Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The following discussion begins with a study of a bronze bowl belonging to Monsieur George Ortiz, whose collection of ancient bronzes in Vandoeuvres/Geneva includes a large number of outstanding pieces of Near Eastern art. The bowl was recently acquired in the antiquities market and is said to come from modern Turkey. It is one of the finest and best preserved examples of a particular class of oriental metalwork in repoussé, the so-called Syro-Phoenician “bull-bowls”, which were most probably produced in the Levant in the early first millennium B.C. The main decoration of this class consists of concentric friezes of bovine animals in procession or similar sequence arranged around a central floral motif. The present paper will also examine a second, as yet unpublished, bowl kept in the British Museum.
1 Barnett, R. D., “The Nimrud bowls in the British Museum,” Rivista di Studi Fenici 2 (1974), p. 11 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 4 and Pls. 3–7a (henceforth Barnett, “Nimrud bowls”).
2 The break was still visible in the spring 1983, when I first saw the bowl. Subsequently, Mr. Ortiz kindly arranged for it to be repaired in view of the present publication.
3 In Mme Naville's drawing at Pl. XXI the profile is at a scale of 2:3. For the purpose of clarity the design has been drawn as though flattened, therefore the scale of the plan view is not accurate. In particular the bulls in the outer frieze are slightly larger than in reality. This method was chosen in order not to sacrifice the overall view of the composition.
4 Hodges, H., Artifacts. An Introduction to early materials and technology, London 1964, pp. 64–79Google Scholar; Lowery, P. R.—Savage, R. D. A.—Wilkins, R. L., “Scriber, Graver, Scorper and Tracer: notes on experiments in bronzeworking technique”, PPS. 37 (1971), pp. 167–82Google Scholar. “Chasing”, “engraving” and other terms are often misused in the general literature on Phoenician metal bowls. To avoid possible confusion, the terminology here employed follows both standard works mentioned above, as they are the most up-to-date contributions on bronzeworking technique.
5 Suffice it to mention here two among the finest bronze bowls from Nimrud, representing a hunting scene and a procession of alternate lions and sphinxes. Dotpunching is used on both bowls to raise anatomical details and the palmette motifs used as fillers. See Layard, A. H., The Monuments of Nineveh, II, London 1853, Pl. 68Google Scholar (the two horizontal friezes in the centre and both sketches of bowl shapes at the bottom on the same plate); also, Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Harmondsworth 1954Google Scholar, Pls. 172B and 173B.
6 For example: in the bull figures the shape of the horns may vary slightly, in one case an ear is missing and the band across the neck varies in shape, position and width.
7 Each unit is the equivalent of 18°; each figure + interval (4 units) = 72°; and each quadrant (5 units) = 90°.
8 Mitchell, T. C., “A review of acquisitions 1963–70 of Western Asiatic Antiquities”, BMQ 36 (1971–1972), p. 140Google Scholar.
9 Barnett, , “Nimrud bowls”, p. 20Google Scholar. There is no certain proof for the supposed provenance from Iran. Mitchell (note above) includes it among the BM acquisitions from Syro-Palestine. I am grateful to Dr. John Curtis for checking this information in the records of the Department of Western Asia in the BM.
10 The thickness at the bottom varies from 2·1 to 1·3 mm.
11 The rosette is completely reconstructed in our drawing at Fig. 1, but is indistinct. along the area of the missing animal on the inner frieze. The reader will notice some minor discrepancies between the description of the decoration given above and the drawing. In these instances the verbal description is more accurate.
12 Atasoy, E.—Buluç, S., “Metallurgical and archaeological examination of Phrygian objects”, AS. 32 (1982), pp. 157–60Google Scholar, Pl. 29 a–b.
