Page 292 - The Art & Architecture of the Ancient Orient_Neat

NOTES
8. See R. D. Barnett, 'The Excavations of the do not affect Ghirshman’s main views, with which I
British Museum at Toprak Kale near Van’, in Iraq, agree.
xii (1950), 1-43, with plates i-xxii, where older 23. Ghirshman, op. cit., 191 suggests that it was
literature and a tentative reconstruction of the made by Assyrian goldsmiths for the Scythian
throne is given. Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop, ‘Daggers allies of their king. If this were so, I should not
and Swords in Western Asia’ (Iraq, vm, 1946), 44 expect any but purely Assyrian designs to be used;
writes, ‘It is possible that where weapons were the gifts sent by Pharaohs of die Middle Kingdom
concerned Vannic smiths began to copy Assyrian to Byblos, Qatnah, and other places in Asia suggest
technique as early as the reign of Assurnasirpal II this.
when the cuneiform system of writing was intro­ The relation of die pectoral to Assyrian art is
duced to Armenia from Assyria’. similar to that of Urardan metal-work to its proto­
9. The problem of the Scytliians is concisely and types, and it would be possible to consider the pec­
p. 205
brilliantly treated by Professor Sir Ellis H. Minns in toral a Vannic product but for the Scythian animals
his lecture ‘The Art of the Northern Nomads’, in at either end. It seems to me highly improbable that
Proceedings of the British Academy, xxvm (1942). they should have been used anywhere outside the
‘We must not regard nomadism as a mere stage on domains of the Scytliians.
the way from food-collecting to agriculture. 24. E. II. Minns, Scythians and Greeks (Cam­
When completely developed it is a highly specializ­ bridge, 1913), 171, figure 65.
ed mode of life enabling man to utilize vast tracts 25. Godard, Le tresor de Ziwiyc, figure 46.
in which continuous settlement, whether pastoral 26. See A. Godard, ‘Bronzes du Luristan’ (Ars
or agricultural, is impossible.’ (p. 7 - but the whole Asiatica, xvn), Paris, 1931.
passage should be read). There is also a valuable
bibliography. The history of the period is treated 27. It was led by Dr Erich F. Schmidt of Cliicago.
by G. Cameron, History of Early Iran (Chicago, See Bulletin of the American Institute for Iranian Art
1936), and also by Konig; see next note. and Archaeology, vi (1938), 206-13. Schaeffer’s
10. F. W. Konig, Alteste Gcschichte der Meder und attempt to establish a ‘Louristan ancien, moyen
recent’, in Stratigraphie comparee et chronologic de
Perser, Leipzig, 1934, suggests that this was from
I'Asie Occidentale, 477-95 and figures 263-S, is not
642 to 615 B.C.
sufficiently well founded.
11. Andre Godard, Le tresor de Ziwiyc (Haarlem,
1950); see also the important study of R. Ghirsh- 28. These consist of bronze vases inscribed with
man, in Artibiis Asiae, xm (1950), 181-206, which names of Akkadian and later Mesopotamian rulers
contains some illustrations now known to be of a (Illustrated London News, 28 Oct. 1929, 667, figures
9, 10); daggers and ‘poker-butted spears’ of Early
different provenance. See n. 31 (p. 264).
Dynastic affinities; battle-axes with simple thorns
12. Ghirshman, loc. cit., 201.
on the back of the haft, known in Mesopotamia on
13. Godard, op. cit., figures 40-2.
cylinder seals of Akkadian times; daggers and
14. Op. cit., figures 81-3. swords with a cast-on hilt some of which are in­
15* Op. cit., figure 39. scribed with the name of Marduk-nadin-akhe of
16. See the extensive ‘Selected Bibliography*, in Babylon and other rulers. The latter are types
E. H. Minns, ‘The Art of the Northern Nomads’, 32-6 of Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop’s classification in
Proceedings of the British Academy, 1942. Iraq, vm (1946), 36 ff., 44 ff-‘ plates iv-v. I suspect
>
p. 206 17. Minns, op. cit., plate xiii(a). that the time range, given as 1800-600 b.c., is
18. Ghirshman, in Artibus Asiae, xm (1950), narrower and does not start much before 1100 B.c.
183 ff. All these inscribed weapons raise a problem
which has not, to my knowledge, been faced. If
19. Godard, op. cit., figure 48.
they were really found in Luristan (and for this we
p. 207 20. Ghirshman, op. cit., 185, figure 7. Ghirshman
saw in it a lion-mask, but die comparison widi the have, on the whole, nothing but dealers’ assurances)
lioness of Kelermes and the Mclgunov chape is they were cither never despatched to the owner for
whom they were intended, or they were obtained
conclusive.
as loot or received as presents, in which case they
21. Op. cit., figure 13.
have no bearing on the Luristan metal-work at all.
22. There is therefore no reason to connect it The first alternative - that they were made in
with the reign of Esarhaddon (Ghirshman, op. cit., Luristan for a Mesopotamian - is not excluded by
198) and it is not an Egyptian feature. These
matters the presence of the cuneiform inscriptions; even
T 2
263

L.