The Ivory Beds and Houses of Samaria in Amos

LIBRARY OF HEBREW BIBLE/ OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES

588

Formerly Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

Editors Claudia V. Camp, Texas Christian University Andrew Mein, Westcott House, Cambridge

Founding Editors David J. A. Clines, Philip R. Davies and David M. Gunn

Editorial Board

Alan Cooper, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon,

Norman K. Gottwald, James E. Harding, John Jarick, Carol Meyers,

Carolyn J. Sharp, Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, Francesca Stavrakopoulou,

James W. Watts

IMAGE, TEXT, EXEGESIS

Iconographic Interpretation and the Hebrew Bible

Edited by

Izaak J. de Hulster and

Joel M. LeMon

LON DON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018

UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are trademarks

of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2014

© Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon, 2014

Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identi�ed as Editors of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any

form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the

publishers.

No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury

or the authors.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this books is available from the British Library.

ISBN: HB: 978-0-56716-813-9 ePDF: 978-0-56758-828-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Image, text, exegesis : iconographic interpretation and the Hebrew Bible / edited by Izaak J. de Hulster, Joel M. LeMon.

pages cm. -- (The library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament studies ; 588) Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-0-567-16813-9 (hardback) 1. Bible. Old Testament--Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Christian art and symbolism.

3. Idols and images. I. Hulster, Izaak J. de (Izaak Jozias) II. LeMon, Joel M.

BS1171.3.I425 2015 221.6'7--dc23

2014031649

Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com)

Printed and bound in Great Britain

CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Abbreviations ix List of Contributors xv INTRODUCTION: THE INTERPRETIVE NEXUS OF IMAGE AND TEXT

Izaak J. de Hulster and Joel M. LeMon xix ACCULTURATING GENDER ROLES: GODDESS IMAGES AS CONVEYORS OF CULTURE IN ANCIENT ISRAEL

Elizabeth Bloch-Smith 1 MIXED CREATURES AND THE ASSYRIAN INFLUENCE ON THE WEST SEMITIC GLYPTIC REPERTOIRE

Rüdiger Schmitt 19 THE FUNCTION AND MEANING OF MY �MN ON HEBREW SEALS IN LIGHT OF ACCOMPANYING ICONOGRAPHY

Meir Lubetski 29 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF IDEAL FEMININE BEAUTY REPRESENTED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE AND IRON AGE LEVANTINE IVORY SCULPTURE

Amy Rebecca Gansell 46 FINDING ASHERAH: THE GODDESSES IN TEXT AND IMAGE

Jackie Wyse-Rhodes 71 THE ICONOGRAPHY OF FEAR: YIR�AT YHWH ( �� ) IN ARTISTIC PERSPECTIVE

Brent A. Strawn 91

vi Contents

�CHILDREN I HAVE RAISED AND BROUGHT UP� (ISAIAH 1:2): FEMALE METAPHORS FOR GOD IN ISAIAH AND THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE SYRO-PALESTINIAN GODDESS ASHERAH

Martin Klingbeil 135 IMAGES OF JUSTIFICATION

Thomas Staubli 159 THE IVORY BEDS AND HOUSES OF SAMARIA IN AMOS

Meindert Dijkstra 178 LIONS AND LEOPARDS AND BEARS, O MY: RE-READING ISAIAH 11:6�9 IN LIGHT OF COMPARATIVE ICONOGRAPHIC

AND LITERARY EVIDENCE Michael J. Chan and Maria Metzler 196

A GOD OF THE MOUNTAINS? AN ICONOGRAPHIC PERSPECTIVE ON THE ARAMEAN ARGUMENT IN 1 KINGS 20:23

Izaak J. de Hulster 226 THE EGYPTIAN DEITY MENKERET AND PSALM 89 AS A ROYAL FUNERAL

Hans Ulrich Steymans 251 APPENDIX PRACTICAL RESOURCES FOR ICONOGRAPHIC EXEGESIS

Izaak J. de Hulster 285 Index of References 296 Index of Authors 304

THE IVORY BEDS AND HOUSES OF SAMARIA IN AMOS

Meindert Dijkstra

Introduction

On several occasions, the prophet Amos mentions ivory furniture and other ivory decoration of houses and palaces (Amos 3:12, 15; 6:4). For example:

You put off the evil day and bring near a reign of terror. You lie on beds inlaid with ivory and lounge on your couches. (Amos 6.3�4a [NIV])1

Beds and couches inlaid or veneered with ivory plaques were tokens of great riches and luxury (Dijkstra 1994).2 According to the Deuteronomis-tic Historian, one of Ahab�s achievements was the building of a �� , a �house of ivory� (1 Kgs 22:39; cf. Ps 45:9). In Amos 3:15, the prophet even spoke of houses of ivory and perhaps also ebony. Indeed, the conjecture suggested by BHS et al., �houses of ebony,� �� or ��, has some credibility instead of the rather meaningless �� in the MT.3 The combination of inlays of ivory, ebony, and precious stones is well known from Ugaritic and Egyptian documents, furniture, luxury boxes, and game-boards.4 The dowry of Ahatmilku, queen of Ugarit, mentions a chair inlaid with ivory and ebony (PRU 3:182�86 = RS 16.146+161). Imports of ivory and ebony from Africa and India as raw material and as luxury products are mentioned in Ugarit (KTU 4.402.6) and Israel (Ezek 27:15). According to Ezekiel, they were imported into 1. Unless otherwise noted, all translations of biblical texts are my own. 2. In the 1990s, I started to collect material on ivories and furniture for a study on the furniture of houses, temples, and so on. A few examples of reconstructions of ivory panels from my �les have been published in de Hulster 2009, 241; �gs. 8.14, 8.15. 3. ��<�� is an Egyptian loan. The word hbny is also attested in Ugaritic; see DUL 1:333; cf. HALOT 237. 4. See, for example, a box from the tomb of Tuya (JE 95248); the throne of Tutankhamun (JE 62030); a game board of Tutankhamun (JE 62058); and a box from Pella (Bienkowski 1991, 105, No. 126).

