Bollinger Series 14). Washington.

———. 1971. Remarks on Seals Found in the Gulf States. Artibus Asiae 33: 331-338.

Possehl, G.L. 1996. Meluhha. Pp. 133-208 in J. Reade (ed) TheIndian Ocean in Antiquity. London.

Potts, D.T. 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Vol. I: From Prehistoryto the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford.

Selz, G. 1983. Die Bankettszene. Entwicklung eines “überzeitlichen”Bildmotifs in Mesopotamien von der frühdynastischen bis zur Ak-kad-Zeit . (Freiburger altorientalische Studien, Bd. 11). Wies-


19/19

baden.Shaffer, J.G. 1992. The Indus Valley, Baluchistan and Helmand

Traditions: Neolithic Through Bronze Age. Pp. 441-464 in R.Ehrich (ed) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Third edition.Chicago.

al-Sindi, K.M. 1994. The Dilmun Seals in the Bahrain National Mu- seum [in Arabic]. Manama.

Teissier, B. 1984. Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the Mar-copoli Collection. Los Angeles.

———. 1994. Sealing and Seals on Texts from Kültepe karum Level 2.(PIHANS 70). Leiden & Istanbul.

Winter, I.J. 1986. The King and the Cup: Iconography of theRoyal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals. Pp. 253-268 in M.Kelly-Buccellati, P. Matthiae & M. Van Loon (eds) Insightthrough Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. (BiMes 21).Malibu.

L. PEYRONEL,Italian Archaeological Mission to Ebla,Via Palestro 63,I-00185 Rome,[email protected]

Some Thoughts on Iconographic Relations between the Arabian Gulf and Syria-Mesopotamia during the...

Documents

Transcript of Some Thoughts on Iconographic Relations between the Arabian Gulf and Syria-Mesopotamia during the...