Middle Assyrian Glyptic from Tell Billa

Middle Assyrian Glyptic from Tell BillaAuthor(s): Donald MatthewsSource: Iraq, Vol. 53 (1991), pp. 17-42Published by: British Institute for the Study of IraqStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200332 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 23:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range 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].

.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIraq.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.109 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 23:34:55 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200332?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


17

MIDDLE ASSYRIAN GLYPTIC FROM TELL BILLA

By DONALD MATTHEWS

Middle Assyrian seals1

The general character of the Middle Assyrian glyptic is well understood from the seal-

impressions on the archives from Assur, Fakhariyah and Rimah.2 As a result of the work of

Saporetti (1979) there is now a better dating of the Assyrian tablets than was available to the

pioneers. Mayer-Opificius (1986) made useful progress on the chronology of the thirteenth

century designs, and this has been further elaborated by the present writer (1990). There is at present no good evidence for geographical variations in the Assyrian seals,

despite the wide spread of the material. This is in contrast to the chronological situation.

The criteria for the thirteenth century are summarised here, but it is unnecessary to repeat the detailed arguments justifying them which are given in my former work. The thirteenth

century is divided into three phases corresponding to the reigns of Adad-nirari I (1307-1275

b.c.), Shalmaneser I (1274-45 b.c.) and Tukulti-Ninurta I (1244-08 b.c.). This is partly for

convenience and partly as a consequence of the form of Saporetti's book on the eponyms. When speaking of an "Adad-nirari" style I do not, therefore, mean to imply that such seals

could not have been made in the adjacent reigns. Each phase has a diagnostic scene type, though many others were also in use. The first has

a scene with two rampant animals facing a tree between them which stands on a "hill", while

the second has a single horizontal animal which faces a tree which is not on a "hill". This

difference is not merely formal, as there is no formal reason why the "hill" should be absent

from the latter scene. In the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta the "triangular scene" becomes

typical: two rampant creatures face each other, often with a small herbivore on the

groundline between them.

Assyrian seals usually include symbols in the field, and the repertory of these changes between the Shalmaneser and Tukulti-Ninurta periods. The earlier symbols are the cross, the disk, the "swooping bird" and the "stirrup"; the later ones are the bident, the omega and

the seven dots. It appears that all of the earlier symbols were in use throughout the earlier

two phases, originating in the fourteenth century; but the "stirrup" and a form of the disk

with many radiating points seem to be particularly typical of the reign of Adad-nirari, while

the others are more common in Shalmaneser's. The crescent and the star occur at all times.

The winged disk, as noted by Mayer-Opificius (1984, 197), appears more in the fourteenth

and twelfth centuries than in the thirteenth, though there are a few cases then.

The repertory of major figures shows some changes over the century, but the manner of

depiction of their parts was altered very little, as is especially conspicuous in the forms of the

lion and of the human hero. The Adad-nirari figures are nearly always naturalistic: the hero, the lion and various herbivores. This is in stark contrast to the demonic subjects of the

fourteenth century. In Shalmaneser's feign this simple repertory was continued, but at the

same time experiments were made on a wide variety of monsters, of which some (e.g. Rimah

23) are otherwise unknown. There was also more experimentation in scene formats, such as

tentative versions of the "triangular scene", than in other periods. The quality of cutting in

the best seals of this era is unsurpassed. I have suggested (1990, 102) that the essential principle of the Tukulti-Ninurta (and later)

seals is the random combination of standard parts. A monster is composed of parts of natural

creatures?body, head, legs, tail and wings?in some unnatural combination. In much the

1 Acknowledgements: the Billa material is in the University

Museum, Philadelphia. I am most grateful to Professor Ake Sj?berg, Erle Leichty, Richard Zettler and Maude de Schauensee for giving me access and for all their help. My visit to Philadelphia was supported by the British Academy, the Fulbright Commission and the Society of Antiquaries of London. In addition I wish to thank Professor Brinkman and the Oriental Institute, Chicago for no. 33 and Dominique

Coll?n for access to the British Museum seals I have cited. Nicholas Postgate has been helpful with the texts, and I had the great privilege of being able to look at many of the impressions in the company of Professor Porada. She also gave me some useful comments on the text, as did Dominique Coll?n and Eva Braun-Holzinger. 2

Moortgat 1942, 1944; Beran 1957; Kantor 1958; Parker 1977.



18 DONALD MATTHEWS

same way a standard animal body can be given various identities by substituting different

head and tail types. In these later seals the possibilities of this generative system were

exploited in the harmonious framework of the "triangular scene" to produce a wide variety of different designs whose purpose was ornamental rather than to carry a range of meanings. This is supported by the increase in the number of monsters, many of them unique, by the

contests between two creatures of the same kind, and especially by the rise of the fighting animal and the winged animal. In the earlier phases herbivores are nearly always clearly defeated and monsters, where present, are normally fierce and predatory. In the Tukulti-

Ninurta period herbivores can fight on equal terms and there is a range of herbivorous

animals with wings. There are also some isolated criteria, such as the palm tree and the

headdress with two locks (Mayer-Opificius 1986, 161) in the Adad-nirari period, and

the "falling-down" posture in the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta and later (Mayer-Opificius 1986, 163).

Another series of seals shows ritual scenes. These have complicated interconnections with

other styles which I shall not discuss here. One of the most important subjects concerns the

support of a winged disk by human or demonic bearers. In the fourteenth century there are

two bearers, sometimes with a third between them, while in the twelfth century there is a

single bearer. Another major subject involves ritual activities by humans with tables and

upright stands. These are thirteenth and twelfth century.

The Tell Billa archives

The excavations at Tell Billa were conducted between 1930 and 1934 by an American

expedition and have never been adequately published.3 The tablets, however, were edited by Finkelstein (1953). Tell Billa, the ancient Sibaniba, lies fifteen miles north-east of Mosul at

the foot of Jebel Bashiqa, in a similar location to Khorsabad and Tepe Gawra a short

distance further north. This area is on the eastern side of the main Assyrian plain centred on

Nineveh. As the current information on the Middle Assyrian seals derives largely from Assur

and from the west (including now Sheikh Hamad), and as nothing is known of contemporary Nineveh 4 it is convenient that this new source, the third most substantial, should be from the

geographical heart of the country. Most of the tablets were found in the south wall of an

erosion gully and were in very bad condition from the outset (Speiser 1939, 142). The designs are overwhelmingly of mature early and mid-thirteenth century style, with

only two clearly fourteenth century cases, two Mitannian impressions, one from Babylonia, two of late thirteenth or twelfth century appearance, and one belonging to the ninth century. Tell al Rimah, a larger corpus, shows a similar but less concentrated distribution?about

half, rather than three-quarters, belong to the Adad-nirari and Shalmaneser phases. What is

particularly interesting here is that Billa shows exactly the same contrast as Rimah between

the impressions and the actual seals: the impressions are almost all Middle Assyrian, and the

actual seals are largely Common Mitannian. Rimah has one Middle Assyrian seal (Parker 1975, no. 48); Billa has none.

On the whole the Rimah impressions are better preserved and more intelligible than those

from Billa. As is well known (Moortgat 1942, 50, 52-3) the Assyrians had little regard for the

appearance of their sealings, which are often obscured by the text. With Assyrian seals it is

difficult to assess the style without either the outlines of the whole design or some diagnostic details, and in consequence most of the attributions suggested here are tentative. Likewise it

is impossible to draw an impression without some mental image of what is going on to enable

selection of the significant features and rejection of forms caused by irregularities of the clay,

damage, decay, distortion resulting from superimposed cuneiform, etc. Such an image can

only be obtained in many cases from experience of the range of Assyrian glyptic. The

drawings given here are the product of this approach and are thus not a "neutral record of

what is there" which, in my opinion, would be impossible. But it is undeniable that one can

3 See BASOR 40 (1930)-54 (1934) for letters written home during the excavations; and for the tablets, BASOR 46, 2-3

and 49, 14-15. 4 With a very few exceptions such as Postgate 1973, PI. XV.



MIDDLE ASSYRIAN GLYPTIC FROM TELL BILLA 19

form a false mental image from partial traces and be misled by one's own knowledge, and I

therefore make no claim to have said the last word on the impressions of Tell Billa.

The Tell Billa tablets concern for the most part the affairs of Assur-kasid, hasihlu of Bit-

Zamani,5 and his son Sin-apla-eris, the hasihlu of Sibaniba, which is Tell Billa. The hasihlu, or

governor, was a man of importance.6 Assur-kasid may be the same man as a Shalmaneser

eponym (Saporetti 1979, 75). Most of the tablets can be associated either with Assur-kasid

(Bi 4-8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 26, 28, 37, 57, 62, 64, 66) or with Sin-apla-eris (Bi 1-4, 9,

10, 11, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 29-34, 36). I shall not discuss this division as it turns out not to be

much use. There is little overlap between the two groups, except for the tablets Bi 4, 10 and

26 which are dated by the limu Assur-kasid. Two of them concern Sin-apla-eris. There is

little dating evidence for Assur-kasid, and what there is points to Shalmaneser, beginning with his possible identity with the limu. Bi 37 has a limu Babu-aha-iddina, perhaps the

chancellor of Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 62, Finkelstein 1953, 115). We are on firmer

ground with Sin-apla-eris. He is known to have been active in Shalmaneser's reign, from the

limu Assur-kasid and also from the eponyms of Bi 17 and Bi 3.8 Especially important are the

eponyms of Bi 18, 31 and 34 (Adad-nirari),9 and of Bi 25 whose limu is Shalmaneser himself.

The king took the eponymate in one of the first years of his reign (Saporetti 1979, 85). In

other words, the range of Sin-apla-eris' dates, Adad-nirari to Shalmaneser, is actually earlier

than that of his father Assur-kasid, who is only attached to Shalmaneser. As their posts were

in difFerent places we cannot assume that they did not hold office at the same time. The

chronological value of the division of the tablets is thus minimal.