DIJKSTRA The Ivory Beds 179

Canaan and Phoenicia from Egypt and Dedan.5 The use of ebony for inlays in furniture is perhaps mentioned in the description of Solomon�s sedan-chair (Song 3:9�10).6 Dark-colored ebony was preferred as an inlay in order to form a contrast with the whitish or yellowish ivory. A list of booty from Damascus made by Adad-Nirari III mentions furniture of different ivory workmanship that is ih-zi (covered with gold sheet; cf. the term �ah�z in 1 Kgs 6:10) and tam-le-e, presumably either the tech-nique of cloisonné or designs encrusted in ivory with colored pastes (Egyptian blue?), precious stones (lapis lazuli, chrysolite, etc.), and glaze.7 Such artistic techniques are also reminiscent of the metaphors in Song 5:14, where arms and body are compared to �golden rods set with chrysolite, a body like polished ivory decorated with sapphires.� Many commentaries refer to the Samaria ivories found by the Joint Expedition of 1931�1933 and 1935 and published by the Palestine Exploration Fund (Crowfoot and Crowfoot 1938 [hereafter EIS]). Usually, scholars follow the Crowfoots� editio princeps on the assump-tion that, of the many fragments, �some might have fallen out of the frames of couches or thrones; many in all probability came from wall incrustations� (EIS 2). The latter idea is inspired by the expression �ivory houses� (1 Kgs 22:39; Amos 3:15) and the observation that panels of cedar wood encrusted with ivory are still part of ancient churches and medieval Arab houses in the Middle East. Comparison of this paneling leads to the assumption that ivory inlays were applied also to the cedar paneling of the temples and palaces in Jerusalem and Samaria, so that the expression �ivory house� may imply more than just a special room where ivory furniture and other luxuries were shown and kept. Such a con-nection between Amos and the Samaria ivories is easily made, but should only be a �rst step towards the integration of text and archaeo-logical context.8 This study provides a further effort to integrate

5. Such products are also mentioned as luxury goods in Merneptah�s letter to the last king of Ugarit, Ammurapi (Singer 1999, 710). 6. Rundgren 1962; Winandy 1965. 7. On these techniques, see Mallowan 1966, 471�85; Winter 1981; Leibowitz 1992. 8. It is certainly not enough only to deal with the famous and much-discussed picture of the �woman at the window,� which is actually only a minor ornamental detail of furniture (decorating, for instance, the legs of Ashurbanipal�s couch). On this �gure, see the contribution of Amy Gansell in this volume. Only at Arslan Tash was this motif found in greater numbers than Samaria, but in a limited, rather uniform archaeological context, suggesting a provenance from at least two pieces of furniture. This motif was also found at Nimrud (several in the NW Palace [Barnett 1975, C12�15, 16, 20]) and Khorsabad in smaller numbers (nine pieces [Barnett

180 Image, Text, Exegesis

1

iconographic and archaeological knowledge into an understanding of the words of the prophet Amos.

Fragments of Wall Paneling or Furniture Decoration? I start with an archaeological discussion about whether the �house of ivory� refers to ivory inlays in wall paneling. The existence of paneling made from cedar wood is con�rmed in the description of Solomon�s and Ezekiel�s temple (1 Kgs 6:14�18, 29�35; Ezek 41:17�20, 25). These texts, however, do not mention ivory inlays, though they do speak of a decoration showing two cherubim on either side of a palm tree. Of course, it is possible that the wooden doors of the temple had inlays of ivory cherubim and palm trees (Ezek 41:25), like the �ivory doors� dedicated to the god Tishpak in Eshnunna and those of the portico of Tiglath-pileser�s b�t �il�ni in Kalhu. It is also said of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon that his chamber of repose had doors with ivory inlays (Barnett 1975, 112�13). But a door decorated with ivory inlays is not the same as a room or a palace �lled with such decorations, a �house of ivory.� In fact, the idea of inlays in wooden paneling does not �t well with the great variety of material found among the ivory remains of Samaria that have been published to date.9 For instance, the eleven almost-complete palm trees published in EIS belong to at least �ve different types, varying in size and workmanship (for type 1a, see pls. XVIII 1, 2, 3 and XIX, 2; for 1b, see pls. XIX 1, 3 and XX, 4; for 1c, see pl. XX 3, 5; for 2a, see pl. XX, 1; for 2b see pl. XX, 2). In addition, there are types with and without tenons, which indicate different methods of construction and application.10 From the rich Arslan Tash assemblage, only three similar carved palm trees have been published. Decoration of a room with inlays implies a much larger number of identically cut pieces, comparable to the innumerable glaze inlays found in Egypt used to decorate the mud-brick walls and stone doorframes of the royal

1975, 127]). At Nimrud, the motif was also found in an open-work variant with tenons (Mallowan 1966, ND6316 [429] NW 15; ND8005 [555] S10), suggesting that it was also set in the rails of the backs and arms of chairs, and so on. Besides the published example from Samaria (EIS pl. XIII, 2), fragments were found of at least four others belonging to two different types (EIS 29). 9. Soon after their �rst publication, Vincent (1939, esp. 636) doubted whether the ivories from �Ahab�s palace� actually served as a wall decoration. 10. See also EIS pl. XXV nos. 1, 6, 9, 10, 14 (upside down!) with tenons and perforations for a stud; only one (pl. XXV no. 7) without a perforation; two such pieces remained unpublished (EIS 48).


palaces of Egypt (e.g., Tell el-Amarna, Qantir, and Medinet Habu). It is, of course, possible that publication of the ca. 12,000 pieces from Samaria will change this picture, though I still assume for the time being that the editio princeps included most of the immediately recognizable and accessible pieces. Only time will tell.

The Archaeological Context of the Ivories Unfortunately, the archaeological record of discovery is very confused and the Crowfoots failed to provide precise provenance data for the ivories except for an occasional reference to the �summit strip� and some �nd spots such a Qc, Qn, and so on. However, Ron Tappy provided an extremely valuable service in his archaeology of Israelite Samaria.11 Thanks to his work, a quick look at the different �nd spots and the archaeological evidence makes perfectly clear that though three segments of the excavation yielded nearly 96% of all the entries identi�ed, they were not found in situ. So, we cannot speak of a concentration or closed assemblages such as were found at Megiddo, Zincirli, and particularly Arslan Tash.12 Also, the additional information about the provenance of the unpublished ivories has not changed the general picture: the ivory fragments were not found where they were expected to be found, i.e., in the southwestern corner of the summit plateau where the royal palace would have been. Once more, one is surprised that after so many years, sound analysis of the archaeological context simply could not deliver the �biblical-archaeological� story of the ivories.13 Why the majority came from a narrow strip in the northern courtyard, deposited secondarily in strata dating to the Hellenistic and Roman period, is a further matter of speculation. They were carried there in one way or another, either by hand or by natural causes. Some ivory fragments seem to have been

11. Tappy 2001, 2:443�95, Appendix B, 591�98; Tappy 2006. See also the summary in Uehlinger (2005, esp. 150�52). 12. Actually, the situation at Samaria is similar to that at Nimrud, though, of course, the archaeological preservation of buildings and material was much better there. On the other hand, Arslan Tash�more than Megiddo and Zincirli�is a �ne example of a single �nd spot and a closed assemblage, perhaps a room for resting including a bed, chair, and small table (Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931, 89�92). 13. Even Kathleen Kenyon (1971, 83�89) did not escape the lure of this direct biblical connection by saying that the majority of ivories were found in the debris of the Assyrian destruction of 722 B.C.E. In the end, she failed to note that, according to her own �eld notes, the debris was found in Hellenistic layers, as noted by Tappy (2001, 2:457�58).


1

surface stray �nds, suggesting a long process of denudation of the summit area. Many panels were broken up in antiquity but, despite their different �nd spots, fragments of them can still be assembled or are recognizable as belonging to the same piece or scene.14 From these fragments that can be assembled, it seems that the �nds of the principal segments 19.51.14.25 and 49.26.25 and those found west of Wall 132W in 1933 formed one group. Some pieces can con�dently be joined because of their singular �nd context, such as the two fragments of the beautiful panel of the drinking stags (��).15

Figure 1. Ivory fragments depicting drinking stags(?). Eighth century B.C.E.

Samaria, under Wall 132E. After EIS pls. X, 7-8. Used with permission. Although the line drawing depicts two identical animals, it is possible that the stag walking in front of the hind was carved somewhat differently, lifting its head with its tongue still dangling from its mouth as if it smells danger (as the photograph at the top of �� indicates, but, again, compare the line drawing below it, which comes from EIS pl. 8a). Besides many well-preserved unburned pieces, it has been observed that the hoard included a majority of heavily fragmented and charred panels, but this observation applies basically to all �nd spots. This also suggests a common provenance from somewhere else on the summit of the royal quarter. However, without any clearly de�ned archaeological provenance in situ, a connection between the ivories and the text of 2 Kgs 22:39 remains tenuous at best, as Tappy (2001, 2:495; 2006, 656; cf. Uehlinger

14. E.g., EIS 1997a+(Qc-e IVb), 1637a-b (Qc-hq II?)+1754 (Qc-e IVb) (see ��); the palm tree 1597 (a Qc-hq II?; b Qc-e IV) and 1568+1875 (Qc-hq II + Qc-e IV), both pieces of XV, 4 (1770d Qc-e-g IVa; 1988d.1 Qc-e IV). 15. See also the parallels from Thureau-Dangin et al. (1931, Atlas pl. XXXVI, 61�62) and Mallowan (1966, ND10582 [435]).


