Published Catalogue Text: Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Bronzes at the Harvard Art Museums
A single molding appears to have separated the lion mask from the hoop. It is covered with grayish-green patina. In addition, there is a thick layer of iron corrosion on the upper part of the finial, suggesting that it may have been attached to an iron bracelet. Ancient Luristan metalsmiths often combined bronze finials with objects made of iron (1).
The highly stylized lion mask appears to have been the invention of Luristan metal smiths. It is essentially a flattened top view of a feline’s head. Folds of skin surround the eyes like goggles; the nose and upper part of the muzzle are added on one end, and two rounded ears perk up on the other. Such masks appear as finials on bracelets and pins, such as 164.1972, and as junctures on pins with open-cast heads and halberd axes, such as 1943.1318 (2).
Lion-headed bracelets are well known from representations, and some originals survive from the early first millennium BCE. In most cases, the finials are full heads rather than masks, but masks occur on a pair of gold bracelets from a Neo-Assyrian royal burial at Nimrud dated to the second half of the eighth century BCE (3). Closest to the Luristan bracelets is the ornament worn by king Adda-Hamiti-Inshushinak of Elam on a relief fragment from Susa (4). A traditional symbol of power, the lion was often an attribute of the king. The popularity of lion masks on the Luristan bronzes suggests that larger sections of the population used this imagery, although it cannot be excluded that it was reserved for objects intended for dedication to a deity. The relief from Susa indicates that lion-mask bracelets were current in the Elamite realm in the mid-seventh century BCE.
The Harvard fragments are all of different sizes. The smallest head, 1969.177.35.2, also differs stylistically from the others, in that its multiple eyebrows form a continuous line with the nose, separating the face into two halves. This is the more common rendering. The other three finials are modeled very cursorily. The chemical composition suggests that fragments 1969.177.36.A, 1969.177.36.B, and 1969.177.36.C may indeed have come from the same bracelet, even though the seemingly ancient breaks do not match well and the two heads differ in size. Alternatively, they may be fragments from different bracelets, but may have been made from the same batch of metal. The similarity in style and workmanship of the heads leaves little doubt that these were made by the same craftsman (5).
NOTES:
1. See P. R. S. Moorey, Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford, 1971) 224; compare also the bracelet in P. Amiet, Collection David-Weill: Les antiquités du Luristan (Paris, 1976) 70, no. 152.
2. Compare Moorey 1971 (supra 1) 195-96 and 223-24; and O. W. Muscarella, Bronze and Iron: Ancient Near Eastern Artifacts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 1988) 170-71.
3. See Moorey 1971 (supra 1) 220-21; and J. E. Curtis, et al., New Light on Nimrud: Proceedings of the Nimrud Conference 11th-13th March 2002 (London, 2008) pl. II.b-d.
4. See P. O. Harper, J. Aruz, and F. Tallon, eds., The Royal City of Susa, exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, 1992) 198-99, no. 140.
5. For other examples of lion-mask bracelets, see H. Potratz, “Die Luristanbronzen des Museums für Kunst und Gewerbe in Hamburg,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 51, n.F. 17 (1955): 180-224, esp. pl. 2.1-3; Moorey 1971 (supra 1) 222-24, nos. 181-85, pl. 62; E. De Waele, Bronzes du Luristan et d’Amlash, Publications d’historie de l’art et d’archeologie de l’Université Catholique de Louvain 34 (Louvain-La-Neuve, 1982) 192, no. 322; Muscarella 1988 (supra 2) 170-71, nos. 270-71; B. Musche, Vorderasiatischer Schmuck von den Anfängen bis zur Zeit der Achaemeniden (ca. 10.000-330 v.Chr.), Handbuch der Orientalistik: Siebente Abteilung, 1.2B.7 (Leiden, 1992) 253, no. 2.4, pl. 100.
Susanne Ebbinghaus