13 Ibid., p. 159, Table 1.
14 I am indebted to Dr. N. J. Seeley for this information.
15 Layard, , Monuments of Nineveh, IIGoogle Scholar, Pls. 60, 63, 65; Gjerstad, E., “Decorated metal bowls from Cyprus”, OpArch. 4 (1946), pp. 1–18Google Scholar, Pls. 1, 4, 5, 1, etc. Most of these and other examples have a flattened rim, but often it is not possible to judge from the published illustrations whether they have an inner indentation since no profile drawings are provided. For a well illustrated example with inner thickening, see Maggiani, A., “Coppa fenicia da una tomba villanoviana da Vetulonia”, StEtr. 41, (1973), p. 73 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2. Moreover, many bull-bowls have an inner indentation: Barnett, “Nimrud bowls”, Pls. 3, 6, 7a.
16 Only the bull-bowl in the St. Louis Art Museum (Pl. XXIV, b) and perhaps one from Olympia (Fig. 2) have a similar plain rim. See Barnett, , “Nimrud bowls”, p. 20Google Scholar, note 81, Pl. Va; also, Furtwängler, E., Olympia IV. Die Bronzen, Berlin 1897Google Scholar, Pl. LII, no. 884.
17 Luschey, H., Die Phiale, Bleicherode am Harz 1939, pp. 33–6Google Scholar; Dunbabin, T. J., in Payne, H. et al. , Perachora I, Oxford 1940, p. 148 ff.Google Scholar See also discussion in the various works mentioned in the following footnotes.
18 This function, now generally accepted, was first suggested by Petrie (see below, note 23) for the Oriental omphalos bowls and by Luschey (op. cit., p. 31) for the Greek phialai. See also Knudsen, A. K., A Study of the relation between Phrygian metalware and pottery in the eighth–seventh centuries B.C., University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D. dissertation, Philadelphia 1961, p. 155 ff. and 181 ffGoogle Scholar.
19 Imai, A., Some aspects of Phoenician bowls with special reference to the Proto-Cypriote and Cypro-Phoenician class, Columbia University, Ph.D. dissertation, New York 1977, p. 160 ff.Google Scholar
20 Ibid., p. 163 ff.; see also, Matz, F., “Altitalische und Vorderasiatische Reliefschalen”, Klio 30 (1937), pp. 110–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pls. 1–3; and Luschey, , Die Phiale, p. 33Google Scholar, figs. 1–6: various examples of different type are also illustrated at figs. 13–24, 28–9 and 31 (from Ashur, Carchemish, Tell Halaf and Zincirli).
21 Young, R. S. et al. , Three great early Tumuli, (The Gordion excavations final reports, vol. 1), Philadephia 1981, pp. 233–36Google Scholar, Pls. 9–10, 68–73 and 89–90; also, A. K. Knudsen, op. cit., p. 155 ff.
22 Montet, P., Byblos et l'Égypte, Paris 1928, p. 194Google Scholar, nos. 776–7, Pls. 114–15. These two examples may go back to the Middle Bronze Age, as Tomb II contained pottery of this period and Egyptian jewellery of the XII Dynasty; see discussion by Tufnell, O., “The pottery from royal tombs I–III at Byblos”, Berytus 18 (1969), pp. 5–26Google Scholar.
23 Petrie, W. M. F., Beth-Pelet I, London 1930, p. 10Google Scholar, Pl. 38.
24 See above, note 17. The Syrian or Anatolian origin for the Greek phiale was suggested by Dunbabin, , in Perachora I, p. 152Google Scholar; Mellink in R. S. Young, op. cit., considers the Anatolian omphalos phiale as the intermediary stage between the Near Eastern and the Greek types. However, in none of these works has the proto-omphalic feature of our bull-bowls ever been considered.
25 Spikes and “conical omphaloi” have sometimes been used as synonyms, but should be distinguished. Examples with conical omphalos are the Dhali bronze bowl and the Kerameikos bowl, which have a ring-base and a low conical boss: see Gjerstad, E., OpArch. 4 (1946), Pp. 4Google Scholar, Pl. 1; Kübler, K., Kerameikos V, 1, pp. 201–5Google Scholar, fig. 5, Pl. 162. Both bowls have been discussed at length by A. Imai, (op. cit., p. 176 ff.), who suggested a Cypriote manufacture; their shape is in fact closely related to pottery bowls of Cypro-Geometric III style. The base of these bowls, however, cannot have the function of the spike discussed above.
