In 1966, three bronze vessels were gifted to the Art Properties collection by Else Sackler with minimal contextual information aside from their medium and a record of presumed creation in Luristan, an ancient region in modern-day Iran. This essay focuses on the iconography and history of one of these beakers, referred to as S0214 (Figs. 1, 2, 3). Using prior scholarly interpretations, field reports, and comparative examples, this paper presents a case for its 10th-9th century BCE creation in western Iran under the influence of Babylonian artistry.

Beaker S0214 is part of a greater corpus of bronze nipple-beakers, so-called for the characteristic button at the center of their base.1 These extant objects, some one hundred in all, are unified by their consistency of shape, size, and decorative motifs.2 They are typically ornamented with a tongue and guilloche pattern and a rosette at the base, while the body displays narrative scenes. As no intact decorated beakers have been excavated from a controlled site, visual characteristics are our primary tool in attempting to understand this beaker’s original context.

Our beaker stands 15 cm high and, at its widest, seven cm in diameter. Despite four small missing fragments and minor oxidization, the dark bronze beaker is well preserved. The Art Properties beakers underwent X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis, determining that the bronze alloy of beaker S0214 is primarily copper mixed with tin and silicon (Fig. 4). This analysis was also undertaken in an attempt to ensure the beaker was not a forgery. As metal can be mixed to match desired proportions, such markers are less than conclusive, but S0214 is, at the very least, consistent with authenticated beakers at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 5).

Situated between the corpus’ traditional guilloche and tongued pattern and a 14-petaled rosette on the conical base, the body of the beaker depicts two human-headed winged bulls flanking a potted tree (Fig. 6). Their fur is detailed with small, curved marks along their flanks, while large wings protrude from their backs. Strong noses and structured beards dominate their profiles. Both bulls place one leg onto the potted tree that sits between them. A small rosette, mirroring the one on the beaker’s base, is placed at the bottom of the plant’s stem. Two streams of water pour over the edge of the vase, arcing down to meet the creatures’ grounded feet. Between the bulls’ hindquarters hangs another smaller plant.

The beaker utilizes several standard ancient West Asian motifs. The winged human-headed bull is an apotropaic figure, best known in the monumental sculpted iterations flanking Neo-Assyrian palace gateways, imbuing the surrounding environment with its protective spirit. The use of thin short lines to articulate animal hair, a feature often seen in Iranian depictions of animals, is featured across the nipple-beakers’ animal representations.3 As the hybrid bull is seen throughout West Asian iconography, so too is the vase with flowing water. Often used to reference the Mesopotamian water deity Ea, the vase is held by rulers and divinities alike or else stands on its own, as in our beaker.4

S0214, as the two other beakers, was probably made from a single sheet of bronze worked into its final form through hammering and annealing. Viewed from the interior, the slim walls bear the inverted images, indicating that this vessel was likely decorated through chasing and repoussé techniques. The surface details are quite intricate and seem to have been primarily chased, with designs hammered into the front of the surface with a blunt instrument.5 Where engraving removes material from the metal’s surface, chasing pushes it around, creating linework designs through the space left behind.6 The designs are all executed in the precise manner characteristic of the authenticated corpus, with a clarity of line and shape that known forgeries lack.7

Based on iconographic and epigraphic analysis, alongside a sparse archaeological trail, Iran and Babylonia (in modern-day Iraq) have been identified as likely places of origin for the beakers. The overwhelming majority of these decorated beakers were allegedly found in Iran, which seems to make a strong case for an immediate Iranian identification.8 However, termed “bazaar archaeology” by scholar Oscar Muscarella, the acquisition of antiquities through the market instead of controlled excavations can lead to a great deal of inaccurate attributions.9 The provenience is attested by the seller, someone for whom profit is often prioritized over scholarship. If we take the Sackler identifications at face value, we have a confirmed provenience for these beakers in Luristan, a western Iranian region known for its prolific metalwork of the early first millennium BCE.10 Beginning in the 1920s, the Luristan area was heavily looted for its antiquities11 and the scholarly accuracy of the term “Luristan Bronze” diminished as forgeries and misattributions diluted its regional specificity.12 The fact that the overwhelming majority of the decorated beakers are at least said to be from Iran is a strong point in favor of Iranian makership. Importantly, no decorated beaker has been found at any of the other sites in Western Asia where controlled excavations have been ongoing since the mid-19th century. From our limited archaeological standpoint, Iran remains a viable identification.

Although decorated nipple-beakers have not been excavated in any secure contexts, undecorated beakers dating to the 10th and 9th centuries BCE, with the same shape, dimensions, and material, have been excavated in both Iran and ancient Babylonia.13 Though they have no decorative motifs to compare with our beaker, their form, including the folded over lip and hollow bottom button, are direct matches. As the only excavated intact beakers, they provide important context for their decorated counterparts. In 1938, four fragments were excavated in western Iran from Surkh Dum,14 a site in eastern Luristan.15 Two fragments had the distinctive guilloche and tongue motif visible with the folded over lip. The case for western Iranian craftsmanship has been argued on the basis of formal visual elements, but with this discovery, the argument is now backed by the only controlled excavation of decorated nipple-beaker material.