It may be supposed that most of the undated Assur-kasid tablets should be assigned to

Adad-nirari, especially as few Adad-nirari eponyms are known. Saporetti gives ten names

(1979, 57-60) for a reign of thirty-two years. In general, dating tablets from the spread of the

archive in which they are found should be avoided for this reason. Although the private archive from Tell Billa probably stops with Sin-apla-eris (unlike his father, he is never cited

as a patronym) it does not follow that the tablets which are not attached to this archive must

be contemporary, and indeed I think that two of our designs were probably engraved after

Shalmaneser's death. The same argument applies to the Rimah impressions, which include

so many designs of "Adad-nirari style"10 that it must seem unlikely that the archive begins with Shalmaneser. It is especially dangerous to construct a refined date from the overlap of

the alleged spread of two archives,11 and any such argument should be rejected. A few Billa

tablets belong to the ninth century (Finkelstein 1953, 116), and these supply us with one

impression. The identity of the owners of the seals can normally be deduced from the text as the person

acknowledging an obligation; and in some cases (Bi 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 22, 33) the name is

explicitly given. Unfortunately the seals of Assur-kasid (Bi 5), of the palace official (?)

Qarradu (Bi 12), and of the woman Belasuniyah (Bi 22) are unintelligible. We have seals of

two millers (23, 26), of a kakardinu 12 (30) and probably of a carpenter (2). I see no pattern in

these seals or in the ownership of seals which are not Assyrian in style (Bi 9, 34).

Sealing practices Since seals frequently are not inscribed and the sealings are often not annotated, sealing

practice has to be studied by means of reasonable inferences from the requirements of the

legal situation. This situation can only be understood in an archival context from several

tablets. Since the Billa tablets are mostly broken and badly decayed it is almost impossible even to begin such a study. However the Assur tablets are more numerous and better

3 Was this really as far away as Amida early in the Middle Assyrian period? As a tribal name it could perhaps have moved there later?

6 Finkelstein 1953, 117. Mr Postgate tells me that there is no evidence that he was the commandant of a military district.

7Kidin-Sin, Saporetti 1979, 82. 8 Musabsi'u-Sibitta, Saporetti 1979, 83. 9 Sa-Adad-Nenu, dated to Adad-nirari, Saporetti 1979, 59.

If he was the nephew of King Eriba-Adad it would seem probable that he held office early in the reign since his uncle died some 60 years before Adad-nirari's accession.

10 Mayer-Opificius 1986, 164; Rimah 2A, B, 3, 27, 30, 31,

32A, 45, not counting the fourteenth century cases. 11

Saporetti 1979, 80, 81, 95 for Bi 14, 21, 29, 30. 12 Bi 29: a speciality cook or baker, CAD ? 42.



20 DONALD MATTHEWS

preserved, and they yield a standard against which our material can be compared. The recent edition by Postgate (1988) of the Assur 14327 archive provides us with an

opportunity to make some basic observations (Postgate 1986, 11-16); and the numbers in this section refer to it.

The primary sealing 13 is nearly always that of the person incurring an obligation or

disavowing a claim. In most cases (Postgate 1988, nos. 1-8, 10?15, etc.) the debtor's name is

given in an annotation on the tablet, but even where this is not so we may assume, from the

very fact that the tablet is sealed, that the main sealing belongs to the debtor. If there are more sealings?and up to five (no. 1) are attested?then they are normally

14 those of the

witnesses, often including the scribe. An unwitnessed tablet cannot have more than one

sealing (Postgate 1986, 12), giving us three sealing practices: several seals, with witnesses; one

seal, with witnesses; 15 one seal, without witnesses.

The sulmanu texts, which record obligations to pay fees 16 to officials for examining cases, are always witnessed, and with three or four witnesses are more heavily guaranteed, on

average, than the other kinds of transaction.17 They may have either one or several sealings. This seems to depend on whether the case has been examined or is still pending. Nos. 3, 6?,18* 13, 16, 17 and 18 state that the case has been examined. Only no. 18 has more than one seal.19 Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9?12, 14, 15 are payments in advance of the examination. All have more than one sealing20 except no. 9 where the situation is unknown.21

The tablets where the officials are acting in other state business, distributing state material or making state contracts, are not always easily understood as such at first, because the Middle Assyrian government operated by adapting mercantile procedures.22 Nos. 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 56-60 allude directly to the "palace";23 in nos. 28, 36, 49, 55 and 56 there is "the

sphere of responsibility";24 Postgate (1988, 143-5) offers the attractive hypothesis of state relief in time of famine for nos. 54-6; while nos. 69-73 involve military administrations and the responsibilities of governors.25 Of these twenty-one tablets only nos. 36, 49 and 56 have more than one seal. 36 and 56 describe several transactions, and in the former case there is no reason to suppose they are all public matters.26 No. 49 concerns an elaborate affair and it is

possible that the particular part of this, legally covered by the tablet, was a private transaction carried out to enable a public liability to be met. Many of these tablets are witnessed (by two or three persons, generally), but a substantial number of them are not

(nos. 33-35, 57-59, 69-73), presumably because the "debtors" were the state's own

employees. Nos. 28, 29, 33?, 34, 35, 57-9, 70-3 all deal with distribution of government property and all, except no. 28, are unwitnessed.27 The other tablets for the most part concern state loans and credits and are witnessed, except no. 69, where the very lack of a witness may imply that it should be understood as part of the distribution administration

(Postgate 1988, 169-70). In other words, state outgoings were recorded with witnesses when some return was required and without witnesses if not.

The private business of our officials is not in principle easy to distinguish from the previous

13 "A" in Postgate 1988, s.v. Sealing; Postgate 1986, 11. 14 No. 15, with two debtors, is an exception. 15 In no case is there only one witness. 16 I prefer this term to Postgate's "bribe" (1988, xiii-xiv)

since the transaction is above board and does not seem to involve any bias in the decision.

17 The only sulmanu text (nos. 1-18) with less than three witnesses is no. 8 which is damaged where more witnesses might be expected. Of the forty-five other sealed tablets in the publication, only nos. 40, 51 and 56 have more than three witnesses. The heavy witnessing may be related to the rather high value of the payments (Postgate 1988, table p. xv). What kind of cases were on such a scale that these fees were worth paying? 18

Postgate 1988, 13 ?. 11. 10-14: the sulmanu contract has been erased.

19 The situation for no. 13 is unclear (Postgate 1988, 24), but there is an annotation for only one seal. This can happen

with multiple sealings, e.g. nos. 4, 7, 10, 12. 20

Multiple designs were not noted for nos. 5 and 14 (Postgate 1988, 11, 26), owing to faint preservation, but both have multiple annotations.

21 There are no annotations and only one clesign is clearly preserved (Postgate 1988, 17). I have not taken account of nos. 2, 7 and 8 where the status of the examination is unknown.

22 Postgate 1986, 26-8; 1988, xxiii-xxv?the most

important contribution of the new edition of the archive is its careful attention to this problem. 23

Postgate 1988, 224 s.v. ?kallu. 24

Postgate 1988, 227 s.v. pittu. 25 Perhaps also no. 33 (Postgate 1988, 67-8). 26 Multiple impressions were not definitely observed in

either of these but are referred to in the texts. 27 No. 29 is uncertain.




group (Postgate 1988, xxiii-xxv), but may be proposed in a number of instances. If the

persons have no personal interest in their activities then they are presumably following instructions;28 in nos. 24, 30?, 41?, 43, 63, 64 workers are issued with materials as part of

their contracts; in nos. 30, 40 and 64 there is evidence for long-term relationships; and in

nos. 31, 32, 38, 63, 64, 65 the lack of witnesses presumably implies control over the "debtor"

(Postgate 1986, 27). In most of these there is only one sealing, as we might expect between a

master and his subordinates, but this classification does not elucidate why nos. 24, 36 and 40

have multiple sealings since they are in different groups. In 36 it may be because the tasks

assigned are in both the private and the state sector and it may have been thought necessary to be specially careful about irregularity. In nos. 24 and 40 the supply of materials and the

long-term relationship, respectively, presumably do not imply that the debtors were

employees. The remaining tablets (nos. 19, 20, 21, 23, 51, 52, 53) are mostly loans or receipts and, if

they concern independent parties, naturally require witnesses. Nos. 21,51 and 52 have only one seal, no. 20 perhaps because of the insignificance of the persons concerned (the "debtor"

did not make a sealing, doubtless because he had no seal), no. 51 possibly because it is only an interim statement (Postgate 1988, 122).

To summarise: sulmanu tablets are witnessed. They have one seal if the case has been

examined and several if not. Tablets involving public administration are sealed once; they are witnessed if the "debtor" has a liability to make a return, and not if he is a distributing

agent. It may be assumed that other unwitnessed texts concern instructions to employees: like all unwitnessed texts there is only one sealing. In most other tablets it seems probable that there are multiple sealings where a normal transaction is involved, and a single sealing if

the "debtor" is in some sense employed by the "creditor".

Turning now to Tell Billa, we find examples of all three sealing practices. Most tablets

bear the impression of only one seal, but Bi 1, 3, 4(?), 11 and 34 have two, while Bi 13 and

14(?) have three.29 Most impressions only occur on one tablet, though usually rolled several

times, but the seal of Sin-apla-eris (18) appears on Bi 2 and Bi 10, and the designs on Bi 1 (15) and Bi 3 (16) may be the same. The envelope fragments UM 33-58-107 and UM 33-58-6

bear the same seal (34), but may have originally belonged to the same tablet. Apart from

these all of the impressions are on tablets, except for 36 on UM 35-58-84 which is a clay

sealing originally attached to a round object wrapped with string which projected from a

flat surface, such as a door-peg. Bi 7, 8, 18, 29, 33 and 36 have no witness and therefore bear only one seal. The first two

involve the distribution of palace grain; the others are receipts, Bi 18 being "of the palace",

except no. 36 which is an inventory. Bi 2, 10, 16, 25, 26 and 31 have several witnesses

(unclear in the case of Bi 16) and one seal. They are loans and obligations (in Bi 25 and 26 of

materials for a work contract) except for the receipt Bi 31. In Bi 2 and 10 the officials who

owned the archive are debtors. This is also true of Bi 5 but both the seals and the witnesses

are lost there. I cannot explain why the witnesses' seals were not considered a desirable

security for the officials' debt?the creditors do not seem to be of particularly high rank.

