Weiner Mihályné szerk.: Az Iparművészeti Múzeum Évkönyvei 7. (Budapest, 1964)

HOPP FERENC MÚZEUM — MUSÉE FERENC HOPP - Ferenczy, László: Bronzes of Luristan

Schaeffer, in his work treating the stratigraphy of ancient Near Eastern sites, divides the bronzes of Luristan into three main groups. The first group, dated to the third millenium, contains axes and daggers of Ur-type. The second group, from the first quarter of the second millenium, contains the rings and semi-circular axes. He classed the majority of the bronzes, however, into the last group dated between 1500 and 1200 B. C, whose origin was sought in Mesopotamian art.

3 Several researchers did not accept such an early dating as the second millenium B.C. for the majority of the bronzes. At the same time they tried to associate them to even more people. Thus Minorsky, who supposed the bronzes to have originated from the second millenium and the first third of the first, speculated on their being Medean work.

4 Hancar, on the other hand, dating them between 700—600 B. C, attributed them in all probability to the Kimmerians.

5 Godard, in his more recent study, states that not a single bronze of Luristan was found from the several-century long Kassite rule in neighbouring Mesopotamia. This fact he attributes to the circumstance that with the exception of a few old pieces these objects could not yet have existed under the Kassite rule of Babylonia. On this grounds he changes his earlier dating and places the majority of the bronzes after the end of the second millennium B. C.

6 In the very same work he notes that the smiths of the decaying Hittite empire, c. 1200 B. C, migrated to the neighbouring countries where they contributed to the development of metal-work. Ghirshman also treates the bronzes of Luristan in several works. As early as 1936 he expressed his doubts to their being connected with the Kassites. He held that after the Sialk developmental stage this culture entered the Zagros area from the east.

7 In his view the culture of Luristan originated in Iran and was a further development of the culture represented by the ,,B" cemetery of Sialk from between 1000—800 B. C. He made this assertion on the basis of the similarity of the objects and of the burial system.

8 In a more recent study treating the relations of the treasure of Sakkez, he claims that a warfaring, mounted people (Kimmerians or Scythians) who intermingled with the iranized local population likely developed this art and therefore the majority of these bronzes originate from 700 B. C. or possibly from the first half of the sixth.

9 In his catalogue written for the exhibition of Iranian art held in Paris, 1961, he calls attention to the significance of the Kimmerians who 3 Schaeffer, C. F. H. : Stratigraphie comparée et chronologie de l'Asie Occidentale. London 1948. p. 477 — 495. 4 Minorsky, V. : The Luristan Bronzes. Apollo, vol. 13. 1931. 141 — 142; Luristanskie bronzy i kassity. Vestnik Drevnei Istorii, 1959. 1. p. 220 — 222. 5 Hanëar, F. : Kaukasus-Luristan. Eurasia Septentrionalis Antiqua, vol. 9. 1935. 47 — 112. 6 Godard, A. : Les bronzes du Luristan. Orientalia Romana, XVII/1, 1958. pp. 51 — 72. 7 Ghirshman, R. : Notes sur les peuples et l'art de l'Iran préhistorique. Revue des Arts Asiatiques, 10, 1936. pp. 23 — 36. 8 Ghirshman, R. : Fouilles de Sialk. Vol. IL Paris 1939. 9 Ghirshman, R. : Le trésor de Sakkez, les origines de l'art mède et les bronzes du Luristan. Artibus Asiae, 13, 1950. pp. 181—206.