Page 179 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

PART TWO: THE PERIPHERAL
REGIONS
eyes were inlaid. The line which looks in front-view like a chin-str™ n • n
that which limits Yarimlim’s beard (Plates 137-8). The tall Syrian felt cap,« Kress*5
and the bare feet distinguish this figure from the Anatolian bronzes (PlL 129) with
which it shares its foil round modelling. Similarly dressed figures are common on Syrian
seals of the second group,« and plate 142 shows clearly a Syrian, not a Hittitc work It
probably represents a prince; for a king of Alalakh had himself depicted on his cylinder
seal in the same attire.62 ;
The statuette of plate 143 would be a fitting partner to the one we have just discussed.
The modelling of the face is full, as in Hittitc bronzes, but it was found at Ras Shamra,
and is supposed to be somewhat older. It is usual to describe such figures as ‘goddesses’!
but there is no evidence that this is correct. I11 our figure the head-dress is a kind of tur­
ban, without horns or other divine attributes, and the dress may consist of a shawl with a
thickened edge, but it is not clearly draped. It seems that a cord passing across the throat
holds it in place on the shoulders, leaving the breasts bare. One hand is held out, the
other may have grasped a flower, sceptre, or other attribute. It is odd that the figure is
very well modelled in part only. It is not only flat at the back, but the body consists
simply of a flat strip of metal bent at the hips and knees, as in plate 144. This is a common
trait of Syrian bronzes of the fourteenth to the twelfth century b.c. We cannot say
whether the figurine represents a queen or a deity, but plate 144 may well represent a
goddess; the gesture, the head-dress, and perhaps even the breast-ornament63 suggest it.
There were two gold ear-rings, of which one is lost.
While die date of many figures in the round remains uncertain, there arc two well-
dated gold bowls from Ras Shamra which belong to the Mitannian era. This is not only
suggested by the stratification, but also by the design of one of them (Figure 68), which
shows in its artificial plants, for instance, close affinities to decorative elements used in
the tunic and other equipment ofTutankhamen.64 It is an excellent example of Phoeni­
cian syncretism, half a millennium before Phoenicians in the proper sense are known.
The flying leap of the lions, and perhaps also the plants growing from the upper edge
of the outer band of design, are ultimately of Cretan derivation, although they may, at
this time, have reached die Syrian engraver through Egyptian intermediaries. The little
beardless figures attacking the Hon (left-hand bottom) are Egyptian in character, but
their action can only be matched on Mesopotamian seals and textiles. The squatting
griffin and the winged bull are likewise Asiatic in origin - but all this is of Utdc import­
ance in view of the characteristic combination of motifs which is Syro-Phoenician. The
blemishes of the design are equally characteristic - the carelessness with which a fifth
goat is added to the central pattern, while a plant is omitted so that the emp asis an.
clarity called for at this point are destroyed. The next strip, too, is without equi rium,
the Hons and buHs are placed in such a manner that the first seem to pursue die latter,
although the interposed plants indicate that a static - and, hence symmetrical design
ZZfaLded. Nevertheless, the general impression of .he bowl is rrch and livelyThe
station is unusually careful; the outlines of the animals are reinforced by rows of dots
thatching The spirited drawing of the lions, goats, and bulls contrasts sharply wrth the
Zt bki rnonstL in which the draughtsman was obviously no. mterested.

150