Page 190 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

THE LEVANT IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM B.C.
quarried slab of stone is retained, with sharp edges where front and sides meet. In the side
view the disposition of the tail, the drawing of the hind leg and claw, the folding of the
foreleg, and the treatment of the mane, show how a vague knowledge of traditional
renderings in Mesopotamia and Anatolia served as a starting-point for improvisations
which derive such coherence as they possess from the squareness of the block comprising
them. A comparison with the lion from Malatya (Plate 13 3 a) shows how the tradition
of Hittitc art, short-lived though it was, enabled a provincial craftsman to be much more
successful than his Syrian counterpart. It is also interesting to notice that the Egyptian
influence, which dominates the sarcophagus at Byblos, is absent at Alalakh, a town in
the Hittite sphere of influence.
The sarcophagus and the lions arc the most ambitious works in stone of the post-
Mitannian Period. But excellent sculpture on a smaller scale was still occasionally pro­
duced. The finest example is a group of red jasper (Plate 152B), probably a weight, since
the bottom is hollowed to take a lead adjustment - which represents a lion and a bull
fighting in an arena (for the lion wears a harness). There is no known contemporary
carving of equal merit from Syria or Palestine. Yet, by a process of elimination, it may
be tentatively included here. Its place of manufacture is unknown, although it is said to
come from Tell el Amarna.113 It is certainly not of Egyptian workmanship, and there
is nothing against assigning it to Mesopotamia, which has an old and continuous tradi­
tion of small-scale animal figures, but it so happens that there are no Kassite or Middle
Assyrian works even remotely resembling this group. Moreover, the very broad face of
the lion and the treatment of its mane have no Mesopotamian parallels. The only posi­
tive indication of affinity is the resemblance to the pose of the animals on the comb of
figure 71, which is derivative, since it depicts the dog using its paws as a member of the
cat-family would use them. The jasper group of the desperately interlocked animals may
then be assigned to some Syrian or Palestinian centre within the ken of the Levantine
ivory carvers, whose exact locality also remains unknown.
In die post-Mitannian period metal-work does not seem to have reached the excel­
lence of earlier times. Many statuettes of deities were cast, mostly of weather-gods bran­
dishing a weapon which symbolizes lightning,, as in plate 141. They sometimes wear the
White Crown* of Egypt and are conventionally called Reshef, Adad, or Baal, but their
names no doubt differed from one place to another. They are dull, conventional works,
which are not improved by the gold foil with which they are sometimes covered (Plate
152A). Assuming again (p. 158 above) that the personage wears the high felt cap without
horns, we may see in him a ruler of Megiddo.
Modelling also found scope in the production of faience vessels. This material re­
tained the popularity enjoyed in Mitannian times, and was used for lotus-cups, circular
boxes with flat lids, and other containers. Some goblets, however, are modelled in the
shape of a woman s head (Plate 153D) and have tubular lugs for suspension; or a woman’s
faccisapplicd in relief to the side of the cup (Plate 153, b and c). They are found at Ur,114
Assur,115 Mari,116 Ras Shamra,117 Tell Abu Hawwam,118 Enkomi,119 and in Rhodes.120
The two types exist side by side, and they can be roughly dated to about 1300 B.c. It is
difficult to believe that the cups were made locally in all these places; for they resemble

161