Bi 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14 and 34 are similar witnessed texts, but with several seals. They are

straightforward commercial transactions, except Bi 11 which is a receipt30 and Bi 13 which

may concern public administration. Bi 31-33 present a particularly difficult puzzle. Each

says, in almost identical wording, that barley belonging to Sin-apla-eris has been received by

Istar-pilah for horse rations. Bi 31 and Bi 33 are dated in different years; the date of Bi 32 is

lost. Bi 31 has two witnesses, Bi 33 none, and the witnessing of Bi 32 is unknown. Bi 33 has, as

we expect, an annotation "Seal of Istar-pilah" (7). But why is there a discrepancy in the

witnessing, and, more peculiar still, why do the other tablets show two other seals (20 and

28 Postgate 1988, 43 (no. 22), 55, (no. 27), 77 (no. 36), 81

(no. 38). 29 The numbers are doubtful owing to the damaged state of the tablets. Bi 4 and 34 had extra impressions that were indecipherable and may have been of other seals; Bi 14 has

been described with three designs but one of them (6) may be part of one of the others.

30 Mr Postgate informs me that it is not a sulmanu text (Finkelstein 1953, 126).



22 DONALD MATTHEWS

24)? Any body of material has a residue of the inexplicable mixed in with the regular

patterns: when the corpus is small and in bad condition they become inextricable.

As for the placement of impressions, a tablet provides eight rolling positions, one on each

edge and two on each face. Here once again it is useful to start with Assur 14327. The debtor

seals at the top of the obverse and the same seal is sometimes found elsewhere as well.31 The

scribe generally seals on the reverse, either above or below, and sometimes (Postgate 1988, nos. 23, 36) perhaps on the top edge. Witnesses usually place themselves on the left edge, often in pairs,32 but can also appear with the scribe on the reverse. The right and bottom

edges are rarely utilised.33

Among the few Billa tablets with multiple impressions none has all eight surfaces

preserved, and the right edge and the lower part of the obverse so rarely survive that no

patterns can be observed. The same distinction as at Assur between the upper obverse and

the upper reverse is maintained: they never bear the same seal. The lower reverse is likewise

sometimes the same as the upper (16, 28) and sometimes different (8/41; 11/10). In Bi 4

alone the upper obverse seal recurs on the (lower) reverse (12). The top edge, where

preserved, always shows the same seal as the reverse (5, 8, 16, 29). The bottom edge is

apparently normally the same as the reverse34 while the left edge may sometimes be sealed

by the debtor (?) 35 These practices indicate a looser convention than in the Assur 14327

archive; but this may be because the well annotated Assur tablets from which I have derived

the standard are mostly sulmanu texts, a special type which is not attested at Billa.

Fourteenth century designs

Very few actual seals of fourteenth century style are known and as the Rimah impressions of this kind are mostly fragmentary our knowledge largely depends on the Assur impressions. These include two major series, contests with demons (14 Glyptik 2-20, etc) and ritual scenes

involving the winged disk (e.g. 14 Glyptik 22, 83, 93, 94). Many designs of the latter type are

transitional to Mitannian with non-Assyrian features such as the guilloche36 and

Babylonianising humans.37 1 shows a row of winged demons, each pair holding an animal,

perhaps a deer, upside down between them. Unfortunately the demons' heads are not

preserved, but the necks look too thick to be human, and lion heads may be most likely.38 The wings probably crossed at the tips as in 14 Glyptik 11-13 (Fig. a). The demons have

textured bodies as in 14 Glyptik 18. The inverted deer are beautifully carved and very unusual. Some linking motive between the major figures is normal in this period (e.g. 14

Glyptik 11), but it is most unusual for victims to appear turned completely upside down

rather than at right angles.39 It is probably an original Assyrian invention, but may owe

something to Old Syrian seals such as CANES 910. The circularity of the design round the

seal is a typical fourteenth century trait which was rejected in the thirteenth century

(Matthews 1990, 98). 2 40 is one of the relatively rare fourteenth century Atlantid scenes which do not show the

specifically Mitannian features mentioned above. The tree is the normal fourteenth century one.41 The stool is supported by unlike creatures, a griffin-demon and a bull-man. I do not

know of any other case where this is so, though in de Clercq 375bis (Fig. b) the bearers are

flanked by attendant demons of different form, a griffin-demon and a lion-demon.42 It is

unfortunate that, as is usual in these designs, the object under the stool is unintelligible: the

most common figure is a kneeling man.43 3 is a fragment of a similar design, with a bucket-

31 E.g. Postgate 1988, nos. 1, 2 (? textile), 21?, 23.

32 E.g. Postgate 1988, nos. 1, 5, 14, 15.

331 have derived this information from the tablets with multiple annotations which tend to be sulmanu texts and may display an atypical usage; cf. Postgate 1986, 12.

34 8 and 11 but perhaps not 25. 351 seems to appear here and on the upper obverse ofBi 11.

In Bi 13 and 14 there is a seal (3 and 4 respectively) which is not the same as on the reverse: it is therefore either the debtor's seal or that of a second (4) or third (3) witness. 29 on the other hand, occurs both on the reverse and on the left

edge. 36 E.g. 14 Glyptik 89; 13 Glyptik 77.

37 E.g. 14 Glyptik 82, 85, 86.

38 Cf. 14 Glyptik 12, 13. 39 Cf. Rimah 14B. 40Limu Shalmaneser I: Saporetti 1979, 85 (Bi 25). 41 Cf. 14 Glyptik 2, 8, 67a. 42 Cf. also the related Mitannian tree-centred scene,

Nuzi 92. 43 14 Glyptik 93, Louvre A951, FI 266.




bearing demon facing the scene with the stool being raised, much as in 14 Glyptik 83 or de Clercq 357bis.

Seals related to fourteenth century traditions and ritual scenes

The classic fourteenth century style of the reigns of Eriba-Adad and Assur-uballit was almost totally transformed in the years c. 1320-1280 B.c. into the mature thirteenth century

style of Adad-nirari's reign. There is almost no direct evidence for this period but it is

possible to construct a picture from the designs that do not fit easily into either of the well

known phases.44 4 may be yet another Atlantid scene, but I do not know of any fourteenth century example

of this standard Assyrian form of the cross (Matthews 1990, 97-8). Alternatively it could be a tree-centred scene like Mayer-Opificius 1986, Pl. 30:4, Rimah 8, or 14 Glyptik 32

(Matthews 1990, 107). 5, the other design on this tablet,45 is even less comprehensible. There

seems to be a large horned animal with a tufted chest pacing towards an object that might be

a twisted tree or even a kneeling human. The fragment of a twisted tree 6, also visible on the

tablet, could conceivably be part of either 4 or 5, but both 5 and 6 are probably thirteenth

century. BN 385 may be a rare Adad-nirari design with a monster;

46 it has a distinctive symmetric

arrangement of the creatures' hindquarters. 7 is comparable, and if the shape above is a

winged disk this would support a date in the earliest thirteenth century. 13 Glyptik 78, Rimah 15A (Fig. c) and Rimah 40 are fourteenth century comparisons which may further

suggest an early date; but our design is unusual. 847 is an important design which is

unfortunately almost completely destroyed. It seems to show an enormous eagle and two

antithetic animals: it is hard to tell whether they are horses or have horns between them. The

general conception may be compared to 7 and Rimah 15A (Fig. c), but I know of no other

case of an Assyrian bird of this kind. Nonetheless this period does seem to have been a time

when there was experimentation with birds in Assyrian seals and in styles closely related to

Assyrian (FI 963, Geneva 62, Birmingham 58, cf. Porada 1986, 88). The Birmingham seal

(Fig. e) is the most interesting for our purposes as I have found some reason to speculate that

it may belong to a workshop operating at Nineveh.48 The man seated with a mace at his

waist in Birmingham 58, facing an altar, seems to recur in our seal 9.49 The decorative

triangles on the stool of seal 9 are particularly significant as they occur also on another seal

with this man, BM 89806 (Fig. ?/),50 acquired by Captain Jones at Nineveh. Here the man

has a table rather than an altar in front of him: our impression has both (Porada 1986,

86-7). The Foroughi seal, Porada 1971, Fig. 9, shows another man with a mace at his waist

sitting on a decorated seat.51 There is an object on the table which I do not understand: by

analogy with BM 89806 it might be a rhyton (Porada 1986, 85-6), but it seems to

correspond more closely to the lamp(?) in 12 Glyptik 37. I think the second man is probably

kneeling,52 as in CANES 598 (Fig./) and also the Assur impressions 13 Glyptik 70 and 71.

The object in the sky is unclear, but BM 89806, Birmingham 58 and CANES 598 (Figs. ?, e,

f) lead us to suggest that it might be the winged disk. 10 is a very similar design, though in

reverse orientation, with a person on a decorated seat facing a kneeling man. There is a table and a fire-altar between them and a crescent and star above. The whole arrangement is

almost identical to 13 Glyptik 70, down to the enigmatic object in front of the seated figure and the hairstyle of the kneeling man in two locks (a criterion for the reign of Adad-nirari). It is possible that the faint traces of the seated figure's raised arm should be understood as some

44 As it happens nearly all of the extant Assyrian seals with fourteenth century features belong to this time rather than to the better attested period of the Assur impressions. See Matthews 1990, 89 n. 7, 91-3.

45 Bi 14, dated by Saporetti (1979, 95) from the overlap of the alleged spreads of the Rimah and Billa archives.

46 Matthews 1990, 98 n. 124. 47 Adad-nirari: Saporetti 1979, 60 (Bi 34). 48 Matthews 1990, 112 n. 270. See Porada (1986) for a

study on similar lines with more emphasis on the Hittite aspects. 49 Bi 57, an Assur-kasid tablet.

50 Porada 1986,85 Fig. 8-1. 31 Note particularly the loop on the end of the mace found

in some of these seals: Matthews 1990, 112 nn. 269, 270; cf. FI 270.

?2 Dominique Coll?n pointed out that he could be sitting.



