Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Review Author(s): D.T. Potts Review by: D.T. Potts Source: Archiv für Orientforschung, Bd. 40/41 (1993/1994), pp. 136-138 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41668176 Accessed: 01-11-2015 14:44 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Archiv für Orientforschung.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:44:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
Rezensionen
Marlies Heinz discussesa group of inlay in stones are illustrated(e.g. cat. 1355-1376)but littlecan be said about these in geometricpatterns(cat. 106-118)which,accord- unfortunately their Uruk context and Becker has not ating to Lenzen's descriptions,come from between two and four wooden benches/trunks tempted to deduce their exact functions.In foundin the Riemchengebäude . otherpartsof WesternAsia, similarstonesare Cat. 964-969 are fragmentsof a previously known to have been used to crush ore, nuts, largelyunpublishedOld Akkadianseated sculp- and shell,sometimesin conjunctionwitha stone ture which recallsthe Louvre Maništusufrag- punchor chisel.We may hope some day to see mentfromSusa. moredone on productionat Uruk for the EanA 5.8 cm. high male head of alabaster(cat. na temple must surelyhave been as active in 989) is taken by Becker to be South Arabian. food, craft and associated productionas the This attributionis based on the occurrenceof othermajor templeestatesof the thirdmillennium. generallysimilar,individualattributes,such as the eyes and the shape of the skull. I doubt In conclusion,Andrea Becker is to be thankthatmostSouth Arabian specialistswould con- ed for a thoroughjob. Like its counterparts, cur, for the comparisonsare hardlycompelling, KleinfundeII-V, hers is a volume which will and the piece findsno parallelsof whichI am be much consultedby archaeologistsand Asaware in South Arabia. Becker cites two epi- syriologists in yearsto come. We shouldtheregraphicfindsfromUruk whichwould support fore all be gratefulto her and to the excavathe existenceof a connectionwithSouth Aratorsof Uruk for theirdiligence. bia. In fact, neither is South Arabian. One D.T. Potts. (CIH 699), inscribedon a funerarystela which Sydney. was found by W.K. Loftus in 1857, is written in EpigraphicSouth Arabian scriptbut in the northeastArabian, so-called Hasaitic dialect (D.T. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity,II Margarete van Ess und Friedhelm Pedde, [Oxford, 1990], p. 72-73; cf. now C. Robin, Uruk. Kleinfunde II. Metall und Asphalt, U Arabie antiquede Kariífü à Mahomet[Paris, Farbreste, Fritte/Fayence,Glas, Holz, Kno1991]p. 118-119);the other,an inscribedtablet chen/Elfenbein, Leder, Muschel/Perlmutt/ publishedby Kienast (UVB 14 [1958]:43-44) is Schnecke,Schilf,Textilien,mit Beiträgenvon not South Arabian but Proto-Arabic and as JoachimBoessneck,Thomas Engel und Harald such has affinitieswithfindsmade throughout Kürschner.XVI, 314 pp., 18 Textabb., 157 Tfn. northern,not southern,Arabia (Potts,"North- mit1949Fotoabb., zahlreicheStrichabb.Mainz, eastern Arabia in the Later Pre-IslamicEra," Philippvon Zabern, 1992 (= Endberichte/ Ausin: Boucharlat,R. and J.-F. Salles,eds., Arabie grabungenin Uruk-Warka,7.) orientale,Mesopotamie et Iran meridionalde This handsome volume is but one of four l'âge du fer au debut de la periode islamique cf. F. Bron,"Sur quel- plannedto cover all of the smallfindsmade at [Paris,1984],p. 113-114; ques sceaux à légendessudarabiqueset proto- Uruk between1912and 1985. The pre-warobarabes", Syria 62 [1985]:339-340). One should jects in the PergamonMuseumare not included also note the many ceramic incense burners and will be presentedin a futurevolume. The found at Uruk (L. Ziegler, "Tonkästchenaus presentwork includes a study by Friedhelm Uruk, Babylonund Assur",ZA 47 [1942]:224- Pedde of most of the metal objects recovered 240) which are of a type widely distributed in the post-warcampaigns,as well as a study northeastern, throughout northwestern, central, by Margaretevan Ess of findsmade of all other and southernArabia, but which are certainly materialsaside fromstone objects,for whicha not exclusivelySouth Arabian. separate volume exists. Needless to say, the Cat. 1020 is a previouslyunpublished,3 cm. lengthof the Uruk sequence and the imporhigh miniaturemasterpiecein blue-greysoft- tance of the site guaranteethat the materialin stone. Attributedto the Early Dynasticperiod, these volumeswill be of extremeinterestto a it is the plaitedhair for a small,compositefig- wide varietyof scholarsinterestedin manydifurineor statuetteshowingwonderfuldetailsof ferentgenresof finds.As always,the volumes in thisseriesare beautifully braiding. produced;the docuMany examplesof roundand square hammer- mentationis exhaustive;helpfulconcordances