26 A symbolic meaning of the spike is also possible, in which case the central cone would represent a “sacred mountain”. This agrees with the probable use of the bowls as ritual vessels. Such a symbolism is perhaps evident on similar bronze bowls with central spike known in protohistoric cultures of South India and Thailand. See Glover, I. C., “Indian–Thai exchanges in the Protohistoric period,” Research Conference on Early South-East Asia, Bangkok, April 1985Google Scholar, forthcoming. I am indebted to the author for this information.
27 Luschey, op. cit., has observed that the central spike precedes the hemispherical omphalos in Greece and the Aegean. The Late Bronze Age pottery examples from Palestine—considered as possible prototypes by Dunbabin, loc. cit.—are neither omphalos nor spiked bowls, but double bowls with a different function. Therefore, they are out of place in this context.
28 Kantor, H., in McEwan, C. W. et al. , Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah (OIP 79), Chicago 1958, pp. 32–3Google Scholar, nos. 37–8, Pls. 30, 39–40. Besides these examples Kantor mentions similar pottery bowls from Tell Halaf and Amuq Phase O; on the basis of this and other ceramic parallels from this phase, she suggests a ninth-century date for the early Iron Age level at Fakhariyah (ibid., pp. 27–8).
29 Beth-Pelet I, Pl. 10, no. 745.
30 Layard, A. H., Nineveh and Babylon, London 1853, p. 181Google Scholar.
31 Barnett, , “Nimrud bowls”, p. 20Google Scholar, Pl. 17c.
32 Young, R. S., Three great early Tumuli, pp. 206 and 233Google Scholar, fig. 124, Pl. 90e: Tum W 17.
33 Hrouda, B., Tell Halaf IV, Berlin 1962, Pl. 49: 12Google Scholar.
34 Young, R. S., Three great early Tumuli, p. 191 ff. and 269 ff.Google Scholar
35 Perachora I, p. 151 and 155, Pl. 55:1. Other Greek examples in metal and pottery are mentioned by Dunbabin, Luschey and Kantor.
36 Barnett, , “Nimrud bowls”, pp. 19–20Google Scholar (ibid. further references); also, Culican, W., “Coupes à décor phénicien provenant d'Iran”, Syria 47 (1970), pp. 65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Pls. VIII (right) and fig. 5; for the Ankara bowl, see note 12 above; and note 16 for the two bowls illustrated here at fig. 2 (from Olympia) and Pl. XXIV, b (possibly from Egypt).
37 Barnett, , “Nimrud Bowls”, p. 18 ff.Google Scholar
38 Ibid., p. 19.
39 Kunze, E., “Ausgrabungen in Olympia”, AD 1964Google Scholar, pl. 172 and Chroniká, pp. 167–8. Two bull-bowls have been found at this site, one of which has been mentioned above.
40 See note 16. In the St. Louis example the calves are missing.
41 Barnett, R. D., A catalogue of the Nimrud ivories in the British Museum, London 1975 2, pp. 143–5Google Scholar, Pl. 5; Hawkes, H., “Three small ivories from Nimrud”, BIAUL 15 (1978), pp. 171–8Google Scholar. For a general survey of the motif in Near Eastern art, see Matthiae, P., “Il motivo della vacca che allatta nell'iconografia del Vicino Oriente antico,” RSO 36 (1961), pp. 1–31Google Scholar; and recently, Keel, O., Das Böcklein in der Milch seiner Mutter und Verwandtes, Göttingen 1980Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr. Eric Gubel for this reference and to Dr. Dominique Collon for showing me this publication otherwise unavailable to me.