On the other hand, the case for Babylonian attribution is made stronger by the discovery of seven decorated bronze beakers inscribed with Babylonian names.16 Not only do they reinforce Babylonian connections with the greater bronze nipple-beakers corpus, but the association with these named individuals, known through Babylonian records as princes and officials, suggests a date around the 10th century for similar objects.17

With dual arguments for the Art Properties objects’ origins in Babylonia or western Iranian craftsmanship, it is important to note that the political relationships of the time reveal critical cross-cultural engagement. The Elamites ruled a considerable portion of western Iran until their defeat at the hands of Babylon in the late 12th century BCE, heightening contact and cultural exchange between Babylonia and western Iran.18 The Babylonian inscriptions and iconography may then reflect contemporary political shifts and increased interaction between the two cultures. It follows that the decorated nipple-beaker is a western Iranian tradition that makes use of both Babylonian and local artistry amidst a period of increased Babylonian presence in western Iran. While this paper largely focused on a single beaker in the Art Properties collection, these findings regarding its temporal and cultural origins are broadly applicable to Art Properties' other two beakers, as well as the corpus at large.

This is a condensed portion of a larger research project on the iconography, materiality, and temporal and geographic origins of three bronze nipple-beakers in the Art Properties collection. Many thanks to the Art Properties team for their continued assistance with the objects and archives, to the Archaeology Center for their support with the XRF analysis, and to Tim Trombley for his help in realizing this final product. I am particularly grateful to Professor Baumgartner and Dr. Ferrari for their critical feedback and guiding presence throughout this extended process.

• 1

  Until the early 1970s, they were consistently referred to as “situlas.” This term, defined as a vessel with a handle, has since been largely discarded. Following Oscar White Muscarella, “nipple-beaker” is used here instead.

• 2

  Oscar White Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers from Iran,” American Journal of Archaeology 78, no. 3 (1974): 241. For a detailed catalogue of the known corpus as of 1973, see Peter Calmeyer, Reliefbronzen in babylonischem Stil. Eine westiranische Werkstatt des 10. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., 1973.

• 3

  Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers,” 247. The elaboration of the hairs on both the bull and lion of Art Properties' S0145 directly parallels this representational technique exemplified on various securely identified Iranian objects, including a large vessel at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with several bands of striding animals (see Met 64.257.1).

• 4

  Léon Legrain, “Review of The Flowing Vase and the God with Streams by E.D. Van Buren,” American Journal of Archaeology 37, no. 3 (1933): 513.

• 5

  Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers,” 240.

• 6

  Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, Catalogue of the Ancient Persian Bronzes in the Ashmolean Museum (Oxford: Claredon, 1971), 301.

• 7

  A notable example of this irregular hand comes from the Metropolitan Museum’s nipple-beaker 54.5. The object was raised as a potential forgery in the 1970s by Met curator Oscar White Muscarella on the basis of iconographic and stylistic inconsistencies, including the crudeness of form, approach to clothing and composition, and certain missing details. Muscarella submitted the beaker to technical analysis which included microscopic examination and semi-quantitative emission spectrography to determine the bronze composition. Though a modern patina was identified, the presumed forgery matched the legitimate beakers' alloy composition. Microscopic analysis identified deep intergranular corrosion and pitting across the bronze that pointed to it being an ancient metal. Even so, there is the chance it is an ancient beaker with modern forged designs. However, its deeply corroded nature means that any of metalworking necessary to add the designs would have likely resulted in the vessel’s destruction if it was not executed originally in the 10th-9th centuries BCE. Thus, the technical analysis landed on the beaker’s ancient status. Despite this conclusion, Muscarella remained suspicious and the Met pulled the beaker from their collection, labeling it a forgery.

• 8

  Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers,” 243.

• 9

  Oscar White Muscarella, “Introductory and Polemic” in The Lie Became Great: The Forgery of Ancient Near Eastern Cultures (Groningen: STYX Publications: 2000), 83.

• 10

  “Luristan Bronze” has often been indiscriminately applied to any dexterous metalwork vaguely originating from the region. The name has come to be associated with any Western Asian bronze regardless of concrete provenience. The incredible commercial success of “Luristan Bronzes” encouraged the continued misapplication of the term. The attribution to Luristan in the Sackler notes is important, but it cannot serve as our primary identifying evidence (Muscarella, “Introductory and Polemic,” 81).

• 11

  Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, Ancient Bronzes Ceramics and Seals: The Nasli M. Heeramaneck Collection of Ancient Near Eastern, Central Asiatic, and European Art (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1981), 14.

• 12

  Muscarella, “Introductory and Polemic,” 81.

• 13

  Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers,” 243.

• 14

  Interestingly, Surkh Dum is a settlement, not a grave site, contrasting the leading assumption that these beakers were grave goods. Here, they may have been used in libation rituals or dedicated by worshippers. Scholar P.R.S. Moorey pushes back against this dedicatory argument, pointing out that, across the corpus, there is no decorative or epigraphic content characteristic of votive dedications. The beakers' iconography focuses primarily on scenes of daily life (e.g. banquet and hunting narratives) instead of the divine realm. Even still, they could have been objects made for daily use that were then buried with their deceased owners. Given the lack of concrete evidence, to argue any singular function relies heavily on speculation (Peter Roger Stuart Moorey, “Review of Reliefbronzen in babylonischem Stil by Peter Calmeyer” Gnomon 47, no. 3 (1975): 283).

• 15

  Oscar White Muscarella, "Surkh Dum at the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Mini-Report," Journal of Field Archaeology 8, no. 3 (1981): 327.

• 16

  Moorey, “Review,” 280.

• 17

  Muscarella, “Decorated Bronze Beakers,” 248.

• 18

  Moorey, Heeramaneck Collection, 15.