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:44:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rezensionen are providedto the whereaboutsand museum numbersof the objects discussed;and the illustrationsare of impeccablequality.Everyreader willfindmaterialhere of interest,and I would liketo merelypointto some of the pieceswhich I found particularly thoughtprovoking. In lookingat the copper or bronze fishhooks (Taf. 1. 1-6) with barbed tip which,as Pedde notes,are relativelyrare in Mesopotamia,I was remindedof the barbed Harappan fishhooks fromsitessuch as Mohenjo-Daro and ChanhuDaro. While some of the simpler Harappan examplesare comparableto the Mesopotamian ones, othershave a double barb whichdistinguishes them from the Uruk examples (cf. E. J.H. Mackay, Chanhu-Daro Excavations 1935-36, AOS 20, New Haven, 1943, PI. LXXIII. 18 [single barb] and 5, 7, 17 [double barb]). Two fragmentary, life-size,cast bronze feet shown (Taf. 16.89-90) wearingleatherstrapsandals laced up the ankle were foundclose to the Gareus temple(the smallerfragment,published in 1935by Heinrich,has also recentlybeen discussed by Hans Erik Mathiesenin Sculpturein the Parthian Empire: A Study in Chronology , pt. II. Catalogue, Aarhus UniversityPress, 1992, p. 189). The fragmentsobviouslycome froma life-sizestatue which,one mayassume, stood near the temple. Heinrichbelieved that the fragmentwhichhe publishedmay have bestood longedto the cult statue whichoriginally in the temple. I wonderif anotherexplanation isn't possible. The unique Greek decree from the Gareus temple(C. Meier, "Ein griechisches Ehrendekretvom Gareustempelin Uruk,"BaM 1 [I960]:104-114)commemoratesthe erectionof a statue of one Artemidoros-Minnanaios in the Gareus temple on the part of the mysterious Dollamenoi in thanksfor Artemidoros'giftof land (or an estate) to the temple. The dates to the year 422 (monthDeios) inscription which, if reckoned according to the Seleucid calendar,yieldsa date of 111AD (other scholars, such as L. Robert, have dated it to AD 200+; cf. Hellenica 11-12[I960]: 130, and S. SherwinWhite,"A Greek OstraconfromBabylon of the Early ThirdCenturyA.D.," ZPE 47 [1982]53, n. 5). Might we not have before us the feet of Artemidoros-Minnanaios'statue, ratherthan those of a cult statue? Bronze socketed spearheads such as Taf. 51.544also occur in earlyand mid-2ndmillennium B.C. graves in the Oman peninsula(cf.
137
G. Weisgerber,"ArchäologischesFundgut des 2. Jahrtausends v.Chr. in Oman: Möglichkeiten zur chronologischen Gliederung?", in K. Schippmann et al. (ed.), Golf-Archäologie, Buch am Erlbach,1991,Abb. 4. 1). Many more parallelscould be cited for the and Sasanianglassvessels(Taf. Parthian/Roman 95.1191-1192 cf. R.F.S. Starr, Nuzi II, Cambridge,1937,PI. 140.J; Taf. 99.1240-100.12411243cf. M.M. Negro Ponzi Mancini,"Glassware from Choche (Central Mesopotamia)," in R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles (ed.), Arabie orientale, Mésopotamie et Iran méridional, Paris,1984,Fig. 4.7). A furtherexampleof the interesting class of bone figuresof Parthiandate fromUruk (esp. Taf. 119.1433-1436) is known at Nuzi {Nuzi II, PI. 141.K). Van Ess has queried the functionof these bone objects, suggestingsomethingof a religiousnature.Over 50 yearsago R.F.S. Starr suggestedthat the Nuzi examplar was an arrow-nock.He wrote (Nuzi I, p. 503) of the Nuzi find:"Bone is unexcelledforthispurpose, and it is of interestthat theyshould have used at this early date that materialso prized for the same purposeby archersof today. The size of the nock presupposesan arrow of extraordinarythicknessand weight,and would have demandeda bow of exceptionalweightand cast to handleit." Whileit is truethathollowarrows (of whatevermaterial)are normallyfittedwith a separate nock whichis insertedin the buttend of the arrow (cf. M. Smith, Starting Archery,London, 1978,p. 30), and hollow arrows (Akk. qanû, "Rohrpfeile")were certainly known in the ancient Near East (cf. A. Salonen,Jagd und Jagdtiere,Helsinki,1976,p. 52; F.W. Schwarzlose,Die Waffen der alten Araber, Leipzig, 1886, p. 280), the distal end diameter of most of the Uruk bone figures wouldseem to ruleout theirfunctionas arrownocks. Taf. 118.1430,for example, is 18.2 cm. longand appears to have a distalend diameter of c. 3 cm., whereasthe maximumdiameterof a modernarrow-shafttends to be under 1 cm. (cf. P.L. Pratt, "The Arrow", in R. Hardy, Longbow: A Social and Military History, Cambridge,1976,p. 200). Pointed bone spatulae identicalto those of Seleucid-Parthiandate from Uruk have been foundat Thaj (Hellenisticor Parthianin date) in northeastern Saudi Arabia (cf. K.M. Eskoubi and S.R.A. al-Aila, "Thaj Excavations,Second Season 1404/1984," Atlal 9 [1989]:Pl. 45.A-B).
