Valores de Participación

One of the major problems concerning the bronzework of the regions covered in this study is that a significant portion of it has not been excavated.141 Unprovenanced bronze

134

Photographs kindly provided by J. Álvarez-Mon, with the permission of the National Museum of Iran.

135

However, if any were present it would be difficult to see under the green patina.

136

Shishegar 2008, 10.

137

See appendix 3, coffin 9. Andrae and von Luschan 1943.

138

Andrae and von Luschan 1943, 119, 171.

139

Frankfort 1952, 124; Curtis 1983, 86; 2008, 165.

140

This bathtub is described by W. Andrae (1943, 118-9) as being made of copper with bronze handles, but the composition would not have been tested, and the excavator surely simply assumed it was “copper”. Woolley similarly referred to the Ur coffins as being of “copper” (see for example Woolley 1962, 53).

141

This is particularly true of Iran. See Moorey (1988, 26-7) for a discussion the predominance of unprovenanced bronzes, particularly in the mountainous regions surrounding Mesopotamia.

coffin examples reportedly from Iran are a complete tub from Dailaman-Amlash (fig. 22),142 two side-strip fragments in the Ashmolean Museum,143 and a few decorated side-strip and rim fragments supposedly belonging to a coffin that contained the infamous “Ziwiye” treasure (figs. 23 and 25).144 Another bronze receptacle published in a 1997 Museum of Anatolian Civilizations catalogue, which significantly differs in appearance, is described as being from “eastern Anatolia” (fig. 27).145

Also reportedly now in this museum are another two coffins with incised decoration on their vertical side-strips, allegedly from the Erzincan area.146

The engraved iconography on the “Ziwiye” fragments has been a central focus in studies of the bronze “bathtubs”. The side-strips exhibit the combined goat (or mouflon) and rosette motif seen on the Ur examples (fig. 25),147 and fragments of what seems to be a rim are engraved with what has been described as a typical Assyrian composition depicting tribute bearers (or perhaps prisoners), reminiscent of those on the obelisk of Shalmaneser III (figs. 23 and 24).148 Several authors have given these fragments and a plethora of looted and fake “Ziwiye” objects archaeological-historical context and value by treating them as archaeological materials from a single find spot, often described as a ‘burial’, and today they are generally accepted by scholars as ‘archaeological’ material.149

142

See appendix 3, coffin 11. This coffin was last seen in possession of a dealer in Cologne, Germany (Curtis 2008, 167).

143

See appendix 3, coffin 13. This side-strip’s size and appearance certainly suggest that it was cut from a bronze coffin. See Moorey 1971, 259-60.

144

See appendix 3, coffin/s 12. Godard (1950, 13) refers simply to “la cuve de bronze qui contenait le trésor de Ziwiye”, implying that the fragments can be attributed to an actual archaeological find-spot. The pieces are now distributed between the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the National Museum in Tehran, and private collections (Curtis 2008, 166-7). For “Ziwiye” see Godard 1950, 13-18; Barnett 1956; Wilkinson 1960, 213-20; Ghirshman 1964, 307. More recently see discussion by Curtis (1983, 85-6; 2008, 167-8). Muscarella (1977, 197; 2000, 76) uses quotation marks around “Ziwiye” to emphasise that, despite the way it is discussed in the scholarship - as emerging from a single find spot - none of the so-called “Ziwiye” treasure was excavated, and at least some of it in fact derived from modern factory sites. Another unexcavated example from Khorramabad in Luristan was reported in 2005 (see appx. 3, coffin 16 and fig. 26).

145

See appendix 3, coffin 14. Álvarez-Mon (2010a, 25) reports that it has a lead cladding, but based on the covering visible in the photograph I assume the intention was to describe it as “leather” cladded.

146

As reported by Curtis 2008, 167 (see appx. 3, coffin/s 15).

147

Ghirshman (1950, 182) instead defines these as ibexes, while Porada (1965, 124) refers to them as gazelles.

148

Wilkinson (1960, 214-7, 219) describes these scenes in detail. Parrot (1961, 144) describes “a procession of tributaries exactly like the one on the obelisk of Shalmaneser III”. See also Barnett (1956, 116) and Alizadeh (1985, 59), who further elaborates that the scene “consists of an Assyrian dignitary receiving foreign tribute bearers, who are presented by Assyrian officials. The dignitary is accompanied by palace guards and four soldiers.” Ghirshman (1950, 182, fig. 2. fn. 1) claims that the scene on the curved portion of the rim parallels an image on a glazed brick panel at Nimrud, but does not include the image to which he refers.

149

For an interpretation of the “Ziwiye” fragments as belonging to a great Scythian king’s burial see Ghirshman (1964, 99); for a Median “chieftan’s” burial see Barnett (1962, 91-4). Muscarella (2000, 76) has more recently noted that the conception of “Ziwiye” as a recognisable archaeological deposit that yielded many hundreds of gold, silver, bronze and terracotta objects remains quite firmly entrenched in modern scholarship. Confirming this entrenchment in the scholarship of Iranian archaeology is a recent article by Heidemarie Koch (2004, 375) “the [Ziwiye] artefacts had all been put into a sarcophagus, a huge bronze tub with one curved end.” According

While I see no reason to deny the authenticity of the rim and side-strip fragments, their centrality to discussions of the bronze coffin material and use of their iconography to date coffins found in proper archaeological contexts is of concern.150 In addition to the problem of their lack of provenance, a number of points should be highlighted. Firstly, the side-strips measure 0.80m, making this ‘coffin’ well above the standard height of about 0.60m, which raises doubt over its original form and function.151 Secondly, the decoration is suspicious on several counts. The fact that after the early discovery of decorated coffins at Ur no further decorated examples were excavated places a question mark over the authenticity of the decorated fragments. The “Ziwiye” side-strip fragments are also decorated on both sides, meaning that the inner face of the coffin would have been decorated, an obvious oddity for a burial container and certainly in contrast to the Ur examples which are decorated only on the exterior surface.152 The rim decoration is even more surprising since no other coffin rim is decorated and the rims were presumably covered with lids. Moreover, the tribute scenes, which replicate images found on Neo-Assyrian monuments, seem entirely out of place in a purported burial context and human figural scenes have not been noted on any other burial container.153 On the sum of this evidence, the possibility that the decoration represents a modern addition to fragments of authentic sheet bronze objects (coffins or otherwise) should be seriously considered.154 These unprovenanced objects most emphatically should not be used to date the coffin corpus and without archaeological context they add nothing to our understanding of early-mid first millennium funerary practices or beliefs, and as such will

to Muscarella (2000, 76) the “Ziwiye” forgeries began to appear in the early 1950s, soon after the first looted objects from the area began to appear in 1947.

150

Many early attempts were made to use the “Ziwiye” iconography for dating the Ur coffins, whose archaeological context was unclear. Based on his analysis of the “Assyrian” scenes Barnett (1956, 111-16), for example, dated them to later in the 7th century. Based on his own analysis of the iconography Wilkinson (1960, 220) brings Barnett’s date back into the early 7th century. See also Alizadeh 1985, 58-9; Curtis 1983 85; Moorey 1971, 259-60.

151

Moorey 1971, 259.

152

An observation also made by Moorey (1971, 260) who comments on the surprising choice to decorate the inner side of a coffin. He therefore prefers the interpretation that these were once bathtubs and adds that the iconography on the rim of the “Ziwiye” example “seems more appropriate for contemplation by the living rather than concealment with the dead”.

153

This observation is extended to all coffin and sarcophagus types as well as the various burial container types outlined in sections 5.2.1, 5.3.1 and 5.4.1. Porada (1965, 124) has also noted the such representations are unexpected in a funerary context: “the fact that there is no coffin known from Western Asia with such factual secular representations as those on the rim of the Ziwiye trough makes one think that the vessel would have been better suited for holding tribute rather than a corpse.” Furthermore, in discussing the iconography on the “Ziwiye” fragments, Curtis (1983, 93) notes that while presentation scenes are a “classic” feature of Assyrian art, the fact that the tribute bearers are ushered into the presence of someone who is evidently not the king is an oddity.

154

A simple analysis under a microscope might reveal whether these are modern additions, but to my knowledge the “Ziwiye” object have not been subjected to such scrutiny. For the tell-tales signs of modern engravings that may be detected using a microscope see Craddock (2009, 173).

remain peripheral to this study. Presently the unexcavated examples can at best suggest a more widespread use of bronze coffins than the excavated evidence suggests.155