2005, 151�52) correctly concluded. If the collection could be dated by strati�cation, we have only the destruction of Samaria by the Assyrian king Sargon II as a reasonably �xed terminus ante quem. The Hellenistic-Roman layers lie immediately over Israelite Iron Age IIB�C strata,16 indicating that there must have been an occupational gap of at least four centuries. Because the lower parts of late Israelite walls were still standing when Hellenistic occupation was resumed, deposits from this time must have been around somewhere, even if the area was partly denuded. New foundations of Hellenistic walls and �oors were dug into late Israelite layers. The lateral east�west section south of and parallel to Wall 125 and labeled as west of Wall 124 from the 1933 campaign clearly shows an entanglement of late Israelite construction, some Iron Age IIC pottery, and Early Hellenistic construction (Tappy 2001, 2:468�78). Thus, some original debris coming from the 722 B.C.E. destruction might have been found in strata VI and VII, whilst fragments of ivory were also discovered in the foundation trench of Wall 132E (Tappy 2001, 2:472). Such confused stratigraphic and statistical con-ditions make an application in the wall paneling of a particular room of the palace less plausible from an archaeological point of view. I therefore assume that the majority of the Samaria ivories served to decorate furniture and other objects such as luxury boxes and games. If the palm trees were part of a bed frame or the back of a chair, they would imply the existence of about �ve pieces of furniture or perhaps even fewer, since the smaller ones may have been part of frames and railings placed somewhere around the larger ones. The �tter�s marks (letters of the Hebrew alphabet) preserved in one case imply the application of at least twenty palm trees to one piece (cf. the resh in EIS pl. XXV, 14),17 but fewer in others.18 The Crowfoots suggested that the palm trees were applied to wall paneling in a row of metopes with wooden slats between them (EIS 35�39, esp. �g. 7). They were perhaps correct about the row of metopes. It is, however, more feasible that such a decoration belonged to an ivory chair-back inlaid with a scroll pattern of palm trees bordered 16. See also Kenyon (1971, 133), who assumed that the Assyrian garrison and foreign settlers lived somewhere else on the lower slopes of the city. 17. See the rendering of Sukenik apud EIS 48. However, the letter is incomplete; it must also be assumed that the artist wrote the letter upside down. A clumsily carved aleph is also possible. 18. The sequence of zayin, teth, and yod on the seemingly identical pieces (EIS pl. XXV 6, 9, 10) presupposes a minimum of 10 palm trees (2�5) for a piece of furniture. It might be noted that the �complete� bases of the palm trees (EIS pl. XXV, 6, 14) are 35 mm wide, so they belong to type 1b (EIS pls. XIX, 1, 3; XX, 4).


1

with lattices of rhombuses in between and around them (��). Some of these long types of palm trees were carved in two pieces (EIS pls. XVIII, 2; XIX, 2), which implies that they were not �xed with pins or nails, but glued onto a wooden background.19 Another arrangement of the more squat type of palm trees (Type 2) was suggested by Thureau-Dangin et al. (1931, 89�92; EIS 38�39, �g. 8) and was subsequently con�rmed by the Nimrud discoveries (Mallowan 1966, 564 ND6347 [503]). Many specimens of lengthy strips of this variety, which were apparently used as frames for larger scenes, were provided with tenons and set into rails. Some of the lengthier Type 1 palm trees were perhaps also arranged this way, since they have tenons and since the drooping fronds are cut off to match the fronds of the adjacent palm trees.20 However, the Nimrud group has such a �Samarian� palm tree carved on a single plaque with tenons too, so they were applied in a row of metopes with borders in between.21

Figure 2. Part of a back of a chair, reconstructed from EIS pls XVII; XXI, 9, 10

and �g. 7. Eighth century B.C.E. Samaria.

19. This is also inferred from the scoring and nicking on the reverse side, intentionally made to glue or insert the pieces into a bituminous bedding (lumps of bitumen have been found). A similar method of scoring is often also observable in the Nimrud pieces and is now helpful in the process of reconstruction; see Suter 2011, 226 �g. 2. 20. This lengthy type 1d with tenons is not present at Samaria, but see Mallowan (1966, 591 ND10413 [572]). 21. Mallowan 1966, 598 ND12031 [580].


Minor Steps in the Reconstruction of Images and Themes

We turn now to discuss some of the aspects of the images and themes of the ivory carvings as we eagerly await the complete results of the project of Claudia Suter and Christoph Uehlinger, who will publish a balanced assessment of all the ivory carvings from Samaria. According to Suter and Uehlinger, only 197 of about 12,000 (!) pieces have been published so far.22 However, though these pieces can be found in the museums of Jerusalem and London, it is still unclear whether they were all discov-ered at Samaria. They may also include pieces found at Kalhu-Nimrud and elsewhere in the Levant. So, for the moment, it seems advisable to adopt the careful count of Ron Tappy, totaling 1085 pieces, including the unpublished fragments (248 published; 837 unpublished).23 I fully agree with Suter and Uehlinger, among others, that it is possible that pieces from Samaria may have been taken to Assyria and subsequently recovered among the Assyrian booty in Fort Shalmaneser at Kalhu-Nimrud.24 But whether it is a sound method to claim them for Samarian production remains to be seen. As far as I know, not a single physical join has been detected between the two �nd spots, while a Samarian provenance on the basis of inscriptional evidence from Nimrud is still far from proven.25 Though the majority of ivories found at Nimrud were discovered in rooms of the building west of south-east around the

22. See Forschungdatenbank der Universität Zürich, where Suter and Uehlinger announced a publication project entitled The Ivories from Samaria: Complete Catalogue, Stylistic Classi�cation, Iconographical Analysis, Cultural-Historical Evaluation (http://www.research-projects.uzh.ch/p4012.htm). Uehlinger noted, with Tappy (2001, 448), just 600 fragments, but see his comments elsewhere: �Mittler-weise wissen wir dank der von C.E. Suter geleisteten, aufwändigen Dokumentations-arbeit, dass diese Zahl in die Tausende geht� (Uehlinger 2005, 150�52). For the number 12,000 see also Suter (2011, 220). 23. See Table 1 in Tappy (2006, 638). 24. Suter even mentions a number of �joins� between the Samaria and Nimrud pieces (2011, 220�21 n. 8), suggesting that pieces came from the same piece of furniture. Pieces of furniture, of course, may have been destroyed by looters, but it seems farfetched to me that the ivory parts of one piece of furniture were dispersed between Samaria and Nimrud-Kalhu, or even that thousands of pieces were taken to Assyria. The usual Assyrian policy was to take complete pieces of furniture (Reade 1983, 43 �g. 61 [right]). 25. See the review of the inscriptional material in Becking (1992, 79�87). The only alleged Hebrew inscription shows, in my opinion, palaeographically and epi-graphically Judean script from Hezekiah�s time, which suggests another provenance, perhaps as part of tribute from the kingdom of Judah. For the evidence of tribute and plunder of ivory furniture and other items, see Barnett 1975, 114�15.


1

courtyard, the different �nd spots, such as SW 7 and SW 37+SW11�12, do not imply a great homogeneity. Royal names inscribed on ivories include: �our [lo]rd Hazael� (NF 11310[B] from T10);26 a scarab of Pharaoh Taharqa from Egypt (ND7624 [583] The Residency) contem-porary with Hezekiah, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon; the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V, son of Shalmaneser (824�810 B.C.E. from SW37); and the phrase mlk gdl �the great king�27 on a piece with �Hebrew script� from Judah (from SW3), so that, of course, more than one provenance may be construed from this datum.28 Furthermore, topics such as the slaying of Humbaba (ND10326 [457]) and the ivory label mentioning Shamsi-Adad V, both found in room SW37, do not immediately suggest a Levantine provenance for all of the pieces from this �nd spot. The �nds of rooms SW37+ indeed offer the closest parallels to the Samarian ivories, but even so, they do not imply that they were all Samarian booty, let alone of Samarian production.29

5. Diversity and Uniformity I have presented some examples of what can be achieved by combining scattered fragments, some of which were provisionally published in 2008 by Izaak de Hulster (�� and �30).31 Let me attempt here some further considerations about the imagery carved on the furniture panels. Those who study the art of ivory carving are confronted not only with a variety of styles, but also with different techniques. One will discover that what at �rst sight appears as a plethora of images belongs to a rather limited assortment of themes. Moreover, certain images are part of a particular scene or thematic constellation. This observation receives corroboration from an unsuspected angle, the

26. �� *[��] A. R. Millard apud Mallowan 1966, 598; cf. also the ivory fragment from Arslan Tash in Gibson (1971, 4�5 �g. 6). 27. Best understood as a title of the Assyrian king = �arru rabû (2 Kgs 18:19�28; Isa 36:4�13); see Becking 1992, 80. 28. Mallowan (1966, 595) includes with Barnett also Hamath as a (or the) place of provenance. Actually, we could easily add from the records more sources of booty including ivory carvings. 29. Suter thinks that Samaria possessed its own workshop (2011, 219�21). 30. Second version of reconstruction based on EIS pls. X 3, 4, 5; VII 8, 8a and Suter 2011, 226, �g. 2. The fragment in EIS pl. XI no. 6 may be the head of the right sphinx, though it does not seem to join physically. 31. De Hulster 2009, 24; �gs. 8.14, 8.15. For the �rst example, see now Suter 2011, 226 �g. 2; here, however, the head of the trampled enemy was joined to the sphinx on the right.


editio princips of the Samaria ivories according to themes of images: the Horus scenery, winged �gures, winged sphinxes, battling animals, and so on. It is further con�rmed by the thematic order in which the scanned archive of photographs from the ivories of Fort Shalmaneser, Nimrud are presented.32 In particular, this collection shows clearly that many of the same images and themes are executed in different styles and techniques. Many studies deal only with techniques of carving and the basic images, but not with constellations of images, coherent scenes, and the techniques of application on furniture, boxes, games, and so on. It is precisely the rather limited number of themes that often helps us to recognize the origin of smaller fragments and their place in the context of larger scenes and decoration.

Figure 3. Pharaoh disguised as a sphinx trampling an enemy, reconstructed from

EIS pl. XIV, 5, 7. Eighth century B.C.E. Samaria.

Figure 4. Pharaoh disguised as a sphinx trampling an enemy, reconstructed from

EIS pls VII, 8, 8a; X, 3, 5; XI, 6(?); XII, 11(?). Eighth century B.C.E. Samaria

32. Herrmann, Coffey, and Laidlaw 2004.


1

It is quite easy to present more examples.33 The Samarian �nds include a large number of fragmentary pieces with polychrome incrustations (EIS pls. XIV-XV), usually referred to as the champ levé or silhouette tech-nique. The designs are carved from a smooth and rather thick plaque of ivory and �lled in with colored, slightly molded insets representing the actual image. We �nd this technique used for images of pharaoh triumphing (EIS pl. XIV, 1), pharaoh wearing the double crown and disguised as a sphinx trampling an enemy (EIS pl. XIV, 7), the male winged genius with a lotus (EIS pl. XIV, 2, 8, 10, 11[?]), a grif�n (EIS pl.�XIV, 4), and also in borders depicting lotus �owers and palmettes (EIS pl. XV, 1�9).

Figure 5a. Winged genius, reconstructed from EIS pl. XIV, 2;

XV, 7. Eighth century B.C.E. Samaria.

Figure 5b. Inlaid winged genius from Nimrud (ND10398

[474] = S2122). Eighth century B.C.E. After

Herrmann, Coffey, and Laidlaw 2004, 154.

Used with permission.

Figure 5c. Winged genius reconstructed with double crown.

Eighth century B.C.E. Samaria. After EIS

pl. XIV, 2. Used with permission.

I have reconstructed �� by combining the wings of EIS pl. XIV, 5 with the foreleg of the sphinx and the recumbent �gure in the fragment pictured at EIS pl. XVI, 7. This reconstruction was actually inspired by the reconstruction of the Samarian grif�n (EIS pl. XIV, 4). In this case, I joined the fragment of the grif�n (EIS pl. XIV, 4) with the lower fragment of EIS pl. XIV, 5 to reconstruct �� on the basis of a parallel from Nimrud (ND10654 [475]), which shows a similar rampant winged grif�n but in mirror-form (��).

33. Not included here is, for instance, the obvious join between EIS pls. XII, 4 and XI, 5, restoring the head and coiffure of a female(?) �gure.


Figure 6a. Grif�n reconstructed from EIS pl XIV, 4-5. Eighth

century B.C.E. Samaria.

Figure 6b. Inlaid griffon from Nimrud (ND10654 [475] =

S2116). Eighth century B.C.E. After Herrmann, Coffey, and

Laidlaw 2004, 154. Used with permission.

The reconstruction with these two fragments into one scene suggests not only that the grif�n is browsing on a stylized sacred tree34 but that it also formed part of a larger image framed by a border rendered in a very similar way to the example from Nimrud. The exact same border of the Nimrud griffon (�g. 6b) showing a chain of lotus �owers and buds was also found at Samaria (EIS pl. XV, 3). It also appears in a separate form on an ivory strip in Nimrud as well (ND7790 [501]).35 Furthermore, we learn from this comparison that the winged genius was not wearing a double crown, as the Crowfoots reconstructed the design (EIS pl. XIV, 2, ��), but had a sun disk on his head (see also EIS pl. XIV, 10).36 The Nimrud pieces (��) are slightly curved and in the form of a trapezoid, which suggests that they were applied to an object of conical or circular form�perhaps the rounded cover of a box? The Samarian pieces also suggest an application on a minor object such as a luxury box

34. A motif also found elsewhere in open work carving ND9465 [507] and on a piece of leather from Malta (Harden 1971, pl. 92). 35. But this piece is not typical of Samarian style or production because pieces with a similar technique have also appeared at Zincirli (von Luschan and Andrae 1943, Tf. 69q; 71c, d; 72p). 36. Perhaps we may place here the fragment in EIS pl. XV, 7, which had been identi�ed as a fragment from a winged �gure holding a lily (EIS 32). Part of the hand holding the lily to the left and a sun disk to the right are still visible on the fragment, which should be turned left 90º.


1

or a game box. The different images were certainly meant to be part of a larger scheme, as EIS pl. XIV, 3 shows, comprising two registers divided by a border of a chain of lotus �owers and buds. In the upper register, there are the traces of an animal walking towards the left and a human �gure walking towards the right, while in the bottom register one sees a Horus-sphinx with Atef crown browsing on a tree or laying his paw on the head of an enemy. The nature of EIS pl. XIV, 11 remains unclear. It could be part of a scene of a genius offering a lotus �ower and greeting a winged genius walking towards him or her. If so, EIS pl. XV, 10 might belong to the left of EIS pl. XIV, 11. It should be noted that many of these pieces show the same kind of border on the top edge. One may surmise that they belonged to a tableau with winged �gures at the outside greeted by a wingless �gure in between, all of them having a sun disk on their head.

6. The Ivories and Amos�s Religious Criticism The question of whether there was some religious criticism of the images is not a new one. In their project, Suter and Uehlinger aim to ascertain �nally whether the images carved in ivory on furniture reveal the religious views and ideologies with which the Samarian elites chose to identify themselves. Images represent ideas and ideas involve a worldview, ideology, and religion. Of course, the problem is not the existence of images in ancient Israel. We are hopefully past that station today: ancient Israelites�who are not identical to Jews�made and used images as an artistic and cultural expression of their worldview. Works such as Schroer�s In Israel gab es Bilder (1987) and de Hulster�s Iconographic Exegesis (2009) have become standard tools of the exegetical trade. One can hardly imagine that Amos or other prophets were opposed to images like thirsty and drinking stags if contemporary poets used the metaphor of a deer panting for water for a soul thirsting for God (Ps 42:1). Even Amos was aware of such longing (Amos 8:11). A winged genius or a winged sphinx with human head, stylized trees with lilies, lotus-�owers, and buds could hardly cause problems in a world and culture that was familiar with all kinds of cherubim and seraphim, even if adorned with headgear that sometimes is still recognizable (albeit with some dif�culty) as different kinds of Egyptian crowns. Lea�ng through the early ivories from Samaria, one wonders what could offend the cultural taste and religious ideas of this prophet, who was a member of the landed aristocracy and one of the n�q�dîm serving


the Judaean king. One should rightly assume that like any cultured person, he was familiar with the artistic styles of his period. To the observer from a Levantine perspective, the ivories may look Egyptian, but for the Egyptian (and for Egyptologists) they were the product of a local Levantine workshop, using pseudo-hieroglyphic inscriptions and non-Egyptian details. Perhaps the only somewhat foreign-looking ivories are those showing the birth of the child-god Horus in the beautiful cloisonné technique (EIS pls. I�III). The �nd spots and date of discovery of the majority of these pieces also corroborate their coherence. This is not the place to discuss this material and scene in extenso. Comparative evidence shows that they undoubtedly formed part of an integral scene that included other motifs, such as the �ight of Isis, Isis suckling her baby Horus and the young Horus in the marshes (ND10509[B] [515]; ND9475[B] [513]), the appearance of Hathor as a cow suckling her calf (ND9412[B] [514]), and so on. There are also many panels in a different kind of technique show-ing the birth of Horus between two winged genii, either male or female, or the goddesses Isis and Nephthys (ND10312, ND unregistered SW 37).37 Perhaps the cloissoné winged genius from Samaria �anked one of the Horus images from Samaria as well (EIS pl. IV, 1, 1a).38 Similar scenes are well known from Egypt, in particular from the different Mammesi houses, the birth-house of the god Horus. These scenes of the birth of the divine king are found on many temple premises in the Late Period, but have been known since the New Kingdom. Indeed, in both Israel and Judah, the scenes appear beginning in the eighth century not only on ivories but also on seals.39 There is obviously a connection between these scenes and royal ideology, but further research into this issue is still required.

37. Herrmann, Coffey, and Laidlaw 2004, 142, S1939�1940. 38. Compare the relief panels from Thureau-Dangin et al. 1931, Atlas pls. XIX-XXIV. Surprisingly, such a scene is not attested at Nimrud in complete form. An exception might be from the NW Palace (Barnett 1975, C 51; see also EIS pl. II, 18), though it remains unclear here whether Horus is �anked by a male or female genius or a goddess, but I am inclined to think of a female because of the lower part which seems to suggest a female skirt in cloisonné style below the wing (cf. the scene on the silver bowl from Amathus, Cyprus; Harden 1971, 178 �g. 53; Markou 2000, 84 pl. 26). The winged uraeus (EIS pl. XIII, 4) may also be part of such a scene, though now in openwork (ajouré) style. See also the cloisonné wing (EIS pl. VII, 1 [Appendix 2]). 39. Keel and Uehlinger 1992, 282�85.


1

Apparently, these scenes decorated a chair-back or a bedstead. We can only speculate about their meaning. It would be an easy choice to think of magic, but such speculation goes no further than the idea that the �woman at the window��a motif that decorated the legs of beds and couches�somehow represented the sacred marriage of the king and queen. As Uehlinger rightly remarked, overstating the religious meaning of this art would be as unwise as ignoring its religious and cultural impact.40 The myth of Horus�s birth is certainly not a complex of inno-cent religious ideas and expectations. Anybody who is at all familiar with the cultural and artistic outlook of the scribes of Kuntillet �Ajrud, however, will not be surprised with this myth�s presence at the royal court in Samaria. But it is still dif�cult to imagine that the prophet scolded the elite of Samaria or the king for such dubious religious bedroom secrets.

7. �The Israelites Who Sit in Samaria� The ivory furniture and other ivory luxuries represent above all the culture and wealth�but also the cultural estrangement�of the elite, particularly the Israelite elite in Samaria. I will devote some �nal thoughts to the ironic words of the prophet, scolding the Israelite elite in Samaria for their luxurious ivory couches. Amos 3:12 is a kind of parable or extended metaphor: �This is what the LORD says: As a shepherd saves from the lion�s mouth only two leg bones or a piece of an ear, so will the Israelites who live in Samaria save themselves with�� With what? It is clear, at least, that this imagery concerns parts of a bed. But here the consensus ends. What part of their beds will help to save them in the dark night of disaster?41 It will come as no surprise at the end of this contribution that scholars such as S. Mittman thought about parts of the beds; to be honest, who would blame them after the discovery of such beautiful beds and bedsteads inlaid with ivory panels at Ras Shamra-Ugarit, Arslan Tash, Salamis, and Room SW7 at Nimrud? I have shown some �ne chair-backs from the collection found in that room. One could easily devote an entire article to the proposals that attempt to wrest

40. See also the contribution of Amy Gansell in this volume on the �woman at the window� motif in the context of ancient Near Eastern cultural ideas of female beauty. 41. This does not necessarily mean the siege and destruction of the city by the Assyrians. The great earthquake too could be viewed as divine punishment (Amos 1:1).


meaning from this verse.42 Some interpreters have reversed the word order at the end of the sentence, �� , suggesting that the Israel-ites would �ee the town with the ivory panels of the bed referred to as the �couch of Damascus.� This would point to a particular type of bed decorated with ivory in Damascene style. Desperate people do desperate things, and even today we see heartbreaking pictures of refugees carrying their furniture (including beds) on their heads and shoulders. Could �� be a part of a bed like the word � ��? But the description of Solomon�s throne shows that there are good Hebrew words for parts of a chair, like armrests and a back with a rounded edge (1 Kgs 10:19). Therefore, I suggest that we do not here refer too quickly to ivory parts of decoration, but to other items, perhaps denoting the covers and blankets. For � �� one might render the well-known ancient Near Eastern, seemingly Hurrian-Hittite word puwati for a kind of red dye (�madder�).43 It may also denote material dyed with this madder and, subsequently, �� could be a kind of precious woven material later known in Arabic as dima�q�, �silk, damask.� If so, it implies that they, like the unfortunate shepherd, must leave their luxuries and luxurious life behind and �ee the disaster or be deported after the siege, carrying the deplorable remains of their former luxury�a red blanket or damask sheet�and leaving their ivory furniture behind to be looted or destroyed by �re.