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:44:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
138
Rezensionen
On the ivoryor bone dice fromUruk (Taf. 126.1524-1525)cf. G.F. Dales, "Of Dice and Men," JAOS 88 [1968]:14-23. For more on engraved Early Dynasticshell cf. Conchiglie: Il inlays (Taf. 131.1601-1604), commercioe la lavorazionedelle conchigliemarine nel medio orientedal TV al II millennio a.C ., Rome, 1981,p. 45. Yet anotherstudyhas appeared on engraved Tridacna shells. See D.S. Reese and C. Sease, "Some Previously Unpublished Engraved TridacnaShells,"JNES 52 (1993): 109-128. In conclusion,Rainer Michael Boehmercontinuesto earn the gratitudeof the entirefield of Ancient Near Eastern scholarshipby the greatefforthe has made to successfully publish the monumentalseries of Uruk-Warka final reports.FriedhelmPedde and Margaretevan Ess, both doctoralcandidatesat the Freie UniversitätBerlin as well as researchersattached to the GermanArchaeologicalInstitute(Baghdad), have done yeoman service in this fine publication.This workwilllongremaina standard referencefor studentsof ancientMesopotamianmaterialculture.
ments from later campaigns (now housed in Heidelbergand Baghdad) have been incorporated so that the presentvolume containsthe completecorpus of stone vesselsdiscoveredat Uruk by the Germanexpedition.In viewof the of stonevesselsin the materialculsignificance tureof Iran and the Gulfregionduringthe 3rd, 2nd, and 1stmillenniaB.C., thismakes AUWE 9 an importantreferenceworkforanyoneconcernedwith the archaeologyof thisportionof WesternAsia. The presentreviewwill concentrateon the stone vesselsand vessel fragments and, with but few exceptions,leave to other expertsan evaluationof the remainingcategoriesof smallfindsrepresentedin AUWE 9. Afterdescribingthe historyof explorationat Uruk, Martin and Heinz discuss,in turn, the provenanceof the pieces published;the manufacturingtechniques attested (see now also D.A. Stocks,"Makingstone vessels in ancient Mesopotamiaand Egypt,"Antiquity65 (1993): 596-603); the petrographyof the stones used (for the softstone,see also H. David, M. Tegyey,J. Le Metour and R. Wyns,"Les vases en chloritite dans la péninsuled'Oman: une étude pétrographiqueappliquée à l'archéologie", C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 311,ser. 11 (1990): 951D.T. Potts. Sydney. 958); the chronologyof the material;its function; and the formalcategoriesrepresentedin the collection.As always in thisseries the deElke Lindemeyer und Lutz Martin, unter scriptionsare accurate; cross-referencesare Mitarbeitvon Marlies Heinz und mit Beiträ- providedwhenevertheywould be helpful;and gen von Rudolf Kilias, Hans Neumann und completeconcordancesare givento excavation, museumregistration, Josef Riederer. Uruk. Kleinfunde III. and publishedcatalogue Kleinfunde im Vorderasiatischen Musenumbers.Given the massivesize of the corpus, um zu Berlin: Steingefäße und Asphalt, amountingto nearly1500 vesselsor fragments Farbreste, Fritte, Glas, Holz, Knochen/ thereof,it is plainlyimpossibleforan authorto cite all of the pertinentsecondary literature Elfenbein, Muschel/Perlmutt/Schnecke. XIII, 325 pp., 25 Tables, 131Plates.Mainz, Phi- which mightrelate to a given piece, and for lipp von Zabern, 1993 (= Endberichte /Ausgra- the mostpart thisworkcontainsas much critical apparatus as one would desire. However, bungenin Uruk-Warka, 9). DM 198,-. withreferenceto the softstonewhichis clearly The mostrecentvolume(henceforthAU WE of Omani originthereare a numberof chronofromthe German logical inaccuraciesand overlookedcomparan9) in the serieson smallfinds excavationsat Uruk-Warkapresentsthe impor- da whichhad certainlybeen publishedby the tant collectionsof one of the culturalshow- timethisbook wentto press(for whichno date is given,althoughthe forewordis dated 6 Febpieces of the formerGerman DemocraticReor PergamonMupublic,the Vorderasiatisches ruary1993). seum. As the titlestatesthisis a heterogeneous Several pieces of undoubted Iron Age date body of materialencompassingstone vessels, have been mis-assignedto earlieror later levbitumen,pigmentfragments, frit,glass,wood, els. Thus cat. 123, a large fragment of a -sided canistershows decorationwhich ivory,bone, and shellobjects. The Berlinma- straight terialall comes fromthe pre-WW II campaigns. is typicalof the Omani Iron Age. The light, In addition, however, the stone vessel frag- herringbone incisionbetween parallellines and
This content downloaded from 128.122.149.154 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:44:43 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions