The Mosaic Glass Beakers from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in Large-Scale Stylistic Trait Distribution

The Mosaic Glass Vessels from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in Large-Scale Stylistic TraitDistributionAuthor(s): Michelle I. MarcusSource: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 536-560Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045829 .Accessed: 31/05/2011 22:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045829?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caa

The Mosaic Glass Vessels from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in

Large-Scale Stylistic Trait Distribution

Michelle I. Marcus

In the 1966 volume of the Journal of Glass Studies, A. von Saldern wrote on fragments of mosaic glass vessels from the ancient Near Eastern sites of Hasanlu, Marlik, and Tell al-Rimah.' The fragments from Hasanlu, situated just south of Lake Urmia in the Solduz Valley in Northwest Iran (see map, Fig. 1), are especially important, being among the few extant examples of ancient Near Eastern glass with figural (as opposed to solely geometric) decoration.2 However, since Von Saldern was mainly concerned with matters of glass technology and not artistic style, the latter important issue was not fully investigated. In the end, he was unable to offer a

convincing hypothesis on the basis of either technology or

design for the date and place of manufacture of the Hasanlu

glass, which was discovered in 1964 during excavations led

by R.H. Dyson, Jr., in a major destruction level at the end of

period IVB (ca. 800 B.c.).3 Although Von Saldern acknowl-

edged close ties between the Hasanlu vessels and second- millennium B.c. finds from Mesopotamia, he nevertheless came out in favor of a ninth-century date of production (in Mesopotamia), arguing that glass vessels would not have survived in antiquity over two hundred years.4 Von Saldern has reiterated his original interpretation in subsequent publications,5 while E. Porada, P.R.S. Moorey, D. Barag, Dyson, and other scholars have suggested, in brief com-

ments, that the vessels are second-millennium heirlooms-- either Kassite or Middle Assyrian products.6 But in no instance has there been a comprehensive and systematic comparative analysis of the style of composition and details

of the Hasanlu vessels and related materials in glass and other media from first- and second-millennium sites in both

Mesopotamia and Iran. It is the intention of the present study to undertake such a stylistic analysis, while at the same time integrating it with previous research on manufacturing technique, in order to demonstrate best where and when the Hasanlu glass was (and was not) most probably produced. Although the discussion will review a broad range of com-

paranda from both Mesopotamia and Iran, it will be con- cluded that the evidence best supports production in Babylo- nia in the time of the Kassites, or the late second millennium

B.c.; and that the wide distribution of stylistic and technical

parallels are best explained by large-scale cultural interaction between Kassite Babylonia and regions to the north and east in that period.

Another objective of this article is to make explicit certain

assumptions about the concept of style and the causes of

patterned stylistic trait distribution that are the mainstays of both art-historical and archaeological research. On the basis of literature from both fields,' it should be articulated first that "style" here refers to the "formal similarities among artifacts that can be related to factors other than raw material

availability or mechanical efficiency,"' and that style is considered to be both distinctive and peculiar to time and

place.' Second, the degree of stylistic similarity among artifacts from historically related contexts is most often seen as a direct expression of the degree of social interaction

among individuals or groups.'" J.S. Ackerman has defined

I am especially indebted to Robert Dyson, Joan Oates, Edith Porada, Barbara A. Porter, Irene Winter, and the anonymous Art Bulletin reviewer for carefully reading earlier versions of this manuscript and offering valuable criticisms and suggestions. Robert Dyson, the director of the Hasanlu Project, suggested the subject matter and kindly provided funds through The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania for much of the artwork and photography. Grants from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and The University Museum generously paid for the publication of Color Pl. 1. For additional assistance I am thankful to John Brinkman, Megan Cifarelli, Maude de Schauensee, Erle Leichty, Patrick McGovern, David Shanen, and Mary Voigt; and Denise Hoffman for her remarkable work on the reconstruction drawings. 'Von Saldern, 1966.

2HAS 64-129 (University Museum, Philadelphia, 65-31-403), HAS 64-129a (University Museum 65-31-404), HAS 64-130 (University Mu- seum 65-31-405), and one unnumbered fragment. 3 The arguments for a 9th-century date of destruction are summarized in R.H. Dyson, Jr., and O.W. Muscarella, "Constructing the Chronology and Historical Implications of Hasanlu IV," Iran, xxvlI, 1989, 1-27. Scientific excavations were conducted at the site from 1956 to 1977 under the auspices of The University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, The Metropolitan Museum of Art (from 1959), and the Archaeological Service of Iran.

SVon Saldern, 1966, 24. A. von Saldern, " 'Atempausen' in der Geschichte des Glases," Glastech-

nische Berzchte, XL, 1967, 477; zdem (see Sources), 1970, 210.

6 Porada has stated to me that she believes they are Kassite. Barag (1985, 38) considers them to be Middle Assyrian products. Moorey (p. 207) refers to both Kassite and Middle Assyrian connections. Dyson calls them heirlooms (R.H. Dyson,Jr., "The Hasanlu Project, 1961-1967," in The Memorial Volume of the Vth Internatzonal Congress of Iranzan Art and Archaeology, Tehran-Isfahan-Shzraz, lth-18th Aprzl 1968, I, Tehran, 1972, 46). 7 Among others: J.S. Ackerman, "Style," in Art and Archaeology, ed. R. Carpenter, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1963, 164-186; D.D. Davis, "Investi- gating the Diffusion of Stylistic Innovations," in Advances zn Archaeologz- cal Method and Theory, vi, ed. M.B. Schiffer, New York, 1983, 53-89; G. Kubler, "Towards a Reductive Theory of Visual Style," in The Concept of Style, ed. B. Lang, Philadelphia, 1979, 119-127; S. Plog, "Social Interaction and Stylistic Similarity: A Reanalysis," in Advances zn Archaeo- logzcal Method and Theory, I, ed. M.B. Schiffer, New York, 1978, 143-182; J.R. Sackett, "The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model," American Antzquzty, XLII, 1977, 369-380; Schapiro; and Winter, 1977, esp. 372. In addition to studies on style and social interaction, there is much recent literature in art history and archaeology on the role of style in communicating social values: e.g., M.W. Conkey and C.A. Hastorf, eds., The Uses of Style zn Archaeology (New Dzrections zn Archaeology), Cambridge, 1990; M.H. Wobst, "Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange," in For the Dzrector: Research Essays zn Honor ofJames B. Griffin, ed. C.E. Cleland, Ann Arbor, 317-342.

8 Davis (as in n. 7), 55.

9 Sackett (as in n. 7), 370.

10 Davis (as in n. 7), 55; Sackett (as in n. 7), 371, 377.

536 THE ART BULLETIN DECEMBER 1991 VOLUME LXXIII NUMBER 4

a b

Color Plate 1 Suggested reconstructions of the designs on the Hasanlu beakers, showing their probable original coloring; scale 1:1 (drawings: D.L. Hoffman) a Beaker A, est. ht. 16cm, est. dia. 9cm (extant fragments in Philadelphia, University Museum 65-31-403, 404). b Beaker B, est. ht. 18cm, est. dia. 9cm (extant fragments in Philadelphia, University Museum 65-31-405).


Caspian Sea L Van

ANATOLIA AZERBAIJAN L Urmia

Marlik Tell Fakhariyah * Hasanlu

Tell Halaf>~ Nineveh * Ruwandiz -Tell al-Rimah *0

*? ,Nimrud IRAN

ASSYRIA Kirkuk KURDISTAN

-o

X.,. ' Assuri

?\ ? i E Hamadan

o%•,, f" Sarpol-e Zohab Hamadan

- - ,

' Kermanshah

Aqr -u

LURISTAN Mediterranean qar Baghdad Surkh Dum-i Lu

Sea BABYLONIA Babylon Susa' "-' nbI *Nippur ELAM TchogaZanbl

150 300 450 600 750 km

* Ancient site m Modern city Persian Gulf

1 Map of the ancient Near East showing sites mentioned in the text (map: D.L. Hoffman)

the use of stylistic analysis in art history as a way of

"characterizing relationshzps among works of art that were made at the same time and/or place, or by the same person or group."" If it is not certain where, when, or by whom works of art were produced (as in the case of the Hasanlu

vessels), then the process may be reversed to allow hypothe- ses that works of the same style are from the same time,

place, or person(s). In this way, style can be an "indispens- able historical tool,"12 especially in an archaeological situation such as the one at Hasanlu, where the only written

inscriptions occur on a few imported objects. In the absence of other historical data from the site, the Hasanlu vessels become extremely important documents-especially if they can be shown to be Kassite products on the basis of

meaningful stylistic similarities with known Kassite works of art-for they permit better understanding of social and cultural relationships between Northwest Iran and the major states of the ancient Near East in the late Bronze/early Iron

Age. Since the following analysis rests primarily on stylistic

criteria, it is also important to define the elements that constitute style and to try to rank their relative value for

establishing relationships between works of art. Most helpful in this regard is M. Schapiro's early breakdown of style into three properties of art: form elements, form relationships, and qualities (including overall expression); and particularly

his distinction between the first two categories.'" Citing the wide distribution over time of pointed and rounded arches in

architecture, for example, Schapiro points out that form elements alone are not sufficient for characterizing a style, but that one must also look at the different ways that the elements are combined-the compositional pattern or syn- tax. He compares style directly to language, having a similar internal order and expressiveness;'4 presumably this order

(or grammar) would best distinguish one stylistic group from another. The way visual motifs are articulated and combined is equally crucial when dealing with themes that are shared

by a number of different contemporary cultures, as in the case of the designs on the Hasanlu glass. As I.J. Winter has noted with specific reference to North Syrian bronzes, in such instances subject matter or iconography becomes much less

important than style in determining the place of origin of a

particular work of art.'5 Although the relationship between content and style is complex, with subject matter sometimes included in definitions of style, for the purposes of attribution iconography must often be distinguished clearly from formal criteria. By next grading the qualities that make up style, with composition (the way motifs are combined) rated

" Ackerman (as in n. 7), 164.

12 Ibid.

'" Schapiro, esp. 289. This distinction is also made in Winter, 1989, 91 and 97.

'" Schapiro, 291.

15 I.J. Winter, "North Syria as a Bronzeworking Centre in the Early First Millennium BC: Luxury Commodities at Home and Abroad," in

Bronzeworkzng Centres of Western Asia c. 1000-539 B.C., ed. J. Curtis, London, 1988, 197.

THE MOSAIC GLASS VESSELS FROM HASANLU, IRAN 539

highest and individual form elements given a lower rating, greater precision should be reached in correlating works of art with specific cultural groups.16 The Hasanlu vessels provide an opportunity to test this notion, and to try to make explicit both method and application for investigating widely distributed stylistic similarities in works of art.

The Archaeological Context

The glass fragments-originally colorful beakers with elaborate figural designs-were found in Room 7 at the southeast end of Hasanlu Burned Building II, which Dyson now identifies as a temple on the basis of certain architectural features and the nature of the small finds (Fig. 2).17 The fragments were discovered in burned debris that presumably fell from a second story when the structure was gutted by a major fire that destroyed the settlement of period IVB at the end of the ninth century B.C., a time corresponding to the early Neo-Assyrian period in Mesopotamia. They were found together with many other precious goods made of exotic materials (ivory carvings, gold plaques and jewelry, vessels of gold and silver),'8 as well as clay sealings from both doors and a variety of containers, to judge from the impressions on the sealing backs and profiles.19 Elsewhere I have argued on the basis of this association of luxury items with door and commodity sealings that this end of the second floor of Burned Building II once served as a sealed treasury, in which precious goods were stored in a variety of sealed containers.20

The fact that most of the sealings from this structure were originally impressed by the same cylinder seal (displaying an audience scene reminiscent of Assyrian royal iconography) suggests that we are dealing with an individual or official seal used to control access to royal or temple stores,21 probably the latter in view of Dyson's recent analysis of the building's function. If this interpretation is correct, then the glass vessels take on added meaning-as temple property. One might even argue that they were actually used in temple rituals, to judge from cuneiform references from Mesopota- mia; for instance, a text from Assur mentioning glass containers (DUG

bu.su) placed on sacrificial tables on which food was

served for the deity, and another from Nuzi (modern Yorgan Tepe) in northeastern Iraq referring to a glass container holding fine perfumed oil.22 It is intriguing in this context that the Hasanlu vessels contained the charred remains of organic material, which unfortunately could not be identified

?. S2

3

13

.. .

5i 15

12

SSecond-story collapse containing the *. . . oM10

glass fragments and associated finds.

140 .:~

??: ??? 15 ~ :?????-~::?;.??Ss:r. *:::::~

* ?~ * To

is ~

Second-story collapse containing the glass fragments and associated finds.

2 Plan of Burned Building II, Hasanlu (drawing: D.L. Hoff- man, after R.H. Dyson, Jr.; photo: Hasanlu Project)

scientifically.23 Nevertheless, the vessels are clearly to be seen as highly valued luxury commodities, not only because of their archaeological setting, associated goods, and possible ritual function, but also because of the high level of technol-

ogy and artistic skill required for their manufacture.24 Their value as luxury goods coupled with their discovery in an

alleged sealed storeroom in Burned Building II suggests that, for however long the vessels were held at Hasanlu, efforts were taken to protect them from accidental damage (and theft). Von Saldern's argument that their fragile me- dium would necessarily preclude an early date of manufacture is clearly no longer tenable in this light.

Although the vessels were found in the ninth-century destruction level of Hasanlu IVB, there is evidence of direct

continuity at the site from the late second millennium

through the ninth century,25 which has important implications for understanding when the vessels may have reached Iran. Specifically, the cultural remains and architecture indicate that period V (ca. 1350-1150 B.C.) developed without interruption into period IVC, which was burned. The IVC settlement was destroyed and rebuilt as Hasanlu IVB as

'" This is an argument that began to be worked out by Winter (1989) with regard to other material from Hasanlu that is equally enigmatic in terms of its ethnic and cultural affiliations.

17 Dyson, 120-124.

'8 See the new distribution plans of ornamental finds from Burned Building II in Dyson, figs. 18-19.

19 See Marcus, 178-179 and pls. xxvId-xxvIlla. A full analysis of sealing type and function will be published in M.I. Marcus, The Seals and Sealings from Hasanlu, Iran: A Stylistic, Functional, and Locational Analysis (Univer- sity Museum Monograph), Philadelphia, in press. 20 E.g., Marcus, 179. Cf. Dyson, 124. 21 Marcus, 179-182, pl. xxixb. 22 See Oppenheim, 16. 23 Personal communication from M. de Schauensee, based on an unpublished analysis by R.H. Brill.

24 On the definition of luxury goods, see esp. A. Appadurai, "Introduc- tion: Commodities and the Politics of Value," in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai, Cambridge, 1986, 38-41. See also Winter (as in n. 15), 195. 25 Dyson and Muscarella (as in n. 3), 1; R.H. Dyson, Jr., "Architecture of the Iron I Period at Hasanlu in Western Iran and Its Implications for Theories of Migration on the Iranian Plateau," in Le Plateau iranien et I'Asie centrale des origines a la conque^te islamique: Leurs Relations a' la lumiere des documents arche'ologique (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, DLXVII), Paris, 1977, 155-169.


a b

3a-d Beaker A, previous reconstruction; ht. 16cm. Philadelphia, University Museum 65-31-403 + 404 (photo: Hasanlu Project)

early as 1100 B.C., reusing and modifying older structures and adding new ones.26 The architectural sequence and the dates, which are based on a long series of radiocarbon

readings, indicate, then, that period IV may have lasted for over two centuries. Hence, a possible late second-millennium date of manufacture for individual artifacts discovered in the final destruction level can mean either that they reached the site as early as period V; they arrived in IVC or the beginning of IVB; or they were held elsewhere for several hundred years and brought to Hasanlu in the ninth century.

Glass Technology and Decorative Repertoire The Hasanlu glass fragments were originally published as

belonging to three vessels, but they have since been reconstructed by the Conservation Laboratory of The University Museum in Philadelphia to form two vessels, Beakers A and

B (see Figs. 3-12).27 They are each sufficiently alike in form, size, technology, coloring, and inlaid design to indicate a common date and place of origin. They were designed in the form of beakers with walls gently curving downward, originally from about sixteen centimeters (Beaker A) to eighteen centimeters (Beaker B) in height, nine centimeters in diame- ter, and with walls about six centimeters thick. It is not clear from the extant fragments what the base looked like; they may have had a button or pedestal base, judging from

better-preserved glass beakers from Marlik Tepe, just south of the Caspian Sea in northwestern Iran (cf. Fig. 13), and from Tell al-Rimah in northern Iraq.28

26 Dyson and Muscarella (as in n. 3), esp. 8-11, and Dyson (as in n. 25), 156-166.

27 It is not at all certain that the fragments now combined in the museum reconstruction (Beaker A, Fig. 3) actually belonged to a single vessel. Some discrepancies in the size and form of the figures suggest that the fragments may derive from two different vessels; and that the fragments of Beaker B belong to a third vessel after all. On the new color reconstructions (Color Pl. 1), see discussion and n. 30 below.

28 Negahban, pls. 35a-b and 36a-b (Marlik). Oates, fig. 59; Barag, 1985, no. 1, fig. 1, pl. 1 (Tell al-Rimah).


C d

4 Fragment of Beaker A omitted from reconstruction in Fig. 3 (belongs to right-hand figure in Fig. 3c); scale 1:1. Philadelphia, University Museum (photo: Hasanlu Project)

The Hasanlu vessels were produced by a rare technique called fused mosaic glass, a method in which preformed glass elements of contrasting color are joined in a particular pattern while in a cold state, probably around a core in the shape of the desired vessel, and then fused together.29 Although the original colors are now extremely difficult to determine due to weathering, microscopic analysis indicates that the background color (now mostly green from discolora- tion) was opaque red, with inlaid decoration in red, opaque

29Von Saldern, 1966, 11-12. On the history of mosaic glass in the ancient Near East, see Barag, 1985, 36-37, and Von Saldern, 1970. The technique of mosaic glass contrasts with the so-called core process, which is much better represented in the archaeological record and was used to create the earliest glass vessels discovered to date, probably sometime around 1500 B.C. On core-formed glass, see D. Barag, "Mesopotamian Glass Vessels of the Second Millennium B.C.," Journal of Glass Studies, Iv, 1962, esp. 9-10; idem (see Sources), 1970, esp. 133; idem (see Sources), 1985, 31; D. F. Grose, The Toledo Museum ofArt: Early Ancient Glass, New York, 1989, 45-48; and for an excellent overview of techniques and history of glassmaking in the region, Moorey, 194-231.


l3cm

5 Beaker A, new reconstruction drawing showing the probable placement of excavated fragments (gray areas not preserved); est. ht. 16cm; est. dia. 9cm (drawing: D.L. Hoffman)

I M3cm

6 Beaker B, reconstruction drawing showing the probable placement of excavated fragments (gray areas not preserved); est. ht. 18cm; est. dia. 9cm (drawing: D.L. Hoffman)


2 3cm

7 Beaker A, suggested reconstruction of the design (cross-section and side view) (drawing: D.L. Hoffman)

white, transparent dark blue (now white or buff color), and

probably opaque light blue (of which only a trace is now visible along the broken edge of one fragment of Beaker B) (see Color Pl. 1).3"

Von Saldern has described in detail the specific techniques employed in the making of the Hasanlu beakers, but some of his observations are worth repeating here. Most of the individual glass elements were probably preformed in molds and finished by hand, while certain other elements were made from thick canes of glass that were drawn and sliced to furnish several identical pieces.3" The various parts, includ-

ing the surrounding red glass, were then arranged in the desired pattern, probably on a ceramic core or mold. The elements may have already been given a slight curvature when they were prepared, or they may have received the

Z\ 3cm

8 Beaker B, suggested reconstruction of the design (cross-section and side view) (drawing: D.L. Hoffman)

curvature during the heating process when the small individual pieces, fusing together, adopted the curvature of the mold. When all elements were assembled around the core, both core and glass were probably surrounded by a negative mold to hold the glass sections in place.32 The furnace heat softened the glass without overheating the elements to

prevent disintegration of the design. After removal of mold and core, deep holes were drilled in some areas to receive elements in contrasting color, and other portions were

engraved, probably with a hand tool. The completed vessel was then polished to a high gloss. The finished product represents a highly sophisticated technology that no doubt

required the skills of an experienced artisan, probably one associated with a major glassmaking workshop.

The beakers are each decorated with two main friezes of

figural design (Figs. 5-6): a larger, upper register showing human figures walking in procession to the right, with the

right arm consistently held straight down along the side and the left arm bent in at the waist; and a narrower, lower

register with alternating horned animals and plants. Be- tween the two friezes is a narrow band of geometric patterning.

The new reconstructions of Beaker A (Figs. 5, 7, Color Pl.

1 a), based on thirteen fragments, present five figures walking

30 Any discussion of color must be considered tentative at this time. The present description and colored reconstruction drawings in Color P1. 1 are based primarily on Von Saldern, 1966, 10-14. R.H. Brill (Corning Museum of Glass, New York) has also examined the coloring in the Hasanlu glass, but his final report remains unpublished (cf. n. 101 below). Patrick McGovern (Museum Applied Science Center for Archae- ology [MASCA], University Museum, Philadelphia) has kindly examined with me many of the fragments under a high-power microscope. Recent breaks among the fragments of Beaker B reveal that areas Von Saldern called opaque turquoise-blue were probably originally transparent dark blue. Traces of orange are visible in the red background color, probably due to weathering (cf. Von Saldern, 1966, 14). 3 Von Saldern, 1966, 11-12. 32 See Grose (as in n. 29), 32, fig. 6.


9 Beaker B, detail of part of a rosette, and shoulder and upper arm of a figure; scale 1:1. Philadelphia, University Museum 65-31-405 (photos 9-12: Hasanlu Project)

10 Beaker B, detail of the lower part of two figures and rosette; scale 1:1

11 Beaker B, detail of the foot of a figure, border, animal head, and plant; scale 1:1

12 Beaker B, detail of lower border; scale 1:1

in procession in the upper register.33 Three of the individuals wear a relatively plain white robe with a curved hemline,

ending at the ankles in the back and at the knees in the front. A band with long incisions, indicating fringes, runs diagonally across the garment from waist to hip (Fig. 3a). A narrower band of white and blue rectangles, probably indicat-

ing an embroidered design, runs along the hem; a similar band may have crossed the upper garment from shoulder to shoulder. White tassels, presumably from a belt or girdle worn underneath the robe, are inlaid between the legs of the

figures and held together at the bottom by a ring or clasp made of white and blue bands (Fig. 3b). The figures wear arm- and wristbands similarly decorated with white and blue

strips. The two remaining figures in the upper register of Beaker

A (third and fourth from the left in Fig. 5) likewise wear tasseled girdles and white robes with a curved hemline, but the robes are decorated with an overall pattern of inlaid crosses (Figs. 3c, 4). Instead of a line of fringe running diagonally across the robe, as with the other figures, there is a narrow decorative band of white and blue zigzags or

triangles. Another narrow band, decorated with white and blue squares, runs along the hemline. Arm- and wristbands are decorated with either white and blue strips or triangles.

The lower leg muscles and joints of all five figures are

defined by thin incised and blackened lines, starting with a curved double line at the calf, continuing with a single line

down the shin, and ending with an open circle at the ankle

(Fig. 3b-d). The hands were lightly incised to indicate fingers (Figs. 3-4). Two poorly preserved fragments give an indica- tion of a head with a long beard and long hair, the strands of which end in circles representing curls (Fig. 3d). Each figure probably wore a tall cap or fez, judging from the reconstructed height of the vessel (cf. Fig. 7).34

In the lower register of Beaker A there are two sets of antithetical goats recumbent on either side of a palmette tree

(Fig. 3a-c), with a single palm-like plant between the groupings. The palmette tree consists of a thick trunk and a blossom with a white central petal and two blue outer petals. Below the blossom are volutes of blue glass bordered by white, from which hang petal-like forms. The goats have white heads and white and blue bodies and hooves; the eyes are inlays of blue with white centers. Their horns are blue with white trim; muscles and ribs are marked by incised and inlaid lines.

The two main friezes are divided by a narrow band decorated with stepped elements of alternating white and blue inlays, and with blue(?) and red strips above and below the band. Below the lower frieze of goats and trees is a narrow white band drilled with holes to receive blue glass rods or canes.

The reconstruction drawings of Beaker B (Figs. 6, 8, Color

P1. ib) are based on seventeen fragments, most of which are now extremely misshapen and pitted, presumably due to the heat from the fire that destroyed Hasanlu IVB (cf. Figs. 9-12)." The upper frieze displays four figures in procession.

33The museum reconstruction of Beaker A (Fig. 3) combines the fragments from Von Saldern's beakers nos. 1 (HAS 64-129) and 2 (HAS 64-129a; the University Museum acc. nos. are given in n. 2 above). The new reconstruction drawing in Fig. 5 includes one additional, unpublished (and unnumbered) fragment omitted from the earlier reconstruction (Fig. 4), as well as minor changes in the placement of the fragments (e.g., at the head). Break lines between adjoining fragments are not indicated in the drawings. The heads in both reconstructed side views (Figs. 7-8) are based on various examples in Kassite art (see Figs. 17-19 and 21 below, and C.J. Du Ry, Art of the Ancient Near and Middle East, New York, 1969, ill. p. 91 top).

34 See n. 33 above on the visual sources used for the reconstructed head and cap in Fig. 7.

35 HAS 64-130 (museum acc. no. given in n. 2 above). Only the best-preserved fragments of Beaker B are illustrated in photographs (Figs. 9-12). For photographs of all the fragments (however misar- ranged), see Von Saldern, 1966, fig. 8. The new reconstructed roll-out drawing in Fig. 6 is based on recognizing joins between a number of fragments that were not previously noticed.


13 Mosaic glass vessel, Marlik (reconstructed); est. ht. 17cm; est. dia. 7cm. Tehran, Mus&e Iran Bastan (photo: E. Negahban)

Between each figure is a vertical row of three four-petaled rosettes, each having blue petals with a white border, and white centers with a red border (Figs. 9-10). The individuals wear white garments with a curved hem, as in Beaker A. But these robes are decorated with an overall pattern of small circles enclosing a dot, each circle made from a cane of red

glass with a blue or white center (Figs. 9-10). As in Beaker A, there is a single or double band of white and blue rectangles running along the hem and probably across the upper garment, from shoulder to shoulder. Arm- and wristbands are similarly decorated (Fig. 9). In two fragments the figures seem to hold a decorated pouch at their waists. As in Beaker

A, tassels (here, in blue) hang between the legs of the figures. The legs were similarly incised and blackened to indicate muscles and joints: a continuous line defines the calf muscle, extends down the lower leg, and ends in an open circle at the anklebone (Figs. 10-11). On one fragment the knee is marked by concentric circles (Fig. 10); on other fragments the ankle is marked by a single or double band (Fig. 11). The hands were lightly incised to indicate fingers, as in Beaker A

(Fig. 10). One fragment preserves a long beard of transparent dark blue glass."6

The lower register of Beaker B was decorated with ante-

lopes and palm-like plants. It cannot be determined from the extant fragments whether the animals were arranged antithet-

ically on either side of a plant (as in Beaker A), or whether

they all faced in the same direction. Each has a white head, and eyes with blue contours, a white iris, and blue pupil. The

plant has white curling branches (Fig. 1 1). Below each register is a narrow band of white crosses with

blue centers, with white or blue strips inlaid above and below the bands (Figs. 11, 12).

Stylistic and Iconographic Comparanda

In Mesopotamia 1. Assyria. By far the majority of foreign ties among the

ninth-century finds from Hasanlu IVB (for instance, seals, ivories, and wall tiles) are with Assyria-either direct imports or local or marginal adaptations of Assyrian products.37 Since the glass vessels were discovered in period IVB and since Von Saldern's arguments for ninth-century Assyrian production are now a part of the literature, it seems best to review (and dismiss) the possibility of Assyrian production, before mov-

ing on to the more convincing evidence for manufacture in

Babylonia. Though it is true, as Von Saldern points out, that proces-

sion scenes are one of the hallmarks of Neo-Assyrian architectural decoration beginning in the ninth century, neither the

types of dress nor the stance of the figures on the Hasanlu vessels has ninth-century Assyrian parallels.38 On the con-

trary, as will be demonstrated below, these features are hallmarks of second-millennium artwork, and serve well to illustrate how formal criteria can be much more important than subject matter in characterizing a style. Similarly, though goats and plants occur together on Neo-Assyrian ceramics, the compositions (often with goats leaping) and

plant forms do not match the Hasanlu designs.39 Likewise, there are no clear comparanda for the shape or manufactur-

ing technique of the Hasanlu vessels among the extant

36 On the possible association of blue beards with divine status, see

literary references to statues with lapis lazuli beards in J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. with

supp., Princeton, 1969, 382, 1. 1 and n. 1, and 637, 11. 43-45. In general, little research has been conducted on the use, meaning, and affect of

color in ancient Near Eastern art. Now with the color reconstructions of the Hasanlu vessels adding to the repertoire (along with painted wall decorations and ceramic vessels), the time is ripe for a comprehensive study of the subject-such as J. Gage's forthcoming book on color in Western art (see his article, "Color in Western Art: An Issue?" Art Bulletin, LXXII, 1990, 518-541).

37 See, for instance, R.H. Dyson, Jr., "Digging in Iran: Hasanlu 1958," Expedition, I, 1959, 14 (wall tiles); M.I. Marcus, "Center, Province and

Periphery: A New Paradigm from Iron-Age Iran," Art History, xIII, 1990, 128-149 (seals); O.W. Muscarella, The Catalogue of Ivories from Hasanlu, Iran (University Museum Monograph, LXXX), Philadelphia, 1980, nos. 280-293, and discussion, pp. 200-202 (ivories); Porada, 114-120; and Winter, 1977.

38 For dress parallels, Von Saldern (1966, 15, n. 17) cites the genies in E.A.W. Budge, Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum: Reign ofAshur-nasir- pal, 885-860 B.C., London, 1914, pls. xxivff. But compare the long, open Assyrian robes and shawls, short girdled tunics and kilts, and the position of the girdle tassels along either side of the front leg. 39 Von Saldern (1966, 15, n. 17) cites Andrae, pls. 22ff. But Andrae

publishes at least thirteen vessels of the same type (pls. 15, 21-29), none of which can be securely dated before Hasanlu IVB (pls. 21-23 are from a secondary context in the ruins of a late or post-Assyrian house, pp. 48-49) and most of which compare best with later Neo-Assyrian relief

sculpture-either of Sargon II, 721-705 B.C. (pl. 15, p. 39) or Ashurba-

nipal, 668-627 B.C. (pl. 25b, pp. 49-50; pl. 29, pp. 54-55).


14 Mosaic glass plaque and vessel fragments, temple of Ishtar, Assur. Berlin, Staatliche Museen (photo: Vorderasiatische Abteilung)

Neo-Assyrian glasses, which are mainly fragments from Nimrud dating to the late eighth and seventh centuries B.C.40

Although ties to ninth-century Assyria cannot be substantiated, there are significant parallels with Assyrian work of the second millennium, especially in the use of mosaic glass. In

fact, of all the extant glasses known from the ancient Near East, the Hasanlu vessels compare best with fragments of vessels and plaques from the Ishtar Temple at Assur, built by the Middle Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-1207 B.C.) (Fig. 14).41 The Assur fragments are the only examples of mosaic glass known to me from outside Hasanlu that display both human and animal figural designs (individuals with hands incised and inlaid to indicate fingers, horned animals,

foliage, rosettes).42 Although the particular form elements on the Assur fragments do not directly match those on the Hasanlu vessels, the range of colors, the wall thickness, and the technique of inlaying figural elements in mosaic glass are

closely related. There is little doubt that the Assur glasses were made locally, judging from the variety of artifact types and techniques;43 the discovery of scrap glass at the site;44 the excavation of workshops specializing in glazed ceramic ware,

which relied on heat-treating the same raw materials used in

glass (soda, lime, silica);45 and linguistic evidence that the famous cuneiform texts on glassmaking from the library of

Assurbanipal (668-627 B.C.) at Nineveh were probably first codified at Assur in the thirteenth century.46

Fragments of mosaic glass vessels and plaques were also discovered at the Middle Assyrian settlement at Tell al- Rimah, but they all consist of polychrome cane-sections or

pegs arranged in geometric patterns (e.g., Fig. 15).47 Vessels were made by assembling the various canes together with monochrome sections on a solid core that was then surrounded by an outer mold before firing.48 Although most of the individual glass elements on the Hasanlu vessels were

probably preformed in molds, with the use of canes limited to the dotted garment decoration on Beaker B and similar details, the techniques are basically the same.

In addition to technological comparanda, there are a small number of stylistic parallels between the Hasanlu designs and Middle Assyrian material that should be considered here as well. For instance, girdle tassels are regularly shown between the legs of individuals in thirteenth-century seal

impressions from various Middle Assyrian sites, but they occur in combination with short, knee-length tunics with an even hemline, not the long garments with curved hemlines featured in the Hasanlu designs.49 When long robes with

40 Cf. A. von Saldern, "Glass," in Nimrud and Its Remains, II, ed. M.E.L. Mallowan, London, 1966, 624-632, and idem (see Sources), 1970, 210-211, mostly core-formed hemispheroid bowls of clear or pale glass, either undecorated or with simple geometric cut-glass patterns, and generally with thinner walls than the Hasanlu beakers. 41 T.E. Haevernick, "Assyrisches Millefioriglas," Forschungen und Be- richte, x, 1968, 63-70. 42 Ibid., pl. 1, nos. 1, 10, 2, 4-5; pl. 2, no. 11; fig. 2, no. 6. Some of the Assur fragments are also reproduced in Von Saldern, 1970, pls. 2F, 2G.

43 See Von Saldern, 1966, 209 and Barag, 1970, 141-145. See also Moorey, 204.

44 Von Saldern, 1970, 215.

5 Cf. Vandiver, 245-246. 46 Oppenheim, 27-28, 81-82.

47 Von Saldern, 1970, fig. 1, with discussion, p. 213 (nos. 1-2). 48 Ibid., 206. 49 Cf A. Moortgat, "Assyrische Glyptik des 13. Jahrhunderts," Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, N.S. xll, 1941, figs. 5, 7-10, 55, 57 (Assur); B. Parker, "Middle Assyrian Seal Impressions from Tell al Rimah," Iraq, xxxvII,


15 Mosaic glass vessel fragments, Tell al-Rimah. Philadelphia, University Museum 65-24-49 (from Von Saldern, 1966, fig. 13)

curved hemlines are shown in Middle Assyrian glyptic, they hang open over short kilts, unlike the closed robes on the Hasanlu vessels50-all formal details pointing away from actual Assyrian production. Similarly, though horned animals and trees occur together in Middle Assyrian artwork, the animals are shown either fully erect or rampant with one foreleg raised, unlike the recumbent pose in the Hasanlu scenes; and the trees generally have longer, thinner trunks with more naturalistic palm branches than, for instance, the palmette tree with volutes in Beaker A.5' Though the latter may find some relatives in Middle Assyrian glyptic,52 it will be seen below that the general form is most closely related to elaborate palmette trees in artwork of the east Hurrian states of eastern Iraq.

Though the technological parallels with Middle Assyrian glasswork suggest that the Hasanlu vessels were probably made in a region that interacted with Assyrian centers of artistic production, the incomplete stylistic ties--especially in the way certain elements are articulated and combined-- indicate a need to look outside Assyria for their actual place of manufacture.

2. Babylonia. It is in Babylonian artwork from the Kassite period that one finds the greatest percentage of meaningful stylistic similarities with the Hasanlu glass. The main composition of figures in procession is featured together with details of dress and stance in Kassite wall paintings and glyptic art.

Best known are the painted procession scenes from Aqar Quf (ancient Dfir-Kurigalzu), just west of Baghdad, particu-

larly from the so-called palace mound known locally as Tell

al-Abyad (Fig. 16)." Discovered exclusively in doorways in Unit H in the latest phase (level I) of the palace, the paintings can be dated by associated tablets sometime between the late thirteenth and mid-twelfth century B.C.54 Although the Aqar Quf figures are not well preserved, enough is known from Doorways III and IV (Figs. 17-18) to see that the overall scheme and gestures of the figures match the Hasanlu

designs; even the border of geometric ornament is similar (cf. Fig. 16). Although details of dress are less clear, the tall

caps and diagonal fringe on figures from Doorway III (Fig. 17) resemble features on Hasanlu Beaker A (cf. Figs. 5, 7). The narrow band of rectangles decorating the upper robe of

figures from Doorway IV (Fig. 18) also recalls the Hasanlu

designs, although the even, ankle-length hemline of the Aqar Quf garments is quite different from the distinctive curved hemline of the Hasanlu robes. The long beards of the figures from Doorway IV are also matched on the vessels; and the use of arm- and wristbands, however undecorated in the

painted scenes, is similar. Details of dress are better matched in procession scenes in

Kassite glyptic art, although only a relatively small number of seals from this period can be dated by inscribed names of kings or officials. On the earliest known dated Kassite seal design, a royal seal impression of Karaindash (ca. 1415), figures wear robes with similar curved hemlines and girdle tassels between the legs, but the robes are draped over the left shoulder and hang open over kilts.55 Porada has suggested that the hems of robed figures were curved on the earliest Kassite seals, but were cut back at an angle during the reign of Kurigalzu I (ca. 1390 B.C.); and that by the reign of

1977, pls. xxvii, 2A, xxviii, 19; H.J. Kantor, "The Glyptic," in Soundzngs at Tell Fakharzyah, ed. C.W. McEwan et al. (Orzental Instztute Publications, LXXIX), Chicago, 1958, pl. 71, design x. See also E. Porada, Corpus of Anczent Near Eastern Seals zn North Amerzcan Collectzons, I: The Collection of the Pzerpont Morgan Lzbrary (Bollzngen Serzes, xIv), New York, 1949, 64. 50 Cf Kantor (as in n. 49), pl. 70, designs Iv and ix (Tell Fakhariyah). 5' Cf Moortgat (as in n. 49), figs. 47-56 (seal impressions from Assur, 13th century); Parker (as in n. 49), pls. xxIx, 32A, 31, and xxx, 45 (seal impressions from Tell al-Rimah, 13th century); Andrae, pl. 2 (wall painting from Kir-Tukulti-Ninurta, 1244-1208 B.C.). 52 Moortgat (as in n. 49), figs. 76, 80 (Assur). Cf. Porada (as in n. 49), 69 (nos. 592, 594), and D.M. Matthews, Principles of Composztzon zn Near Eastern Glyptic of the Later Second Mzllennzum B.C., Fribourg, 1990, 91-92.

3 T. Baqir, "Iraq Government Excavations at 'Aqar Quf: Third Interim Report, 1944-5," Iraq, viii, 1946, figs. 4-7 and pp. 80-82 (fig. 5 has been widely reproduced: e.g., A. Moortgat, The Art ofAnczent Mesopota- mza, London, 1969, fig. 72). See also new reconstruction drawings in Y. Tomabechi, "Wall Paintings from Dur Kurigalzu," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XLII, 1983, fig. 2. It is not known whether Dfir-Kurigalzu ever served as the primary capital of Babylonia or whether it was simply an occasional royal residence (see Brinkman, 1970, 405). Nor is it at all certain that it was founded by a ruler named Kurigalzu (see J.A. Brinkman, "Ur: The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings," Orientalia, N.S. xxxVIII, 1969, 325; cf. Stein, 57, n. 74).

54 Between the reigns of Kashtiliashu IV (1232-1225 B.C.) and Marduk- apla-iddina I (1171-1159 B.C.). Two occupation levels were encountered in Unit H: the original foundation, corresponding to level IC in the central palace unit, and a later reconstruction phase. The best-preserved paintings were discovered in the later level, but signs in Doorway III indicate that similar paintings once existed in the foundation level, too (see Baqir [as in n. 53], 78-81). On the dating, see T. Baqir, "Iraq Government Excavations at 'Aqar Quf: Second Interim Report 1943- 1944," Iraq, Supp., 1945, 9-10 (and 14, on paintings with floral and geometric designs from other building levels). The regnal dates cited throughout this article are based onJ.A. Brinkman, "Appendix: Mesopo- tamia Chronology of the Historical Period," in Ancient Mesopotamza: Portrazt of a Dead Civzlzzatzon, ed. A.L. Oppenheim, Chicago, 1977, 335-348 (Marduk-apla-iddina = Merodach-Baladan). The absolute dates of the Kassite kings are especially problematic, as discussed in Brinkman, 1970, 306-307, and idem, 1976, 6-34.

55 L. Legrain, The Culture of the Babylonzans from Their Seals in the Collectzon

of the Museum (Publzcations of the Babylonzan Sectzon, xIV), Philadelphia, 1925, no. 530. For an overview of Kassite glyptic, see, for instance, E. Porada, "The Cylinder Seals from Thebes in Boeotia," Archiv fur Orzentforschung, xxvll, 1981, 2-78; T. Beran, "Die babylonische Glyptik der Kassitenzeit," Archzv fiir Orzentforschung, xvIII, 1958, 255-278; and now Matthews (as in n. 52), 55-87.


16 Aqar Quf, wall painting in situ, Doorway IV. Baghdad, Iraq Museum (from Baqir [as in n. 53], pl. xiv, fig. 7)

Burna-Buriash II (1359-1333 B.c.) they were straight.56 If one followed Porada's argument, the curved hemlines on the Hasanlu glass would date the vessels to the fifteenth century. However, given the limited number of dated Kassite seals

known, it might be best to be cautious in using details of hemline as strict criteria for dating within the Kassite period. Such a date seems much too early in the history of glassmaking for such sophisticated mosaic work57-especially since the dates of the best comparative material in glass and other media cluster around the thirteenth-twelfth century B.C. (a

point to be discussed below). Among datable Kassite glyptic, the Hasanlu scenes are

closest in composition and form elements to a cylinder seal

design from Tell Subeidi, northeast of Babylon (Fig. 19).58 Found impressed on a tablet from a late thirteenth-twelfth

century context, the design shows two individuals in procession before a third figure.59 The former display the same

stance, gestures, long beards, and what may be tall caps of the Hasanlu figures; and they wear robes with similar oblique

17 Aqar Quf, drawing of painted figure, Doorway III (drawing: J.A. Wood, after Tomabechi [as in n. 53], fig. 2)

18 Aqar Quf, drawing of painted figure, Doorway IV (drawing: J.A. Wood, after Tom- abechi, fig. 2)

hemlines (though cut diagonally rather than curved), embroidered decoration across the chest, and girdle tassels between the legs. An even closer match occurs, however, in impressions of an undated Kassite seal from Nippur (Fig. 20)-in the direction and stance of all three figures, the length and curve of the hemlines, the design of the tassels, and the ornamented bands both across the upper robe and along the hem.60 Similar scenes and details also occur on Kassite seals from Ur,61 and from the Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun off the southwest coast of Turkey (ca. fourteenth century B.c.), which even features four-petaled rosettes in the field like Beaker B.62

Visual ties between the Hasanlu designs and Kassite art also occur in the relief carvings on several Babylonian boundary stones or kudurrus. Although they do not feature similar procession scenes, these works do provide notable

comparisons in garment decoration. Though such details alone might not be sufficient to establish a relationship between works of art, when seen together with similarities in

56 Cited in D. Collon, "Cylinder Seals from Ulu Burun," American Journal of Archaeology, xcIII, 1989, 15; see also idem, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East, Chicago, 1987, 58-61.

57 See n. 29 above. 58 R.M. Boehmer and H.-W. Dimmer, Tell Imlihiye, Tell Zubeidi, Tell Abbas (Baghdader Forschungen, vii), Mainz am Rhein, 1985, pl. 156, no. 707, also repro. in R.M. Boehmer, "Glyptik der Spdten Kassiten-Zeit aus dem Nort6stlichen Babylonien," Baghdader Mitteilungen, xii, 1981, pl. 4, no. 6. See further J.N. Postgate, "The Historical Geography of the Hamrin Basin," Sumer, xxxv, 1979, 591-594.

59 On the dating, see Boehmer and Dimmer (as in n. 58), 71, 79-80.

60 University Museum, Philadelphia, CBS 14265 (clay sealing), 14248 (tablet envelope), published in Legrain (as in n. 55), pls. xxix, 561, LIII,

567. See also E. Porada, "Problems of Iranian Iconography," in The Memorial Volume of the Vth International Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology, Tehran-Isfahan-Shiraz, 11th-18th April 1968, I, Tehran, 1972, 170, figs. 7-8.

61 L. Legrain, Ur Excavations, Vol. x: Seal Cylinders (Publications ofthejoint Expedition of the British Museum and of the University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, to Mesopotamia), Oxford, 1951, no. 579 (from an unstratified context in the Diqdiqqeh cemetery). 62 Collon, 1989 (as in n. 56), fig. 25 (and 14, n. 62 on the possibility of the seal being a provincial Kassite product). For the chronology, see G.F. Bass, "A Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Ka'): 1984 Campaign," American Journal ofArchaeology, xc, 1986, 269.


19 Reconstruction drawing of ancient cylinder seal impression, Tell Subeidi; est. ht. 3.3cm (from Boehmer [as in n. 58], pl. 4, no. 6)

composition in other media, they serve to substantiate the

possibility of Kassite production. In particular, the fragment of an uninscribed kudurru discovered at Susa and attributed on stylistic grounds by U. Seidl to the reign of the Kassite ruler Meli-shipak (1186-1172 B.C.) shows the king wearing a

garment (and fez) decorated with an overall pattern of inscribed circles nearly identical to the garment design on Beaker B (Fig. 21).63 A similar pattern decorates the garment of a divine symbol on at least two other kudurrus from Susa, also assigned by inscription or style to the twelfth century (e.g., Fig. 22, middle register, far right).64

Garments decorated with overall geometric patterning continue to be represented in the post-Kassite, Isin II period in Babylonia (ca. 1158-1027 B.C.). Kudurrus attributed by either style or inscription to the time of Marduk-nadin-ahhe

(1099-1082 B.C.), for instance, display royal garments decorated overall with small hexagons and narrow bands of

geometric ornament that provide the same overall effect of decorative patterning as the textile designs on the Hasanlu beakers.65 The particular cross-pattern on the robes on

20 Ancient cylinder seal impression on a clay sealing, Nippur (CBS 14265). Philadelphia, University Museum (photo: Baby- lonian Section)

Beaker A recurs on a much later, unprovenienced Neo-

Babylonian kudurru of Nabu-shuma-ishkun (760-748 B.C.) now in Berlin66-perhaps a late example of an earlier

Babylonian tradition, at home in Kassite times as well. The cross design was certainly extremely important as an indepen- dent, symbolic element in Kassite art;67 whether it retained the same meaning in garment decoration is uncertain.

In addition to providing parallels in composition and detail for the procession scenes in the upper registers of the Hasanlu beakers, Kassite art also provides comparanda for the lower-register scenes of horned animals and trees. Related images occur as subsidiary designs on some early Kassite glyptic; for instance, in schematic form on the seal

impression from Tell Subeidi mentioned above (Fig. 19) and on the earlier, well-known cylinder of Kidin-Marduk, an unexcavated seal collected early in this century by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin and dated by its inscription to the mid-fourteenth century.68

But most intriguing is the representation of goats with trees on an inscribed Kassite stone bowl from Hasanlu itself

(Fig. 23a-b), discovered in the same second-story collapse in Burned Building II as the glass beaker fragments.69 The bowl, one of the few inscribed objects from the site, bears the name of Kadashman-Enlil, I (ca. 1374-1360 B.c.) or II (1263-1255 B.C.).70 The outside surface of the bowl is divided into two registers with designs excised for gold inlay. The

upper frieze shows alternating recumbent goats and palmette trees with volutes. Although the goats are all shown

63 U. Seidl, Die Babylonischen Kudurru-Reliefs (Baghdader Mitteilungen, rv), 1968 (repr. in the Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series, Freiburg, 1989), pl. 1 Ob, no. 21. 64 Ibid., pl. 15, no. 32; also repro. in W.J. Hinke, A New Boundary Stone of Nebuchadnezzar I, Philadelphia, 1907, fig. 11, symbol no. 15 (an inscribed stone of Melishipak); Seidl (as in n. 63), no. 40, fig. 4 (top), also repro. in P. Amiet, Art of the Ancient Near East, New York, 1980, color pl. 87 (attributed by style in Seidl, 81). 65 J.V. Canby, The Ancient Near East in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore, 1974, pl. 11 (inscribed); R.D. Barnett and D.J. Wiseman, Fifty Master- pieces of Ancient Near Eastern Art in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, the British Museum, London, 1969, no. 17, p. 38 (attributed by style); W.G. Lambert, "The Warwick Kudurru," Syria, LVIII, 1981, fig. 5 (inscribed). On the earliest attributions to Marduk-nadin-ahhe, see L.W.King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum, London, 1912, 37, n. 4, 38, n. 1. Related garment patterning is also found on later Neo-Assyrian royal garments: e.g., A. Parrot, The Arts ofAssyria, New York, 1961, figs. 345 (Tell Ahmar/Til Barsip), 60, 63, 76 (Assurbanipal reliefs).

66 Seidl (as in n. 63), no. 103, fig. 22. 67 See, for instance, Oates, fig. 62. 68 A. Moortgat, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidkunst, Berlin, 1940, no. 554; the seal owner served as 3a reii official under Burna-buriash I (1359-1333 B.C.). 69 Dyson (as in n. 6), fig. 8 (HAS 64-656); Brinkman, 1976, 134 (J.2.9). 70 Brinkman in personal communication.


21 Kudurru attributed to Meli-shipak, Susa (fragment). Paris, Louvre Sb 5640 (photo: Departement des Antiquites Orien- tales)

facing in the same direction, as opposed to their antithetical

arrangement on Beaker A, the general theme, pose of the animals, and type of tree with volutes are nevertheless

directly related to the glass designs. It may be that the animals on Beaker B, which could not be reconstructed fully, all faced in the same direction, as on the Kadashman-Enlil bowl. Even the dotted circles in the lower register of the bowl recall the garment decoration on Beaker B.71

There are clearly, then, meaningful similarities in particular compositional devices and form elements between the

glass beakers and Kassite art. In addition, the formal, static

quality of the Hasanlu designs, the open spacing between elements, and the overall arrangement of the decoration into delineated registers are also held in common with Kassite artwork-as seen above, for instance, in the wall paintings from Aqar Quf (where bands of geometric designs flank the

procession scenes), the seal impression from Tell Subeidi

(Fig. 19), and the bowl of Kadashman-Enlil from Hasanlu

(Fig. 23). Moreover, even though Kassite kudurrus often have divine symbols distributed in undelineated hierarchical zones within registers, the overriding system of organization is one of horizontal rows clearly divided by register lines

(e.g., Fig. 22).72 It is these kinds of similarities that one

22 Kudurru of Meli-shipak, Susa; ht. 68cm. Paris, Louvre Sb 22 (photo: Departement des Antiquites Orientales)

presumes Schapiro meant when he referred to the overall quality or expression in his definition of style and that serve to substantiate further a relationship between the designs on the beakers and Kassite art.

It has already been demonstrated that the technique used to form the Hasanlu vessels is especially close to that represented by Middle Assyrian mosaic glass fragments from Assur, by virtue of their shared human and animal figural decoration. Nevertheless, there are sufficient examples of mosaic glass from Aqar Quf (if only with geometric and

71 For later examples of the animal-and-tree theme, though showing trees with cone-shaped leaves, see the Walters Art Gallery and British Museum kudurrus of Marduk-nadin-ahhe (cited in n. 65 above) and a problematic group of unprovenienced cylinder seals, classified by T. Beran as his third Kassite group (Beran [as in n. 55], 274-277, figs. 28-31; cf. M. Trokay, "Glyptique cassite tardive ou postcassite?" Akkadica, xxI, 1981, 14-43; B. Malecka, "Two Notes on Kassite Glyptic Art," Berytus, xxvI, 1978, 32-35; Collon, 1987 [as in n. 56], 61). 72 E.g., Seidl (as in n. 63), pls. 8, 15a-c, 18a, 23a. Cf. Winter, 1989, 96.


23a Cross-section and roll-out drawing (two fragments) of Fig. 23b (drawing: D.L. Hoffman, after field sketch)

23b Stone bowl of Kadashman-Enlil (HAS 64-656); dia. 7.8cm. Tehran, Mus&e Iran Bastan (photo: Hasanlu Project)

animal designs) to suggest that the general technique of fused mosaic glass was at home in Babylonia, as well as in the north. Of particular relevance are fragments of a mosaic

glass plaque with dotted stars and circles, and birds with inlaid eyes and incised details that match features and colors

(red, white, blue) on the Hasanlu beakers (Fig. 24). 7 In addition, there are fragments of inlaid vessels consisting of canes or rods of polychrome glass fused in geometric patterns (Fig. 25), like the glasses from Tell al-Rimah mentioned above (cf. Fig. 15).74

Evidence of actual glass production at Aqar Quf exists in a

thirteenth-century text from the site that refers to glass given to artisans for some sort of palace decoration."75 Also of interest here are Middle Babylonian glass texts, which A.L.

Oppenheim believes were written in Babylon sometime between the fourteenth and twelfth centuries B.C.76 Particu-

larly intriguing is the similarity between these texts and those from the library of Assurbanipal,77 which, as discussed earlier, were probably based on Middle Assyrian prototypes. The same ingredients are mentioned and the technical

terminology is similar, suggesting that glassmaking traditions in the north and south were closely related. Oppen- heim even suggests that there was an earlier Old Babylonian glassmaking tradition that was taken over by Assyria"8-all suggesting that Kassite artisans were probably producing glass with figural decoration comparable to their Assyrian counterparts, with examples simply unrecovered as yet.

To sum up the Kassite comparanda, stylistic ties exist in a wide range of media and in various aspects of art: form elements, compositional patterns, and overall quality or

expression (matching all three of Schapiro's elements of style). There are also ties in the technology of mosaic glass production, although they are not as close as with the extant Middle Assyrian glasses from Assur. As for chronology, the richest comparanda date to the thirteenth-twelfth century B.c. The later Isin II connections (such as geometric border

patterns) are perhaps best seen, then, as late survivals of an earlier Babylonian tradition.

3. Nuzi/Arrapha. In trying to establish parallels for the scenes of horned animals flanking trees in the lower registers of Beakers A and B, reference has already been made to

representations in both Middle Assyrian and Kassite art. Antithetical animals and trees are also common in artwork

7 Baqir (as in n. 53), pl. xx; also repro. in Von Saldern, 1970, fig. 2 (with discussion, pp. 213-215, nos. 3-6).

74 Von Saldern, 1970, nos. 3-6, figs. 2B-E; Baqir (as in n. 53), 91.Joan Oates has told me that a similar fragment was discovered recently at Tell Brak in northeastern Syria, dated sometime before ca. 1283 B.c. Baqir's designation (p. 91) "second level from the top" probably refers to level IB, dated between the mid-13th and early 12th century (cf. Baqir [as in n. 54], 9-10). Although the dating is confusing, the fragments should

almost certainly not be assigned to the reign of the 14th-century king, Kurigalzu II, as first in Von Saldern, 1966, 20, and repeated in idem, 1970, 213; Moorey, 205; and Barag, 1985, 37.

75 O.R. Gurney, "Texts from Dur-Kurigalzu," Iraq, xI, 1953, no. 22 (the text refers specifically to decoration for the "Palace of the Stag"). 76 Oppenheim, 62.

77 Ibid., 64, 82.

78 Ibid., 82.


24 Mosaic glass plaque fragments, Aqar Quf. Baghdad, Iraq Museum (from Baqir [as in n. 53], pl. xx, fig. 15)

25 Mosaic glass vessel fragment, Aqar Quf. Baghdad, Iraq Museum (from Von Saldern, 1970, fig. 2E)

from sites associated with Hurrian-speaking peoples, a com-

plex and mixed population that extended west of the

Euphrates River and east of the Tigris.79 Most relevant here is material from the east Hurrian sites of Nuzi (modern Yorgan Tepe) and Arrapha (modern Kirkuk) in northeastern

Iraq. These sites consistently provide the best parallels for both the recumbent pose of the animals and the elaborate

palmette tree with volutes on Beaker A. Porada has aptly described the related tree forms on the

seal impressions from the Nuzi archives (ca. fifteenth- fourteenth century B.C.) as "trees with ribbon-volutes" (e.g., Fig. 26).80 She derived this terminology from the wall

paintings from Nuzi where the tree appears to be formed by

26 Reconstruc- tion drawing of ancient cylinder seal impression, Nuzi; est. ht. 2.2cm (from Po- rada [as in n. 80], no. 472)

ribbons of different colors, looped so as to create volutes with pendant fringe.81 Although the Nuzi trees are generally more elaborate than the Hasanlu example, often having a double set of volutes and additional blossom petals, they are clearly related. More important, they are regularly featured in seal impressions in combination with antithetically arranged, recumbent horned animals (sometimes with the head reversed). It is this combination of similarities in composition and form elements that establishes a relationship between the designs in the lower registers of the Hasanlu beakers and the Nuzi/Arrapha material.

Despite the above connections, however, the overall arrangement of the decoration on the Hasanlu beakers, specifically the division into clearly marked registers, contrasts

sharply with the undivided zones characteristic of most Nuzi compositions." Moreover, the formal, static quality of the Hasanlu scenes is unlike the more lively, crowded nature of most Nuzi images. Furthermore, although Nuzi craftsmen were experimenting quite early with glass production,83 none of the glasses compare with the mosaic vessels from Hasanlu. Hence, the noted stylistic similarities between the beakers and the Nuzi material are probably best explained in terms of widespread cultural interaction in the second millennium and, particularly, by the wide sphere of Hurrian influence across Greater Mesopotamia in this period.

In Iran 1. Elam. As already discussed, the decoration of garments with inscribed circles on Beaker B has parallels in Kassite art, but it is also featured in material from Middle Elamite centers in southwestern Iran. The most famous example is probably the bronze statue of Napirasu, wife of King Untash- gal (ca. 1275-1255 B.C.), from Susa, whose upper garment is covered with a pattern of small dotted circles.84 A closer match, however, is found on a contemporary female figurine

79 On Hurrians, see Winter, 1989, 100. so E. Porada, Seal Impressions of Nuzi (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, xxiv), New Haven, 1947, 114; see, for instance, nos. 472, 483, 650, 656, 798. See also D.L. Stein, "Seal Impressions from

Arrapha and Nuzi in the Yale Babylonian Collection," in Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, II, ed. D.I. Owen and M.A. Morrison, Winona Lake, Ind., 1987, nos. 60, 57. On the date of the Nuzi archives, see Stein (in Sources), esp. 58. 81 Cf. F.S. Starr, Nuzi: Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepe near Kirkuk, Iraq 1927-1931, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1937, pl. 128, H. See also pls. 78, S, and 127, R, for the same form on ceramic vessels and a bone plaque. 82 For instance, the famous seal of Shaushtatar (Stein, fig. 1); cf. Winter, 1989, 97.