24 DONALD MATTHEWS

kind of sceptre or symbol, as in 13 Glyptik 70. The other impressions on this tablet are the

fourteenth century Atlantid scene, 3, and 11, which I find quite incomprehensible. Although there are four impressions of it on the tablet it is mixed up with 10 and I am unable to fit the

traces together with assurance. There is a palm tree with tufts half way up the trunk, reminiscent of 13 Glyptik 73. But I do not understand the object or objects next to the tree

(seated man?? table?? tent??). Dr. Coll?n rightly compares this impression to members of the

group she studied in 1988 (63-4, no. 1), especially the tree.53

12 is another scene which is too faintly preserved to reconstruct adequately. There seem to

be at least three figures, but I cannot guarantee that the arrangement shown is correct. Two

of the figures flank a badly preserved area which might contain ritual equipment, or

cuneiform, or even a tree. The figure on the left looks superficially like the interceding

goddess (a person not found in developed Assyrian seals) but it might be a variant of the

long-haired figure in 14 Glyptik 32, FI 824, etc. The figure on the right could conceivably be

extending his arms on both sides, like the third figure. This arm position is of course common

in contest scenes (CANES 597, etc.), but as such scenes always include an animal or monster

it is more probable that we are in the ritual series. The only parallel I can suggest there is

VR527. A winged disk in the field with a stool but without bearers, as in Birmingham 58 and

CANES 598 (Figs. e,f), occurs again in the Billa impression 13.54 Here, however, the rest of

the design is fully thirteenth century in appearance, showing the definitive Adad-nirari scene

of two rampant animals flanking a twisted tree on a "hill". CANES 598 likewise has a

thirteenth century scene, for which I suggested the same date (Matthews 1990, 97). This seal

is also one of the best comparisons for the animal bowing its head before a rampant winged demon with an upswept bird's tail in 14.55 Our impression has some unusual features. The

rosette is not a standard thirteenth century symbol but often occurs, especially in pairs, at the

end of the fourteenth century.561 do not understand the radiating object above the animal: it

may be a precursor of the Adad-nirari radiating disk57 or conceivably have some relation to

14 Glyptik 101. Alternatively we could compare it to the elaborate cross on Parker 1975, no. 48 (Fig. g) which, like CANES 595, has a similar abbreviated syntax in which the demon

reaches out to the animal on both sides. The exact posture of our demon, however, is closer

to the fourteenth century design Rimah 14B. The tufts on the demon's legs are more

interesting. Small curls are occasionally attached to the fronts of legs throughout the Middle

Assyrian period.58 In 14 Glyptik 2 and 13 Glyptik 80 we have similar tufts on fourteenth

century seals, but attached to the back of the leg.59 14 Glyptik 94 has them on both sides.

Thebes 23, however, may be a better comparison. Porada (1981, 42-3) noted its Hittite

affinities and suggested a possible provenance at Carchemish. But while it is certainly not

Assyrian the lion-demons, paired rosettes and Atlantid theme are already familiar to us, and

we should not forget the international fame of Ishtar of Nineveh (EA 23) in considering the

goddess on her lion.60

Bi 1 and Bi 3 61 are unusual in having impressions of two seals each. It is possible, though not certain, that 15 on Bi 1 and 16 on Bi 3 are impressions of the same seal.62 In any case they show much the same scene with two heroes in smiting posture with a winged bull between

them. This scene, which is discussed by Lambert (1987), who interprets it as Gilgamesh and

the Bull of Heaven, occurs in Mitannian 63 and in fourteenth century Assyria,64 but this is its

first thirteenth century attestation.

53 E.g. in RS 7.107, 8.152, 23.17, 25.248. For this group see

below, no. 38. 54 Adad-nirari: Saporetti 1979, 59 (Bi 18). 55 Adad-nirari: Saporetti 1979, 59 (Bi 36). 56 Matthews 1990, 116 n. 12. 57 CANES 598 etc: Matthews 1990, 97. 58 Matthews 1990, 100-01. 59 Cf. Oates 1966, 131, Pl. XXXIV, a relief from Rimah

dated to the Old Assyrian period but still in use much later. 60 Porada (1986) has discussed the possible Hittite influence

at Nineveh; and even further south we have the Hittite figurine from Nuzi (Mellink 1964) and a small Hittite relief from Assur (Porada 1986, 85). 61 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 82, 83.

62 The only name in common among the witnesses is the scribe, Subriu; but he should not own 15 as it is on the upper obverse, the debtor's position. 63 Nuzi 774, Geneva 62; cf. 45 below.

6414 Glyptik 40, cf. Rimah 15E.




The reign of Adad-nirari I

The designs just discussed may belong to this reign: 13 in particular certainly does so as it

has the definitive scene with animals flanking a tree on a "hill". 17 seems to be another case,

though only one of the two flanking animals is visible.65 The seal of Sin-apla-eris, 18,66 however has winged creatures instead of animals. The clearly hoofed forelegs suggest that

they were winged herbivores, a monster very rare in Assyria before the reign of Tukulti-

Ninurta I (Matthews 1990, 100), though 14 Glyptik 41 seems to be an example. But

Marcopoli 138, with lions replacing the usual animals, demonstrates that variations were

possible. The "stirrup-sign" is a good indicator for an early date for 19. Unfortunately the main

design is unclear, but the standard Adad-nirari archer firing across the tree at a herbivore

seems plausible (cf. Matthews 1990, nos. 311-14). 20,67 on the other hand, is not

comprehensible to me. There is the head of a horned animal and a bush with three parts, but

the animal seems to be upside down relative to the plant.

The reign of Shalmaneser I

Designs of this phase form the largest group at Billa. The definitive scene is a single horizontal animal facing a tree with is not on a "hill", such as we have in 21, like 13 Glyptik 41 and 42. 22 68 is comparable and has the swooping bird which is especially typical of this

time, though the object in front of the animal is unclear and the rhombus is unusual in

Middle Assyrian.69 The typical Shalmaneser contest shows a herbivore in horizontal attitude with a predator

rearing over it, usually without the terminal tree of Adad-nirari's reign. 23 with a griffin, 24

with a lion 70 and 25 71 with a winged lion (?) 72 are normal cases. 23 and 25 show the same

stylisation of the predator's foreleg, much as in 13 Glyptik 36. There is rather more variety in

scenes with a human in combat: apart from the archer firing at an animal,73 which is not

attested at Billa (30 has a lion as well), there is no standard form. 26 with its man reaching towards the animal on both sides is reminiscent of the earlier designs Parker 1975, no. 48

(Fig. g), CANES 595 and Moortgat Festschrift 9, but it does not include the fabulous

creatures that are almost always present in the fourteenth century. 27 shows some kind of

combat between a man and an animal, but too little survives for assessment. 28 has the man

in smiting posture, as in CANES 599; the plant is of the skimpy variety found in 13

Glyptik 43.

The "triangular" scene, combining the human-animal and lion-animal contests of the

earlier phase into one scene with three actors, came to maturity in the time of Tukulti-

Ninurta but was experimented with earlier (Matthews 1990, 99). These experiments did not

always quite work (e.g. 13 Glyptik 12) and we may now add 29.74 However our other case,

30, though not particularly finely engraved, is perfectly composed, like Marlik 7 (Fig. h). This perfection of composition irrespective of the seal's quality is more typical of the next

reign, but by then the kneeling archer had gone out of fashion.

31 is a more unusual design, not well enough preserved to decide whether the man is riding the animal, as in Rimah 23, or standing beside it, as in Parker 1974,75 Guimet 110 76 and

13 Glyptik 65,77 datable to the reigns of Adad-nirari or Shalmaneser.

The reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I and later

32, with a winged lion in combat with a horse, is a classic "Triangular" contest

comparable to 12 Glyptik 18, 13 Glyptik 22, 23, Rimah 21 and Walters 85. 13 Glyptik 24

(Fig. i) is a particularly close example with the same pair of creatures. I include here the

63 Cf. Matthews 1990, nos. 319-24, 431, 432. 66 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 75 (Bi 10). 67 Adad-nirari: Saporetti 1979, 59 (Bi 31). 68 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 75 (Bi 26). 69 23, Rimah 30, 35. 70 Cf. Rimah 35, 38. 71 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 83 (Bi 3).

72 Cf. CANES 596. 73 13 Glyptik 13, 14; Moortgat Festschrift 10. 74 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 82 (Bi 1). 75 Shalmaneser: Saporetti 1979, 99 (TR 2059). 76 With a tree on a "hill". 77 With "stirrup" and Adad-nirari hairstyle.



26 DONALD MATTHEWS

impression 33, though it is not from Tell Billa.78 There is a rampant monster and a kneeling bearded archer, though the object between them (tree?) is unclear. The tablet is dated to the

eponymy of Tukulti-Ninurta I, i.e. to one of the first years of his reign. The archer's head, the presence of a monster and the excellent composition of the tail and elbow all fit a date at

that time. The style reminds me of BM 134305 (Fig. j) which has a tree and two small

animals between the main protagonists. Human archers are rare after Shalmaneser's reign but there is one in 13 Glyptik ll.79

The remarkable Ishtar seal 34 has no good parallels. Its handsome, spacious layout is

similar to the late Middle Assyrian seals described by Porada 80 which foreshadow the neo-

Assyrian seals (such as FI 561 with Ishtar). The large lion reminds me of designs such as

Rimah 1 and 7, and of 12 Glyptik 36 (Fig. k) as the attributive animal of Ishtar. But the last

example has the goddess in smiting posture, while our case is rather more neo-Assyrian in

appearance with her over-supply of weapons. Thebes 23 is a seal where Ishtar is similarly

heavily burdened, though with a dress and posture more akin to 12 Glyptik 36. It is not

normal Assyrian, but as remarked above some of the details have a very Assyrian feel. In

particular we may notice the winged disk with a single bearer underneath, in an arrangement

comparable to the late Middle Assyrian seals BN 364, BM 89777 81 and VR 638.82 But in our

Billa impression the bearer is standing and supports not a winged disk but some kind of

tray(?). I am unable to suggest what is in the tray, though there might possibly be some

connection with the ancient motif of the king bearing earth or bricks83 or with the tribute-

bearers on the White Obelisk, probably of the end of the Middle Assyrian period.84 The

third person is badly preserved but there appears to be a trace of a nose and mouth facing the other figures, and the upraised hand seems to imply that he is participating in the action

of the frontal figure.85 35 is on a tablet dated by Finkelstein to the ninth century (1953, 116, 138-9) as it involves

the governor Zakaya. The style is coarse and effective but lacks the perfection of line and

composition found even in ordinary Middle Assyrian seals such as 30. It belongs to the neo-

Assyrian Linear style.86

Babylonian seals

Both actual examples 87 and impressions

88 of Babylonian seals are occasionally found in

Assyria, and Billa supplies us with one of each. 36 is a very worn doorpeg(?) sealing with an

impression of two or three figures in Babylonian attitudes beneath a frieze that includes a

monster. Every visible detail?the locust, the flounced dress of the martial figure, the round

symbols in the upper field, even the trace of a triangular object beside the monster?

corresponds exactly to the Nippur design Philadelphia 562 (Fig. /); but our impression is too

faint to be able to say whether it was made by the same seal.89

37 on the other hand is not of standard Babylonian form, and may be a local imitation of a

Babylonian seal of Second Kassite style.90 All of the elements?man, birds, large straight

781 am much obliged to Professor Brinkman for showing the tablet to me and letting me study it. 79 Saporetti 1979, 117 (KAJ 103, 106); Matthews 1990, 95 n.90.