Bibliography Barnett, R. D. 1975. A Catalogue of Nimrud Ivories with Other Examples of Ancient

Near Eastern Ivories in the British Museum. 2d ed. London: British Museum Publications.

��. 1982. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East. Qedem 14. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology.

Becking, B. 1992. The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and Archaeological Survey. SHANE 2. Leiden: Brill.

Bienkowski, P., ed. 1991. The Art of Jordan: Treasures from an Ancient Land. Stroud, UK: Allan Sutton in Association with National Museums & Galleries on Mersey-side.

Decamps de Mertzenfeld, C. 1954. Inventaire Commenté des Ivoires Phéniciennes et Apparantés Découverts dans le Proche Orient I Texte. 2 vols. Paris: Boccard.

42. A �ne summary is found in van Leeuwen 1985, 130�31; see also Dijkstra 1994, 181. 43. Van Soldt 1990, esp. 323�24, 347�48.


1

Crowfoot, J. W., and G. M. Crowfoot. 1938. Early Ivories from Samaria (EIS). Samaria-Sebaste 2. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

de Hulster, I. J. 2008. Illuminating Images: An Iconographic Method of Old Testament Exegesis with Three Case Studies from Third Isaiah. Ph.D. diss., Universiteit Utrecht.

��. 2009. Iconographic Exegesis and Third Isaiah. FAT 2/36. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

del Olmo Lete, G., and J. Sanmartín. 2004. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (DUL). Translated by W. G. E. Watson. 2 vols. 2d rev. ed. HdO I 67. Leiden: Brill.

Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. 1995. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU). 2d English ed. ALASPM 9. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Dijkstra, M. 1994. Gelijkenissen in Amos. NedTT 48:177�90. Gibson, J. C. L. 1971. Aramaic Inscriptions, Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of

Zenjirli. Vol. 2 of Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon. Harden, D. B. 1971. The Phoenicians. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Herrmann, G. 1986. Ivories from Room SW 37, Fort Shalmaneser. 2 vols. Ivories from

Nimrud, fasc. 4. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. ��. 1992. The Smaller Collections from Fort Shalmanessar. Ivories from Nimrud,

fasc. 5. London: The British School of Arcaeology in Iraq. Herrmann, G., H. Coffey, and S. Laidlaw. 2004. The Published Ivories from Fort

Shalmaneser, Nimrud: A Scanned Archive of Photographs. London: Institute of Archaeology, University College / British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Keel, O., and C. Uehlinger. 1992. Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkennt-nisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang uner-schlossener Ikonographischer Quellen. QD 134. Freiburg: Herder.

Kenyon, K. M. 1971. Royal Cities of the Old Testament. London: Barrie & Jenkins. Leibowitz, H. A. 1992. Ivory. Pages 584�87 in vol. 3 of Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited

by D. Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday,1992. Loud, G. 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. OIP 52. Chicago: University of Chigaco Press. Luschan, F. von, and W. Andrae. 1943. Die Kleinfunde von Sendschirli. Berlin: de

Gruyter. Mallowan, M. E. L. 1966. Nimrud and Its Remains. 3 vols. London: Collins. Mallowan, M. E. L., and G. Herrmann. 1974. Furniture from SW 7 Fort Shalmaneser.

Commentary, Catalogue and Plates. Ivories from Nimrud, fasc. III. London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Markou, G. E. 2000. Phoenicians. PoP 2. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reade, J. 1983. Assyrian Sculpture, London: British Museum Press. Rundgren, F. 1962. Appiryon �Tragsessel, Sänfte.� ZAW 74:70�72. Schroer, S. 1987. In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten

Testament. OBO 74. Fribourg; Universitätsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

Singer, I. 1999. A Political History of Ugarit. Pages in 603�733 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by W. G. E. Watson and N. Wyatt. HdO 39. Leiden: Brill.

Suter, C. E. 2011. Images, Tradition, and Meaning: The Samaria and Other Levantine Ivories of the Iron Age. Pages 219�40 in A Common Cultural Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler. Edited by G. Frame et al. Bethesda: CDL.


Suter, C. E., and C. Uehlinger, eds. 2005. Crafts and Images in Contact: Studies in Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium B.C.E. OBO 210. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Tappy, R. E. 1991�2001. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria. 2 vols. HSS 44. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

��. 2006. The Provenance of the Unpublished Ivories from Samaria. Pages 637�56 in �I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times�: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. 2 vols. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Thureau-Dangin, F. et al. 1931. Arslan-Tash. HCSL BibAH 16. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Uehlinger, C. 2005. Die Elfenbeinschnitzereien von Samaria und die Religionsgeschichte

Israels: Vorüberlegungen zu einem Forschungsprojekt. Pages 149�86 in Suter and Uehlinger 2005.

van Leeuwen, C. 1985. Amos. Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: Callenbach. van Soldt, W. 1990. Fabric and Dyes at Ugarit. UF 22:321�58. Vincent, L. H. 1939. Review of J. W. Crowfoot and G. M. Crowfoot, Early Ivories from

Samaria. RB 38:633�37. Winandy, J. 1965. La litière de Salomon. VT 15:103�10. Winter, I. J. 1981. Is There a South Syrian Style of Ivory Carving in the Early First

Millennium B.C.? Iraq 43:101�30.

The Ivory Beds and Houses of Samaria in Amos

Documents

Transcript of The Ivory Beds and Houses of Samaria in Amos