83 See Vandiver, 239-247; Barag, 1970, 135-141.

"4 Porada, fig. 37. For an especially good detail of the upper-garment patterning, see J.-L. Huot, Persia I: From the Origins to the Achaemenids, New York, 1965, pl. 93.


of fused quartz from Tchoga Zanbil, whose robe is similarly ornamented overall with prominent inscribed circles, as well as with an ornamental border at the hem that resembles features on both Hasanlu beakers (Fig. 27).85

Evidence of early glass manufacture in Iran exists in the

discovery at Tchoga Zanbil of numerous ornamental glass rods constructed of black and white twisted glass that

adorned wooden doors in the ziggurat;s6 and of many hemispherical lumps of green glass set in ceramic wall

plaques.87 In addition, glass cylinder seals are particularly numerous among the finds from Tchoga Zanbil and Susa, and were probably made in the region, to judge from their Middle Elamite carving style and designs.88 To date, however, no mosaic glass like that found at Hasanlu has been discovered in Middle Elamite contexts.

2. Northwest Iran. A wide range of objects in different media have been identified by now with a "local style" of Hasanlu IVB.89 Although many "local" goods are made of vitreous materials, such as glazed clay and fused quartz (faience and frit),90 there is no evidence as yet of a major glass workshop at the site or other sites in the region.9l More important, the

glass beakers are clearly not at home within the Hasanlu "local style." Nevertheless, certain stylistic details are held in common with "local" artwork. For instance, the zigzag patterning on arm-bands and garment crossbands on Beaker A and the plant form on Beaker B have parallels on "local" ivory plaques.92 But by far the majority of parallels pertain to the designs on the famous gold bowl (Fig. 28), including bands with geometric decoration along the hem of garments, instead of fringe; embroidered horizontal bands across

upper garments; the decorative band running diagonally

from shoulder to hip on Beaker A; the rendering of leg muscles and joints by a continuous line starting at the calf muscle and ending in a near or full circle at the ankle;93 and the marking of other joints by concentric circles or double horizontal lines.

It is especially interesting that the beakers have more in common with the gold bowl than any other artworks from Hasanlu IVB, since it is probably more closely tied than any other "local" products to the late second millennium (where we would also like to date the glass beakers). Although the date of the bowl is still open to question, certainly the literary references behind the imagery are to earlier Hurrian material.94 But since the connections between the glass beakers and the "local style" pertain only to isolated details, they are

probably best explained by shared artistic traditions and

large-scale cultural interaction throughout the Near East in the late second millennium B.C., rather than by any common

place of origin. Even works with different subjects (like the gold bowl and glass vessels) can display formal similarities that suggest common attribution.

Related to the present discussion are three mosaic glass vessels from Tomb 25 in the cemetery at Marlik, east of Hasanlu in Northwest Iran."5 They include the button-base beaker mentioned earlier (Fig. 13), a rectangular beaker, and a chalice with a pedestal base, all decorated with

geometric designs that compare well with the glass plaques and vessels from Tell al-Rimah (Fig. 15) and Aqar Quf (Fig. 25).96 On the basis of close similarities in technique, shape, size, and design with the Rimah and Aqar Quf glasses, there is little doubt that the Marlik vessels were imported from the west.

Although the chronology of the Marlik cemetery is problematic, O.W. Muscarella has recently presented evidence that the tombs were built over a long span of time, covering the late second to early first millennium B.C.97 Tomb 25, in which the glass vessels were found, is among those he dates to the late second millennium on the basis of unbridged spouted vessels of Iron Age I, second-millennium form contained inside.98 For the present purposes the significance of the Marlik vessels, as understood above, are two-fold: they suggest, first, that late second-millennium Mesopotamian glass was reaching Northwest Iran; and, second, that the exchange took place in the second millennium.

85 P. Amiet, Elam, Auvers-sur-Oise, 1966, pl. 268 (from the temple of Pinikir); also repro. in R. Ghirshman, Tchoga Zanbil (Dur Untash), Vol. I: La Ziggurat (M'moires de la Diligatzon Archeologzque en Iran, xxxiv), Paris, 1966, pl. vii, 1-3. See also two related gold and silver statuettes from Susa, in Porada, pl. 12.

86 Amiet (as in n. 85), figs. 261-262; R. Ghirshman, "L'Elam et les recherches ' Dur-Untash (Tchoga Zanbil)," Iranica antiqua, III, 1963, 20-21; zdem (as in n. 85), pls. xvII-xIX, xcvII-xCVIII; Von Saldern, 1970, 208, 216. 87 Von Saldern, 1970, fig. 7. 88 E. Porada, "Aspects of Elamite Art and Archaeology," Expeditzon, xIII, 1971, 34. See further zdem, "A Middle Elamite Cylinder Seal from the Susiana," in De l'Indus aux Balkans: Recuezl d la mimoire dejean Deshayes, ed. J.-L. Huot, M. Yon, and Y. Calvet (Editzons Recherche sur les Czvilzsations), Paris, 1985, esp. 358 on the development of glass seals in Western Asia and the Aegean. 89 See, among others, Marcus, 177-182 (seals); Muscarella (as in n. 37) (ivories); E. Porada, "Notes on the Gold Bowl and Silver Beaker from Hasanlu," in A Survey ofPerszan Art, xiv, ed. A.U. Pope, New York, 1967, 2971-78 (metal bowls); and Winter, 1977 (style)

90 See, for instance, Porada, pl. 33. On vitreous materials in general, see R.H. Brill, "A Note on the Scientist's Definition of Glass,"Journal of Glass Studzes, Iv, 1962, 127-138, and Vandiver, 240-241, 245-246.

"9 Patrick McGovern has analyzed the chemical composition of a blue glass bead from Dinkha Tepe, near Hasanlu, and has told me he believes that it could be a local product (a view shared by K. Rubinson; personal communication). The beads from Hasanlu will be studied by the author as part of a long-term investigation of the personal ornaments from the site.

92 Muscarella (as in n. 37), nos. 130, 191-194.

93 The same definition of the leg muscles and joints occurs, as well, on an unprovenienced copper-bronze beaker said to be from western Iran, now in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 48.178.1 (O.W. Muscarella, Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts zn The Metropolitan Museum ofArt, New York, 1988, no. 342).

94 See Winter, 1989, 87-106.

95 Negahban, pls. 35-36b. Although Negahban describes the chalice in pl. 36b as a mosaic vessel, it looks from the photograph to be core-formed, with festoon and zigzag patterns created by spirals of molten glass threads.

96 Cf Von Saldern, 1970, figs. 1 (Tell al-Rimah) and 2D-E (Aqar Quf). The shape and design of Negahban, pl. 36a-b compares best with a core-formed vessel from Tell al-Rimah (Oates, fig. 59).

97 O.W. Muscarella, "Fibulae and Chronology, Marlik and Assur," Journal of Fzeld Archaeology, xi, 1984, 415-417.

98 Ibid., 417 and n. 15.


27 Fused quartz statue, Temple of Pini- kir, Tchoga Zanbil; ht. 10.1cm. Paris, Louvre Sb 5089 (photo: Depar- tement des An- tiquites Orien- tales)

An Analysis of Stylistic Traits and Their Distribution

The results of the above analysis are summarized in the table in Fig. 29. The table represents an attempt to systematize the

investigation of stylistic trait distribution by ranking various artistic features according to their relative value for establish-

ing a relationship between works of art. Following Scha-

piro,99 the richest traits by which to distinguish style (compositional patterns and overall qualities) are listed at the top of the table, with somewhat less telling aspects (form elements and details) listed below. Such ranking is especially useful when artistic parallels are as widespread as they are for the Hasanlu glass, an understandable distribution in view of the

large-scale interactions and population mixtures attested

throughout the ancient Near East in the second millennium and discussed below.'00 Ideally, one would like to have similarities in aspects of style and iconography. When unavail- able, similarities in form elements and motifs without similarities in composition are clearly insufficient; the Hasanlu gold bowl illustrates this. The reverse, however, can be useful: works with entirely different themes and motifs can be shown

to be related through shared formal and compositional patterns.

The following indications should be clear: that most of the

comparanda from Mesopotamia and Iran date to the late second millennium B.C.; second, that the greatest percentage of meaningful parallels are Kassite; but, third, that certain details and/or technologies are shared with products of

Assyria, Nuzi/Arrapha, and Iran. This interpretation calls, then, for production in Babylonia in the time of the Kassites,

integrated nevertheless with artistic elements from regions to the north and east.'0' As for the date of Kassite manufacture, it was seen that the greatest percentage of similarities

belongs to the thirteenth-twelfth century B.C. Perhaps the few

Nuzi/Arrapha parallels point to a date at the earlier, rather than later end of this time frame. If the proposed scenario is

correct, then it must be demonstrated that there were avenues open for cultural interaction between Kassite Baby- lonia and both northern Mesopotamia and Iran in the late second millennium-regardless of whether the vessels reached Hasanlu during this period or much later, in the ninth century.

In Kassite Babylonia and Northern Mesopotamia 1. Nuzi/Arrapha. There is evidence of Kassite contacts with Nuzi as early as the fifteenth century B.C., when Kassites were first beginning to consolidate their control over the whole of lower Mesopotamia. As J.A. Brinkman has indicated, texts from Nuzi tell of a local king and prince visiting Babylonia (Akkad) and of Nuzi receiving fugitives from Babylonia."02 Further, natives of a Kassite land (mat Ku?vuhhe) are attested

living in Nuzi, and a small percentage of the Nuzi population bore Kassite names.103 By the mid-fourteenth century, Baby- lonia seems to have extended its horizons northward to the extent that Arrapha is reckoned as part of Babylonian territory under most of the later Kassite kings.104

Perhaps most important in explaining the presence of artistic elements from Nuzi/Arrapha in alleged late Kassite artwork is the recurrence of Nuzi goods at sites across

Mesopotamia, in North Syria, and in Babylonia. D.L. Stein has noted that Hurro-Akkadian tablets, artifacts of glass and

99 See above, n. 14. 100 Cf. Winter, 1989, 99-100.

101 Technological analyses of the Hasanlu glass fragments, undertaken by R.H. Brill, neither confirm nor weaken this interpretation. Specifi- cally, Brill has analyzed the lead-isotope content of certain copper colorants (cuprite) in the Hasanlu glasses, as well as in other glasses from the ancient Near East (see R.H. Brill, W.R. Shields, and J.M. Wampler, "New Directions in Lead Isotope Research," in Application of Science in Examination of Works ofArt, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1970, 79; R.H. Brill, "Lead and Oxygen Isotopes in Ancient Objects," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, A.269, 1970, 152). The one beaker sample published (ibid., no. 411 in fig. 3, p. 79) does not belong to any of Brill's proposed lead-isotope groupings, including a cluster of samples from Nuzi, Nimrud, Hasanlu, and Tell al-Rimah. Since the lead in the beaker glass does not derive from the same source as the lead in this other, northern group, more sampling from sites to the south, such as Aqar Quf, would be needed to determine if the beaker glass chemically belongs to a southern lead-isotope group (which would nicely support the stylistic evidence for Kassite production). 102 J.A. Brinkman, "Foreign Relations of Babylonia from 1600 to 625 B.C.: The Documentary Evidence," American Journal of Archaeology, LXXVI, 1972, 274. 103 Ibid., 274. 104 Ibid., 275; Oates, 91.


. .............. ....... ~k ? o o~.201Q

.oo1 $i~lgj r6E 0 EJ Z- 'f~

Y~- ~~_8~=_rp- S C,, r0 r C

'' g O , r r r -= ((((((W, '. r ( So~

s=B~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I zv;? n 7 azlz? 5cm)

28Gl bwrolot rwn (ealHS5849;es.h. 0m Tha, ueeIrnBstn(raig . eShaese;poo Hasanlu Project)r

composite materials, and white painted ware characteristic of final stratum II at Nuzi occur, for instance, directly below the late second-millennium Kassite levels at Aqar Quf and the

contemporary Middle Assyrian levels at Tell al-Rimah.105 In each case the Nuzi-type material clearly evolves into the datable remains of the thirteenth century directly above. It is this archaeological evidence, together with a reappraisal of the famous Shaushtatar letter, that has led Stein to re-date the final stratum II assemblage at Nuzi to the mid-fourteenth

century (as opposed to the old fifteenth-century date).'"6 For the present purposes, this new interpretation provides a context ripe for the transmission of Nuzi-style compositions and motifs to Babylonia.

2. Assyria. Close ties between Assyria and Babylonia first become evident in the fourteenth century in the marriage of a daughter of Assur-uballit I of Assyria (1363-1328 B.C.) to a

Babylonian prince; and in the subsequent ascension of her son Kara-hardash to the throne in Babylonia (ca. 1333

B.C.).'07 One might speculate that goods (and perhaps even

artisans) accompanied these members of the Assyrian royal family as they were integrated into the Babylonian court.

Although documentation of actual trade is scarce in the Kassite period, texts from Duir-Kurigalzu record that government officials stationed in the palace issued garments from the royal storehouse to Assyrian merchants, pointing to a

high level of commercial exchange.'• Such evidence highlights the possible role of textile designs in the transmission of artistic imagery from one region to the other. Such a notion is substantiated by a reference in a Middle Assyrian inventory text from Kir-Tukulti-Ninurta to a carpet decorated with a wide range of multicolored images (of people, animals, and architecture),"09 and by the fact that Marduk- nadin-ahhe is shown on his kudurrus wearing garments with decorative motifs related to those in wall paintings from

Kir-Tukulti-Ninurta.1 '0 In addition to diplomatic and commercial ties, military

interaction must have also facilitated cultural exchange

105 Stein, 54-57. 106 Ibzd., 54-60.

107 A.J. Brinkman, "The Monarchy in the Time of the Kassite Dynasty," in Le Palazs et la royautd, ed. P. Garelli (XIXe Rencontre Assyrzologzque Internationale), Paris, 1974, 399; zdem, (as in n. 102), 276.

'08 Brinkman, 1974 (as in n. 107), 400. '09 F. Kocher, "Ein Inventartext aus Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta," Archzv fur Orzentforschung, xviII, 1957-58, 307, col. iii, 1. 33. ''0 Cf. Du Ry (as in n. 33), ill. p. 93 with Andrae, pls. 1-3.


- Linear sequence of figures- 0

0 Symmetry of animals & plant* *

2 Delineated registers 0

8•• Filler in field(B) *

Formality E Static nature

8 2 Open spacing

Stance of human figures ? Stance of animals * 0

Cut of garments * Tassels between legs 0 *

c Circlet design on robe (B)-- Cross design on robe (A)g

SGeometric bands on robe- H g W Fringe across robe (A) *

=2 Markings of muscles &joints- Headpiece (A) 'Tree with ribbon volutes" (A)--- Palm-like plant- ?

Technology ? *

29 Distribution and ranking of stylistic traits on the Hasanlu glass vessels (table: P. Marcus)

between Babylonia and Assyria, especially during the thirteenth century when Assyria began a period of vigorous territorial expansion."' Although Brinkman has discussed in detail the nature of Assyro-Babylonian relations in this

period, it is useful to review some of his observations here."2 The available evidence indicates that hostilities between the two powers took the form of minor border raids in the late fourteenth and first half of the thirteenth century, with minor

adjustments of boundaries and with each side interfering briefly in the royal succession of the other. Assyrian military power reached its zenith during the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta

I (1243-1207 B.c.), who conquered Babylonia around 1225

' Brinkman, 1970, esp. 307. 112 Esp. zbzd., 307-312.


B.C., plundering the capital and its main temple and establish-

ing a seven-year rule over the region."' Although the

question of Babylonian influence on Assyria in the late second millennium has yet to be fully investigated, clearly the avenues were open for cultural exchange.

We know that some royal Kassite goods actually reached

Assyria from the discovery at Assur and Nineveh of objects inscribed with the names of fourteenth- and thirteenth-

century Kassite kings."4 Although it is not known for certain when these particular goods arrived in Assyria (their archae-

ological contexts are not always clear from the early field

reports), it is tempting to speculate that some finds arrived as

temple booty when Tukulti-Ninurta raided Babylon."" As Brinkman points out, however, Assyrian domination

over Babylonia was short-lived. With the exception of Tukulti- Ninurta's grand victory, there is a relatively stable pattern in

Assyro-Babylonian relations during the thirteenth century."6 It is worth recalling that the inlaid glasses from Assur (Fig. 14) belong to the thirteenth century and that I have tried to date the glass beakers from Hasanlu to the same period. If this interpretation is correct, then the beakers fit nicely into a time of continued interaction between Assyria and Babylo- nia, during which artistic motifs and craft technologies could have easily flowed from one region to the other.

In Kassite Babylonia and Iran 1. Elam. Except perhaps for one Kassite victory over Elam in the late fourteenth century,"7 most other contacts between

Babylonia and the major state of Southwest Iran start in the mid-thirteenth century, when the Elamites took advantage of a low point in Babylonian prestige following Tukulti- Ninurta's victory and raided the region."8 The final blow to Kassite rule occurred in ca. 1157, when Shutruk-Nahhunte attacked Babylon and plundered the city. These frequent Elamite raids resulted in the discovery at Susa of many Kassite objects, presumably taken as booty. Hence, military interaction could easily explain stylistic features held in common in Kassite and Middle Elamite art, such as dotted

garment decorations and zigzag borders in our particular case. Better known, of course, are the similarities between the molded-brick fagades that decorated the Inanna temple built by the Kassite king Karaindash at Warka (ca. 1420- 1400 B.C.) and those from the temple of In-Shushinak built

by the Elamite king Shilhak-Inshushinak (ca. 1165-1151

B.C.) at Susa.l9

2. Northwest Iran and the Central Zagros Regions. Unfortu- nately, there is no textual documentation of interaction between Babylonia and Northwest Iran in the Kassite period. Since the bowl of Kadashman-Enlil I (ca. 1374-1360 B.C.) or

II (1263-1255 B.C.) was discovered in a ninth-century context at Hasanlu (Fig. 23), we do not know for certain when it reached the site. Nevertheless, there is evidence of late and

post-Kassite activity in the central Zagros regions farther south that could account for certain similarities between Kassite art and the Hasanlu "local style." For instance, a kudurru of Marduk-nadin-ahhe (1171-1159 B.C.) was found near Sarpol-e Zohab in the central-western Zagros, set up to record a land grant in the province of Halman (probably modern Holwan, near the Great Khorasan Road) (see map, Fig. 1).120 In addition, cuneiform sources attest to Kassite tribes living in the ancient region of Namri in the hills somewhere northeast of Babylonia, at least by the twelfth

century.'2' That Kassites were present in the region even earlier is suggested by literary references to a military victory in Namri by Nazi-Maruttash (1307-1282 B.C.).'22 Unfortu-

nately, it is not clear from the historical geography just how far east Namri was situated. While L.D. Levine argues that it was a small area along the Middle Diyala in Iraqi Kurdis- tan,"23 J.E. Reade suggests that it was on the Iranian side of the Zagros, in the Mahi Dasht plain west of Kermanshah.'24 Reade's interpretation is especially compelling for the present study, since it would extend the Kassite sphere into an Iranian

province just south of the Solduz Valley where Hasanlu sits. Textual evidence that Kassite control extended into the

Iranian Zagros is supported archaeologically by the discov-

ery of Kassite-type footed goblets in surface surveys on numerous large sites throughout the Mahi Dasht plain, and in excavations in late second-millennium contexts at Tepe Guran in northern Luristan.'25 Finds from later, first- millennium contexts in Luristan also include Kassite objects: beads, seals, and bronzes inscribed with the names of Kassite

kings of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries.'26 Although

"' According to Chronicle P, in A.K. Grayson, Assyrzan Rulers of the Third

and Second Mzllennza BC (to 1115 BC) (The Royal Inscrzptions of Mesopota- mza, Assyrian Periods, I), Toronto, 1975, 175-176, col. iv, 11. 3-7. See further Brinkman, 1970, 307-312; zdem (as in n. 102), 276; zdem, "Kassiten," Reallexikon der Assyrzologze und Vorderasiatzscher Archaologie, v, 1976-80, 467. On the absolute date of Tukulti-Ninurta's conquest of Babylonia, see Brinkman, 1976, esp. 20 and 31.

114 For details and references, see Brinkman (as in n. 102), 277, and idem, 1976, 266 (Q.2.77), 134 (J.2.8). 115 As Porada (as in n. 55), 68-70, has suggested for the Kassite cylinder seals from Thebes in Boeotia. 116 Brinkman, 1970, 312.

117 See Brinkman (as in n. 102), 276, for a later reference to a battle between Kurigalzu II (1332-1308 B.C.) and the Elamite king Hurpatila. 118 Ibzd., 276-277.

1"9 Cf. Moortgat (as in n. 53), pls. 266-268 with Amiet (as in n. 85), no. 299.

120 Brinkman, 1976, 249 (R.2.8). On the historical geography, see L.D. Levine, Geographzcal Studzes zn the Neo-Assyrian Zagros, Toronto, 1974, 24. See also W.F. Albright, "A Babylonian Geographical Treatise on Sargon of Akkad's Empire," Journal of the Amerzcan Orzental Society, XLV, 1925, 212-214; J.A. Brinkman, A Polztzcal History ofPost-Kasszte Babylonza 1158-722 B.C. (Analecta Orzentalia, XLIII), Rome, 1968, 195, n. 1195; H.G. Giiterbock, "Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestalt- ung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200," Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie, N.S. x, 1938, 73-74.

121 Brinkman, 1976-80 (as in n. 113), 465. See alsoJ.E. Reade, "Kassites and Assyrians in Iran," Iran, xvi, 1978, 137. 122 Brinkman, 1974 (as in n. 107), 401.

'23 Levine (as in n. 120), 22-24. 124 Reade (as in n. 121), 138 (following E. Herzfeld). 125 C.L. Goff, "Luristan before the Iron Age," Iran, ix, 1971, 151. 126 For Kassite seals and beads from Surkh dum-i-Luri, see J.A. Brink- man, "The Inscriptions," in E.F. Schmidt, M.N. van Loon, and H.H. Curvers, The Holmes Expedztion to Luristan (Oriental Instztute Publzcations, cvIII), Chicago, 1989, nos. 2, 6, 10, 11, and 14. These objects (inscribed with the names of Kurigalzu and Kadashman-Enlil) were found in levels 2C (ca. 800-750 B.C.) and 2B (ca. 750-700 B.C.); see pp. 487-491 for the chronology. For Kassite bronzes from both scientific and clandestine excavations in Luristan (13th-10th century), see P.R.S. Moorey, Cata- logue of the Anczent Persian Bronzes zn the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, 1971, 28-34.


it is not certain when these royal goods reached Iran, they date back to a period when Babylonia had strong relations with the northeast mountain regions, and thus could be

products of early exchange.

The Importation of the Beakers to Hasanlu

Having demonstrated that the historical situation supports the notion that the glass beakers from Hasanlu could be Kassite products and still display features in common with

Assyrian, Hurrian, and Iranian material, it remains to be considered when they reached Hasanlu and how long they were stored at the site. Although these matters cannot be known for certain, it is worthwhile nevertheless to run

through the alternatives to see if one hypothesis is any more

convincing than another. In the absence of clear proof of

attribution, this exercise (much like Winter's study of the gold bowl)"'27 helps us at least to weigh the various possibilities.

Arrival in the Late Second Millennium B.C.

(Period V or IVC) 1. Transmisszon Directly from Babylonia. It is tempting to

speculate that the beakers reached the site together with the bowl of Kadashman-Enlil (Fig. 23), and that both arrived sometime in the late second millennium B.C. directly from

Babylonia. An attribution of the bowl to Kadashman-Enlil II (1263-1255 B.C.) would dovetail nicely with the proposed thirteenth-twelfth-century date of the glass beakers. As noted,

although there is little documentation that the Kassites were active in Northwest Iran in the late second millennium, there is evidence that Kassite control extended into the central

Zagros regions to the south of Hasanlu, perhaps even as far northeast as Iranian Kurdistan, by the twelfth century or even earlier. It is important to keep in mind in this context that unlike the Assyrian sources which often concentrate on

military activities, Babylonian sources usually omit them.'"2

Further, the only inscriptions from Hasanlu occur on im-

ported goods. Hence, we are missing the kinds of written information that could tell us whether the historical climate would have supported the arrival of objects directly from

Babylonia to Hasanlu in the late second millennium.