801979, 7-8, Fig. 1; Coll?n 1987, 132-4, no. 560. 81 Matthews 1990, no. 500. 82 Also Ward 656??cf. Matthews 1990, 108. 83

E.g. Strommenger and Hirmer 1964, nos. 146 (Ur-Nammu), 262 (Assurbanipal). 84 Reade 1975, 131 Fig. 1, col. A5. Dr. Braun-Holzinger pointed out to me that the winged disk is held up high by its bearers, as in this seal, while baskets of bricks are held lower.

85 Speiser 1932, 8 describes a "small letter" in a clay

envelope with a "typically western" seal impression with "deities standing on lions" which must be the same as our Ishtar design. He says the incomplete message concerns goods sent to Nineveh and charged to the writer's broker, and implies a date of Tiglath-pileser I. Professor Leichty has kindly ascertained for me that Bi 67 is the inner tablet, and

though Finkelstein's text does not correspond very well with Speiser's, Mr. Postgate assures me that Speiser could easily have deduced his version from the same tablet.

861 cannot find any very close comparison, but cf. e.g. Marcopoli 184, CANES 633, VR 650, Ash 590.

87 E.g. Parker 1962, Pl. XIII. 1 (Nimrud), VR 555 (Assur),

Matthews 1990, no. 245 (Nemrik). 88 E.g. 12 Glyptik 1-3; 14 Glyptik 103, 104; Amiet 1980, AO 21.381; Rimah 12.

89 Legrain's drawing was made from the sealing CBS 8592;

but I have found another impression of the same seal on UM 29-13-47, which gives the frieze of sphinxes flanking a pseudo-Kassite volute-tree similar to VR 552. I made the drawing of the Billa impression before the Nippur parallel occurred to me. The Nippur design will be no. 88 in my forthcoming monograph The Kassite glyptic of Nippur. 90 If it appeared in the art market I would consider it a forgery.




tree, small twisted tree, rhomb and especially the cross91?are standard Second Kassite, but

the sketchy linear drawing is not.92 The most obvious parallel for this, with a similar large tree, is Coll?n 1988, no. 6 (Fig. m).

Levantine (?) seals

There are two very distinctive groups of faience seals which have scattered provenances all

over the Near East.93 The first group 94 is probably to be located at Ugarit owing to the high

proportion of examples found there, even allowing for the size of the whole corpus. Most of

the other cases are from up and down the Levant, but there is one from Nippur (Fig. n) 95

and now one from Billa, 38.96 The man and tree are standard but the animal is a little

unusual?the normal form is as in RS 17.160, 20.46, 23.431 etc. with straight horns.

The source of the second group97 is unknown. Hazor is the only site with more than one

case and there are isolated examples from elsewhere in the Levant; but with seals from

Mohammed Arab (Coll?n 1988, no. 3: Fig. o), Assur (VR 565) and now Billa (39) a western

provenance cannot be assumed. Curiously enough this style is not known at Ugarit and

neither group has appeared at Alalakh, despite the large numbers of seals found at both sites.

Hard stone Mitannian

Although Mitannian seals in collections are most commonly engraved in a schematic style in hard stone, the ones found in excavations are normally of Common Mitannian style on

faience. Tell Billa, with three of the former and thirteen of the latter is typical.98 Hard stone

seals display a bewildering variety of styles, compared to the consistency of the faience ones.

The most important trends are first, an elaborate and relatively carefully executed style

utilising conventions derived from Old Babylonian and Old Syrian; and second, simple

sketchy designs made up of lines, drillings and arcs carved with a tubular drill, to form scenes

with animals and demons which display little dependence on the older traditions. The

former group is most commonly found in seal-impressions, like our 41 and 42, while actual

excavated examples, like 40, are very rare. The latter, comprising most of the excavated

seals in hard stone,99 is extremely rare in seal impressions (e.g. 14 Glyptik 68, 102) which may be due to a number of causes, for example the shortage of Mitannian impressions found in

Syria or dated later than the fall of Nuzi, or perhaps some usage for these seals that did not

involve making impressions. 40, 41 and 42 all include humans in Babylonianising attitudes comparable to those known

in the Nuzi impressions (Porada 1947, Groups XVI-XVIII). The man in 40 and 42, to be

restored with one arm raised across his chest, occurs in a number of Nuzi impressions such as

Nuzi 642 and 661. The three main figures in 41 are unclear but may represent a combination

such as in Nuzi 629 and 14 Glyptik 53.100 The motif in 41 of a pair of animals flanking a

volute-tree is common in these designs, for example in Rimah 42C which has the same

overall layout. The pair of bullmen in 42 flanking a standard are comparable to seals from

Qatna, Thebes and Tiryns.101 The winged goddess, though a standard figure, is less

91 This seems to be the best interpretation of the faint traces behind the man. The framed cross never occurs in Assyrian seals.

92 Standing man in this attitude: e.g. Matthews 1990,

nos. 177-9, 183-5, 187, 188, 190; two small birds flanking tree: e.g. BN 299, Copenhagen 109, Geneva 56, Porada 1952, nos. 4, 5; larger birds: e.g. Bernhardt 1976, seal no. VIII; small twisted tree: cf. Thebes 26, BN 301, Matthews 1990, no. 157.

93 Coll?n 1987, 62-5, workshops B, C, D. In my opinion these groups cannot be kept separate from each other; but the ones like no. 262 are quite distinct. See Coll?n 1988, 63, 66-7.

94 E.g. Matthews 1990, nos. 576-7, Mazzoni 1986, 173

nos. 13-15. Professor Porada drew my attention to a recently published example, Seidl 1985, Fig. 1.

95 Philadelphia 631 (Matthews forthcoming, no. 206). I

have checked the provenance in Hilprecht's records. He says it is from Nippur but the provenance within the site is

unknown. 96

Possibly also 11. 97

E.g. Matthews 1990, nos. 571-3. An example recently appeared in Christie's sale catalogue: Fine Antiquities 6 June 1989, no. 398.

98 Cf. at Tell al-Rimah, Parker 1975, no. 29 in hard stone and some sixteen actual Common Mitannian seals. Unfortunately I did not have time to draw the more ordinary Billa seals, but they are very similiar to the ones found elsewhere.

"E.g. (Rimah) Parker 1975 no. 29; (Alalakh) Coll?n BAR 95, 96, 99; (Fakhariyah) Kantor 1958, no. XLV; (Hama) Riis 1948 Fig. 189B; (Ugarit) RS 20.43; Ash 912, 914 and 917 were acquired in Syria, and FI 273 in Assyria. There are two more seals from Tell Billa, UM 32-20-45 and 35-9-53.

100 For designs of this type, cf. Matthews 1990, 48. 101 Offner 1950, Fig. 1; Thebes 19; Frankfort 1939, Pl. 42 o.



28 DONALD MATTHEWS

common: we should note especially an impression from Nimrud, ND 891 (Parker 1955, Pl. XX: 1), and a number of cases from the art market.102 The tassels between her legs, if they exist, are rare in Mitannian but occur in FI 267 which has a comparable continuous

guilloche around the rim. An even better comparison is provided by Matthews 1990, no. 472

(BM 130671: Fig. p) with its pair of phallic bullmen and Babylonianising humans.

Common Mitannian

Most Common Mitannian seals have very standardised designs with endless permutations of the same fairly small repertory of elements. 43, however, is an exception. I class it as

Common Mitannian because it is made of faience and has typical forms in its filling elements, the human below the bird 103 and the horned animal that can be reconstructed above the

contest.104 The scene of two heroes fighting a kneeling figure occurs occasionally in elaborate

hard stone seals (e.g. 14 Glyptik 62, FI 855: Fig. q)\ it has been interpreted by Lambert

(1987) as the contest of Gilgamesh and Enkidu with Humbaba.105 But though this is

reasonably easily explained as Common Mitannian imitation of contemporary more

elaborate work, the man on an eagle is very puzzling as this scene, so far as I know, is not

found in glyptic after the Akkadian seals with the "Etana" motif (e.g. FI 851). It is perfectly conceivable that we are indeed dealing with an imitation of Akkadian, as Mesopotamian artists did repeatedly revive ancient themes and we know that at least some Akkadian seals

were in circulation at this time (e.g. Thebes 13, 14). But there is one other representation of

an eagle bearing a person which should be considered, namely that on the gold bowl of

Hasanlu (Porada 1959, 20). Admittedly the Hasanlu eagle bears a woman in a long dress, but the fact that on the bowl this scene is placed close to a "Humbaba" contest, just as on

our seal, makes it possible that the association of the two scenes in both instances is not

fortuitous and may, perhaps, represent some Human derivative of Sumerian mythology.106

Catalogue In this catalogue dimensions are in millimetres, height x width (i.e. circumference),

except in actual seals, where the diameter is given, marked "diam". "Composite" means the

drawing is made up from several rollings. The dates of eponyms are placed in square brackets where Saporetti's evidence is derived from the spread of this or other archives.

1. 33-58-34. Impression. 12 (ext) x 46(?) (no. of demons unknown). Bi 11 (administrative receipt regarding allocation of barley; Mr Postgate tells me that it is not a sulmanu

text). This tablet also bears 28. A row of demons (probably three or four) swing deer(?) between them upside down by their legs, each

demon grasping a foreleg on one side and a hindleg on the other. The demons are winged; their heads are not

preserved but the necks look too thick to be human so they are probably bird- or lion-headed. The tail of one demon is visible. Excellent workmanship.

2. 33-58-31. Impression. Composite. 18(ext) ? 38. Bi 25 (receipt for a yoke). limu Shalmaneser I (Saporetti 1979, 85).

A griffin-demon and a bull-man raise a stool under a winged disk; unintelligible object beneath the stool; terminal volute-tree.

3. 33-58-108. Impression. 10(ext) x 21 (ext). Bi 13 (receipt or note of obligation, probably for barley). Same tablet as 10 and 11.

Winged demon holding bucket stands behind human supporting stool. 4. 33-58-83. Impression. 9(ext) x 27(ext).

Bi 14 (note of obligation for barley). Same tablet as 5 and 6. limu Assur-sad-nisesu [Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 95].

A man stands back to back with a winged demon, a cross in front of him. Unclear traces on left, perhaps part of stool or tree. This could be another impression of 3 or 6 (though not both). Finely engraved.

5. 33-58-83. Impression. Composite. 13(ext) ? 33(?). Bi 14 (note of obligation for barley). Same tablet as 4 and 6. limu Assur-sad-nisesu [Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 95].

102 E.g. CANES 1030, 1031, 1051; Porada 1974/7, Figs. 2,

5; Newell 361; cf. in Syria, Coll?n AOAT 214-17, Thebes 4. 103 Cf. RS 24.522, though the position is unusual. 104 RS 3.015, 6.067, 9.266, 24.365, etc.

105 Cf. above, 15 and 16. loe Professors Edith Porada and Irene Winter gave me

valuable information on the bowl.




The traces are faint and the reconstruction may be faulty. The original engraving was good. There is a hatched strip which seems to be the chest of a pacing animal with the musculature above one foreleg running up behind the chest hairs. Traces above may be of the ear and horns. In front, a radiating disk, and beyond it a curved object, perhaps a tree-trunk or the torso of a kneeling man. The tree-top 6 could belong to this

design. 6. 33-58-83. Impression. 13(ext) x 27. Same tablet as 4 and 5.

Bi 14 (note of obligation for barley). limu Assur-sad-nisesu [Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 95].

Fragment of twisted tree, well engraved. Topline. Perhaps part of same design as 4 or 5 (though not

both). On the upper obverse, therefore presumably the seal of the debtor. 7. 33-58-55. Impression. Composite. 13(ext) ? 34.

Bi 33 (receipt for rations of horses). Text very similar to Bi 31 (20) and Bi 32 (24). Seal of Istar-pilah. limu Istar-eris [Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 80].

A man holds the heads of two antithetic horses. Faint traces above their backs, perhaps of a winged disk. 8. 33-58-113. Impression. Composite. 19(ext) x 43.

Bi 34 (receipt). The tablet also bears 41. limu Sa-Adad-ninu, Adad-nirari (Saporetti 1979, 60)?same as 13 and 20.

The details of this unusual design are unfortunately unclear, though there are several impressions. Two animals face to face, horses or perhaps horned(?); large terminal bird, conceivably two-headed(??).

9. 33-58-78. Impression. Composite. 19(ext) ? 38(?). Bi 57 (business document involving barley).

A man, apparently holding an object at his waist, sits on a fringed stool facing a (fire-)altar and a decorated table with an object on it; a bearded (?) man kneels (?) at the table; winged disk(??) above.

10. 33-58-108. Impression. 23(ext) ? 36. Bi 13 (receipt or note of obligation, probably for barley). Same tablet as 3 and 11.

A kneeling man with his hair in two locks faces a man on a decorated seat who raises one hand, between them a cross, a fire-altar and a table bearing objects(?). Crescent, star and dot(?) above. Bottom line. Design severely mutilated by superimposed cuneiform.

11. 33-58-108. Impression. Composite. 23(ext) ? 33. Bi 13 (receipt or note of obligation, probably for barley). Same tablet as 3 and 10.

This design is very poorly preserved and my reconstruction may be seriously in error. Palm tree with tufts half way up trunk. On the left, a series of curving lines hang from the tree, with a vertical member under them on one side and diagonals beneath. Unclear traces around. Bottom line.

12. 33-58-135. Impression. Composite. 23(?) (ext) ? 42(?). Bi 4 (loan of barley with security). There was possibly another seal on this tablet. limu Assur-kasid, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 75)?same as 18 and 22.

There are at least three impressions of this seal but all are extremely badly cut up by the cuneiform. A man with arms extended on both sides is clear, but the traces of the other figures are not, and I may well have combined the fragments incorrectly. There seems to be another man with an arm extended on one side, possibly on both, and a third figure with a streamer running down her(?) back. The remaining traces

probably include cuneiform and perhaps ritual equipment(?) or a tree(??). On upper obverse, therefore

presumably seal of debtor (Piradi). 13. 33-58-109. Impression. Composite. 20 x 34.

Bi 18 (note of obligation for barley). limu Sa-Adad-ninu, Adad-nirari (Saporetti 1979, 59)?same as 8, 20 and 41.

Two rampant animals flank a twisted tree on a hill; behind them, winged disk above stool. Bottom line. 14. 35-58-141. Impression. Composite. 15(ext) x 35(?).

Bi 36 (inventory of sheep and goats) limu Kurbanu, Adad-nirari (Saporetti 1979, 59).

A bull(?) lowers its head before a winged creature with bird tail and tufted legs, apparently a griffin- demon extending its arms in both directions above the bull. I am not completely certain that the traces which look like a bird's head are genuine rather than an unfortunate combination of overrolled fragments.

15. 33-58-70. Impression. 14(ext) ? 31 (ext). Bi 1 (loan of barley with provision for harvest duties to be performed by debtors). Same tablet as 29; possibly same seal as 16. limu Kidin-Sin, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 82).

Two men stand back to back in a smiting posture; at least one of them grasps a winged bull that stands between them. On upper obverse, therefore presumably seal of debtor (Silliya?).

16. 33-58-122. Impression. Composite. 24(ext) x 39(?). Bi 3 (loan of barley with security). Same tablet as 25. limu Musabsi'u-Sibitta, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 83).

Two men in smiting posture, back to back, grasp the head and tail respectively of a winged animal between them. Cuneiform above; possible trace of a bottom line. The details of the animal's head and fore- hoof as seen seem unlikely and are possibly the consequence of irregularity in the clay surface: the design is

very poorly preserved. Perhaps the same seal as 15.



30 DONALD MATTHEWS

17. 33-58-76. Impression. 17(ext) ? 29 (ext). Bi 16 (document concerning barley). Seal of Tab-rigim-su. limu Kidin-ilani [Saporetti 1979, 63].

An animal faces a twisted tree on a "hill", probably with plants growing on its slope. Star. 18. 33-58-65. Impression. Composite. 16(ext) ? 40.

Bi 2 (loan of lead with security). limu Ellil-[], [Adad-nirari or Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 62]. 33-58-77. Impression. Bi 10 (note of obligation for barley). Seal of Sin-apla-eris. limu Assur-kasid, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 75)?same as 12 and 22.

A twisted tree stands on a "hill" with offshoots on either side; it is flanked by two rampant winged herbivores.

19. 33-58-40. Impression. 19(ext) ? 29(ext). Not in Finkelstein.

Crescent, "stirrup-sign" and disk with superimposed star beside top of tree. Below, unclear traces, perhaps an archer. Curves on either side could perhaps be part of the horn of a rampant herbivore. Topline.

20. 33-58-130. Impressions. 10(ext) ? 37. Bi 31 (receipt for rations of horses). Text very similar to Bi 32 (24) and Bi 33 (7). limu Sa-Adad-ninu, Adad-nirari (Saporetti 1979, 59)?same as 8, 13 and 41.

Bush in three clumps. Horned animal head, upside down. 21. 33-58-71. Impression. Composite. 20(ext) ? 35.

Bi 15 (barley transaction). Horned animal, probably facing a small bush.

22. 33-58-27. Impression. Composite. 15(ext) ? 35(?). Bi 26 (transaction involving a quantity of barley and three yokes(?)). limu Assur-kasid, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 75)?same as 12 and 18.

It is not absolutely certain that I have interpreted the repeat of the animal's rump on the right correctly. Herbivorous animal with rhomb below its chin, unclear object (small animal? plant?) beyond. Traces above can probably be combined to form a swooping bird with open beak.

23. 33-58-42. Impression. Composite. 18(ext) x 31. Bi 8 (order for collection of grain). limu Assur-[], [Adad-nirari or Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 61].

A winged griffin rears up above a caprid, rhomb between them. Coarse linear engraving, cf. 25. 24. 33-58-50. Impression. Composite. 20(ext) ? 43(est).

Bi 32 (receipt for rations of horses). Text very similar to Bi 31 (20) and Bi 33 (7). Rampant lion menaces bearded herbivore. Bottom line.

25. 33-58-122. Impression. 20(ext) ? 31(?). Bi 3 (loan of barley with security). Same tablet as 16. Seal of Samas-tukulti. limu Musabsi'u-Sibitta, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 83).

A winged monster rampant above a horned animal; unclear traces beyond. It is probable, but not certain, that the monster has a lion's head. Linear stylisation of monster's foreleg similar to 23. On upper obverse, therefore presumably seal of debtor (Samas-tukulti).

26. 33-58-131. Impression. Composite. 11 (ext) ? 35. Bi 7 (order for collection of quantities of grain).

An animal looks back at a kneeling man who may be grasping it by a raised foreleg (?). 27. 33-58-60. Impression. 10(ext) ? 27(ext).

Not in Finkelstein. A man raises a weapon(?) before an animal with a horn split at the end. Trace of an inscription.

28. 33-58-34. Impression. Composite. 23(ext) ? 37(?). Bi 11 (note regarding allocation of barley). Same tablet as 1.

Smiting man, perhaps grasping herbivore by the tail. Bush. 29. 33-58-70. Impression. Composite. 19(ext) ? 37.

Bi 1 (loan of barley with provision for harvest duties to be performed by debtors). Same tablet as 15. limu Kidin-Sin, Shalmaneser (Saporetti 1979, 82).

A rampant lion facing a rampant herbivore grasped from behind by a smiting man. Some object (small animal?) in front of the lion. Although the design as a whole looks overrolled around the human I saw no evidence for that.

30. 33-58-139. Impression. Composite. 20 ? 31. Bi 29 (receipt for wheat and emmer). limu Istar-eris [Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 81].

A kneeling archer aims at a rampant lion which menaces a herbivore. Crescent and (probably) radiating disk above. Top and bottom lines. Despite the excellent composition the execution of this seal is mediocre.

