Sign In

Login

Password

Forgot Password ? Sign Up

Nimrud ivories (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Nimrud ivories" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
3britishmuseum.org
1,505th place
1,194th place
2jstor.org
26th place
20th place
2doi.org
2nd place
2nd place
1books.google.com
3rd place
3rd place
1metmuseum.org
983rd place
751st place
1artfund.org
low place
low place
1bbc.co.uk
8th place
10th place
1theguardian.com
12th place
11th place
1upenn.edu
702nd place
520th place
1unimelb.edu.au
3,221st place
2,222nd place
1famsf.org
low place
low place

artfund.org

bbc.co.uk

books.google.com

  • Martin, S. Rebecca (2017). The Art of Contact: Comparative Approaches to Greek and Phoenician Art. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated. pp. 28, 89. ISBN 978-0-8122-9394-4. The two greatest challenges of Phoenician art history are thus highlighted by these critical early discoveries: none of the metal bowls and hardly any ivories were found in Phoenicia, and the portable objects that we assign to Phoenician manufacture do not necessarily share stylistic or iconographic features with one another or with material excavated in Phoenicia. Yet it is almost universally believed that these two genres, metal bowls and carved ivories, mark the inception of Phoenician fine art… While it is tempting to ascribe to lack of excavation the problem of discovering the "true" Phoenician origins of worked ivory and metal bowls, the idea is probably fantastical. We have very little direct evidence of metal working or ivory working on the mainland. Published areas of the well-excavated Sarepta (Sarafand, Lebanon) yielded fewer than ten ivory objects, only three of which are figurative, and not even one scrap of a "Phoenician" metal bowl. And, as Hans Niemeyer and others point out, neither bowls nor ivories appear in the main colonies, not at Carthage, Malta, Sicily, or elsewhere. Even Markoe, the foremost expert on "Phoenician" metal bowls, admitted regarding those from Assyria, "we simply do not know where these vessels were produced."

britishmuseum.org

  • "Nimrud Ivories". British Museum. 21 February 2011. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  • British Museum Collection
  • "Agatha Christie and archaeology". British Museum. Retrieved 8 March 2011.

doi.org

  • Richard David Barnett. “The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians” Iraq, vol. 2, no. 2, British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 1935, pp. 179–210, https://doi.org/10.2307/4241579. “The Nationality of the NW. Palace Ivories: That the group of ivories was not Assyrian was concluded on their discovery from their Egyptian appearance. Francois Lenormant, in the Bulletin archéologique de l'Athenaeum français, No. 6, June 1856, asserted that his father, Charles, had been the first to recognize that the pseudo-Egyptian workmanship was in reality Phoenician, whereas Dr. Birch of the British Museum, the ivories' first publisher, had held them for Egyptian work executed in Assyria, or copied there. Posterity, a few dissentients apart, has followed Lenormant, and some wilder misattributions might have been avoided had it been noticed, as stated above, that in Layard's group seven pieces bore a letter of the Phoenician alphabet, and in that of Loftus were two inscriptions apparently also Phoenician. (There seem to be weaker reasons for describing them as Aramaic.) Modern work has only enhanced the plausibility of Lenormant's view. Other ivories of similar type have been found at Samaria, the capital of Ahab, whose connexions with Tyre were notorious. Again, those found at Arslan Tash in North Syria, according to a fragment among them which bore an inscription in what is either Phoenician or Aramaic, were seemingly made and presented by some Phoenician tributaries of Damascus to their overlord. To these points we may add the internal evidence of the religious scenes themselves, which in Part II of this paper are shown to be just such as would be expected in the art of a country so situated as Phoenicia. A concluding point of internal detail, in striking confirmation, is that the loggia windows represented on the panels of the 'Woman at the Window' illustrate what is in the Talmud called 'the Tyrian window', 'through which one can put one's head', i.e. παρακπύτειν, in contrast to the Egyptian type, through which one could not.”
  • A. R. Millard, Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud. Iraq, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Spring, 1962), pp. 41-51 (13 pages). https://doi.org/10.2307/4199711

famsf.org

deyoung.famsf.org

jstor.org

  • Richard David Barnett. “The Nimrud Ivories and the Art of the Phoenicians” Iraq, vol. 2, no. 2, British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 1935, pp. 179–210, https://doi.org/10.2307/4241579. “The Nationality of the NW. Palace Ivories: That the group of ivories was not Assyrian was concluded on their discovery from their Egyptian appearance. Francois Lenormant, in the Bulletin archéologique de l'Athenaeum français, No. 6, June 1856, asserted that his father, Charles, had been the first to recognize that the pseudo-Egyptian workmanship was in reality Phoenician, whereas Dr. Birch of the British Museum, the ivories' first publisher, had held them for Egyptian work executed in Assyria, or copied there. Posterity, a few dissentients apart, has followed Lenormant, and some wilder misattributions might have been avoided had it been noticed, as stated above, that in Layard's group seven pieces bore a letter of the Phoenician alphabet, and in that of Loftus were two inscriptions apparently also Phoenician. (There seem to be weaker reasons for describing them as Aramaic.) Modern work has only enhanced the plausibility of Lenormant's view. Other ivories of similar type have been found at Samaria, the capital of Ahab, whose connexions with Tyre were notorious. Again, those found at Arslan Tash in North Syria, according to a fragment among them which bore an inscription in what is either Phoenician or Aramaic, were seemingly made and presented by some Phoenician tributaries of Damascus to their overlord. To these points we may add the internal evidence of the religious scenes themselves, which in Part II of this paper are shown to be just such as would be expected in the art of a country so situated as Phoenicia. A concluding point of internal detail, in striking confirmation, is that the loggia windows represented on the panels of the 'Woman at the Window' illustrate what is in the Talmud called 'the Tyrian window', 'through which one can put one's head', i.e. παρακπύτειν, in contrast to the Egyptian type, through which one could not.”
  • Millard, A. R. “Alphabetic Inscriptions on Ivories from Nimrud” Iraq, vol. 24, no. 1, 1962, pp. 41–51

metmuseum.org

theguardian.com

unimelb.edu.au

vm.arts.unimelb.edu.au

upenn.edu

oracc.museum.upenn.edu