Archaeologically, the evidence is somewhat more encour-

aging. Glass vessels from an Iron I/late second-millennium tomb from Marlik are sufficiently similar to glasses from Tell al-Rimah and Aqar Quf to suggest that western imports were

reaching Northwest Iran in the second millennium (compare Fig. 13 with Figs. 15 and 25). It is particularly compelling that the comparanda includes Babylonian as well as Assyrian glass, since it suggests that avenues were open for the early transmission of Kassite goods to the region.

The possibility that the glass vessels arrived at Hasanlu

long before the ninth century is further supported by the

discovery of other heirlooms at the site, including two stone maceheads belonging to the king of Susa, Tan-Ruhurater (ca. 1970 B.C.),'29 and a macehead of the Middle Assyrian

king Assur-uballit I (1363-1328 B.C.).'30 Moreover, if the vessels were the property of temple stores at Hasanlu, as the evidence suggests, then the history of deposits at other

religious centers in the ancient Near East adds even further

weight to the present scenario.'31

2. Transmission through Assyria. A number of Kassite goods have been discovered at major Assyrian centers, perhaps brought there as booty when Tukulti-Ninurta I conquered Babylonia and plundered the temple of Marduk in Babylon (ca. 1225 B.C.). No doubt the earlier marriage of Assur- uballit's daughter to a Babylonian prince (ca. 1350 B.C.) and the ascension of her son to the Babylonian throne (ca. 1333

B.C.) resulted, as well, in the transfer of royal goods from

Babylonia to Assyria. Although the royal annals offer no evidence of an early

Middle Assyrian presence in western Iran, among his efforts to expand the empire territorially Tukulti-Ninurta does record military exploits in the Nairi lands around Lake Van in eastern Turkey, not far to the north of Hasanlu.'32 Hence, it is not inconceivable that Kassite goods reached Northwest Iran along with Assyrian goods via Assyrian routes during the

reign of Tukulti-Ninurta. Such interaction is supported by the discovery at Hasanlu IVB of the macehead of Assur-

uballit, mentioned above, as well as several cylinder seals carved with scenes of animals in a landscape setting that best match Middle Assyrian seal designs. 133 Hence, although Assyrian activities in the east may have been minor in the late second millennium compared to Babylonian involvement in the region, there is nevertheless sufficient evidence to keep open the possibility that the glass beakers could have been redistributed through Assyria before reaching Iran.

Arrival in the Early First Millennium B.C. (Period IVB) 1. Transmission through the Central Zagros Regions. As discussed earlier, Babylonia continued to have relations to the northeast through the ninth century, particularly with Namri. Hence, Kassite goods could have filtered north to Hasanlu from the central Zagros regions during period IVB. This notion is supported by the discovery at the site of an inscribed stone bowl that refers to the king of "the land of

Idi."''34 Idi is mentioned in two accounts by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858-824 B.C.) of campaigns in Zamua,135 which Levine has identified with a region in Iraqi Kurdis-

tan."36 Although it is not certain that the Idi on the bowl is the same place mentioned in the royal annals, this object may nevertheless document the actual transmission of goods from the western Zagros to Hasanlu and the high level of that

exchange.

127 Winter, 1989. 128 Brinkman, 1970, 312. 129 Dyson, 123. The date follows E. Carter and M.W. Stolper, Elam: Surveys of Polztzcal Hzstory and Archaeology, Berkeley, 1984, 232, table 2.

130 R.H. Dyson, Jr., and V. Pigott, "Hasanlu," Iran, xIII, 1975, 183.

131 Cf. Dyson, 123. 13' Grayson (as in n. 113), 268, 11. 6-7; 272, 11. 45-55.

133 Marcus, in press (as in n. 19), nos. 78-80 (the best parallels are with seal impressions from Assur and Tell Fakhariyah). 134 Dyson, fig. 21; P.E. Pecorella and M. Salvini, Tra lo Zagros e l'Urmza: Richerche stornche ed archeoldgzche nell'Azervazgzan zranzano, Rome, 1984, 55.

135 Marcus, 188, n. 81.

'36 On the historical geography, see Levine (as in n. 120), 16-22.


2. Transmission through Assyria. Although one cannot elimi- nate the possibility of Kassite heirlooms reaching Iran

directly from Babylonian stores in the ninth century, it seems

unlikely. By far, most of the ties at Hasanlu IVB are with

Assyria. Further, Levine has suggested on the basis of both historical and archaeological evidence that Assyria con- trolled access to the trade routes with Iran in the ninth

century.'"3 Specifically, there are two main routes linking Mesopotamia with Iran: a more southerly route leading from northeastern Babylonia and the Diyala drainage via the Great Khorasan Road to Kermanshah and Hamadan; and a more northerly route leading from Assyria to the Solduz

Valley via passes over the Zagros and the road through the Ruwandiz gorge (see map, Fig. 1).138 While both routes were

probably open in the second millennium or Iron I period, with access to Iran available to both Babylonia and Assyria, the situation seems to have changed dramatically in the first millennium or Iron II period, when trade appears to have

flourished only along the more northerly route. With Assyria evidently controlling east-west trade in the

ninth century, it is conceivable that Kassite goods arrived at Hasanlu from Neo-Assyrian stores, especially since there is documentation of the plundering and exchange of goods between the two powers in the late second millennium (see above). In this hypothesis the glass vessels and the bowl of Kadashman-Enlil could have both been brought to Hasanlu in period IVB as heirlooms from Assyria, perhaps even

together with the macehead of Assur-uballit.

Conclusions

Although the questions of when and how the vessels reached Hasanlu must be left open for the present, it is worthwhile

reviewing the intent and results of this investigation. The

study began with a brief discussion of art-historical and

archaeological assumptions about style, and with Schapiro's ranking of stylistic properties of art. It went on to use the Hasanlu glass beakers as a test case for a systematic analysis of stylistic trait distribution. For although one may intuit where an artifact was made, it is a very different matter to demonstrate it systematically. By carefully looking at the

relationships between form elements as well as the details of the forms themselves, it became clear that despite a wide

range of stylistic parallels for the decoration on the beakers, the weight of the evidence points to production in Babylonia in the time of the Kassites. Historical evidence of large-scale cultural interactions in the late second millennium B.C. serves to explain the wide range of comparanda in both style and

technique. We cannot be certain when the vessels were brought to

Hasanlu, especially since their friable material does not preclude an early date of arrival in the region. On the one hand, there is historical reason to suggest that they reached

the site in the late second millennium B.C., either directly from Babylonia or perhaps even indirectly through Assyria. In this case, the vessels would have been stored at the site

through the ninth century, held in what may be identified as a temple repository on the Citadel Mound. On the other hand, the evidence likewise supports arrival in the early first millennium, in which case probably as items redistributed via

Assyria. Despite the complexity of the situation and our inability to

opt for one possibility or another, it is hoped that this

analysis nevertheless contributes to a better understanding of the network of interconnections that existed in the ancient Near East in the late second-early first millennium B.C. and,

specifically, the possible relationship between Babylonia and Northwest Iran in this period. At the same time, the study highlights the unique opportunity provided by the discovery and preservation of the mosaic glass at Hasanlu, and the

general value of glass objects as luxury goods in antiquity. Finally, the investigation has tried to apply a system for

establishing relationships between works of art based on the

ranking of shared stylistic traits-with compositional patterns or the way motifs are combined given highest prior- ity-in order to form historical interpretations.

Michelle I. Marcus, a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, is a research associate at The University Museum, Philadelphia. With aJ. Paul Getty Fellowship and an Andrew Mellon Fellowship

from The Metropolitan Museum of Art, she is preparing a major study of the personal ornaments from Hasanlu. Her publications include a monograph (in press), several articles on the seals and

clay sealings from Hasanlu, and a study of the reliefsculpture of the

Neo-Assyrian king Shalmaneser III [205 Pznehurst Ave., 4H, New York, N.Y. 10033].

Frequently Cited Sources

Andrae, W., Colored Ceramzcs from Ashur and Earlzer Anczent Assyrzan Wall-Paintings, London, 1925.

Barag, D., 1970, "Mesopotamian Core-Formed Glass Vessels (1500-500 B.C.)," in Glass and Glassmakzng zn Ancient Mesopotamza, Corning Mu- seum of Glass, Corning, N.Y., 131-201.

, 1985, Catalogue of Western Aszatzc Glass zn the Britzsh Museum, I, London.

Brinkman, J.A., 1970, "Notes on Mesopotamian History in the Thir- teenth Century B.C.," Bzbliotheca Orzentalzs, xxvII, 301-314.

, 1976, Materzals and Studzes for Kasszte Hzstory, I, Chicago.

Dyson, R.H., Jr., "The Iron Age Architecture at Hasanlu: An Essay," Expedztion, xxxI, 1989, 107-127.

Marcus, M.I., "Glyptic Style and Seal Function: The Hasanlu Connection," in Aegean Seals, Sealzngs and Admiznstration (Proceedings of the NEH-Dzckson Conference, Unzversity of Texas at Austin, Program zn Aegean Scrzpts and Prehistory, Department of Classics,January 11-13, 1989), ed. T.H. Palaima (Aegaeum, v), Liege, 1990, 175-193.

Moorey, P.R.S., Materzals and Manufacture zn Anczent Mesopotamza: The Evidence ofArchaeology and Art, Metals and Metalwork, Glazed Materzals and Glass (BAR Internatzonal Series, ccxxxvII), Oxford, 1985.

Negahban, E.O., "Mosaic, Glass, and Frit Vessels from Marlik," in Essays in Ancient Civzlzzatzon Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. A. Leonard, Jr., and B.B. Williams, Chicago, 1989, 221-232.

'37 L.D. Levine, "East-West Trade in the Late Iron Age: A View from the Zagros," in Le Plateau iranzen et l'Asie centrale des orzgines a' la conquete islamique: Leurs Relatzons a la lumzere des documents archeologzque (Colloques Internatzonaux du Centre Natzonal de la Recherche Scientifique, DLXVII), Paris, 1977, 175.

'38 Ibid., 173.


Oates, J., Babylon, London, 1979.

Oppenheim, A.L., "The Cuneiform Texts," in Glass and Glassmakzng zn Anczent Mesopotamza, Corning Museum of Glass, Corning, N.Y., 1970, 2-103.

Porada, E., The Art ofAnczent Iran: Pre-Islamic Cultures, New York, 1965.

Schapiro, M., "Style," in Anthropology Today, ed. A.L. Kroeber, Chicago, 1953, 287-312.

Stein, D.L., "A Reappraisal of the 'Sau'tatar Letter' from Nuzi," Zeitschrzftfur Assyrzologze, LXXIX, 1989, 36-60.

Vandiver, P., "Glass Technology at the Mid-Second-Millennium B.C. Hurrian Site of Nuzi,"Journal of Glass Studies, xxv, 1983, 239-247.

Von Saldern, A., 1966, "Mosaic Glass from Hasanlu, Marlik, and Tell

al-Rimah,"Journal of Glass Studzes, viii, 9-25.

, 1970, "Other Mesopotamian Glass Vessels (1500-600 B.C.)," in Glass and Glassmakzng zn Ancient Mesopotamia, Coming Museum of Glass,

Coming, N.Y., 203-228.

Winter, I.J., 1977, "Perspective on the 'Local Style' of Hasanlu IVB: A

Study in Receptivity," in Mountains and Lowlands: Essays zn the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, ed. L.D. Levine and T.C. Young, Jr. (Bzbliotheca Mesopotamica, xxI), Malibu, Calif., 371-386.

, 1989, "The 'Hasanlu Gold Bowl': Thirty Years Later," Expedz- tzon, xxxI, 87-106.

The Mosaic Glass Beakers from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in Large-Scale Stylistic Trait Distribution

Documents

Transcript of The Mosaic Glass Beakers from Hasanlu, Iran: A Study in Large-Scale Stylistic Trait Distribution