31. 33-58-54. Impression. 29(ext) ? 20(ext). Not in Finkelstein.

Man riding or walking beside a horned (?) animal. Crescent and disk above. Very faint.



MIDDLE ASSYRIAN GLYPTIC FROM TELL BILLA 3 1

32. 33-58-45. Impression. 24 (not inc. caps) x 31. Not in Finkelstein.

A rampant winged lion-headed monster faces a rampant horse(?). There seem to be traces of plain cap impressions above and below.

33. Oriental Institute, Chicago, A3452. Impression. Composite. 25(ext) x 40(??). This tablet is not from Telia Billa and has no provenance. Professor Brinkman very kindly drew it to my attention. He tells me that it is an economic text mentioning a goldsmith (1. 2), and with the name Nabium- b?la-usur (1. 20). It is dated 13 Kuzallu, limu Tukulti-Ninurta uklu.

The middle part of the design is clear but I have failed to comprehend the edges, which should cover the same area. A kneeling bearded archer aims at a rampant winged monster with a lion's foreleg and a tufted tail; something (tree? animal?) between them.

34. 33-58-6 and 33-58-107. Impression. Composite. 27 (34 inc. caps) x 39. 33-58-6 is applied to two envelope faces which do not join, though they could be the front and back of

the same original case. One of them is in much better condition and has parts of the edge. There is a clear

impression of the inner tablet. 33-58-107 is a small fragment that has been glued to one of the other pieces. Professor Leichty kindly informs me that 33-58-6 is the envelope fitting the tablet 33-58-66 (Bi 67).

Mr. Postgate tells me, on seeing a slide of the object, that it has the appearance of a Middle Assyrian letter. The remarks in Speiser (1932, 8) surely apply to this object (he confused the repeat of the goddess in the rolling with two deities). Speiser assigns the text to Tiglath-pileser I, which is in accordance with my opinion on iconographie grounds. Note that the impression is treated with respect, properly rolled out and not written over, contrary to the practice in the other impressions, which are earlier. This is the normal situation with letters (Postgate 1986, 13).

A person stands frontally in a long dress and raises a tray(?) containing a heap(?) of something overhead. On the left, another person in a long dress faces the tray (the nose and chin are visible, though the head is otherwise indeterminate) and reaches up a hand to touch it. On the other side a small figure in a long dress, surely Ishtar, stands on a large pacing lion. She is beardless but her headdress is not preserved. She has a bow and a quiver with tassels over her shoulder. In one hand she raises a star on a short staff. The other hand holds a leash running to the lion and an implement with a curved end (curved sword? goad?). The diagonal upward spike could be her thumb or another item. Bottom line; if there was a top line it is concealed under the cap. Plain caps.

35. 33-58-154. Impression. 22 (ext) x 34. Bi 79 (fragment naming the ninth century governor Zukaya).

Monster apparently consisting of a bird with a scorpion tail and human (?) head faces a winged human- headed (?) lion(?) which has an upraised paw; plant between them. Style coarse but effective. Perhaps cap?

36. 33-58-84. Impression on doorpeg(?) sealing. 34(ext) x 42(?)(ext). Not in Finkelstein.

Man in "martial" attitude, probably holding a curved sword, in a tall hat and flounced dress raised in front, faces a man in a round hat, locust between them; perhaps a third figure on left. Two round objects, probably rosettes, in upper field. Frieze at top: sphinx (?) facing object with diagonal structure. Groundline.

Perhaps trace of vertical line on right. 37. 33-4-48. Seal. Hard grey stone. 34 ? diam. 12.5.

Tell Billa V 6, level I. Tree with flying birds flanking it at top and sitting birds (?) halfway up. Standing man, cross (?), rhomb,

small twisted tree. Top and bottom lines. Much of the lower half is broken. 38. 32-20-288. Seal. Grey-brown composition. 29 ? diam. 11.

Tell Billa Rll, level I. Man, horned animal, tree. Vertical line under animal's forelegs. Top and bottom lines.

39. 32-20-178. Seal. Grey-brown composition", crumbly. 28 ? diam. 11. Tell Billa W11, T. 307.

A man grasps a rampant caprid before and behind him, repeated three times. Top and bottom lines. 40. 31-51-360. Seal. Dark greenish-grey hard stone. 27 ? diam. 12.

Tell Billa E26, level III. The design is almost entirely worn off except where it was exceptionally deeply engraved, especially in

drill holes. A man with a bordered dress which leaves one leg exposed raises one hand across his chest, before him a rosette above a linear object that might be a standard or a ballstaff. Opposite, perhaps another man with exposed leg; objects perhaps small animals(??) in front.

41. 33-58-113. Impression. Composite. 18 x 34. Bi 34 (receipt). The tablet also bears 8. limu Sa-Adad-ninu, Adad-nirari (Saporetti 1979, 60)?same as 13 and 20.

The main scene has two humans (perhaps interceding on left?) facing something in between them which is either a standard of some kind or possibly a man in a dress which is open in front. Secondary scenes, separated by a guilloche: above, antithetic sphinxes; below, tree flanked by animals.

42. 33-58-33. Impression. Composite. 21 (notine, caps) ? 36. Bi 9 (transfer of a note for collection). limu Adad-[], [Adad-nirari or Shalmaneser, Saporetti 1979, 61].



32 DONALD MATTHEWS

Two antithetic phallic bullmen grasp a standard between them. Man in dress open in front, probably with one arm raised across his chest, faces a winged figure who grasps two animals by their hindlegs. It is unclear whether this figure is wearing a decorated dress or has tassels between the legs. Star. Guilloche forming lower border. Plain caps. Good quality for Mitannian.

43. 33-4-154. Seal. Yellow composition. 24 ? diam. 11. Tell Billa V7, level II.

Two men, one with tassels between his legs, attack a kneeling figure with frontal face with side locks; probably horned animal above. Large bird with superimposed man wearing double belt, perhaps small

rampant filling animal on left, man in chevron-patterned robe at right angles underneath. Upper field badly corroded.

Index of tablet numbers Bi 1 Bi2 Bi3 Bi4 Bi 7 Bi8 Bi9 Bi 10

15, 18 16, 12 26 23 42 18

29

25

Bi 11 Bi 13 Bi 14 Bi 15 Bi 16 Bi 18 B?25 B?26

1,28 3, 10, 11 4,5,6 21 17 13 2 22

B?29 Bi 31 B?32 B?33 B?34 B?36 B?57 Bi 79

30 20 24 7 8,41 14 9 35

List of additional illustrations

Fig. a 14 Glyptik 13.

Fig. b de Clercq 357bis.

Fig. c Rimah 15A.

Fig. d BM 89806.

Fig. e Birmingham 58.

Fig./ CANES 598.

Fig. g Parker 1975, no. 48.

Fig. h Marlik 7.

Fig. i 13 Glyptik 24.

Fig-j Fig, Fig. Fig, Fig. ?

Fig. o

Yig.p Fig. q

BM 134305. 12 Glyptik 36.

Philadelphia 562. Mohammed Arab 6.

Philadelphia 631. Mohammed Arab 3. BM J 30671. BM 89569.

List of Abbreviations used in the text Ash

Birmingham BN CAD CANES de Clercq Coll?n AOAT Coll?n BAR

Copenhagen EA FI Geneva 12 Glyptik 13 Glyptik 14 Glyptik Guimet Louvre A

Marcopoli Marlik

Moortgat Festschrift Newell Nuzi

Philadelphia Rimah RS Thebes VR Walters

(Ashmolean) Buchanan 1966. Lambert 1966.

(Biblioth?que Nationale) Delaporte 1910.

Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. (Morgan Library) Porada 1948. de Clercq 1888.

(Alalakh impressions) Coll?n 1975.

(Alalakh seals) Coll?n 1982. Ravn 1960. The El-Amarna Letters. Coll?n 1987. Vollenweider 1967.

(twelfth century Assur impressions) Moortgat 1944.

(thirteenth century Assur impressions) Moortgat 1942.

(fourteenth century Assur impressions) Beran 1957.

Delaporte 1909.

(Acquisitions) Delaporte 1923. Teissier 1984.

Negahban 1977.

Moortgat-Correns 1964. von der Osten 1934.

(Impressions) Porada 1947.

Legrain 1925.

(Impressions) Parker 1977.

(Ugarit seals in haematite and faience) Schaeffer-Forrer 1983. Porada 1981/2. (Berlin) Moortgat 1940. Gordon 1939.




Bibliography

List of Abbreviations used in the Bibliography AfO Archiv f?r Orientforschung. BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Bib. Mes. 21 M. Kelly-Buccelati (ed) 1986. Insight through images, studies in honor of Edith Porada.

(Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21). Malibu, Undena.

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

Moortgat Festschrift K. Bittel et al. (ed) 1964. Vorderasiatische Arch?ologie . . . Anton Moortgat. Berlin, Mann. OIP Oriental Institute Publications, Chicago. RA Revue d' Assyriologie et d'arch?ologie orientale. U F Ugarit Forschungen. ZA Zuschrift fur Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Arch?ologie.

Amiet, P., 1980. Les Sceaux. Assur 3/1, 55-63. Beran, T., 1957. Assyrische Glyptik des 14. Jahrhunderts. ZA 52 (NF 18), 141-215. Bernhardt, L, 1976. Sozial?konomische Texte and Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur zur Kassitenzeit. Texte und

Materialen der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung vorderasiatischer Altert?mer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller- Universit?t Jena NF V. Berlin, Akademie Verlag.

Buchanan, ?., 1966. Catalogue of ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum, I: Cylinder seals. Oxford, University Press,

de Clercq, L., 1888. Collection de Clercq, catalogue m?thodique et raisonn?. Antiquit?s assyriennes. Vol. I. Cylindres orientaux. Paris, Leroux.

Coll?n, D., 1975. The seal impressions of Tell Atchana/Alalakh. (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 27) Neukircher-

Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag. Coll?n, D., 1982. The Alalakh cylinder seals (BAR international series 132). Oxford, British Archaeological Reports. Coll?n, D., 1987. First Impressions: cylinder seals in the ancient Near East. London, British Museum Publications. Coll?n, D., 1988. Some cylinder seals from Tell Mohammed Arab. Iraq 50, 59-77.

