Ancient CyprusAncient Cyprus

Article · 2015

In search of identity: The contribution of recent finds to our understanding of Iron Age ivory objects in the material culture of the southern Levant

L. Naeh

Altorientalische Forschungen

An article on Iron Age ivory, bone and wood finds from Jerusalem, Rəhov and Hazor, set against the classification of the Samaria ivories as foreign.

Naeh reconsiders the labelling of the Samaria ivories as foreign by setting them beside finds from Jerusalem, Rəhov and Hazor, with a throne from Salamis as a further comparison. The evidence is wooden furniture fragments, ivory and bone inlays, a statuette and the throne, taken site by site after a review of how the Samaria ivories have been received.

She argues that the ivories came to be called Phoenician partly through biblical associations, and proposes examining materials, contexts and imagery across sites without treating ethnic labels as conclusions about production. At Jerusalem, carved wood from the Burnt Room in Area G lay in an early sixth-century BCE destruction layer. Shiloh compared its drooping palmettes with Samaria inlays and identified the wood as boxwood, and Naeh also considers that local craftspeople may have worked imported material (pp. 83–85).

The Rəhov statuette comes from ninth-century BCE debris in a piazza and is compared with chair gamma from Tomb 79 at Salamis, whose ivory veneers and inlays were found largely in place and whose context Naeh places in the eighth or seventh century BCE. At Hazor she examines an isolated sphinx inlay and Late Bronze Age bone and ivory inlays from a monumental building. A stele from Arwād, now in the Musée du Louvre, is compared with the Hazor material. Her conclusion is that objects of ivory, bone and wood share motifs and inlay practices across Bronze and Iron Age contexts in the southern Levant, that some may be local work, and that the Samaria ivories are less isolated within the region than earlier interpretations suggested (pp. 91–93).

What it records

  • Naeh argues that no archaeological argument was given to establish that the Samaria ivories were foreign.p. 81
  • Shiloh suggested that the Jerusalem wooden fragments were luxury furniture imported from Syria, Phoenicia or Mesopotamia in the seventh century BCE.p. 84
  • The Rəhov ivory statuette was found in occupational debris in a piazza between the elite buildings CF and CP in Area C.p. 85
  • Chair gamma was retrieved from Tomb 79 at Salamis amid a rich burial complex.p. 87
  • The broad vertical ivory stripes on the backrest of chair gamma closely resemble the design on the back of the Rəhov chair, Naeh argues.p. 88
  • Hazor's Late Bronze Age inlays were found in the destruction layer of a monumental building on the acropolis.p. 91
  • Naeh argues that the southern Levantine tradition was expressed in bone, wood and both hippopotamus and elephant ivory.p. 93

Where to read

  • Samaria ivories and the arguments over their attributionpp. 80–82
  • Jerusalem, Rəhov and the Salamis throne comparisonspp. 83–88
  • Hazor inlays and Bronze-to-Iron Age continuitypp. 89–93

Contents

  • The Reception of the Samaria Ivories80
  • Forgotten Evidence from Jerusalem83
  • Recent Archaeological Evidence from Rəhov85
  • The Link between Rəhov and Salamis87
  • The Hazor Inlay and the Arwād Stele89
  • The Late Bronze Age Bone Inlays from Hazor and the Roots of Iron Age Ivory Production91
  • Conclusions93

Objects published here

8
  • Fragmentary plaque with a cow and suckling calf, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Nimrud, 64.37.3, Fig. 1 (p. 83)
  • Fragmentary decorative wooden pieces, Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Fig. 3 (p. 85)
  • Inlay with palmette design in relief, Israel Museum, Jerusalem, Samaria, IAA 1933–2652, Fig. 4b (p. 86)
  • Fragmentary enthroned statuette, Tel Rəhov Expedition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rəhov, Fig. 6 (p. 87)
  • Reconstructed ivory throne, chair gamma, Salamis, Tomb 79, Fig. 7 (p. 88)
  • Fragmentary inlay with sphinx and vegetal pattern in relief, Hazor excavations, Hazor, Fig. 8 (p. 90)
  • Stele with sphinx and vegetal pattern in relief, Musée du Louvre, Arwād, AO 4836, Fig. 9 (p. 90)
  • Inlay incised with a sphinx, Hazor, Fig. 11 (p. 91)

People, places and institutions

People

  • Yigal Shilohinterpreted the Jerusalem wooden fragments
  • Ami Mazarexcavated and interpreted the Rəhov statuette
  • Amnon Ben-Torpublished the Hazor Late Bronze Age inlays
  • Claudia Suteridentified biblical bias in ivory interpretations
  • Marian Feldmandiscussed style, identity and the Salamis throne

Places

  • Samariasource of the ivories under discussion
  • Jerusalemcarved wooden furniture fragments from the Burnt Room
  • Rəhovfindspot of an ivory statuette
  • Salamisfindspot of chair gamma in Tomb 79
  • Hazorsphinx inlay and Late Bronze Age inlays
  • Nimrudcomparative ivory finds
  • Arwādsource of a stele compared with Hazor

Also named: Kuntillat 'Ağrüd, Ariel Shatil, Ortal Harush, Irene Winter, Pirhiya Beck, Christoph Uehlinger, Nahman Avigad, Karageorghis, Musée du Louvre.

Extent pp. 80–96, 14 figures; bibliography

Late Bronze AgeCypro-ArchaicCraft ProductionIconographyForeign ContactsChronology and DatingDaily Life

Cited on Ancient Cyprus

1 page