Delaporte, L., 1909. Catalogue du mus?e Guimet, cylindres orientaux (Annales du mus?e Guimet 33). Paris. Delaporte, L., 1910. Catalogue des cylindres orientaux et des cachets assyro-babyIoniens, perses et syro-cappadociens de la

Biblioth?que Nationale. 2 vols. Paris, Leroux.

Delaporte, L., 1923. Mus?e du Louvre, catalogue des cylindres orientaux, cachets et pierres grav?es de style oriental. Vol. IL

Acquisitions. Paris, Librarie Hachette. Finkelstein, J. J., 1953. Texts from Tell Billa. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, 111-76. Frankfort, H., 1939. Cylinder Seals. London, Methuen. Gordon, O H., 1939. Western Asiatic seals in the Walters Art Gallery. Iraq 6, 3-34. Kantor, H. J., 1958. The glyptic, in C. W. McEwan et al. Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah (OIP 79), Chicago,

University Press, 69-85. Lambert, W. E. G., 1966. Ancient Near Eastern seals in Birmingham collections. Iraq 28, 64-83. Lambert, W. E. G., 1987. Gilgamesh in literature and art: the second and first millennia, in A. E. Farkas et al.

(eds) Monsters and demons in the ancient and medieval worlds, papers presented in honor of Edith Porada, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 37-52.

Legrain, L., 1925. The culture of the Babylonians from their seals in the collections of the museum (University of Pennsylvania, the University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section XIV). 2 vols. Philadelphia, University Museum.

Matthews, D. M., 1990. Principles of composition in Near Eastern glyptic of the later second millennium B.C. (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, series archaeologica 8). Freiburg Schweiz und G?ttingen.

Matthews, D. M., forthcoming. The Kassite glyptic of Nippur. Mayer-Opificius, R., 1984. Die gefl?gelte Sonne. Himmels- und Regen-darstellungen im alten Vorderasien.

UF 16, 189-236.

Mayer-Opificius, R., 1986. Bemerkungen zur mittelassyrischen Glyptik des 13. und 12.Jhdts v. Chr. Bib. Mes. 21, 161-70.

Mazzoni, S., 1986. Continuity and development in the Syrian and Cypriote Common glyptic styles. Bib. Mes. 21, 171-82.

Mellink, M., 1964. A Hittite figurine from Nuzi. Moortgat Festschrift, 155-64.

Moortgat, ?., 1940. Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Berlin, Mann.

Moortgat, ?., 1942. Assyrische Glyptik des 13. Jahrhunderts. ZA 47 (NF 13), 50-88.

Moortgat, ?., 1944. Assyrische Glyptik des 12. Jahrhunderts. ZA 48 (NF 14), 23-44.

Moortgat-Correns, U., 1964. Beitr?ge zur mittelassyrischen Glyptik. Moortgat Festschrift, 165-77.

Negahban, E. O., 1977. The Seals of Marlik Tepe. JNES 36, 81-102. Oates, D., 1966. The excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1965. Iraq 28, 122-39. von der Osten, ?. ?., 1934. Ancient oriental seals in the collection of Mr Edward T. Newell (OIP 22). Chicago,

University Press. Offner, G., 1950. Note d'arch?ologie sur deux empreintes in?dites de Qatna. RA 44, 144-6. Parker, B., 1955. Excavations at Nimrud, 1949-53. Seals and seal-impressions. Iraq 17, 93-125.



34 DONALD MATTHEWS

Parker, ?., 1962. Seals and seal-impressions from the Nimrud excavations, 1955-58. Iraq 24, 26-40. Parker, B., 1974. A Middle Assyrian seal impression. Iraq 36, 185-7. Parker, B., .1975. Cylinder seals from Tell al Rimah. Iraq 37, 21-38. Parker, B., 1977. Middle Assyrian seal impressions from Tell al Rimah. Iraq 39, 257-68. Porada, E., 1947. Seal impressions of Nuzi. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 24 for 1944-5. Porada, E., 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I. The Collection of the Pierpont

Morgan Library. (The Bollingen Series XIV). 2 vols. Washington, The Bollingen Foundation. Poroda, E., 1952. On the problem of Kassite glyptic art, in Archaeologia Orientalia in memoriam Ernst Herzfeld,

Locust Valley, J. J. Augustin, 179-88. Porada, E., 1959. The Hasanlu Bowl. Expedition 1/3, 19-22. Porada, E., 1971. Aspects of Elamite art and archaeology. Expedition 13/3-4, 28-34. Porada, E., 1974/7. Die Siegelzylinder-Abrollung auf der Amarna-Tafel BM 29841 im Britischen Museum.

AfO 25, 132-42. Porada, E., 1979. Remarks on Mitannian (Hurrian) and Middle Assyrian glyptic art. Akkadica 13, 2-15. Porada, E., 1981/2. The cylinder seals found at Thebes in Boeotia. AfO 28, 1-70. Porada, E., 1986. A subject for continuing conversation, in J. V. Canby et. al. (eds) Ancient Anatolia, aspects of

change and cultural development: essays in honor of Machteid J. Mellink, Wisconsin Studies in Classics, Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 84-92.

Postgate, J. N., 1973. Assyrian texts and fragments. Iraq 35, 13-36.

Postgate, J. N., 1986. Middle Assyrian tablets: instruments of bureaucracy. Altorientalische Forschungen 13, 10-39. Postgate, J. ?., 1988. The archive of Urad-Ser?a and his family: a Middle Assyrian household in government service. (Analisi

elettronica del cuneiforme, Corpus Medio-Assiro) Rome, Roberto Denicola. Ravn, O. E., 1960. A catalogue of the oriental cylinder seals and seal impressions in the Danish National Museum

(Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Arkaeologisk-Historisk Raekke VIII). Copenhagen, Nationalmuseet. Riis, P. J., 1948. Hama, Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938, II 3: Les cimeti?res ? cr?mation (Nationalmuseets Skrifter, S torre

Beretninger I). Copenhagen, Fondation Carlsberg. Reade, J. E., 1975. Assurnasirpal II and the White Obelisk. Iraq 37, 129-50.

Saporetti, C, 1979. Gli eponimi medio-assiri. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 9. Malibu, Undena. Schaeffer-Forrer, C. F. ?., 1983. Corpus I des cylindres-sceaux de Ras Shamra-Ugarit et d'Enkomi-Alasia. Paris, Editions

Recherche sur les civilisations. Seidl, U., 1985. Review of Schaeffer-Forrer 1983. ZA 75, 310-13.

Speiser, ?. ?., 1932. Report from the Tell Billah and Tepe Gawra excavations. BASOR 46, 1-9.

Speiser, ?. ?., 1939. Gleanings from the Tell Billa texts. Symbolae ad iura orientis antiqui pertinentes Paolo Koschaker dedicatae, Leiden, Brill,? pp. 141-50.

Strommenger, E. and Hirmer, M., 1964. The art of Mesopotamia. London, Thames and Hudson. Teissier, B., 1984. Ancient Near Eastern cylinders from the Marcopoli Collection. Los Angeles, Unversity of

California Press. Vollenweider, M.-L., 1967. Mus?e d'Art et d'Histoire de Gen?ve, catalogue raisonn? des sceaux-cylindres et intailles. 2 vols.

Gen?ve, Mus?e d'Art et d'Histoire.




1. Bi 11

^

"?' tX ^^

3 k5^^C^7 x3^:> >

/?g. a 14 Glyptik 13.

^)teP/f

c _, n ?

^V7

2. Bi 25

3. Bi 13

.1

JL

fig. b de Clercq 357bis.

?4P

4. Bi 14

S?= VI

iW? ?-^ ' V

5. Bi 14

^

-.?

6. Bi 14

f

Vi^lC^

7. Bi 33

":!" , ft

./zg. c Rimah 15A.

??

8. Bi 34



36 DONALD MATTHEWS

^

S inOOQI

a

9. Bi 57 fig. d BM 89806.

\

j h?J

x

10. Bi 13

w^ ?. o ,i\ \ >*? o 7\

11. Bi 13

,//\_^ rx \//

\\\ '

?

\\?// \f-w ? y

? ( \

12. Bi 4 /?g. e Birmingham 58.

13. Bi 18

14. Bi 36

y?g./ CANES 598.,

fig. g Parker 1975, no. 48.




X.

15. Bi 1

( \ ?\?;

!x

:

16. Bi 3

?

t \ \\

v-\

IPfflP

?.0 ^

SlT

to A

15 and 16, combined drawing.

17. Bi 16

-ny,

\*A

>>x ^

18. Bi 2 and Bi 10

X_?X ^

r ?

19. 20. Bi 31

21. Bi 15

Xs

9' 22. Bi 26



38 DONALD MATTHEWS

23. Bi 8

24. Bi 32

,!S

25. Bi 3

XX

27.

??**"

,?

29. Bi 1

~iH*r^

X

30. Bi 29

26. Bi 7

*fl,

(fc^ c

(

-?' :?)'""

28. Bi 11

fig. h Marlik 7.

? ^

c

31.




32.

n\\flt

^

? t

??'?r-

fig. i 13 Glyptik 24.

X X

4 ?'

33. A3452 (not from Tell Billa)

fig. j BM 134305.

?? , - -?&Tv\,."?* ^>?::; '?? ".????^?'?"^^>:- -:&'

:/?^:^^ ^Msss^-r'???-"

?

??fe:-:? *? ?) ? 4

34.(Bi 67)

il ?

fig. k 12 Glyptik 36.

J?-?



40 DONALD MATTHEWS

i::?X*"3>V

35. Bi 79

\/ (\s

36. fig. I Philadelphia 562.

fig. m Mohammed Arab 6.

38. fig. ? Philadelphia 631.




39. fig. o Mohammed Arab 3.

?

?7 Xn?

41. Bi 34

>t?

40.

42. Bi 9 fig. ? BM 130671.

fig. q BM 89569.

?0 ?" ^

43.



42 DONALD MATTHEWS

08V?K.SE

?LBVZR.SE

29

29

15

29

Bi 1

16

25

25?

16

16

Bi 3

16

12

12

12

Bi4

* second design?

1?

28

28

Bi 11

?

11

11

11

11

10

Bi 13

4?

8?

8?

8

41

Bi 14 Bi 34



Middle Assyrian Glyptic from Tell Billa

Documents

Transcript of Middle Assyrian Glyptic from Tell Billa